The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Lhynn]

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

Yeah, raised this point a while back, DraQ insists on treating exp like candy and that the game needs to force the player to accept everything it throws at it. He also says that you cannot learn if you lack a motivation, and that this one must provided to you by an external factor.
These opinions are just some of his greatest hits, his answers are one head scratcher after another.

 

[imweasel]

I have no reason to show the little furry bugger any respect because he's earned none

Spoiler

goatse.jpg

 

[Bubbles]

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

Yes, xp should be main quest exclusive to avoid incentivising any particular playstyle as much as possible.

 

[Volourn]

No. XP should be using your skills to overcome challenges. FUCK QUESTS.

 

[Mystary!]

FUCK QUESTS.

For those you get sex cards.

 

[crufty]

My personal opinion:

----------------------------------------
Chapter 1: What is XP ?
----------------------------------------

XP. What is XP exactly ? It is system in which player is rewarded with "experience" to give player sense of progress

----------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 2: Problems of XP design
----------------------------------------------------------

• 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.

• Secondly gaining XP is entirely based on what designer think is worth XP.

---------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 4: Answer for a problem
---------------------------------------------------------

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.

nice post dude, i had to save it for later when i had time to digest it.

I like it -- it's how the elder scrolls of the world work, skill based progression, w/locl skill advancements contributing to global level ups

What you have proposed is multiple axis of XP. Not just an X, but an X,Y maybe even Z, etc.
But.. how does one advance/level up?

riffing on it, I do like the idea of splitting XP into class and non-class XP. A fighter who fights SHOULD get XP, right? But a non-fighter should NOT, or maybe they get non class XP. And fixing the well, maybe that's XP a cleric (of appropriate alignment) could earn class XP for, but a fighter not so much.

So in the Hobbit (movie), the dwarves get class XP for fighting the goblins. Gandalf when he cuts the head off the king goblin, does not get class XP. But maybe they have this other pool of XP.

But still the question remains, how do they level up.


I suppose in a class based system, one could have levels of the primary class, and then secondary levels of personal interest. So Level 5 fighter, Level 2 person. Level 5 fighter gets perks A,B,C, Level 2 person can allocate skill % to non-class skills.

Interesting, very interesting...

 

[DraQ]

Not really..stupidity is not associated with any attribute--not intelligence (IQ) nor wisdom!

Wisdom and stupidity are pretty much antonyms.

a stupid person can be smart

wat

Stupidity and intelligence are measurable by HOW a player role plays his/her PCs.

That's actually a valid criticism against having things like intelligence and wisdom included in stat system.

A stupid PC is one that hurts themselves, and those around them--think Leroy Jenkins.

We have a word for this. It's called "dead".

A big part of the issues has to due with what is known as the imperative nature of the programming languages developers HAVE to use. An imperative programming languages forces people to write logic in terms of how--discrete steps. RPGs however are implicitly declarative. An Orc is an Orc--there is no HOW to define. Programmers, designers, what have you, they aren't allowed to simply decide "This is an ORC"..they have to DEFINE "ORC" in all sorts of myriad ways.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say.

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

Odd, I think RPG is a game where character definition (AKA 'Role') rather than development is A core gameplay mechanics (seriously, if it was 'the' there would be no RPGs, because in any of them you spend far more time engaging with other systems).

Nowadays you even have development in cowaduty clones, but character definition tends to be limited even in supposed RPGs.

What was more important in, say, Fallout - that you could make a diplomatic character that would play completely differently than a retarded spearchucker or that you could go up levels?
The answer to this question is basically what distinguishes from .

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

But XP is already maybe not as much "bullshit" as abstract concept.

If you choose flat system instead of bloated one then difference between strongest and weakest is not that great

Actually, I wouldn't agree. While removing power creep is obviously a worthy design goal, I don't see how it follows from flat level XP requirements. You can have the same limited power disparity between levels whether the XP thresholds are flat or exponential.

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.

I meant tracking the skills used to progress given quest. It's simple when the quest is a single stat check (like with water wheel example), but not if the quest is expansive thing stretched across multiple areas, with potential combat encounters and what not. Not only would it require collecting and keeping tagged (with relevant quest context) skill usage data up until goal based reward, but also tagging the context (not only mobs, NPCs and interactive hotspots, but whole areas as well) itself, explicitly and exhaustively with related quests.
Beyond that it would likely require anti-grind measures as complex and difficult to implement as those of conventional use-based, and also logic capable of handling stuff like overlapping quests or attempted degenerate behaviour.

