The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Jaesun]

 

[imweasel]

You can avoid combat in PoE, and you should! why wouldnt you, its a fucking waste of time right now, unless someone happens to need something dead, NPCs hold the key to level ups mang, do favors to them and they give you levels in return.
You are fucking yourself for playing anything other than Yes-Man.

Quick question. I don't have beta access. Are ALL quests issued by NPCs on a "do this job for me" type basis? It seems weird that the writing would be that one-note.

It also bears mentioning that the main quest isn't in the beta, and that will probably not be some guy hiring you to fold 10 pairs of underwear for him ... it will probably be a story driven by the needs of the protagonist.

But I do agree that quest xp only does encourage the player to want to do things for people. I don't see it as a bad thing, but I can understand how some might.

OK OK. Going to try not to get deep in this damn thread again. I just thought that was an interesting point.

Nobody has a problem with quest XP (if done right), people have a problem with the fact that it is the only way to get XP. Play the beta then you will understand why.

-> "Did you hear rumors about the Firewine Bridge and the treasures it holds? Do you want to go exploring and loot its riches? Well fuck you if you didn't play Yes-Man and don't have the quest in your quest log. No XP for you."

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

And Jozh proves himself a cRPG hating impassionate corporate shmuck preacing the virtues of VIABILITY and BALANCE

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

Well, i dont like being presented with alternatives, that in itself feels like canned progression, rather have the alternatives just be there and let me figure out they exist (sadly this is so fucking rare), thus i really dont give a fuck, as long as its an enjoyable ride.

As far as we know the alternatives Josh will offer us will be there for you to figure out. Or they won't. A closed beta limited to a test area won't give us the big picture.

because if you ask gygax youll probably end up dungeon delving and fighting the cast of star wars. If you ask the guys at whitewolf youll probably end up avenging your lovers death at the hand of the vampuletos. If you ask bioware they will put you at the start of a gay romance and they give you 3 options, you either use lube, you tease you wont, or you dont. If you ask beth they will tell you to go take a hike.

.

No that's just the settings they choose. The more dynamic the game world is and the more options the system allows you to choose from the closer you get from a proper roleplaying experience. The options may be implicit or presented explicitly that's obvious.

Fact is fallout may be the closest to a "proper roleplaying experience" this stupid genre has ever gotten. Arcanum is a close second, but is far less enjoyable. And from what ive heard Underrail could be the next one, i need to make some room and play that game already.

That's true and you're forgetting some more.

Listen to me, combat without xp reward in this sort of games doesnt feel like combat, more like a tacked on minigame that is meaningless, and worthless, even if fun. It soon becomes a chore, because it doesnt help your progression, only hinders it. This thing takes away the meaning behind it, and its the main fucking activity in the game. Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Yeah, you can get some materials, and maybe some items to help you along, but im no better for beating the archdemon than i was before beating the archdemon, only difference is that i now have a magical sword with +10% resist to charms on mondays afternoon and +5% bleed damage, woopty fucking doo.

...

Kinda reminds me of NWN prologue, at one point an NPC literally gave you a level. I thought that moment was so lame...
.

You need your carrot on a stick, fine.
I think it's lame just as much as the NPC giving you a level for you. I don't even like level progressions in the first place and I know that's not just me. I don't remember which part of the brain is supposed to feel satisfied by those small regular rewards and I don't care. XP never made any sense to me and your rapid progression is a contradiction with logic, and most characters background even by the in-game world standards.

Which brings me to itemization, josh killed cool items, he literally turned them into a bunch of stats. Yeah, yeah, ill get xp after telling Sir Richard XP that the dude he wanted dead is dead, but im not growing stronger by the act of slaying the beast, im growing stronger by the act of talking to an npc that tells the game it should reward me because the one that made the game says so.

The difference is that with the old system you earned that xp, with the new one, sir checkpoint gives it to you.

Sir checkpoint can fit naturally in your progression no matter which path you choose to follow. There's no difference whether it happens at the end of a fight or when you exit the zone after having burned the whole village and shanked the villager who gave you the quest in the first place. It's whether or not it's well scripted and adjusts itself to your decisions and methods.

