The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Lhynn]

Tired of this, quitting the thread, well past the point of caring.

 

[Jaesun]

Welcome to the codex Lhynn

Just wondering, can you define what a RPG is?

 

[Lhynn]

Welcome to the codex Lhynn
Just wondering, can you define what a RPG is?

Thanks jaesun
Ill give it a try:
Any game where character development is THE core gameplay mechanic.

 

[Jaesun]

tisk tisk... it is when you play a ROLE!

 

[Curious_Tongue]

In Halo, you play the role of Master Chief.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Welcome to the codex Lhynn
Just wondering, can you define what a RPG is?

Thanks jaesun
Ill give it a try:
Any game where character development is THE core gameplay mechanic.

It used to be whatever game Jaesun wanted in General RPG Discussion.

Edit: Wait, what was the forum for REAL RPGs again?

 

[Jaesun]

Are you seriously that butthurt?

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Not really.

 

[DeepOcean]

I see no reason for a XP for kill system, at best, a xp for kill system would achieve the exact same result of a xp per quest just being more problematic to balance and implent. You enter a quest zone with getting the quest or not (at least, block the zone while the player don't get the quest.) , you go there and kill 10 beetles and gain 50 xp per kill/avoidance of kill and you gain 500 xp at the end of the quest. The xp per kill method is a more clumsy and problematic way of getting the exact same result. Unless you can't live without being rewarded with numbers each five seconds, there is nothing gained by implementing it.

I think part of the problem of this xp per kill debate on PoE is the non quest related trash mobs. Many people don't see any reason to go on a combat encounter that is tactically simplistic, has no context and is repetitive and gain absolutely nothing out of it. Those beetles that take forever to kill and don't require much more of auto attack to kill can make anyone desiring a xp per kill system even if the lack of it isn't the root of the problem. Anyway, if PoE gonna be full of non quest related trash mobs like that, if you don't do xp for kill, you bore people but if you do, you frustrate muchkins that are going to feel the need of killing every single beetle for their experience and force stealth and diplomacy focused players on useless, grindy fights that they don't want for their build if they want to get that experience from the trash mobs.

 

[FeelTheRads]

If you want to engage with combat, you do. If you don't, you don't. If you don't want to engage in combat, but you do because of XP, THAT is bad design.

tl;dr version of most of what needed to be said in this thread.

What kind of design is it if you don't want to solve a quest but do you because of XP?

Combat bad, quest good?
Quest game, combat not game?
Hurr? Durr?

 

[imweasel]

If you want to engage in combat for XP, then that is bad design

If you want to do side quests for XP, then that is good design

If you want to do a side quest for XP, where the objective is to engage in combat, then that is good design



I've had enough of this thread.

 

[Jagged Appliance]

I think the moral of the story is, make a good game and no one will give a fuck when they get XP because they'll be having fun.

 

[DraQ]

Uncovering the fog of war has always been the IE games' true "grinding activity".

That's spot on and I never liked that. Still, making fog of war less of a function of range and more of a function of line of sight (because out in the open you can see pretty fucking far) would clear this issue.

It really is like that cliche about climbing mountains - "because it's there".

"...and may house phat lewt."

So, tell me, what would these players, that you know so well, do if there was no fog of war?

Play the actual game.

I really think so and also don't think so. True, you go there because it's there, but also true you go there because it may in turn help you be a better party. The very idea of knowing you won't really get anything is going to be in the back of the player's head

Why won't you get anything?
You may get loot, you may get information (that may also lead to extra solutions in quests), you may find an interesting location with its own quests or goals yielding XP and other rewards.

What you wont find is XP in the form of wolves and bears to pop.

First, XP as XP is single variable stat that governs everything. It is basically pot in which you put all your character quests and his deeds. 500XP for killing monster = 500XP for repairing well. As you get level, XP becomes currency in visible or not visible way. Then there is progression part.Why someone who kills people is now gaining repair skill ? Or someone who kills people with wrench is gaining heavy weapons skill. XP as one pot throws any realism out of window.

And that's why I consider criticism of goal only XP from realism grounds surreal - any XP system is already hopelessly abstract anyway.

It's like watching Monty Pythons Holy Grail and getting butthurt all of the sudden because the police scene at the end made no sense.

