The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Bubbles]

Plus he's talking from the perspective of someone who already played the game and knows they are there and they're an easy XP boost. A first time player just exploring would just stumble upon them. There's no "gaming the system".

And they're only "ridiculously easy to beat" if the player actually knows how to defeat them and knows exactly where they are, so he can prepare for them. But I'm sure PoE's quest system will be diligently proofed against any sort of meta gaming.

 

[Shadenuat]

It's pointless comparing tabletop to this, every DM gives XP for "good play", what is good play depends on plot and every DM, in tabletop players can get rewarded for anything, from killing monsters and stealing treasure to moving through the plot or even spectacularly failing at everything. DM has a sense of narrative and granularity when it comes to rewards and is more flexible than any system.

I've been playing PoE beta, Obsi tells me to roleplay, so I pick the evil druid chick and start going through quests, and one of the first quests is to steal dragon egg for a trader to make some uber potion or an omelet or something. Me and Faldorn in BG1 would slapped the bitch with a scimitar, killed her for some XP and grabbed her stuff, and walked away; but in PoE every time I say "no", I lose XP.

 

[FeelTheRads]

but in PoE every time I say "no", I lose XP.

Take that to the guy who said in this thread or other that no kill-XP gives you more freedom. That was

Because if you grind shitty combat encounters you certainly wouldn't grind shitty fedex quests, right? Especially when they're the only source of XP, which is limited, you'll feel forced to actively look for them and do them all. Even worse for those who care about "roleplaying" evil or good or paragon or Aragorn or whatever, because if you don't do quests that don't match your alignment then hey, isn't that "losing character progression"?

But it's realistic, intuitive and uhh... stops you from grinding, right?

 

[dryan]

You remember those sirens on the coast at BG1? You know what I do every single time I play the game? I go there and kill them! Not because it would make any sense for my character to go there and do so, no. There is not a single roleplaying reason to even go to that region that any GM with a brain between his ears would accept. I go there because they give a shitload of XP (2000 each, IIRC) and are ridiculously easy to beat.

The problem lies with the player, not the system.

 

[thesheeep]

There's more experience in the game than you can get because of the level cap.

Yes, but this is really early in the game, right after the Nashkell mines. There is no other point so early in the game where you can get so many XP.
It is just so much for so little work that it just feels wrong not to do it if you know you can. It really encourages breaking immersion and just collecting XP.
I know I don't have to give in to that, but come on, if the system encourages it so much, then the problem does indeed lie with the system.

So what, it would be fine then to get XP for killing them if you got a quest to go there or if they were right in your way?

I'm not saying killing the sirens should not yield any reward. But it should be bound to something that makes sense. You could also get an XP reward if you kill all the sirens and an additional reward if you tell the quest giver. This is not about not giving rewards if the player does not know there is a quest, this is about not giving XP per kill, as that is not bound to anything at all and encourages killing for the sake of.. well, there is no sake other than gaming the system (ake ignoring the world and just collecting XP to get stronger for no reason in-game).

Think about it, if there was no XP per kill, but only per quest (also mini quests which may be nothing more but clearing a cave of sirens in some situations), there would be no bullshit encounter design like BG has to a rather large part. Everything that gives XP has to make some sort of sense, which would force any designer to put some thinking into what he does and would give any player a better reason to do anything.
I was under the impression that the sirens were only there "just because" to serve as XP givers. I never took Safana into my party. But in any case, this does not make my point about XP per-kill invalid.

This is bullshit "roleplaying". How about if I'm roleplaying an RPG player that goes everywhere and does everything possible to increase the power of his party? Why would I go there? Well, for the XP of course. If there's nothing to be had from them then you can ask why would I go there.