Itemization is up to Sawyer and his ilk but it doesn't have anything to do with this debate. If you ask me Items should play a much bigger role and entirely replace XP, because that makes more sense. You find ancient magical swords that destroyed whole dragons in a swing, that's what will make you stronger. Not picking a fight when you're character is already a 40 year old jagged mercenary who somehow becomes 40 times stronger/smarter/faster in this specific adventure.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Actually, the conflict isn't between rolplayers and roleplayers.
It's between people who want their games to be cohesive wholes, with mechanics and narrative tightly coupled, whatever they might be, and those who want them as segregated and independent from each other as possible.

If I have anything in common with people who enjoy certain RPGs but aren't roleplayers, then I can say you're wrong in assuming we want to split up games. We just don't want to be forced to fucking roleplay.

Morrowind, Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas, these games give me the type of experience that I want. I'm not asking for their formula to be changed in any way to suit my preferences, as they already do.

I enjoy story, lore, characters, dialogue, setting... I'd just rather treat my PC as a little avatar as opposed to some fleshed out character is all.

So tell me, Curious_Tongue , how does it feel to have Hamburglar Hepler as your natural ally?
Because your desires are not just reconcilable, but perfectly compatible - she wants the game part neatly segregated out and skippable, so that cRPGs can be "played" by those who don't like games, while you just want story and in-universe sense to have no bearing on stuff that actually happens during gameplay (and your precious loopholes, don't forget about loopholes), so that cRPGs can be played by people who don't like role-playing.

You're talking about degenerate storyfags. Why are you lumping us in with them?

 

[Rake]

So tell me, Curious_Tongue , how does it feel to have Hamburglar Hepler as your natural ally?
Because your desires are not just reconcilable, but perfectly compatible - she wants the game part neatly segregated out and skippable, so that cRPGs can be "played" by those who don't like games, while you just want story and in-universe sense to have no bearing on stuff that actually happens during gameplay (and your precious loopholes, don't forget about loopholes), so that cRPGs can be played by people who don't like role-playing.

You're talking about degenerate storyfags. Why are you lumping us in with them?

Because in the end, you both want the same thing. Games that the gameplay aspect and the narrative/roleplaying aspect are separate, so one can ignore the part that finds shity/boring. The only diference would be what part the individual player would skip.
That while someone could say "well. more options are good, games are entertaiment, why should i not be able to remove gameplay if i'm only interested in story? How does it affect you?" he misses the point.
What if someone wants a more holistic experience where the game's story and gameplay are of equal importance and depend on one another? You would be forced to both roleplay and engage in the gameplay yes, but both parts would be stronger for it.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I don't remember which part of the brain is supposed to feel satisfied by those small regular rewards and I don't care.

Do you remember which part of the brain is supposed to be satisfied by playing games? Well, either way, guess you should stop playing them because they're just a way to satisfy the brain.

Itemization is up to Sawyer and his ilk but it doesn't have anything to do with this debate. If you ask me Items should play a much bigger role and entirely replace XP, because that makes more sense.

So, you don't like RPGs. That's fine, there are plenty of other genres.

It's between people who want their games to be cohesive wholes, with mechanics and narrative tightly coupled, whatever they might be, and those who want them as segregated and independent from each other as possible.

Yes, if you don't need the game to jump through retarded hoops so everything makes sense means you want complete segregation.
Unless you mean Sawyerists, of course, who actually want the game to jump through retarded hoops to be as unrealistic as possible for some disturbed notion of balance.

 

[Lhynn]

As far as we know the alternatives Josh will offer us will be there for you to figure out. Or they won't. A closed beta limited to a test area won't give us the big picture.

Did you just... outted as a fucking fanboy. i wasnt even talking about that fucking game in particular but you get the "its a beta" card to defend it? ffs.

No that's just the settings they choose. The more dynamic the game world is and the more options the system allows you to choose from the closer you get from a proper roleplaying experience. The options may be implicit or presented explicitly that's obvious.

I dont fucking know what im reading. its obviously their style and what they believe its important/enjoyable in an rpg.

You need your carrot on a stick, fine.
I think it's lame just as much as the NPC giving you a level for you. I don't even like level progressions in the first place and I know that's not just me. I don't remember which part of the brain is supposed to feel satisfied by those small regular rewards and I don't care. XP never made any sense to me and your rapid progression is a contradiction with logic, and most characters background even by the in-game world standards.

