The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[nikolokolus]

I assume Lhynn is talking about D&D-esque games; typical muder hobo, tomb robbing, stuff? I agree that those can be kind of fun, Hell DCC RPG is probably my favorite PnP RPG, but even that game eschews direct experience for individual kills and instead encourages encounter based awards ... and it's left to the players to decide how to overcome the challenges they are presented.

So I guess I don't see the disconnect between "power fantasy" gaming and an experience award system that allows multiple approaches and encourages players to be strategic with their resources. Assuming Obsidian gets the encounter design right and still finds ways to materially reward the risk of combat through loot, crafting bits, etc. then I'm fine with their approach.

 

[Volourn]

"You announce the XP the characters earned after every single encounter in a PnP session?"

Sure beats Arcanum which is a Codex favorite (well before the new age punks crashed the party lol).

 

[Stainless Veteran]

Now maybe I am ~possibly retarded~, but how's "experience for the completing a chapter" equals "experience for non-combat quest solutions"? I'm all for latter, like I already have said. But the former, especially if that's automatic predetermined amount of exp — how's that a good idea? I was a Storyteller back in the day, and oWoD really encouraged giving players experience for non-combat activities, for outstanding role-paying and so on, and it was a good concept. Moreover, the number of points which players have gained was announced either at the end of a module, or at the end of a campaign (oWoD didn't have levels). But that wasn't a predetermined amount of points, their number depended on player's actions.
tl;dr If that's a predetermined amount of points just for completing some part of a game (not taking in account players actions, just a simple win condition) — it's a bad idea and I don't get why some people defend this.

 

[AN4RCHID]

Anyway, like Volourn said, the game shouldn't be balanced around those people. Let them have their degenerate fun.

No, the mechanics should be balanced around working and not having completely cheesy loopholes, otherwise you're essentially larping the rules.
I can and have done this (in TES, for example), but given the choice I'd rather not, and would prefer to have mechanics that works on its own, so let them not.

If your mechanics relies on player enforcing the rules out of their sheer goodwill, then you might as well not feature stuff like HP, but let player decide when they took too many hits and have 'lost'.

I agree with all this, but I don't think kill-XP necessarily encourages degeneracy / requires larping. Like in my previous example with New Vegas, questing is a most efficient source of Experience so grinding enemies is actually a bad play. Helped that very few enemies respawned, and it sounds like Eternity will be similar in that regard. It also sounds like we'll be hitting the level cap pretty easily if we do all the side-quests / mega dungeon, so that kind of negates a lot of the potential benefit of grinding and preserves the difficulty curve for the endgame content.

Ultimately, I think Infinitron's right that it won't have much impact on my enjoyment of the game. I just would prefer progression to be systemic rather than scripted, even if the result is pretty much the same. Seeing 'Party gained 1500 Experience' for walking into the cave in those beta videos made my fucking eye twitch. *shrug*

 

[tuluse]

Now maybe I am ~possibly retarded~, but how's "experience for the completing a chapter" equals "experience for non-combat quest solutions"? I'm all for latter, like I already have said. But the former, especially if that's automatic predetermined amount of exp — how's that a good idea? I was a Storyteller back in the day, and oWoD really encouraged giving players experience for non-combat activities, for outstanding role-paying and so on, and it was a good concept. Moreover, the number of points which players have gained was announced either at the end of a module, or at the end of a campaign (oWoD didn't have levels). But that wasn't a predetermined amount of points, their number depended on player's actions.
tl;dr If that's a predetermined amount of points just for completing some part of a game (not taking in account players actions, just a simple win condition) — it's a bad idea and I don't get why some people defend this.

Well that's not how it works, so no one is defending that.

 

[Grunker]

You announce the XP the characters earned after every single encounter in a PnP session?

Well, actually...

Normally I would never do this, and 99% of my games don't even have kill XP. But in the Way of the Wicked campaign, each time the players gain XP I announce it.

The reason is that with all the small pools of XP cluttered for minor tasks an encounters, I've been known to forget XP if I do a calc at the end of each session

Any game we take more serious though doesn't even have meta-rewards from encounters and kills.

 

[FeelTheRads]

You should play games you find fun.

http://progressquest.com/

If encounters aren't fun with no XP, then you can either play a different game where encounters are fun,

Why don't you, Roguey, Infinitron and others of the "everything Sawyer does is best and all other RPGs suck" creed play other games that are fun for you and leave RPGs alone? Would be a reasonable thing to do instead of always punishing yourselves with terrible things such as kill-XP, or the terrible combat. Surely it's no fun.

