Development Info Experience Systems: Loves and Hates

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Annie VanderMeer Mitsoda; DoubleBear Productions

<p>Continueing their ZRPG design updates covering experience Annie <a href="http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,1591.0.html" target="_blank">raises two questions</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hey guys - since Brian's feeling a little under the weather AND because the discussion of the experience system made such a stir, I decided to follow up with a two part question.<br /><br /><strong>ONE - so what parts of experience systems do you feel are totally played out?</strong>  Maybe getting xp for disarming mines (leading one into death-wish jaunts into minefields for a chance at powerleveling)?  Possibly getting more xp for taking the "super good" or "dastardly evil" options instead of favoring a more middle-of-the-road approach?  For a concrete example: <em>Shining Force 2</em> is one of the old strategy RPGs that I love from back in the day, but the fact that you only really got xp per kill meant that your best characters speedily outpaced everyone else, and you basically had to trap and bleed out monsters so that your weaker units - healers and thieves - could get the killing blow and thus actually level up.  That was some BS.<br /><br /><strong>TWO - what games had xp systems that you thought really broke the mold, and why?</strong>  Even if they weren't the most innovative, what about them did you like, and do you think made them work out so well?  The job system in <em>Final Fantasy Tactics</em>, for example, gave experience for every successful skill use - be it offensive, healing, buffing, or debuffing - and allowed for a surprising combination of skills and tactics from previously mastered jobs.<br /><br />Discuss!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So maybe some of you have something worthwhile to add. Which XP system is better and why? Discuss!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/board,11.0.html">ITS</a></p>

 

[commie]

I actually like the XP systems that don't reward for killing everything that moves. It results in the ridiculous situation of say you as a justice bound paladin, going on a genocidal spree wherever you can to farm xp as is sadly the norm in most RPG's.

I do like the skill use based systems, such as in Morrowind (open to abuse as they were there), for it actually made sense to go up in the skills you actually used or trained than just arbitrarily to assign skill points to things you anticipate you may need later, like heavy armor skill or something.

It was also cool how depending on the skills used, it would affect the bonus to your primary statistics that you got when leveling up, so it would encourage you to develop a character that compliments the skills used.

 

[Some Moron On Welfare]

The skill farming in Morrowind/Oblivion was extremely obnoxious.

 

[Jaedar]

The problem with the TES system is that its so powergamey, it really encourages improving your secondary skills first to maximize the stat boosts. Would maybe have been better if stats increased automatically as skills improved, and you just got rid of leveling up completely.

 

[Grunker]

XP awarded for completing objectives is the way to go, with bonuses for doing them especially well or effectively.

This way, you don't have to foresee a player's style of playing; it rewards all styles equally (and if you want to reward a certain style more than the other, you can handle this via the bonus-XP).

 

[Jaedar]

How can you execute it better?


I am not saying that it was executed good or something, I just want to hear some ideas

For example, there could be always be +20 attribute point modifiers, but they would get distributed according to what you did. So if you raised just alchemy for one level you'd get +20 INT modifier, and nothing else, but if you did like most people and raised alot of different skills with different governing stats, most stats would end up with +3 or +4. But you'd still get to pick what 3 stats you wanted to improve, with the game merely 'hinting' at what you should raise to fit your current play-style. But, in order to not make it so powergamey, you could cap the bonus at +5, or something. I'm not saying the numbers are perfect, but it would probably be better if the stats/level was more fix. Because as the game(s) stand(s) you can get between 3 and 15 stat points per level, and that is a huge difference. Especially due to the level scaling. Or you could just do what I said before, and have the stats rise automatically, and do away with leveling up.

It depends on if you want character growth to be totally procedural and just react to what the player does, or if you want the player to interact more directly. The second is way more popular though.

 

[Some Moron On Welfare]

The problem with the TES system is that its so powergamey, it really encourages improving your secondary skills first to maximize the stat boosts. Would maybe have been better if stats increased automatically as skills improved, and you just got rid of leveling up completely.

So? The grinding would still be there. People would still stand in place casting the same spell 99999999 times to just quickly improve a skill.

 

[Der_Unbekannte]

The problem with the TES system is that its so powergamey, it really encourages improving your secondary skills first to maximize the stat boosts. Would maybe have been better if stats increased automatically as skills improved, and you just got rid of leveling up completely.

So? The grinding would still be there. People would still stand in place casting the same spell 99999999 times to just quickly improve a skill.

But people will always grind stats and powagayme. As long as it isn't mandatory I don't see a problem in the possibility to do it.

 

[Konjad]

u can grind skills in real-life too

it's just not much fun

 

[Tycn]

How can you execute it better?


I am not saying that it was executed good or something, I just want to hear some ideas

A system where there's no distinction between skills and attributes. Swinging an axe would build up your ability in melee, hafted weapons, strength and dexterity, albeit at different rates. Would make level scaling impossible (since they don't exist) and get rid of gamey attribute bonuses.