You fucking asshole, stop baiting me. There is so much fucking wrong with that statement that im starting to think you are simply trolling.

Its not about a carrot in the stick, its about abstracting progression in a believable way. It stands to fucking reason that if you do something you get better at that something, it is not optional, even if you dont want to get better, you fucking will.

Rapid progression? how many times have you beat an arch demon with your own hands? rapid growth is natural when overcoming great opposition, it is not exclusive to combat, every skill in the world works like that. It is the very reason we have professional sports.


Classes make perfect sense if you abstract it enough, it is the uniform growth of a set of related skills due to repeated use. Golfist would be a class, it has a full set of skills that go from intuitive understanding of phyisics to body control, the more they practice it, the better they get. Professional competitions offer a unique opportunity to improve several times faster than you do with any kind of practice, this is the biggest reason they exist and they could be considered the middle ground between a sparr and a real fight.

Empirical knowledge is a huge part of this, especially in combat. You do it so much, you survive it so many times you get naturally more adept at it. Down to being able to exactly predict what is going to happen in the next few seconds and anticipate it, This is what combat experience truly is. Its not knowing how to swing a battle axe (tho that is a part of it) or how to move (tho this is also a part of it) but knowing exactly what is going to happen and how to react to that.
More challenging fights that you survive will make you more aware, more skilled at it, because suddenly less challenging things pale by comparison.

If youve ever done anything more than hide in your cave procastinating on the internet you should know this.

Besides why the fuck do you bring up the rate at which you git gud? i know i fucking didnt.

Sir checkpoint can fit naturally in your progression no matter which path you choose to follow. There's no difference whether it happens at the end of a fight or when you exit the zone after having burned the whole village and shanked the villager who gave you the quest in the first place. It's whether or not it's well scripted and adjusts itself to your decisions and methods.

But there is a fucking difference you asshole I just pointed it out to you, its fucking there, in A you get the exp for beating the demon, in B you get the exp by walking to your fucking goal, i literally have no idea how to make you understand how fucking different it is for anyone but the most dense motherfucker.

Itemization is up to Sawyer and his ilk but it doesn't have anything to do with this debate. If you ask me Items should play a much bigger role and entirely replace XP, because that makes more sense. 1)You find ancient magical swords that destroyed whole dragons in a swing, that's what will make you stronger. 2)Not picking a fight when you're character is already a 40 year old jagged mercenary who somehow becomes 40 times stronger/smarter/faster in this specific adventure.

1) Not about the sword, its how you swing it that makes a difference. I go against an unarmed conan with a two hander, doesnt matter how good that shit is im gonna end up looking at the ceiling without a weapon in my hands.

2) Dont be such an ignorant cunt, ive explained how experience work, and you have no attribute growth in AD&D, You dont become physically better, you just learn how to use what youve got more efficiently, you dont become faster, you simply react sooner. and your physical attributes actually go down over time, and because you cant rely on your muscles so much you have to make up for it with thought, ergo you get smarter by necessity.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

So tell me, Curious_Tongue , how does it feel to have Hamburglar Hepler as your natural ally?
Because your desires are not just reconcilable, but perfectly compatible - she wants the game part neatly segregated out and skippable, so that cRPGs can be "played" by those who don't like games, while you just want story and in-universe sense to have no bearing on stuff that actually happens during gameplay (and your precious loopholes, don't forget about loopholes), so that cRPGs can be played by people who don't like role-playing.

You're talking about degenerate storyfags. Why are you lumping us in with them?

Because in the end, you both want the same thing. Games that the gameplay aspect and the narrative/roleplaying aspect are separate, so one can ignore the part that finds shity/boring. The only diference would be what part the individual player would skip.
That while someone could say "well. more options are good, games are entertaiment, why should i not be able to remove gameplay if i'm only interested in story? How does it affect you?" he misses the point.
What if someone wants a more holistic experience where the game's story and gameplay are of equal importance and depend on one another? You would be forced to both roleplay and engage in the gameplay yes, but both parts would be stronger for it.

So, it's like buying a soup mix with packets of seperate ingredients? I added nearly all of the packets of ingredients that select RPGs have given me in the past into boiling water, but I skipped (or just sprinkled) the packet of roleplaying?