Still it is a problem which not only creates problem on basic level (like choosing how much XP is worth this or that) but also creates situation in which player instead of focusing on events or choices he make, he fallows XP. Thus after rescuing Orc lord from raping elves people kill Orc lord for additional XP. Or i choose A route because A route means more XP for me.

Which is the problem removal of solution or branch specific XP does away with completely.

No XP for monster kill means designer don't need to create geometric progression ! Geometric progression design for player XP table is design AGAINST GRINDING and powergaming due to grinding effect of killing for XP. No XP for killing = no grinding = this design doesn't need to be implemented.

Actually, you might still need geometric progression if the XPs are doled out not just on critical path, but also for some optional goals and random content (like my surviving an ambush example).

As you see XP in itself as unified currency is flawed. It creates disproportion of how you grow your character with his actions. The better designer is the less effect of it you see. But problem exists.

Creating instead of XP a multicurrency that will be given depending on your actions and it fits bloody well with what i said in chapter 3. Solve quest by talking ? Get personality point. Solved it by killing ? Get warrior point. Generality of this system could be as deep as you want down to every skill. Like for example repairing well = repair point. By deepening this system you can even skip it being currency and just add those points into actual skills. If you use broad points like fighter point you can use it as currency to spend on skills that are chosen to be warrior skills. Point is that this system gives answers for your actions.

So it's basically a hybrid of use-based and goal only XP.
But how would it handle more complex quests or attempted degenerate play?
It seems that with required tracking and decision capability it loses the main advantage of goal only XP which is simplicity, while still not being quite the use based in terms of versatility and power.

Apart from party issues there is also issue of tangled quests - what if there is more than one quest going at once?

The system looks interesting, but so far I don't see it being practically implementable.

Do you know how many people play this sort of game by "exploring the entire level and blackjacking every guard"? Yes, they could easily ghost through, make a beeline for the objectives and finish the mission. But they don't. They explore, and they take 'em all down. Why? Because they're there, and the level is there, and why suffer a hostile to exist when you can take him down?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/why-stealth-sucks-and-how-to-make-it-stop.93658/

also i would reload if i find an encounter, waste of my time (unless it has long loading times, then i guess ill fight)

So basically you'd avoid gameplay unless it gave you abstract numerical reward.

To me, quest-only-XP is just putting nice little bumpers up to guide the story linearly.

Let's play a little game.

What if there were no XP at all (like in other genres)? You build your already competent character of chosen class by distributing stats and so on, gather NPCs you like or feel will complement your party the best while playing and that's it - the only upgrades will be finding loot and possibly learning new spells or techniques from in-game sources (like spell tomes or NPCs).

What bumpers would this put up?

it's blatantly dumb to kill a bunch of shit and learn nothing

It's blatantly dumb to kill a bunch of shit full stop unless you have an actual reason.

You can powergame through BG or you can build a shitass POS and still make it through.

I thought Codex wanted its games less piss easy?

No. You usually need to be jack of all trades to "complete" a game. You have to use combat XP to build yourself up.

So basically what you say is that good mechanics (character building) is one that trivializes itself with overabundant resources (XP).

Are you retarded?

I think this grognard's dilemma owes less to combat XP and more to the industry-wide tendency of designing games in which combat exists as an inherently rewarding, non-threatening endeavor for the player to anticipate, rather than a chaotic, potentially disastrous situation for the player to fear.

True, but it's hard to accomplish the latter without doing something with save system.

Yes, avoiding some quests means you're not playing the game right.

So tell me, what bullshit answer do you have to: why is it good gameplay to actively search for quests but not to search for fights?

Or maybe there shouldn't be quests that you need to find and instead they should all be handed to you as you stride along the path set up by the developers? After you all you balance-fags love your fake choices.

ITZ like this thing DraQ was posting about.

(Seriously, just read what I have posted in this thread, it's all been addressed. )

Giving small amounts of XP for combat will not make these large problems IMO.

But why make them problems at all if they can be eliminated?

If you want to make the reward structure less linear and more organic, you can always sprinkle some (reasonably universal) goals around - obscure out of way location(s) that let you learn about the nature of the conflict built into the MQ, or obtain any other generally useful stuff or information, forced goals like getting ambushed or infected with deadly disease and so on.

Any goal, not just the MQ, should give XPs provided you can attach it to a really effective questhook.