 

[commie]

The problem with the TES system is that its so powergamey, it really encourages improving your secondary skills first to maximize the stat boosts. Would maybe have been better if stats increased automatically as skills improved, and you just got rid of leveling up completely.

So? The grinding would still be there. People would still stand in place casting the same spell 99999999 times to just quickly improve a skill.

Why not link it to effectiveness in this case? Only counts if you use a combat spell in combat and it hits, or only give credit for healing spells if you actually heal.

Running and the like would be hard to regulate, so just remove them and maybe make it as part of a general 'fitness/toughness' 'skill' where the more you get in the wars in combat, the higher it goes?

Obviously different characters will have their stats maxed out in different ways: A mage won't really get 'tougher/fitter' as would be expected anyway.

 

[spectre]

How can you execute it better?

I am not saying that it was executed good or something, I just want to hear some ideas

Lazy arse, go over to Codex Workshop, there's at least one full thread about this.

[quote="Jeadar']The problem with the TES system is that its so powergamey, it really encourages improving your secondary skills first to maximize the stat boosts. Would maybe have been better if stats increased automatically as skills improved, and you just got rid of leveling up completely.[/quote]

That's exactly what Galsiah's Character Development for Morrowind Does. It's made of awesome and win and is one of the mandatory mods for Moronwind imo.

I like learn through use systems, but they take a great deal to balance. Grind is bad, and, unfortunately, as long as the player feels he's being left behind bit not grinding (as in, my character could be so much more awesum!), it will be a problem. Unfortunately, the only way around it is to either make the game too easy, breaking it with shit like level scaling, or by condoning grind to the point of making it mandatory. A few older rpgs did it, and it... wasn't the best way to do it.

Better to design the system from the ground up so that it works, but I've yet to see a satisfactory implementation.

For an exp based approach, I leaned towards grouping skills (f.e. combat skills, medicine, subterfuge, or grouping skills by governing attributes, any sort of grouping that works), then giving experience to spend by group only. If you kill lotsa stuff, you get combat exp. which you can only use on skills from the combat group.
Retains the flexibility of exp based systems, but does away with the inane: 10 more orks and I'mma lern to read.

 

[Zed]

Quest completion + Exploration bonuses + Encounter victories (to party members alive).

 

[Sovard]

Yay, more halfassed answers to stupid questions PUT IT ON THE FRONT PAGE.

A jap game from 1994 has an outdated experience system? Imagine that.

Although, per kill xp is outdated, per hit xp broke the mold? The game in which people commonly leave one enemy alive, debuff everything, and kick the shit out of each other for hours to level up.

Herpa-derp. Derp derp.

 

[Mcxz]

This:

XP awarded for completing objectives is the way to go, with bonuses for doing them especially well or effectively.

This way, you don't have to foresee a player's style of playing; it rewards all styles equally (and if you want to reward a certain style more than the other, you can handle this via the bonus-XP).

Only gaining XP for finishing quests (and not for how many enemies you killed) was one of the things I enjoyed the most in Vampire the Masquerade - Bloodlines. Too bad there are so few RPGs like this.

 

[ChristofferC]

XP awarded for completing objectives is the way to go, with bonuses for doing them especially well or effectively.

This way, you don't have to foresee a player's style of playing; it rewards all styles equally (and if you want to reward a certain style more than the other, you can handle this via the bonus-XP).

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to suggest.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

XP awarded for completing objectives is the way to go, with bonuses for doing them especially well or effectively.

This way, you don't have to foresee a player's style of playing; it rewards all styles equally (and if you want to reward a certain style more than the other, you can handle this via the bonus-XP).

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to suggest.

It's exactly Bloodlines' experience system, and it's the best one I've seen yet.

 

[Some Moron On Welfare]

Bloodlines' system was okay for a linear, story driven game, but it wouldn't work in, say, Morrowind.

 

[Sceptic]

XP awarded for completing objectives is the way to go, with bonuses for doing them especially well or effectively.

I prefer this coupled with XP for killing, or rather that you get bonus XP for doing things the non-violent way. Escaping from the slave pens in Dark Sun was like this. Killing the guards nets you XP (obviously), espcaing nets you XP, but escaping without setting off the alarm (and therefore only killing one or 2 guards) nets you a hefty XP bonus that is as much or more than what you'd get from combat. It's still a traditional XP system but with incentive to do things out of combat.

I do like the skill use based systems, such as in Morrowind (open to abuse as they were there), for it actually made sense to go up in the skills you actually used or trained than just arbitrarily to assign skill points to things you anticipate you may need later, like heavy armor skill or something.