Sawyer thinks it's a bad idea to allow customers to skip certain ingredients, so he measures all the ingredients he thinks are important into one packet in order to make sure every customer gets a dose of roleplaying?

Perhaps someone would like to ask me about why I don't like roleplaying before choo-chooing it into my mouth? Be prepared for people to spit that shit right back into your face.

 

[Rake]

Perhaps someone would like to ask me about why I don't like gameplay before choo-chooing it into my mouth? Be prepared for people to spit that shit right back into your face.

Now you know why DraQ put you in the same category with BSN fags

 

[DraQ]

Bullshit, all your arguments come down to "i want to roleplay a adventurer that grows in power without the need to fight". And that to me is shit, it goes against the very motivation to be an adventurer instead of a mercenary.

Mercenary still beats a murderous psycho.
At least he's got the motivation right.

And no, I just want to roleplay adventurer who doesn't feel obliged to fight everything he possibly can.
I want to roleplay one that can actually use his judgement in deciding how to tackle any given situation rather than knowing that anything not involving bashing heads is an inferior option.

I dont want to work for anyone, unless they fucking beg me. I dont want to need their quests, because i believe carrying a package from A to be should not be rewarded with xp to your combat class, but taking on a pack of lions should.

Then you're wanting to play wrong game.
I too can see where you're coming from, but I can also see where Obsidian is coming from. IE games never properly supported "independent" adventuring where you avoided quests and just derped around in the wilderness, neither will PoE. Even BG1 wilderness was at best MESOLARPS grade.
No XP based has ever properly supported this mode of play as well.

The thing is XP system can be both simple and just good enough to support quests as primary mode of interacting with the content.
Basically what Obsidian wants is a pistol, what you probably want is an ICBM. Pistol and ICBM are both weapons, but they have their own very different design priorities.
Obsidian's pistol may not be good ICBM but it's a good pistol - light, small, cheap and reliable.

Meanwhile kill XP system is some sort of nuclear pistol - it struggles to implement some features of ICBM, but all you get is a "pistol" that's not at all concealable - requiring secondary crew to just be carried around - and while it can't achieve critical mass to actually explode anything, it will still lethally irradiate its crew when shot at anything within its minuscule pistol range. It's completely useless as personal self defense weapon and as a strategic one.

If you want an ICBM whine to Bethesda to stop dumbing down their fucking games and hire someone to help them work out their use based systems so that you can derp in wilderness properly - PoE is not for you.
And stop breaking pistols.

To me an adventurer should grow stronger by tackling risky encounters, and the system should reward that.

The problem is how narrowly you define "tackling". Because charging in and administering headbashings isn't the only way to tackle something.
Besides, how do you know PoE won't reward that? Maybe before every XP checkpoint there will be a massive and challenging encounter, and any alternative ways of tackling it won't be mechanically limited to just having really high INT, WIS and CHA, or maxed out hide in shadows?

To you it should reward any approach equally to avoid conditioning a single solution to a problem, not only that, every action should have context within the game, if it doesnt it should not be rewarded in any way. I just hate both notions, i think they go against the spirit of traditional D&D and should be put down.

Then the spirit of traditional D&D needs to be put down. Approaches can be rewarded differently but using in-universe consequences, using XP for that reeks of impotently trying to shoehorn the player into the right path.
If there is only one right path then why the fuck waste resources implementing the wrong ones? Make everything fucking Diablo.

First, the rpg does not get to tell me what to think or what context do i give to my actions

Tough luck because its the game that provides the context. You just bring in the actions.

Second, i dont want to feel obligated to take on any quest, if i want to go on my own and stumble with adventure i should be able to, not only that, the game should encourage me to take that approach instead of giving me a list of chores that will make me stronger, BG did this superbly.

What, derping around repetitively sprited rectangle popping bears?

You shouldn't be obligated to take every quest, but in a game with wilderness as bare bones as BG1 you probably should take some, because the game just fails to support derping around unless you have an attention span of stoned goldfish.

I dont know what to say man, it appears im not going to convince you and as i said before, i know exactly where you and Zombra are coming from, i just believe its shitty and boring. They lack soul and are anti-fun.