This might sound bad to some of you but think of it like this: Ion Storm designed Deus Ex with exploration as one of the core concepts. They encourage you to explore using XP and loot.

Loot is a pretty natural reward for exploration and I think DX would have been better without exploration XP.

When you design your game you don't want your players to witness invisible or visible walls that box your gameworld in too often, so you shouldn't really reach for extraneous exploration incentives.

The psychotic serial killer problem is certainly a problem as combat XP in this case conflicts with another core element of the game, role-playing. Removing combat XP does not in fact remove this conflict because you can still get loot from killing quest-givers

No, but it brings the problem in-line to what could be expected in universe and allows it to be counterbalanced with in-universe methods.

Ideally we would like to solve both these problems and one way would be to tie the death of quest-givers strongly into the already present faction and reputation mechanics. Give the player in-game consequences for killing innocent people.

For example. And make those consequences impossible to get rid of entirely.

Not incentivising core gameplay is a much more serious problem IMO.

The incentive laying beyond core gameplay and forcing you to go through it, is still an incentive.
That's the whole point behind goal-only XP.

 

[DraQ]

If you want to engage with combat, you do. If you don't, you don't. If you don't want to engage in combat, but you do because of XP, THAT is bad design.

tl;dr version of most of what needed to be said in this thread.

What kind of design is it if you don't want to solve a quest but do you because of XP?

Combat bad, quest good?
Quest game, combat not game?
Hurr? Durr?

If you're really that interested in it, why don't you read some answers?

They have been posted many times in this thread, shouldn't be too hard to find.

If you want to engage in combat for XP, then that is bad design

If you want to do side quests for XP, then that is good design

If you want to do a side quest for XP, where the objective is to engage in combat, then that is good design

Shame about your illiteracy, else you could read the answer to your problem.

 

[imweasel]

If you want to engage in combat for XP, then that is bad design

If you want to do side quests for XP, then that is good design

If you want to do a side quest for XP, where the objective is to engage in combat, then that is good design

Shame about your illiteracy, else you could read the answer to your problem.

Now you're flinging shit at me like a 7th grader. You're going to have to better than that, DraQ.

 

[Raghar]

If you want to engage in combat for XP, then that is bad design

If you want to do side quests for XP, then that is good design

If you want to do a side quest for XP, where the objective is to engage in combat, then that is good design

Shame about your illiteracy, else you could read the answer to your problem.

Now you're flinging shit at me like a 7th grader. You're going to have to better than that, DraQ.

Everytime he do that on me I use this image:

It might be cruel, but what would you do otherwise?

 

[DraQ]

Now you're flinging shit at me like a 7th grader.

You reap what you sow.

 

[Lhynn]

Now you're flinging shit at me like a 7th grader.

You reap what you sow.

Ive yet to read a compelling reason to use quest xp over action xp in this kind of game. Everything you have posted in this thread can be classified as wrong or a non factor in improving the experience of playing it.

Whats fucked up is that you actually think you are keeping up bro.

 

[sser]

Let's play a little game.

What if there were no XP at all (like in other genres)? You build your already competent character of chosen class by distributing stats and so on, gather NPCs you like or feel will complement your party the best while playing and that's it - the only upgrades will be finding loot and possibly learning new spells or techniques from in-game sources (like spell tomes or NPCs).

What bumpers would this put up?

Like other genres? No, that would be another genre. I don't fall for diluting of this caliber. It's not poignant or thoughtful and certainly not particularly relevant.

It's blatantly dumb to kill a bunch of shit full stop unless you have an actual reason.

How is this even a response? Fantasy games tend to be filled with shit that carve out their little territories and attack anything that comes close. What does it matter if you have full-fledged narrative reasoning or not? Jesus Christ. We're talking game mechanics, not masturbating over the woeful wolves who you must strike down, for they cannot help their natural impulses to eat wandering adventurers! Slay down thee animals, but feel the pang of remorse, for they know not what they do, and yet your blade swipes with the governance of reason and rationality. Such barbarity, such civilization, which is which amongst the blood? Or just fucking kill a bunch of wolves because you wanted to see what poor sod they dragged into their den and, it appears, your 16 Charisma won't be talking your way in.

Re: Goblins. Re: Giants. Re: Dragons. Re: Orcs.

etc.