In short you'd end up with system far more complicated and likely way buggier than either goal only XP (where the advancement system itself is kept as simplistic as it gets, and while this means the contents bear all the load of player advancements via explicitly scripted XP triggers, it still isn't much overhead relative to the quest design in general and it stays simple and easily testable as whole), and use based (where all the load of player advancement is borne by complex low level system with - hopefully - a whole slew of anti-grind measures, but which can at least be kept oblivious of the overarching content context - translating to 0 quest design overhead - and which doesn't need to keep and process any special data, because an action is immediately translated to appropriate skill gain).

If you wanted to reap benefits of both (which is in itself questionable as they start with different assumptions and level of abstraction in mind), then maybe dual system would be better - you'd have use based controlling all the specific skill and stat-wise progression, but also goal based XP (implemented as separate "skill") determining how your character handles all sorts of situations (through general success and morale modifiers, as well as save modifiers for save or get fucked attacks and spells).

And yes, you can also have a pretty much use based system, except with individual characters (based on their class) rather than individual skills getting XP based on the nature of action taken, which I believe was your (other?) proposition as well ( I believe crufty interpreted it this way? ).

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.

That could be implemented as quests triggered on chargen or quests gated with class/race/trait.

Depends on the gameplay, does it not?

So what genre would be a game that played just like, say, BG, but without those infrequent level ups?

You build a character, then move around, gather party (before venturing forth) fight using RPG mechanics, do quests, etc.

Every game has a reward system.

Few have a totally abstract one, though. Even fewer tie this abstract system back to the gameplay.

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!!

The difference is that scouting ahead with a stealthy char (or just observing the aggressive shit from afar if the game doesn't have retarded 10m sight range of BG), and saying "ok, nothing to see here, moving along" is no longer disadvantageous.

Moreso, it's advantageous because exposing your dick to wolfbites is no longer rewarding in itself, instead player is rewarded for smarter playstyle involving stuff like scouting around and generally using the party's potential more extensively.

Yes. And?

And it means it's going to be devoid of challenge if played seriously by a semi-competent player.

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.

Nuclear LARP detected.

Personally I prefer options involving more than just weak VS stronk.

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

Sure, but then you have no reason for an XP based system at all. It's an abstraction, it falls apart when examined too closely.

Yeah, raised this point a while back, DraQ insists on treating exp like candy

What can I say, I'm a realist.

Spoiler

goatse.jpg

 

[DeepOcean]

Let's see if I understand...

People that want xp per kill don't feel rewarded enough for combat.
So the solution is to introduce a xp per kill to guarantee that hunting every single boring wolf and beetle in the game is something that can't be avoided.
So they will feel better with they standing those shitty wolves and beetle fights that take forever to kill on PoE if they feel forced to do them by a xp per kill system? Now those shitty fights will become somehow tolerable...
That means that fuck you if you want to replay the game, you gonna need to hunt every single wolf and beetle AGAIN even if you know those fights are useless (and if you want to avoid those fights, what you gonna get?Fuck you for avoiding us trash mobs!), unless you want to gimp yourself.
I still remember NWN 2 and the original Baldur's gate, fucking trash mobs and xp per kill system. The xp per kill system in NWN 2 didn't save me for almost entering on coma with those endless trash mob fights. I watched PoE beta videos and those beetles and wolves man... bored me in 15 mins of watching, I can't wait to get rewarded with 10xp each for auto attacking each encounter for 1 min, that will make things more rewarding and fun... sure it will. I don't want to feel penalized for avoiding this bullshit and the xp per kill will hurt muchkins like myself.
Besides... if you are on a dungeon/quest and you kill shit, what is the difference of being frontloaded with small bits of experience and getting everything in the end anyway? Instead of getting 10 xp for each goblin, with you killing ten and getting 100 xp total plus 100 xp for solving the quest with 200 xp at the end of the dungeon, whouldn't be less convoluted of giving the 200 xp at the end of it anyway?

 

[Jagged Appliance]

I wouldn't destroy all those strawmen even if I got XP for it.

DraQ, you said that Deus Ex would have been better without exploration XP and that loot is a natural reward for exploration, implying XP is not. Please explain both of these things.

 

[imweasel]

Let's see if I understand...