Meanwhile popping bears in BG1 was oh so interdasting.

Why would one make more sense than the other? You're getting into the territory of faux freedoms for the player vs. actual linearity.

Yes, and since, unlike some here, I don't entertain any illusion that PoE will feature substantial and complex enough unstructured content to support freeform play, that's what they are - faux freedoms.

This means that PoE will essentially be story oriented, though less than for example PS:T, so some linearity is to be expected and acceptable.

Not my favourite kind of game as I prefer being given free reign over my actions, but I enjoyed PS:T, and can enjoy something BG2-esque or even BG1-esque if it's less fucking boring and sparse.
I also enjoyed Deus Ex, and Witcher which both used the captured shtick rather effectively. If the player is sufficiently constrained it can work.

You're thinking too hard. I'm not at all mixing anything. The idea is to try something new, not blow minds. I find the concept of fighters learning in the field vs. wizards learning at home to be very interesting. (...)

Last paragraph of my post you quoted.

the futility and pointlessness that tickles the back of your mind while you slog through any monster encounter that does not feel immediately important.

If it serves a purpose (even such as loot or progressing the quest) it's not pointless. If it is pointless, then it should feel pointless.

I don't see why cRPG players should be the special snowflakes getting their instant gratification if everyone else doesn't.

 

[crufty]

i get the no xp for combat thing

it's a style choice

RTwP on the other hand

 

[DraQ]

Sticking to a simple LG/CE alignment, should a good mage who wanders into a wood get XP for slaughtering wolves? The ancient DM in me says...yes...but...it would be much more devious to hand out 0 XP but shift the alignment down the CE axis. When alignment is in the negative, wandering out and slaughtering packs of wildlife...yeah, I can see XP for that.

The same LG mage kills a goblin--minor impact, small XP. Slays an ancient liche? major impact, great XP reward. Naturally you get to the alignment traps--the rare 'good' goblin is mowed down by a PC. Here, hand out XP as usual, and then when the PC finds out later--XP deduction, alignment hit. heheh.

Obviously this dovetails into "what is alignment/reptuation/fame/honor" etc and the difficulty of constructing a bug-free expert system to measure and award.

I have thought about somewhat similar system (where you'd only get positive XP for doing stuff matching your alignment), but since I really dislike alignment...

But I do agree that quest xp only does encourage the player to want to do things for people. I don't see it as a bad thing, but I can understand how some might.

I can agree that the main problem is rewarding all quests with XP because it leads to player wanting to do all things for all people - which quickly runs into exact same problem as kill XP did, except with quests.

That said, players should be kicked in the balls sometimes if they always go for combat regardless of the situation, just as much as if you behave like a sycophant to evade the smallest confrontation. Because that makes sense story wise and forces them to think things through and pay attention to what's happenin..

I cannot believe you said that

The more alternatives the player is presented with, the more he can get through with his intuition instead of following a canned progression, the closer you get to a proper roleplaying experience.

Would thrice.

Listen to me, combat without xp reward in this sort of games doesnt feel like combat, more like a tacked on minigame that is meaningless, and worthless, even if fun. It soon becomes a chore, because it doesnt help your progression, only hinders it. This thing takes away the meaning behind it, and its the main fucking activity in the game. Do you not see what is wrong with that?

You.

Shut. Up.

Well, i dont like being presented with alternatives, that in itself feels like canned progression, rather have the alternatives just be there and let me figure out they exist (sadly this is so fucking rare), thus i really dont give a fuck, as long as its an enjoyable ride. What is a proper roleplaying experience? because if you ask gygax youll probably end up dungeon delving and fighting the cast of star wars. If you ask the guys at whitewolf youll probably end up avenging your lovers death at the hand of the vampuletos. If you ask bioware they will put you at the start of a gay romance and they give you 3 options, you either use lube, you tease you wont, or you dont. If you ask beth they will tell you to go take a hike.

I? I'd ask the player.


Differentiated XP rewards make the question rhetorical.

You're talking about degenerate storyfags. Why are you lumping us in with them?