I thought Codex wanted its games less piss easy?

Have you completely forgotten that we are discussing party-based games..............???

 

[Raghar]

Now you're flinging shit at me like a 7th grader.

You reap what you sow.

A sentence from explanation of stuff to small children:
Just because HE acted as 7th grader, doesn't mean it gave right to YOU to act as 7th grader.

 

[Volourn]

No, you.

 

[DraQ]

Now you're flinging shit at me like a 7th grader.

You reap what you sow.

A sentence from explanation of stuff to small children:
Just because HE acted as 7th grader, doesn't mean it gave right to YOU to act as 7th grader.

I have the right to act however the fuck I want to.
If you find it hurtful, you can go somewhere where vacuous pleasantries are enforced with banhammer.

And since the whole exchange more or less looked like this:

imweasel: ololol grindan quests instead of monsters!!1
DraQ: *propose simple solution*
imweasel: ololol grindan quests instead of monsters!!1
DraQ: *repeat simple solution*
imweasel: ololol grindan quests instead of monsters!!1
DraQ: *rephrase simple solution*
imweasel: ololol grindan quests instead of monsters also not reading ur posts lol!!!1

I have no reason to show the little furry bugger any respect because he's earned none, and it's pretty clear he is NOT interested in any discussion.

Like other genres? No, that would be another genre.

What genre would it be?
Mind you, it would still have chargen, possibly a deep stat system and ability to build your character.
For that matter what genre is BG between its, fairly rare level ups?

I don't fall for diluting of this caliber. It's not poignant or thoughtful and certainly not particularly relevant.

How is it not relevant? I just want to see what makes you tick - if you see taking away one kind of abstract reward as curtailing your in-game freedom what would you do if all the abstract rewards were taken away, which is pretty much the norm if many other genres (at least prior to achievements and shit).

How is this even a response? Fantasy games tend to be filled with shit that carve out their little territories and attack anything that comes close. What does it matter if you have full-fledged narrative reasoning or not?

Where have I mentioned narrative reasoning?

I simply stated killing shit for absolutely no reason is dumb. Shit being aggressive and in the way is a good enough reason, so is shit having phat lewt. Shit being aggressive and in remote corner of the map, however, generally isn't so any system that incentivizes going out of your way to get bitten in the dick by a wolf before you can skewer it is just plain fucking dumb and broken.

Have you completely forgotten that we are discussing party-based games..............???

So? If game is built around completion with highly suboptimal build, then with optimal build and playstyle you will steamroll it.

 

[Perkel]

And that's why I consider criticism of goal only XP from realism grounds surreal - any XP system is already hopelessly abstract anyway.
It's like watching Monty Pythons Holy Grail and getting butthurt all of the sudden because the police scene at the end made no sense.

Realism in sense that character actions can be completely different to character developement. Not realism in sense "XP is already bullshit concept"

Which is the problem removal of solution or branch specific XP does away with completely.

Actually, you might still need geometric progression if the XPs are doled out not just on critical path, but also for some optional goals and random content (like my surviving an ambush example).

This is where other part of RPG design comes to play. If game is for example open world then there is no problem. Different parts of crit path have their own hardiness and player can do as much sidequests as he want. Power in therms of crit path should be secondary or should fallow its own rules (like player playing only main quest should be able to finish it).

If game is linear or partially linear then you have plethora of design choices you can make. Like for example designing area and then setting up what will be average "XP" for final part of that area. If you can't grind then you can specifically choose how much player is able to do with that area and you know perfectly what his max level/power will be if he do literally everything.

Then there is gameplay itself. If you choose flat system instead of bloated one then difference between strongest and weakest is not that great (but gives you an edge) couple that with tactical combat. Or set up finalization of area that in some case you can skip entirely fights, use other people etc which should be fun for talkative people.

So it's basically a hybrid of use-based and goal only XP.
But how would it handle more complex quests or attempted degenerate play?
It seems that with required tracking and decision capability it loses the main advantage of goal only XP which is simplicity, while still not being quite the use based in terms of versatility and power.
Apart from party issues there is also issue of tangled quests - what if there is more than one quest going at once?
The system looks interesting, but so far I don't see it being practically implementable.