People that want xp per kill quest don't feel rewarded enough for combat questing.
So the solution is to introduce a xp per kill xp per quest to guarantee that hunting every single boring wolf and beetle doing every quest in the game is something that can't be avoided.
So they will feel better with they standing those shitty wolves and beetle fights that take forever to kill quests that take forever to do on PoE if they feel forced to do them by a xp per kill quest system? Now those shitty fights quests will become somehow tolerable...
That means that fuck you if you want to replay the game, you gonna need to hunt every single wolf and beetle do every quest AGAIN even if you know those fights quests are useless (and if you want to avoid those fights quests, what you gonna get?Fuck you for avoiding us trash mobs not doing those quests!), unless you want to gimp yourself.

Fixed with strawman builder version 2.1

 

[DraQ]

DraQ, you said that Deus Ex would have been better without exploration XP and that loot is a natural reward for exploration, implying XP is not. Please explain both of these things.

That's simple - getting XP for something incentivizes grinding it whether or not you expect the act itself to be worthwhile.

Natural reward for exploration consists of items, routes and places and information. It's natural, because it's just stuff being there. Basically you poke around so you find stuff. This stuff is useful or not based on all sorts of context.
XP rewards aren't natural, because they aren't tied to any world or mechanical logic, they are candy placed by developers to incentivize certain behaviours.
In case of exploration, this means that even though you may already have a good idea of how the area is laid out, and might have used this knowldege to achieve your goals, you're still encouraged to poke your nose into every nook, cranny and vent shaft no matter how pointless it might be to you.

In case of game like Dues Ex - consisting of self-contained levels *pretending* to be a part of wider gameworld, but still having to feature invisible walls, or visible ones with more or less flimsy excuse for being there. The less you expose this nature to the player the better, because the illusion is maintained. If the player traverses hidden places only with expectation of finding logically placed stuff, you can often discourage them from touching the artificial walls by simply convincing them that there is no reason to find anything interesting somewhere, but there is no such things as logically placed exploration XP so artificially encouraging exploration means ruining your illusion of place.

In Deus Ex finding an aug canister, weapon upgrade, rare grenade type, alternative passage or some interesting info in form of book or datacube was a motivation enough and a natural one as well, exploration XP was spurious.

 

[Lhynn]

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

Odd, I think RPG is a game where character definition (AKA 'Role') rather than development is A core gameplay mechanics (seriously, if it was 'the' there would be no RPGs, because in any of them you spend far more time engaging with other systems).

Nowadays you even have development in cowaduty clones, but character definition tends to be limited even in supposed RPGs.

What was more important in, say, Fallout - that you could make a diplomatic character that would play completely differently than a retarded spearchucker or that you could go up levels?
The answer to this question is basically what distinguishes from .

Well, defining a character and developing it, to me, are equally important. Like you could play a diplomatic character with a personality and quirks, but he could grow up to be a great leader, a brave hero, a genius that hates the world, the best gunman ever, an erudite, etc.


Plus character development is present in CoD games, in god of war games, etc. but its not a core gameplay mechanic, it is also just used as a carrot.

Yeah, raised this point a while back, DraQ insists on treating exp like candy

What can I say, I'm a realist.

Well, you have many kinds of rewards for player actions, XP can certainly be a motivation, but so can money, social status, favors, information, reputation, affinity, etc. Shouldnt be hard to make them equally as valuable or more with a decent narrative and good built in systems. With so many kinds of rewards it seems lazy to use xp as a ball and chain.

Also, XP is not candy, its there to measure the evolution of the player prowess, that some games use it as candy does not mean thats its original purpose, it only means that it can be exploited, like anything else. For example in new vegas i never went out to farm exp, i went out to explore the world, money on the other hand was scarce, and was what determined what i chose to face first, so much so that if i destroyed an expensive weapon because a bullet happened to land on it, i reloaded and replayed the battle. If i suddenly hit an npc one too many times making him hostile, i didnt kill him, just reloaded the battle, if i stole and got seen, making a whole faction hostile i simply reloaded, if i got locked out of a terminal i reloaded, etc. To me npc affinity, social status, reputation and money where more important in that world that a bunch of xps.

 

[DraQ]

Well, defining a character and developing it, to me, are equally important. Like you could play a diplomatic character with a personality and quirks, but he could grow up to be a great leader, a brave hero, a genius that hates the world, the best gunman ever, an erudite, etc.