Because in the end, you both want the same thing. Games that the gameplay aspect and the narrative/roleplaying aspect are separate, so one can ignore the part that finds shity/boring. The only diference would be what part the individual player would skip.
That while someone could say "well. more options are good, games are entertaiment, why should i not be able to remove gameplay if i'm only interested in story? How does it affect you?" he misses the point.
What if someone wants a more holistic experience where the game's story and gameplay are of equal importance and depend on one another? You would be forced to both roleplay and engage in the gameplay yes, but both parts would be stronger for it.

So, it's like buying a soup mix with packets seperate ingredients? I added nearly all of the packets ingredients that select RPGs have given me in the past into boiling water, but I skipped (or just sprinkled) the packet of roleplaying?

Sawyer thinks it's a bad idea to allow customers to skip certain ingredients, so he measures all the ingredients he thinks are important into one packet in order to make sure every customer gets a dose of roleplaying?

Perhaps someone would like to ask me about why I don't like roleplaying before choo-chooing it into my mouth? Be prepared for people to spit that shit right back into your face.

Perhaps someone would like to ask me about why I don't like gameplay before choo-chooing it into my mouth? Be prepared for people to spit that shit right back into your face.

Now you know why DraQ put you in the same category with BSN fags

Basically this.

Overriding concern for both degenerate rollplayers and degenerate storyfags, is that gameplay and story(telling) be isolated from each other so that they remain separable.
So no John, you're the Hepler.

Meanwhile I want to see story and gameplay intertwined as tightly as possible. I want my gameplay decisions to affect the story and I want story and my understanding of it affect not just my gameplay decision but even situational judgement. Story should be gameplay and gameplay should be story. Coincidentally (not actually) it also means incentivizing behaviour that would be sensible in universe and disincentivizing one that isn't - AKA roleplaying and not roleplaying. If something would make no sense in the story it should have yield no benefit in mechanics.
If you don't want to Role-Play in your Games, then find yourself a different genre.

 

[Zombra]

I have thought about somewhat similar system (where you'd only get positive XP for doing stuff matching your alignment), but since I really dislike alignment...

lol. Flat XP progression and traditional alignments ... the game would be a sort of "Worst of D&D Showcase", eh? I'm sure the Codex would cream their jeans if you announced a title like this.

 

[Raghar]

Well when you think about it, the difference between hero and the rest is that killing stuff and eating theirs souls which nets XP.
Hero would improve in level, and when they train then in weapon and magic skills as well. Commoners would improve only in weapon skills, and when they manage to sneak somewhere that would teach them magic, then even in magic skills.

Also it's nice that they introduced the fact that only minority is alligned and thus have several restrictions. Commoners are unaligned, thus they can rob others, hopefully legally, without restrictions until they would be reprimanded for amoral behavior or caught because of violation of laws.

 

[Gregz]

In AD&D every monster in the Monster Manual has an XP value associated with it.

I once played a session (not a very good one), that started exactly like this:

"You are in a cave, 5 monster's are attacking you."

Then it was dice rolling from there.

Role-playing was 'discovered' in the late 70s-early 80s, but wargaming was a thing for decades before DnD.

 

[Raghar]

Role-playing was 'discovered' in the late 70s-early 80s, but wargaming was a thing for decades before DnD.

One evening, Mary sat by the fireplace, listening to her husband and Byron discuss the possibility of reanimating a corpse with electricity, giving it what they called "vital warmth."

The discussion finally ended well after midnight, and Shelley retired. But Mary, "transfixed in speculation," couldn't sleep.

Origin of RPG.

When people become more educated, for example in psychiatry, they added dices and calculations. Before it was diceless roleplaying. Or LARP with real monsters.

 

[Rake]

Meanwhile I want to see story and gameplay intertwined as tightly as possible. I want my gameplay decisions to affect the story and I want story and my understanding of it affect not just my gameplay decision but even situational judgement. Story should be gameplay and gameplay should be story. Coincidentally (not actually) it also means incentivizing behaviour that would be sensible in universe and disincentivizing one that isn't - AKA roleplaying and not roleplaying. If something would make no sense in the story it should have yield no benefit in mechanics.
If you don't want to Role-Play in your Games, then find yourself a different genre.

 

[Bubbles]

If something would make no sense in the story it should have yield no benefit in mechanics.

Since most RPGs have a main story that is defined by urgency either throughout or at certain points, would you want xp rewards removed from side quests that are done while the game is at an urgent stage (for instance when you're at the typical "the World Eater is about to devour us all! Enter the portal into its lair once you're ready" final stage)?