Betrayal at Krondor did it better than TES, mainly because it was much harder (and just plain not worth it) to try to abuse the system. That made the skill system much smoother. You could also select skills to "focus" on, these would increase faster with use but at the expense of the non-focus skills increasing slower. It was a great system.

 

[Some Moron On Welfare]

You could also select skills to "focus" on, these would increase faster with use but at the expense of the non-focus skills increasing slower.

Morrowind/Oblivion also have this.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I was thinking on the idea of a skill system that actually granted you experience points based on what skills you used. For instance, a guy who uses an axe to hack his way though a discussion is hardly going to be the whiz kid at a board meeting.
You gain 10 skill points using an axe to hack up three enemies to complete a quest. You get to use those skill points for combat related skills. They count as ten skill points on all combat skills, except for axe, where they count as 15 (a bonus akin to a weapon specialization) showing that continued use of the weapon makes you more skilled with it. Weapons such as daggers and guns grow only at 5 because of how different they are from the axe, and those that are median with the axe grow at a standard of 10.
Now, complete a quest by smooth talking your way out of a situation, and now you have 10 skill points you can use on your social skills. These could be used on knowledge, speech, intimidation, etc. If you complete a quest through theft, this gets used on your theft related skills (stealing, pickpocketing, lockpicking, etc).
It's not bad, but at the same time it doesn't accomodate for certain skills such as building things, etc. For instance, how do you complete a quest by building someone a trap or a vial of poison, etc.

 

[janjetina]

Sometimes it seems that this site should be called ESF codex. For a look at a well implemented hybrid system between raising skills by use and raising skills by leveling try playing Prelude to Darkness instead of shit like Oblivion.

 

[Sceptic]

Morrowind/Oblivion also have this.

No. In TES you select a fixed number of "class skills" on character creation and these will always go up faster AND will determine when you level up. In BAK you can change the focus skills at any time outside combat, you can pick as many focus skills as you like (with the obvious caveat that the more focus skills you pick the less efficient the bonus to raising them) and there is no level system anyway, so there the focus system is completely self-contained.

 

[Ogg]

Snip

Nice idea. But a real mess to balance I guess.

 

[AnalogKid]

I am not saying that it was executed good or something

Glad you're not saying that, because doing so would earn anyone their retard certificate.

I just want to hear some ideas

As mentioned already, the system was gamey as hell. It was also pretty easy to fix. You just had to get rid of the craptastic stat-bonus threasholds for +1/+2/+3 per level that dropped fractions. Keep a running total and a smooth, consistent stat increase as the associated skills increased, and all was fine. I actually did so on paper as I played MW, then used a hack to edit my characters' stats to the gradual system.

The biggest problem was that, thanks to "levels" and level scaling (wayyyyy more in OB, but still strongly present in MW) the system encouraged players to create anti-characters. Want to be a big-badass fighter? Assign all the sneaky and magicky skills as your primaries, then don't use them. Sure, it takes a little longer to pimp your fighting skills, but you can get better without having the entire world around you "magically" power up! God forbid you ever assign non-combat skills as your primaries, ESPECIALLY if you plan to actually use them!

So the moral is: Don't mix skill-based and level-based. Oh, and of course: don't level scale your gameworld, but that's a different discussion.

I would argue that if you like a pure skill based increase-by-using system, you need to include skill degradation, where ultra high skills degrade quickly to just "good" level if you don't constantly reinforce them. That mimics "real world", prevents uber-character and lead-weight-on-jump-button-overnight exploits, but still rewards characters for sticking with their preferred skills. This would be best done by tracking a "current" and "floor" for each skill, so it doesn't degrade all the way back to nothing, which would be ridiculous.

Bottom line is that an XP system should support how you want your game to play. If you want a system that rewards skill-X-ers for using skill X, then make damn sure your system doesn't undermine that idea! If you want to be agnostic about HOW a player plays, then I agree with the posts about objective-based XP systems.

Long ago, there were posters (one in particular) that swore up and down that character advancement was the whole problem with RPGs, and that the best XP system would be: NONE. I wouldn't go that far, but the peasant-to-demigod character arc in most games is probably overdone. Warband/M&B gets this part right: your character's skills make a huge difference, but you never become an invicible demi-god because of them.

 

[Zomg]

The Betrayal at Krondor system is ridiculously terrible. The correct strategy is to go into the menu and refocus on whatever you are about to do to maximize XP i.e. the correct strategy is both idiotic and tedious i.e. the design is bad.

If I had a game with time implemented (like ZRPG seems to want), meaning everything gets a real opportunity cost, I'd go with no XP at all and just abstract training/practice. If you want to shoehorn in learn-by-doing you can have training raise potential caps and then you raise skills to that cap by actually doing it (or some combination). You can also "cap the caps" by tying your current maximum trainable levels to items like manuals or trainer characters.

But design is pretty fucking easy if your game has opportunity cost anyway.