Not denying this I still can't see character development as just as important element. While it often makes sense to improve the character (just as often as it does not, at least not to the extent shown - for example going from noob to one of the most powerful wizards in the lands in a setting where all the powerful wizards are centuries old farts because that's how long it takes), you can have many setups that aren't from zero to hero and don't strictly require development mechanics. OTOH if you can't define your role, it can't be a role play game.

Plus character development is present in CoD games, in god of war games, etc. but its not a core gameplay mechanic

I'd be cautious about this core mechanics part - I don't think I've ever seen a cRPG where character development would pass closer scrutiny, if only because of its sporadic nature. Character building, OTOH can imprint its consequences on nearly every second of gameplay.

Well, you have many kinds of rewards for player actions, XP can certainly be a motivation, but so can money, social status, favors, information, reputation, affinity, etc. Shouldnt be hard to make them equally as valuable or more with a decent narrative and good built in systems. With so many kinds of rewards it seems lazy to use xp as a ball and chain.

True, but it's pretty much the only thing that's both universal (everyone needs and wants it) and, being abstract, remains under designer's complete control (it can be given out or withheld independently of any worldly factors) - it's therefore not just prime candidate for carrot on a stick, but will pretty much end up a carrot on a stick regardless of dev's intention.

Also, XP is not candy, its there to measure the evolution of the player prowess

Technically, yes, but it's already too abstract to avoid being arbitrary and being arbitrary it should be used as a carrot responsibly, since a carrot it will be.

 

[Lhynn]

I liked that post

Not denying this I still can't see character development as just as important element. While it often makes sense to improve the character (just as often as it does not, at least not to the extent shown - for example going from noob to one of the most powerful wizards in the lands in a setting where all the powerful wizards are centuries old farts because that's how long it takes), you can have many setups that aren't from zero to hero and don't strictly require development mechanics. OTOH if you can't define your role, it can't be a role play game.

True, i agree, but if said role cant evolve, it makes for a shitty role play game.

Zero to hero does make sense, its just has been cheapened as a concept. The character is surviving and learning from things that would kill another human. He is the embodiment of extreme adaptability, because the alternative is death.
You are living in a couple months what it took decades for others to experience, you are experimenting with your magic, learning new spells, trying them on living breathing things that are actively resisting them, all of this while a murderer with an axe is trying end your life. Constantly asking more of your brain, casting powerful and mentally draining incantations, fighting warriors of equal or bigger prowess than your own , watching their movements, watching the enemy tactics, how they take those blows, you take it all in, you learn by watching and doing, or you die right there.

As long as you survive there is literally no limit to how much you can grow, and this is what rpgs abstract into levels, not because its accurate, but because its easier to understand and translate. Our brains are not computers, levels come in handy, flawed as they are.

True, but it's pretty much the only thing that's both universal (everyone needs and wants it) and, being abstract, remains under designer's complete control (it can be given out or withheld independently of any worldly factors) - it's therefore not just prime candidate for carrot on a stick, but will pretty much end up a carrot on a stick regardless of dev's intention.

If, and only if it comes down to either a carrot on a stick or a leash, ill take the carrot approach, but as i said before, this doesnt necessarily have to be the case. The value of all things is subjective to the world you are playing in anyway. Make the first 2-3 level ups ultra important (baldurs gate/DnD style) and people will go out of their way to get those as soon as possible (your bears example, even if i would have used the console or a trainer if i really wanted to get there), make it meaningless like in fallout 3 and no one will give a shit, make it limited like in deus ex and everyone will play the degenerate playstyle that nets them more of it. We are in 2014, there is not a lack of examples of XP implementation and their impact on games.

Also, XP is not candy, its there to measure the evolution of the player prowess

Technically, yes, but it's already too abstract to avoid being arbitrary and being arbitrary it should be used as a carrot responsibly, since a carrot it will be.[/QUOTE]
Extra motivation to play the game is not a bad thing, lvl 9 spells were a nice thing to look forward to, but they werent the reason you played the game.

 

[a Goat]

Exp for kills and problems related to this mechanic comes from the idea of experience points and levels themselves. They came from the p&p environment and not always translate well to digital world.

Of course you can get rid of them and only give people experience points for quests etc. but it's some kind of stupid. I mean - EXPERIENCE : skill or knowledge that you get by doing something, pretty obvious that fighting random animals or other enemies is included in this definition.

Experience points are good idea for ARPG's or dungeon crawlers because you have to fight in them anyway.