If one of your side quests is at an urgent stage and you decide to proceed with the main quest instead before coming back, should that part of the main quest give no xp rewards?

 

[Rake]

If something would make no sense in the story it should have yield no benefit in mechanics.

Since most RPGs have a main story that is defined by urgency either throughout or at certain points, would you want xp rewards removed from side quests that are done while the game is at an urgent stage (for instance when you're at the typical "the World Eater is about to devour us all! Enter the portal into its lair once you're ready" final stage)?

If one of your side quests is at an urgent stage and you decide to proceed with the main quest instead before coming back, should that part of the main quest give no xp rewards?

The bolded part is easy. If a side quest is at an urgent state and you ignore it to procced with the main quest, the side quest should fail, as the whole situation would sort itself without you, and you won't get xp for it. When you decide to turn up, there should be only corpses.

 

[Delterius]

Agreeing with DraQ is so comfortable. Imagine having to reply to those giant posts again.

 

[Bubbles]

The bolded part is easy. If a side quest is at an urgent state and you ignore it to procced with the main quest, the side quest should fail, as the whole situation would sort itself without you, and you won't get xp for it. When you decide to turn up, there should be only corpses.

It's not that easy if you consider that every "urgent" quest needs at least one extra completion stage and the whole quest system needs to be designed transparently enough to signify which quests are urgent (because almost any kind of quest could have a timer on it) and roughly how urgent they are.

RPG quest design has been moving away from straight-up quest timers for a long time now, even though they are more realistic and more conducive to role-playing, because they just complicate production while making things less fun for most players. A lot of "sensible" role-playing additions are like that.

 

[sser]

Yes, and since, unlike some here, I don't entertain any illusion that PoE will feature substantial and complex enough unstructured content to support freeform play, that's what they are - faux freedoms.

This means that PoE will essentially be story oriented, though less than for example PS:T, so some linearity is to be expected and acceptable.

Not my favourite kind of game as I prefer being given free reign over my actions, but I enjoyed PS:T, and can enjoy something BG2-esque or even BG1-esque if it's less fucking boring and sparse.
I also enjoyed Deus Ex, and Witcher which both used the captured shtick rather effectively. If the player is sufficiently constrained it can work.

I don't disagree with that and yet I still think it's a bad choice. Side-quests become the grind; running past combat scenarios is the norm. I for one doubt that PoE can have every single combat encounter be super important. The end result is people just bailing on them completely. This is flat out bad design when players, given the choice, will intentionally skip the content you've made. Do you guys have your blinders on? This is bad. Not only is that bad, it gets worse. Players have incentive to skip non-quest related combat. You're giving players reason to not play the combat in your combat-heavy RPG. Look, I'm no professional game designer, but I've played games long enough to know that interplay between player and game design is reallllly baaaaaaaad.

If it serves a purpose (even such as loot or progressing the quest) it's not pointless. If it is pointless, then it should feel pointless.

I don't see why cRPG players should be the special snowflakes getting their instant gratification if everyone else doesn't.

I don't see what that last sentence has to do with anything. We're not pitting gaming demographics against one another, we're trying to find designs that are fun.

Imagine you have a forest with a road through it.

You got a quest to complete at another town - you just gotta take that road to get there.

With combat XP - holy shit, let's go explore the forest and see what monsters lay beyond the trees.

Without combat XP - lol fuck that, stick to the road, turn this quest in.

There are serious design flaws here and they can't be ignored unless PoE is as pigeonholed as you think it could be. But if PoE is literally a connect-the-narrative-dots game, then that's a design issue in and of itself. Either you like it or you don't. To me, it feels like a design choice that puts writing (quests) above the gameplay (combat) instead of mixing the two which, to me, is the blatantly obvious better game design choice. The idea being that the player will be so engrossed they won't care if half the shit they do might literally be meaningless/pointless. Seems like hubris to me as I can count the number of well-written "serious" games on one hand.