You are probably gaining no joy out of roleplaying, only playing these games to fulfill some power fantasy with your character, gaming the system to beat it or whatever. At least it seems that way.
But I honestly think that anything you can do with a character in an RPG has to make some sense to do for the character. This is called roleplaying. When you sit at a table doing PnP, you don't just say "yeah I go east now for four days, kill anything I see for the XP" if you character has no reason to do so. And while a cRPG can never reach PnP fully, it should at least strive to get the "this makes sense" part right.

Btw. I'm not saying no kill-XP increases freedom. It does not affect freedom if done correctly, IMO. It increases quality of roleplaying by encouraging problem solving over mindless grinding.
And it just so happens to also work in sandbox RPGs, even procedurally generated ones FFS, not only in games like PoE or BG that focus on a story-driven progression more than a player-driven one.
So... I just see no reason to use kill-XP in RPGs.

but in PoE every time I say "no", I lose XP.

Of course you should not be given XP for rejecting a quest. But what are you complaining about, exactly?
That in a kill-XP based system you would still get the XP for killing the mini-dragons guarding the egg (or whatever) despite saying no to the quest?
So, make getting the egg a mini-quest on its own, which you can still do despite saying no to the trader.
Problem solved, no kill-XP needed. You would just miss out on the monetary reward from the trader.

Some people seem to get the impression that quest-based XP rewards would only be given to some giant side quest or milestones in the main storyline.
That is not what I am trying to say. A quest can be something as small as "survive that random encounter". If you just kill all the enemies, that would yield the XP reward. But sneaking past them or talking your way out of it would yield the same reward. This way, no play style is favored and no player is left out of the loop just because his character is not based about fighting. Imagine it was different, a character sneaking and stealing all the time would end up having half as much XP as a fighter. Now that would certainly lead to some frustration in the late game...

 

[FeelTheRads]

You are probably gaining no joy out of roleplaying, only playing these games to fulfill some power fantasy with your character, gaming the system to beat it or whatever. At least it seems that way.
But I honestly think that anything you can do with a character in an RPG has to make some sense to do for the character. This is called roleplaying. When you sit at a table doing PnP, you don't just say "yeah I go east now for four days, kill anything I see for the XP" if you character has no reason to do so.

But you say "I go into this town and talk to everybody until I save all the cats and kill all the rats"?

If you're given a a map to explore you will then explore it and it will have encounters on it. It's not "gaming a system".
Basically what you want is to have everything tied to something else "so it makes sense" which pretty much means no exploration or actually doing anything on your own but following the developer's guidelines.

Case in point:

And while a cRPG can never reach PnP fully, it should at least strive to get the "this makes sense" part right.

What doesn't make sense about exploring and finding enemies? Once you find them, you kill them because they attack you. Very simple, no other reason needed.

It increases quality of roleplaying by encouraging problem solving over mindless grinding.

No it doesn't. It does the opposite. It will increase grinding of shitty quests and you will do quests that don't fit whatever Lady Of The Forest you're roleplaying because otherwise you will lose character progression.

 

[Infinitron]

In Black Isle/Obsidian-style RPGs, the quests are the game. Their developers expend an enormous amount of effort in writing dialogue, designing sidequests and planning out choice and consequence branches for us. The grindy bits around them are really just a sideshow.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with a designer saying, "sorry, if you're not actually going to play the game, you're not going to progress".

If you have a problem with that, I hear there's a company called Bethesda.

 

[Shadenuat]

In Black Isle/Obsidian-style RPGs, the quests are the game. Their developers expend an enormous amount of effort in writing dialogue, designing sidequests and planning out choice and consequence branches for us. The grindy bits around them are really just a sideshow.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with a designer saying, "sorry, if you're not actually going to play the game, you're not going to progress".

If you have a problem with that, I hear there's a company called Bethesda.

That's not how PoE is designed for now. If you go on world map you will see familiar boxy wilderness locations from BG1. And they're all full of hostile mobs.

