No xp for killing things - but xp rewards for quests?

[DraQ]

After the poll now went for some time, I think I will go for the second approach (base value for each crittertype) mixed with the diminishing xp. DraQs ideas sound very interesting, but I doubt I could pull that off with my limited ressources, while the other option is actually doable.

I really appreciate the idea of this "receive xp for use xy" - if done right this can be a very cool mechanism, I'd love to see it done in a proper way eventually in RPG.

That was a bit of derailment, I simply can't help myself when XP based or use based systems are mentioned.

When sticking to XP-based system I think that quest based only would be better.

Like I said, you already have incentives for killing things - they can no longer bother you, and you can take their stuff. Combative solutions don't really need further incentives in form of XP.

 

[SCO]

I have never played a game where that kind of system wasn't a complete chore.

That may be because I've never seen a game where even a nominal amount of thought was put into use-based. It's rather baffling, really - are all developers handling character development in cRPGs fucking morons? If no, then why can't they ever come up with the most basic and easily implemented improvements and fixes?

I suggested a middle ground where use would only count as a multiplier (a level up "tag" in fallout parlance) for the level exp. Say 3 most used skills. Though that brings it's own imbalances - because, naturally, you're going to use guns more than everything else, and it's likely that unless you're specifically avoiding it, it's always going to be in that 3 per level up.

 

[DragoFireheart]

It still gives you additional incentive to kill things. The incentive is already there, called loot, convenience and safety. You don't need extra incentive for killing things, since it's already rather desirable.

The whole point of a fucking RPG is to allow and incentivize the game to be played differently with different characters - like stealth specialist who's more than just a wimpier warrior who attacks from behind/strikes from the shadows FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE!!!1

It doesn't make sense that you wouldn't gain experience from combat. (If that is what you're saying).

 

[DraQ]

It still gives you additional incentive to kill things. The incentive is already there, called loot, convenience and safety. You don't need extra incentive for killing things, since it's already rather desirable.

The whole point of a fucking RPG is to allow and incentivize the game to be played differently with different characters - like stealth specialist who's more than just a wimpier warrior who attacks from behind/strikes from the shadows FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE!!!1

It doesn't make sense that you wouldn't gain experience from combat. (If that is what you're saying).

Experience as a whole, without differentiating between different kinds of experience, doesn't make sense.

If you're stuck with nonsensical concept like XP, you're stuck with trying to make it work the best you can, even using nonsensical means.

 

[DragoFireheart]

If you're stuck with nonsensical concept like XP, you're stuck with trying to make it work the best you can, even using nonsensical means.

Which is why you suggested a "use-and-level" system similar to FF2/Elder Scrolls/Quest 64?

 

[Black]

I think exp system like in Bloodlines, Deus Ex and such is the best system, so that's what I voted for. You weren't rewarded for killing shit, but for finding alternate routes and solving problems.

 

[DraQ]

If you're stuck with nonsensical concept like XP, you're stuck with trying to make it work the best you can, even using nonsensical means.

Which is why you suggested a "use-and-level" system similar to FF2/Elder Scrolls/Quest 64?

Practice is a real life concept. It can be used to hone one's skills, unlike XP, where killing X rats or completing Y fetch quests allows one to become better at, say, repairing things.

That you could learn difficult things by repeatedly attempting simple ones was fault of implementation, namely not accounting for difficulty in any shape or form.

The only meaningful RL analogue of XP is retaining composure during taxing events like battles or sneaking past numerous armed guards ordered to shoot on sight. You don't get better at anything this way, you just learn to remain calm and not panic.

I think exp system like in Bloodlines, Deus Ex and such is the best system, so that's what I voted for. You weren't rewarded for killing shit, but for finding alternate routes and solving problems.

If you're rewarded for finding alternate routes, then you'll be pressed to find all of them which makes them not so alternate. Still, goal-oriented XP is probably the only implementation of XP in not combat focused game, that isn't broken by design.

 

[Black]

Or reaching a certain goal may simply prevent you from getting xp for finding routes that are/should be obsolete by now, you scally.

 

[DraQ]

Or reaching a certain goal may simply prevent you from getting xp for finding routes that are/should be obsolete by now

Well, you'd still have to worry about player backtracking just short of objective, in which case you may just assign goal XP plus XP for optional conditions, some of which (like remain undetected) may be only achieved using non-obvious routes.

Anyway, checkpointing ways instead of goals (for whatever reason, be it progressing quests or handing out rewards) is just bad design if the alternative is a viable option.
It limits flexibility.

you scally.

I you too.

 

[Grim Monk]

You could add some kind of "efficiency bonus" modifier to the base value.

A player who thinks and tries to uses the best weapon and tactics to win VS. a player with "blast it till its dead" approach.

This might incentivize the player to try to mix up combat strategy to get the max XP yield.

Also, npc's could tell, teach, or sell the player more efficient tactics for killing critters.

Examples:
In Fallout 1 Harold mentions that a Deathclaw's eyes might be its weakness



I see no reason why incompetent's and wastefulness should not be penalized...

 

[kaizoku]

After the poll now went for some time, I think I will go for the second approach (base value for each crittertype) mixed with the diminishing xp.

You could apply this same principle to crafting or some other skills as well. This would stop players from wanting to kill all animals in the world and remove their pelts/fangs/penises.

 

[tiagocc0]

Why don't you try a different approach, you get XP for quests and maybe other actions, after a certain amount you level up.
But killing things won't reward you XP, they will give you loot and a separate XP that's based on the weapon you use and another based on the monster you kill.
So you will become better at killing that monster and at using that particular weapon or weapon type.

So combat will only reward combat.