I just can't see how people don't realize how the system is completely antithetical to a party-based RPG about combat, adventure, and exploration. I really can't see how a system that uses both approaches to XP would ever be inferior. You give the player more choices, you give incentive to actual gameplay (gasp, what a concept), and you don't have to argue about how much 'sense' it makes for the narrative. You can still roleplay. You don't ever have the player gaming the system, i.e., avoiding your gameplay, which, IMO, is the complete fucking opposite of an attempt to get people to "role play", but hey, that's just me.

If something would make no sense in the story it should have yield no benefit in mechanics.

Since most RPGs have a main story that is defined by urgency either throughout or at certain points, would you want xp rewards removed from side quests that are done while the game is at an urgent stage (for instance when you're at the typical "the World Eater is about to devour us all! Enter the portal into its lair once you're ready" final stage)?

If one of your side quests is at an urgent stage and you decide to proceed with the main quest instead before coming back, should that part of the main quest give no xp rewards?

The bolded part is easy. If a side quest is at an urgent state and you ignore it to procced with the main quest, the side quest should fail, as the whole situation would sort itself without you, and you won't get xp for it. When you decide to turn up, there should be only corpses.

Quest-only XP suggests that you could complete 99% of the quest, not turn in it, and thus not "learn" anything from it.

How about that for roleplaying or "making narrative sense" ?

 

[crufty]

I have thought about somewhat similar system (where you'd only get positive XP for doing stuff matching your alignment), but since I really dislike alignment...

Yes I agree whole heartedly. I find the Gygax style of alignment lacking--it is good for PnP but distressingly poor for the limitations encountered--and removed--inside the deterministic computational realm.

The Laws of Stupidity plot behavior on an x axis ( internal / self ) and y (external / others); the positive helps, the negative hurts. The x/y axis split behavior into four quadrants: Intelligent ++ (help others, help themselves in the upper right), Bandits +-, Helpless -+, Stupid-- (hurt others, hurt themselves in the lower left) . People, on average, tend to one of those four quadrants more then others. So when I say alignment based awards, I really mean rewarding actions that contribute to the net increase in the players current quadrant...because I agree, what is LG/LE/LN/N/CN/CE/CG really???

There are other axis of behavior with which to measure alignment; it is not an impossible task to matrix (finite) game action into these various axis. At an abstract level, what we're really saying is awarding XP for objectives, and not for actions. Hmm. I am retracting some of my earlier add1e macho xp statements...

Meanwhile I want to see story and gameplay intertwined as tightly as possible. I want my gameplay decisions to affect the story and I want story and my understanding of it affect not just my gameplay decision but even situational judgement. Story should be gameplay and gameplay should be story. Coincidentally (not actually) it also means incentivizing behaviour that would be sensible in universe and disincentivizing one that isn't - AKA roleplaying and not roleplaying. If something would make no sense in the story it should have yield no benefit in mechanics.
If you don't want to Role-Play in your Games, then find yourself a different genre.

I agree. Ultimately, combat for XP is an easy way to balance a game. If you have 10 orcs in a room, you can assign 5 XP per Orc, and award 5XP/Party_Size to each PC as they are whittled down...if they are a random encounter. However, in terms of a deliberate encounter challenge as part of a planned adventure, that XP might be better awarded at the end of the quest. In story agnostic terms, the orcs are a challenge and it doesn't matter how the orcs are overcome, as long as they are--gameplay as story as gameplay. In story specific terms, killing the orcs might not be the best fit--what if the Orcs have information, are held against their will, or otherwise could help a PC?

 

[Bubbles]

If you have 10 orcs in a room, you can assign 5 XP per Orc, and award 5XP/Party_Size to each PC as they are whittled down...if they are a random encounter. However, in terms of a deliberate encounter challenge as part of a planned adventure, that XP might be better awarded at the end of the quest. In story agnostic terms, the orcs are a challenge and it doesn't matter how the orcs are overcome, as long as they are--gameplay as story as gameplay. In story specific terms, killing the orcs might not be the best fit--what if the Orcs have information, are held against their will, or otherwise could help a PC?

You seem to have an idealistic view of encounter design compared to what's currently featured in RPGs. In the PoE backer beta, there were plenty of enemies in tight corridors who couldn't be snuck past, and most of the spiders and beetles were unswayed by my high charisma score. Is there any RPG that comes even remotely close to those design standards? AoD comes to mind, but that does give kill xp.