 

[Zetor]

Well, BG1 wilderness maps also had random questgivers telling you to kill 12 ankhegs / "that bear coming across the bridge" / a swarm of attacking gibberlings! /troll

e: on a more serious note, I'll mention the Underrail xp system again and how every game needs to adopt it. kkthxbye

 

[FeelTheRads]

In Black Isle/Obsidian-style RPGs, the quests are the game. Their developers expend an enormous amount of effort in writing dialogue, designing sidequests and planning out choice and consequence branches for us. The grindy bits around them are really just a sideshow.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with a designer saying, "sorry, if you're not actually going to play the game, you're not going to progress".

Yes, there is if they still put in the sideshow. I'm really not a follower of the "combat in PST was unimportant so it's OK that is sucks" line of thought.
And I'm not saying that you shouldn't "play the game" (nice Infinitrodefinition again), but if progression is limited to certain events this will severely limit your freedom and will force you to go through all of them which will result in a linear experience.

If you have a problem with that, I hear there's a company called Bethesda.

Well, if you have a problem with RPGs, I hear there's a forum called RPGWatch.

 

[thesheeep]

e: on a more serious note, I'll mention the Underrail xp system again and how every game needs to adopt it. kkthxbye

What does it do, again? Giving XP for finding treasures or something, I cannot quite remember.

But you say "I go into this town and talk to everybody until I save all the cats and kill all the rats"?

This is an RPG. You talk to people to help/rid them of their money/whatever. Well, I talk to them. You seem to only kill everything on sight and skip any annoying text in-between. Freedom, indeed. The freedom to kill everything to gain XP. What a great roleplaying experience.

Basically what you want is to have everything tied to something else "so it makes sense" which pretty much means no exploration or actually doing anything on your own but following the developer's guidelines.

Yeah, right, because exploration only works with kill-XP. Seriously?
Just because things are intertwined to make them more interesting and more believable it does not mean you can only find them at quest hubs. Seriously, your imagination seems to stop at "I kill. I get XP. I get stronger." and everything more complex cannot be had whithout your trusted systems. Thankfully it is not you designing PoE.

What doesn't make sense about exploring and finding enemies? Once you find them, you kill them because they attack you. Very simple, no other reason needed.

Kill them because they attack you makes sense, of course. As does exploring as long as there is no pressing manner that should prevent your character from doing so.
But none of this means that kill-XP are a good idea. You can still explore and find quests/whole encounters to gain XP. And all of these will be more interesting than just some goblins standing around a campfire, who just exist so you can level up.
Which I already wrote in my last post. Is some of my text hidden or something?

It increases quality of roleplaying by encouraging problem solving over mindless grinding.

No it doesn't. It does the opposite. It will increase grinding of shitty quests and you will do quests that don't fit whatever Lady Of The Forest you're roleplaying because otherwise you will lose character progression.

What makes you think that all quests are shitty?
Also, within that exact post you quoted, I already stated that there should other ways to gain "lost" XP without following that quest.
Seriously, did you read anything I wrote except the quoted sentences? What the fuck?

Let's imagine I did not already post a solution: What you would probably do if there were kill-XP is, say no to the quest as it doesn't fit your character, then go there killing everything anyway because it yields XP. Again, great roleplaying experience.

 

[Zetor]

e: on a more serious note, I'll mention the Underrail xp system again and how every game needs to adopt it. kkthxbye

What does it do, again? Giving XP for finding treasures or something, I cannot quite remember.

Underrail's "oddity" XP system is pretty good, I think. Basically you can find certain kinds of "oddities" spread across the world (as quest rewards, treasure in locked rooms, and enemy drops) and you use them up to gain xp. You can only gain xp from a certain type of oddity X times (far less than you can find if you collect every single one), so this way you'll end up with the same xp in the end no matter your playstyle. If you're killing dudes, you get your xp as drops; if you sneak and explore, you find them in dangerous out-of-the-way places; if you do quests, you get them as rewards.