EDIT: EXAMPLE:
That farmer that spent 20 years killing small forest critters with his old ww2 rifle won't become a master or level up to level 99, instead killing critters didn't made him a better or more skilled person on non combat skills.
But he's a hell of a guy when it comes to use that old rifle and he's the best in the region at killing innocent forest critters!

 

[Commissar Draco]

Like in Skyrim?

 

[tiagocc0]

No, you don't get better at a weapon by using it, you get XP points that you use on a Skill Tree after you level up.
The XP would be for that weapon only or weapon type like in Borderlands, where you get both.
And you wouldn't level up the weapon or get points to spend, you would just automatically get better at it.
The XP for getting better at killing a particular creature would work the same way.

 

[Kraszu]

It still gives you additional incentive to kill things. The incentive is already there, called loot, convenience and safety. You don't need extra incentive for killing things, since it's already rather desirable.

The whole point of a fucking RPG is to allow and incentivize the game to be played differently with different characters - like stealth specialist who's more than just a wimpier warrior who attacks from behind/strikes from the shadows FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE!!!1

There should be additional initiative for that, and a way to make XP for different characters. Somebody who uses diplomacy will be able to solve quests without conflict, or with less conflict, and that can award him with more XP, and bigger monetary reword.

I like the idea of diminishing returns up to 0 XP because it would encourage you to find new enemies instead of grinding, you could get information about new powerful beast, and go to hunt it. It could make exploring more interesting if you would avoid enemies that aren't worth killing, but hunt for few, less common enemies, it would also make sneaking more useful. Lets say for example that some specific uncommon beast lives in swamps, every time you would see a swamp you would want to explore it, you could also hear stories about being attacked by some beast (given description that feat specific monster) near some area, so you would want to explore that. The problem is that XP from killing are almost in limitless supply or in limitless supply (you have either plenty of mobs to kill, or they re-spawn or are based on random encounters) the solution is to limit them to make getting them interesting, and balanced not to remove them.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My 2 cents:

The "no XP for killing things" notion is aimed to discourage grinding. However, it robs you of your reward for defeating enemies. Loot? Unless you get Awesome Loot (TM) every time you kill someone, it wouldn't work. In most cases you'll get Shit For Sale (TM), which will tap into your obsessive-compulsive cortex and force you to rearrange your inventory to make space for all that junk and then make a detour to sell it. Not good.

A better way to discourage grinding is .... *drumroll*... making combat challenging. Fallout, for example, was challenging only in the beginning. Once you hit lvl5-6 and get your hands on decent guns, the game is easy. When you hit lvl 15, you become the holy pwner, the destroyer of worlds and small settlements. THIS is the problem. Fix it and the need to tamper with XP reward goes away. Every encounter should be challenging. Running into 4-5 raiders should NOT be a cakewalk, no matter what. Even smaller enemies (like rats, spiders, and scorpions) can be deadly if they carry diseases and the poison is more then a minor inconvenience.

Games should borrow a page or two from Star Trail and make traveling challenging:
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2365.msg76914.html#msg76914
... which should take care of running back and forth between towns fishing for special encounters to level up.

So make everything challenging and then reward the player for overcoming your honest-to-god attempts to kill the fucker.

 

[Quetzacoatl]

Not only that but making combat challenging would add further incentive to try out the diplomatic path.

 

[DraQ]

My 2 cents:

The "no XP for killing things" notion is aimed to discourage grinding. However, it robs you of your reward for defeating enemies.

But *WHY* should there even be an inherent reward for defeating enemies?

It goes against all kinds of logic, in-universe or otherwise, AND it penalizes playing non-combat types, because, for example, you don't get XP for just sneaking past. Even if you specifically code additional rewards for non-combat paths through quest/area/dungeon/etc., if your game is complex enough to accommodate creativity, player will likely find a solution you haven't forseen and thus haven't coded rewards for. Or the player will find a way to reap multiple rewards, for example by sneaking by, then backtracking and killing everyone. Goal oriented rewards completely avoid the problem while also requiring fraction of effort. It's as good as an XP based system gets, though obviously inferior to well realized flat (levelless) use based.

Games should borrow a page or two from Star Trail and make traveling challenging:
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2365.msg76914.html#msg76914
... which should take care of running back and forth between towns fishing for special encounters to level up.

I haven't played RoA, but I approve of such system, if only it can be integrated with properly realized and detailed gameworld.

 

[Omicron]

The most fitting exp. system logically depends on the type of game,

the exp per enemy system is in my humble opinion best suited for combat-heavy games whereas very dialog, non-combat-skill or puzzle heavy game would benefit more from a reward by objective type.

In more hybrid/balanced game types a reward per obstacle could work to, where a more difficult approach would usually give more experience points.

When you are ambushed by a dangerous group of raiders for example, bribing them to let you go would yield no exp. where managing to escape by either plain running or cunning tricks would yield some exp. and defeating the group by either combat or something creative would yield more experience.

 

[Excidium]

Omicron is right.

 

[tiagocc0]

Maybe you could give different exp based on the player class.
A warrior would get exp by killing, while a diplomat could kill and get no exp.
A warrior would get no exp by bribing someone to leave him alone while a diplomat would get lots of exp.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

But what about LARPing a homicidal diplomat

 

[tiagocc0]

But what about LARPing a homicidal diplomat

Instead of a class, make it a % of your skills.
If you choose half gunner and half diplomat skills you would get 50% from killing and 50% from dialogue.
If you choose only gunner/warrior skills you would get 100% from killing and 0% from dialogue.
If you choose only diplomat skills you would get 0% from killing and 100% from dialogue.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

Shouldn't you, on the contrary, get MORE XP for doing a thing you aren't skilled in and succeeding? What about that?
Picking a lock withouth being a thief, etc

 

[mondblut]

No reward for combat -> combat becomes an annoyance and an unwanted puzzle that pops up over and over -> game is shit.