Everywhere else they're illogical. Learning-by-doing is much more logical or realistic, because you know, when you're going to gym, you're not going to gain strength instantly, it takes some time and changes gradually. Of course TES kind of system where you could quickly become demigod capable of doing everything(especially being stealth archer) is also problematic.

On the other hand, if you want to make an attempt to avoid it you're going to screw everything up. I mean imagine Morrowind's system, but, to level skills you have to spend 10 times more. I mean - it's good because you'd have to be really focused on the skills you want to raise if you want to be good with said weapon/something else. On the other hand - it would turn the game into grindhouse(which isn't fun) and after years of playing you'd be still able to make a demigod.
So maybe limit the amount of skill points you can rise? Well, then you're punishing some warrior that had to sneak past some enemies that were too strong for him, aka adapt to situation. Which is again, bad and unintuitive.

I have no idea how to solve it I guess I'm too much of a noob when it comes to designing, but it looks like we have a choice between something that is easily broken and something totally abstract.

 

[eremita]

If I'm fighting, I want my fighting xp; if I'm picking locks, I want my picking locks xp; If I'm fucking, I want my fucking xp. The PROGRESS is a fact then. Yes, it's that simple.

 

[tuluse]

If I'm fighting, I want my fighting xp; if I'm picking locks, I want my picking locks xp; If I'm fucking, I want my fucking xp. The PROGRESS is a fact then. Yes, it's that simple.

 

[Grunker]

If I'm fighting, I want my fighting xp; if I'm picking locks, I want my picking locks xp; If I'm fucking, I want my fucking xp. The PROGRESS is a fact then. Yes, it's that simple.

Actually, what you're saying happens in 0 RPGs. What you're asking for - rewards that do not care about what you're doing and rewards you regardless - is exactly why Quest XP was implemented to begin with. In PoE, you do get rewards for all that, just not upon the immediate completion of fighting/picking/fucking.

 

[imweasel]

Fact is loot is simply not enough to make combat feel meaningful, your combat abilities should grow as you overcome by fighting, its part of the fantasy, its fitting, it serves the spirit of the game, and its fucking fun. (we talking D&D esque medieval fantasy here)

Loot could be enough incentive to engage in combat, but most of the loot drops (if not all) in PoE are shit or somewhat useless, so that the stealth and pacifist fags don't whine about being deprived of good loot.

 

[imweasel]

If I'm fighting side-questing, I want my fighting quest xp. The PROGRESS is a fact then. Yes, it's that simple.

Fixed that for you.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

If I'm fighting, I want my fighting xp; if I'm picking locks, I want my picking locks xp; If I'm fucking, I want my fucking xp. The PROGRESS is a fact then. Yes, it's that simple.

You just described PoE's quest system.

Looking forward to Druids & Rangers stealing Drake's eggs!

 

[Infinitron]

That analogy doesn't work because side-questing isn't a endlessly repeatable one-step "knee-jerk" action that can be likened to the push of a response lever. It's a complex series of unique events that tells a story and provides its own rewards.

You could say that it's more like baking your own food. You made it, so you can eat it.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Must confess I don't really understand why skinner boxes are frequently brought up in the eternal "combat xp vs quest xp" debate. I'd say both could be classified as skinner boxes if one insisted on analysing that sort of thing.

I prefer not to think of how my buttons are being pushed and my dopamine is being released, ultimately just about every computer game has its little rewards and satisfactions. Loot, a dead enemy boss, a big explosion, new spells and combat abilities, a feeling of power as your runty peasant grows in stature, conquering the world in a strategy game.... every game pushes your buttons according to your tastes.

 

[tuluse]

Must confess I don't really understand why skinner boxes are frequently brought up in the eternal "combat xp vs quest xp" debate. I'd say both could be classified as skinner boxes if one insisted on analysing that sort of thing.

I prefer not to think of how my buttons are being pushed and my dopamine is being released, ultimately just about every computer game has its little rewards and satisfactions. Loot, a dead enemy boss, a big explosion, new spells and combat abilities, a feeling of power as your runty peasant grows in stature, conquering the world in a strategy game.... every game pushes your buttons according to your tastes.

There is a slight delay with quest XP, so it isn't as blatant.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

That analogy doesn't work because side-questing isn't a endlessly repeatable one-step "knee-jerk" action that can be likened to the push of a response lever. It's a complex series of unique events that tells a story and provides its own rewards.

You could say that it's more like baking your own food. You made it, so you can eat it.

No, It's more like serving food, being a waiter. You get a nice tip (XP) for taking care of the customer's order (quest).