Of course the flavor behind the system only works for certain settings; it's good for post-apoc, since each of those oddities represents a kind of ancient/lost technology that your character will understand after using it.

edit: description of the oddity system

 

[Bubbles]

But none of this means that kill-XP are a good idea. You can still explore and find quests/whole encounters to gain XP. And all of these will be more interesting than just some goblins standing around a campfire, who just exist so you can level up.

Remove all trash mobs, make all combat interesting and challenging, problem solved. Blackguards did it on a less than €1 million budget and managed to be 70 hours long. I'm sure PoE can do it with $4 mil.

 

[thesheeep]

But Blackguards does not give kill-XP, does it? Never played it (I know, I should). At least TDE itself doesn't do that stuff.

Zetor Yes, seems a good idea indeed. I still prefer quest XP, but that system is MUCH better than kill-XP, as it does not encourage killing for the sake of XP even if that would be out of your role. It seems hard to balance, though.

 

[Bubbles]

Rejoice! Rejoice!

We have a pretty good number of quests that are specifically "murk [kill] this person/critter".

 

[Lhynn]

Man, the apologists for obsidians shitty irredeemable system are making me fucking laugh.

but in PoE every time I say "no", I lose XP.

Take that to the guy who said in this thread or other that no kill-XP gives you more freedom. That was

Yeah, it gets better as pages go by.

In Black Isle/Obsidian-style RPGs, the quests are the game. Their developers expend an enormous amount of effort in writing dialogue, designing sidequests and planning out choice and consequence branches for us. The grindy bits around them are really just a sideshow.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with a designer saying, "sorry, if you're not actually going to play the game, you're not going to progress".

If you have a problem with that, I hear there's a company called Bethesda.

Systems should either liberate players and/or provide interesting roleplaying opportunities, not tie them down. But thanks for telling us that if we dont like their games we dont have to play them, thats such a valid argument when criticizing something.

thesheeep xp per quest makes sense on a mission based game. missions are self contained, they can be restarted, etc. its the same that with shadowrun returns.

 

[AN4RCHID]

In Black Isle/Obsidian-style RPGs, the quests are the game. Their developers expend an enormous amount of effort in writing dialogue, designing sidequests and planning out choice and consequence branches for us. The grindy bits around them are really just a sideshow.

This is true of some of their games, especially New Vegas, but definitely not others. In Icewind Dale / Icewind Dale 2, quests were very much an appetizer to the meat of the game, which was dungeon crawling and tactical, party-based combat.

The "garbage design" I meant in particular was per-kill XP ... because it is dumb to encourage killing stuff for the sheer sake of killing stuff. Action without motivation makes for a seriously crap role-playing experience.

I'm not 100% opposed to Skinnerian feedback; on some level, abstract rewards are a practical necessity in games of this type. I'm just delighted to see that feedback attached to stories instead of assembly-line violence.

It depends on what core of the game is. I wouldn't suggest that kill-xp is a good idea for Tides of Numenera for example, because that's supposed to be a game about the story and combat is an optional activity. In a dungeon crawler like Icewind Dale, it makes perfect sense to reward assembly-line violence, because that's the whole point of playing the game and the quests are generally optional activities. From the beta and from all the KS updates, Pillars of Eternity is going to land somewhere around the BG/BGII ratio of combat to character interaction and story, and imho it's fair to say that party-based combat was still the meat of those games. Combat in PoE isn't an optional sideshow - it's a constant, central gameplay hook and all characters/classes are defined by how they perform in combat. Given that, I think it's appropriate to tie progression into those central mechanics.

 

[roshan]

It's pointless comparing tabletop to this, every DM gives XP for "good play", what is good play depends on plot and every DM, in tabletop players can get rewarded for anything, from killing monsters and stealing treasure to moving through the plot or even spectacularly failing at everything. DM has a sense of narrative and granularity when it comes to rewards and is more flexible than any system.

