Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Mrowak]

I already gave you one. Druids killing animals for the XP.

Here's another one: druid characters killing animals in the BG2 tavern (can't remember the name) with the Beastmaster that have been caged. Most people would kill those animals instead of using Minsc or Jaheira to "control beast." It doesn't make sense to calm them because you lose out on XP.

Do you want more? Players killing people left and right even if they wanted to play fairly "pacifist" roles because the loss of XP from randoms was fairly good.

People going back and killing NPCs after the quest is done to get XP.

Getting kill XP and quest XP for killing certain bosses. You basically could never have a quest where you talk the bosses down and complete the quest that way because the XP isn't good. Or if you do talk them down and win the quest, you'll go back and kill them for the kill XP.

Are you not reading the posts?

And how does removing the combat xp prevent you from not killing those animals or those bosses/NPCs?

You can kill them for their pelts/loot and sell it for cash even in a quest xp only game.

Loot is also a reward, not just xp. You are not removing the reward for killing by removing combat xp from a game.

You remove the most significant part of the reward and that's enough. You still didn't explain how combat xp is inherently better for various character builds and quest paths than quest-distributed xp.

 

[imweasel]

XP is a very rare and highly valuable commodity in RPGs. It doesn't matter how you get it. Loot, especially things like pelts and low amount of gold are much less valuable.

Naw, both are important, very important. Combat loot is still a reward that you receive for killing no matter what you say. And people will kill for it too.

Quit writing moronic things and you won't be called a moron.
Funny how it works.

Yeah, I know how it works. You like to throw a hissy fit when somebody has a different opinion.

 

[Infinitron]

No, loot is not nearly as important as experience. There's generally a limit to how much you can or need to buy in a typical Infinity Engine-style CRPG, but you can never have enough experience points. Experience points are Pure Power.

 

[Hormalakh]

lucky for me imweasel Sawyer seems to be designing to cater to people like me and not you.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think he actually wants to be "catered to". He's just trolling us with this dumb argument.

I don't think he said anywhere that quest-only XP would actually be bad.

 

[Captain Shrek]

lucky for me imweasel Sawyer seems to be designing to cater to people like me and not you.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I wonder if you could create multiple categories of reward points? Maybe xp for quest completion and some separate kind of reward for combat, like some kind of badass-reputation points. A higher reputation for being a combat badass could give you bonuses to NPC reactions, maybe increase the chance of scaring enemies away, lower the chances of low-level random encounters, or access to more difficult combat style quests (people only offer tough jobs to known badasses).

 

[imweasel]

No, loot is not nearly as important as experience. There's generally a limit to how much you can or need to buy in a typical Infinity Engine-style CRPG, but you can never have enough experience points. Experience points are Pure Power.

Well loot is important. People kill for it and they will also kill for it even if they have hit the level cap.

I don't think he actually wants to be "catered to". He's just trolling us with this dumb argument.

I don't think he said anywhere that quest-only XP would actually be bad.

Quest only xp isn't bad, at least not in my opinion. I like it and it really makes sense for some games. Combat + quest xp is just better for an IE game.

 

[Infinitron]

I wonder if you could create multiple categories of reward points? Maybe xp for quest completion and some separate kind of reward for combat, like some kind of badass-reputation points. A higher reputation for being a combat badass could give you bonuses to NPC reactions, maybe increase the chance of scaring enemies away, lower the chances of low-level random encounters, or access to more difficult combat style quests (people only offer tough jobs to known badasses).

Age of Decadence does this.

 

[Infinitron]

Quest only xp isn't bad, at least not in my opinion. I like it and it really makes sense for some games. Combat + quest xp is just better for an IE game.

If it's better, then by that logic, quest only XP must be worse. How? How is it worse?

 

[imweasel]

lucky for me imweasel Sawyer seems to be designing to cater to people like me and not you.

Good thing that Brian Fargo caters to guys like me.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I wonder if you could create multiple categories of reward points? Maybe xp for quest completion and some separate kind of reward for combat, like some kind of badass-reputation points. A higher reputation for being a combat badass could give you bonuses to NPC reactions, maybe increase the chance of scaring enemies away, lower the chances of low-level random encounters, or access to more difficult combat style quests (people only offer tough jobs to known badasses).

Age of Decadence does this.

I thought Age of Decadence reputation was purely faction based? I was thinking of something that was a non-faction reputation. Kind of functions like an aura of dangerousness.

 

[Hormalakh]

Quest only xp isn't bad, at least not in my opinion. I like it and it really makes sense for some games. Combat + quest xp is just better for an IE game.

GAHHHH! Infinitron you were right.... Serves me right for being baited by the troll.

 

[Infinitron]

I wonder if you could create multiple categories of reward points? Maybe xp for quest completion and some separate kind of reward for combat, like some kind of badass-reputation points. A higher reputation for being a combat badass could give you bonuses to NPC reactions, maybe increase the chance of scaring enemies away, lower the chances of low-level random encounters, or access to more difficult combat style quests (people only offer tough jobs to known badasses).

Age of Decadence does this.

I thought Age of Decadence reputation was purely faction based? I was thinking of something that was a non-faction reputation. Kind of functions like an aura of dangerousness.