Hmm. I am not sure if it could be described this way. I think something more like goal/system where your main progression comes from goals where you can also "earn" mentioned points be doing various feats more connected to actually doing activities rather than having storyline/quest to fallow. It should be TES style use 1000 times for +1 skill.

Example: Mentioned few times repair well in fallout. This would be great occasion to earn that talent point. "After several hours of intensive thinking and hard work you managed to repair well"

As of quests. I don't see problem here. Quests have their own rewards so if you have even 5 of them at the same time it doesn't matter because there will be 5 rewards. If you meant what i said about for example dude who is warrior and has nothing to do because party is all talk and his job is more like bodyguard than a warrior then i already said there are several possibilities to still make him viable (mentioned arena etc)
I agree that it is more complicated that XP pot system but not that much.

As of practicality there are two different camps now for this system.

From videogame design system i think it would be great as i mentioned it gives designer much more room to breathe and he can be much more creative in content creation (like designing content for different archetypes of characters).

From PnP perspective it definetely makes it more complicated as content creation is THE problem of PnP. Running separate tasks for differnt characters also doesn't jive well with someone being GM and especially in multipeople game. Same with almost any other activity that doesn't require rest of group but at the same time it does require GM activity, thus requiring rest of people waiting.

There is also i think big problem with classes. With such design hardcoded classes would be hard to implement. Softclasses would be prefferable and ultimately no classes would be best situation.


edit: Furthermore on quest/achievement. Combining for example story related situation or even backgrounds. For example in one quests you lost your kin due to that you decided to hunt down leaders of gnoll army for personal revenge. Each time you kill leader you get some reward as talent but at the same time it is not quest in your face telling you kill that dude here and there. Or for example paladin could "get favor of gods trait/ability/talent/skill point each time he menage to find demon in village with investigation.rumors etc.

 

[sser]

What genre would it be?
Mind you, it would still have chargen, possibly a deep stat system and ability to build your character.
For that matter what genre is BG between its, fairly rare level ups?

Depends on the gameplay, does it not?

What genre is BG between level ups? I dunno, does Ninja Gaiden stop being an action game while I shop for weapons upgrades? Typically, my memory is good enough to not lose track of the kind of game I'm playing while playing it. Usually I don't suffer metaphysical nor existential crises about the genre I'm playing, either. If you'd like to understand, I imagine that when I traded my brother's friend BGII for BG way back in the day and loaded it up and made my character and partied on, I thought it was an RPG. When I did quests I thought it was an RPG. When I killed shit I thought it was an RPG, because I was killing things with the RPG mechanics I had laid the foundations for within the first five minutes of playtime, and I do not have a forgetful memory. When I got further into the game I wished it had BGII's interesting locales combined with BG's low-level gameplay, because overly large terran landscapes were not that interesting after awhile.

How is it not relevant? I just want to see what makes you tick - if you see taking away one kind of abstract reward as curtailing your in-game freedom what would you do if all the abstract rewards were taken away, which is pretty much the norm if many other genres (at least prior to achievements and shit).

Every game has a reward system.

Where have I mentioned narrative reasoning?

I simply stated killing shit for absolutely no reason is dumb. Shit being aggressive and in the way is a good enough reason, so is shit having phat lewt. Shit being aggressive and in remote corner of the map, however, generally isn't so any system that incentivizes going out of your way to get bitten in the dick by a wolf before you can skewer it is just plain fucking dumb and broken.

I don't think you even know what you are talking about. What difference does it make where the enemy is if player interest is still keen on seeing it? Your rationality for anger does not preempt the event, dude. You're not like sitting at home-base, looking at the corner of the map, and thinking: alright, if I get there and it's a witch's house with riddles, that's awesome, but I swear to fuck, if it's just a bunch of wolves that auto-attack me then this shit is fucking dumb and broken!!

So? If game is built around completion with highly suboptimal build, then with optimal build and playstyle you will steamroll it.

Yes. And?

Party-based games give the players a lot of ways to complete the game. One of those ways is powergaming. Because some people have fun being "degenerate" min-maxers. The people who want to roleplay a loser bard with a spear that gets carried by his ubermensch teammates can have fun too. I know, because I've played both ways. And I like that BGII, for all its faults, gives me a fuckload of options in how to play it.

 

[Raghar]

I actually wonder if finishing quests should net XP at all. They can reward with money, renomee, infamy, but not XP.