I've been playing PoE beta, Obsi tells me to roleplay, so I pick the evil druid chick and start going through quests, and one of the first quests is to steal dragon egg for a trader to make some uber potion or an omelet or something. Me and Faldorn in BG1 would slapped the bitch with a scimitar, killed her for some XP and grabbed her stuff, and walked away; but in PoE every time I say "no", I lose XP.

This is fucking disgusting. So you now have to grind every shitty quest to get XP irregardless of the character you are roleplaying because there is absolutely no other source of XP in the game. Unbelievable that the fanwhores are unable to see this as a totally screwed up "feature".

 

[FeelTheRads]

This is an RPG. You talk to people to help/rid them of their money/whatever. Well, I talk to them. You seem to only kill everything on sight and skip any annoying text in-between. Freedom, indeed. The freedom to kill everything to gain XP. What a great roleplaying experience.

It's the same fucking thing. It's part of the game. How is talking to people "roleplaying" but exploring and killing shit isn't?
And how is actively looking for quests to boost up your XP different or better than grinding monsters? Apart from the fact that you just prefer one over the other?

What makes you think that all quests are shitty?

What makes you think all combat is shitty/grindy/whateverthefuck?

Like Bubbles said "Remove all trash mobs, make all combat interesting and challenging, problem solved." But I guess that's not either because it's still killing shit and killing shit is not roleplaying.

Also, within that exact post you quoted, I already stated that there should other ways to gain "lost" XP without following that quest.

No, you didn't. Consider this: You play a paladin. One quest is to kill innocent people. HUURR DURR WHAT DO? Guess you lose on character progression to keep your "roleplaying"?

 

[Bubbles]

No, you didn't. Consider this: You play a paladin. One quest is to kill innocent people. HUURR DURR WHAT DO? Guess you lose on character progression to keep your "roleplaying"?

Those quests won't exist, obviously - every quest in PoE will have an evil, good, and neutral solution. Presumably.

 

[Zombra]

I've been playing PoE beta, Obsi tells me to roleplay, so I pick the evil druid chick and start going through quests, and one of the first quests is to steal dragon egg for a trader to make some uber potion or an omelet or something. Me and Faldorn in BG1 would slapped the bitch with a scimitar, killed her for some XP and grabbed her stuff, and walked away; but in PoE every time I say "no", I lose XP.

Correct. You can refuse to participate in quests, and then you get no quest XP. The game "wants" you to do quests, but if you don't want to, that's your choice.

This is no different from the decision in kill-XP games you make every time you see something breathing. If you don't want to kill it, you lose xp.

Once again, the same mechanics and influence lie behind each system. It's a simple question of what the devs want to encourage you to do. They want to encourage you to participate in quests. That's it.

As far as pure roleplaying freedom goes, that can only happen in a system with no abstract rewards.

 

[Internet]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't understand the siren example. If you have a strong knowledge of a game's system and know its (non random) content by heart, you'll eventually be able to set an "optimal" way to complete it. But this will only happen in your third/fourth playthrough so, what is the problem here?
Plus, I think giving relatively high experience for that encounter made sense in BG. I know shit about D&D bestiary and those women killed my low-level party when I first met them. Had to reload and figure out a way to get my revenge!

 

[ZagorTeNej]

This is no different from the decision in kill-XP games you make every time you see something breathing. If you don't want to kill it, you lose xp.

It wouldn't be different if there was no quest XP and you only got XP from killing, as it stands you had a choice (do quests, kill stuff, combination of both, do everything and hit level cap early etc.).

 

[Nikaido]

If you have a problem with that, I hear there's a company called Bethesda.

What a narrow world you live in when it's either storyfag or Beth's games and nothing else within the spectrum.

 

[Zombra]

This is no different from the decision in kill-XP games you make every time you see something breathing. If you don't want to kill it, you lose xp.

It wouldn't be different if there was no quest XP and you only got XP from killing, as it stands you had a choice (do quests, kill stuff, combination of both, do everything and hit level cap early etc.).

No. Every time you walk past a deer without killing it, you lose xp.