It also has a global kill counter which affects people's reactions to you.

 

[tuluse]

I wonder if you could create multiple categories of reward points? Maybe xp for quest completion and some separate kind of reward for combat, like some kind of badass-reputation points. A higher reputation for being a combat badass could give you bonuses to NPC reactions, maybe increase the chance of scaring enemies away, lower the chances of low-level random encounters, or access to more difficult combat style quests (people only offer tough jobs to known badasses).

Age of Decadence does this.

I thought Age of Decadence reputation was purely faction based? I was thinking of something that was a non-faction reputation. Kind of functions like an aura of dangerousness.

You have a body count stat that can be used for intimidation (and maybe other checks, but this is all I've come across).

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Infinitron and tuluse nice. Thanks for the heads up. I should kill more people next time I play it.

ETA: Ok, I'm an idiot. I definitely knew about Word of Honor checks and spaced on it.

 

[Lancehead]

AoD has plenty of general reputations:

 

[St. Toxic]

How about, since we have split skill-pools, we have split experience pools? Combat gives you combat exp, quests give you non-combat exp.

 

[DraQ]

And how does removing the combat xp prevent you from not killing those animals or those bosses/NPCs?

You can kill them for their pelts/loot and sell it for cash even in a quest xp only game.

Loot is also a reward, not just xp. You are not removing the reward for killing by removing combat xp from a game.

You remove the most significant part of the reward and that's enough.

This. XPs are the most valuable kind of reward, because they are universal (no, "bah, sword? I'm playing a cleric!"), and cumulative instead of getting replaced, like gear or coming and going like resources (including money).
The only case where XPs are not a relevant reward is when there is a cap and you can abuse the system by grinding, which is one of the problems with combat XP in the first place.

Second, any other rewards are required for consistency reasons and make sense as in-universe motivation for killing stuff. XPs don't, as they are decidedly extraneous to the world, and serve more as gameplay driving metagame tool.

Third, carrying extra loot can be made arbitrarily problematic and loot lying around fairly ephemeral without resorting to inconsistency.

Fourth, loot, both gear and resources can be balanced against without much difficulty, because it's relatively weak reward, with limited consequences. XPs are hard to balance against because there are few rewards stronger than XPs.

Fifth and final:

You still didn't explain how combat xp is inherently better for various character builds and quest paths than quest-distributed xp.

If a system is inferior to another in all circumstances, then it's obsolete.
As far as we know there exists no application in which combat XP wouldn't be completely inferior to either quest XP only or use-based.

 

[Grunker]

At this point, if he doesn't get it, let's declare it a Volourn and move on.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

So all this talk about xp makes me wonder: has Sawyer gone on record as for or against level caps?

 

[tuluse]

I haven't heard him say anything about a general rule, but P:E is going to have one.

 

[Lancehead]

Yeah, I don't have the quotes but I remember Sawyer saying he's aiming for level 10 D&D 3E equivalent.

 

[Infinitron]

It's sort of an illusion of choice: you think you have a choice between the dialogue options but you either kick yourself for not picking the better option or you try to make up your loss by overcompensating later or you just accept that you're doing a gimmick run.

This idea also goes for XP.

Well, if you make the options distinct enough, I think most players will bite the bullet and not choose one they strongly disagree with.

When you have several options which, in terms of moral value or whatever, are more or less equivalent, that's when players start metagaming.

(It's disturbing that this could be interpreted as an argument for black and white "save the kitten or eat the kitten" style choices. It doesn't get more distinct than that, after all.)

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...d=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post407851997

I believe choice should be difficult to be compelling. Two choices that are "equally good" do not produce a dilemma. Two choices that are picked from at random because you can't forecast the consequences of either also do not produce a dilemma. Two choices that clearly give and take away from things that players will value differently, that produces a dilemma. Orestes had a dilemma. Antigone had a dilemma. The consequences of the player's actions do not need to be on par with those of Orestes or Antigone, but the underlying struggle, agony in some measure, should be a goal.

The name of my talk was Do (Say) the Right Thing because I was considering the actions of Mookie at the end of Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. He was faced with a dilemma and made a choice that was the right thing for him. That choice still had strong negative consequences, but he accepted them because the alternative would have been worse.

 

[ghostdog]

Josh Sawyer said:

I believe choice should be difficult to be compelling. Two choices that are "equally good" do not produce a dilemma. Two choices that are picked from at random because you can't forecast the consequences of either also do not produce a dilemma. Two choices that clearly give and take away from things that players will value differently, that produces a dilemma. Orestes had a dilemma. Antigone had a dilemma. The consequences of the player's actions do not need to be on par with those of Orestes or Antigone, but the underlying struggle, agony in some measure, should be a goal.

The name of my talk was Do (Say) the Right Thing because I was considering the actions of Mookie at the end of Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. He was faced with a dilemma and made a choice that was the right thing for him. That choice still had strong negative consequences, but he accepted them because the alternative would have been worse.​

Perfect scenario for ghetto neo-elves rebelling against human Watch-brutality and ending up venting their rage on local human innkeeper. Proto-Dwarves will be the equivalent of those Chinese dudes with their mini-market. They came to open their cheap armor shop in the ghetto, frustrating the elven bums that are hanging around drinking rotgut all day.