 

[Grunker]

everything Sawyer does is best and all other RPGs suck.

Where has tuluse or Infinitron said anything like this?

 

[FeelTheRads]

everything Sawyer does is best and all other RPGs suck.

Where has tuluse or Infinitron said anything like this?

Well, obviously I'm exaggerating but something along the lines of "all RPGs have shit combat" I certainly saw from tuluse and Infinitron is pretty much indistinguishable from Roguey in terms of blowing Sawyer for everything he does.
But the point is: if saying no XP for killing is no fun means you should play other games, then surely saying the combat is shit or XP for killing is shit, or whatever else means you should play other games. Games which are F.U.N. not. R.P.G.

 

[SCO]

xp for combat is pure degeneracy that leads to imbalance that leads to no fun.

Not only it distorts the solution space unnecessarily towards combat solutions and can lead to double xp and grind but it also makes the game numbers artificially inflated and casino conditioning. I don't know about the rest of you but i prefer a little dignity even in my entertainment.

 

[DraQ]

You 'solution' is stupid. With that kind of idea why reward the player at all. No xp, no loot, no progress through levels, no nothing. Just stick to games like Mortal Fukkin' Kombat. FFS

Butthurt Honour-hurt detected.

 

[MicoSelva]

As for the no-XP for kills issue, I do think that JES and his cultists have a point, but I do not really like his solution. Basically, it is as simplistic as Bioware's removal of inventory system between ME1 and ME2. Yeah, the inventory in ME1 sucked donkey balls, but removing it altogether was just a lazy cop out.

What I would like to see is some kind of a hybrid system, that rewards you with XP for overcoming combat challenges, but does not encourage grinding and 'degenerate gameplay'. A few solutions come to mind.

1. Only reward with XP for defeating particular type of enemy for the first time.
2. Divide enemies into 'challenge' ranks and only reward with XP for defeating enemies with higher rank than the highest you have defeated previously (and base the XP gained on the difference).
3. Only reward for defeating enemies as strong as you (or stronger).
4. Hand-craft the game that it gives you XP for defeating certain enemies, both those who need to be defeated because of quest content (i.e. you cannot avoid the fights) and those who you would want to defeat because of the challenge (like dragons / famous fighters, etc.), but not the random wolves in the wild.

In before nitpicking, all of the above are great simplifications and would obviously need to be expanded and developed.

 

[Rake]

Well, yeah, the best solution obviously would be a game where every single XP gain would be handcrafted. One quest gives more XP for X solution,another for Z depending on what's optimal. Even better. Every class advances differently. Fighters gain more XP killing, Rogues gain XP for doing roguey ( ) things, mages for magical research, finding spells, fight mage duels etc.
Will you be the one to design and balance all that? Because to me it sounds a nightmare. Objective based XP may sound a "lazy" solution because it's trival to balance, but since it gets the job done just fine, i find it actualy the best solution.

 

[MicoSelva]

Except they did not 'add' objective based XP, because that was already in (and called quest reward XP), they just removed combat XP, as the simplest solution to the infamous degenerate gameplay of solving the quest non-violently and then slaughtering everyone involved.

Bioware 'solved' this problem ages ago by not letting you attack anyone that is not hostile already. Obsidian cannot do the same, because they want to let you attack everyone, since it was one of the IE-games staples. So they are 'solving' the same problem by removing a different IE-games staple (XP for kills). Better than Bioware's approach, I admit that, but still not ideal.

Will you be the one to design and balance all that? Because to me it sounds a nightmare.

I would gladly design and balance such a system, if it was my job to design and balance CRPG systems (how I wish I had a job like that). It would be a nightmare to do right, but well worth it in the end.

 

[eremita]

Pillars of Eternity is a game which emphasized combat a lot (btw, that's the only reason why I tolerate Sawyer's MMO-like approach to classes), so I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be XP. With some tweaks if needed, like you're not gonna get much xp for killing weaklings, whatever, IE games solved this years ago (65 xp is garbage for level 20 character). This solution is smart because it reaches it's goal with minimal effort. You don't have to program/script shit like "getting xp for this cunt only on level X/only for first 10 kills etc.", you just extend the amount of XP needed for next character's level.

As for the question XP or not XP, I don't give a fuck. It's stupid to discuss something like that for so long, cause it doesn't matter. You want to progress with your character, get better in whatever he does. That's one of the pillars of RPG. Just give me my level/abilities/skills faggots... If it's by killing shit or plot progression is dev's business, whatever suits his type of game better (yes, imo, the ultimate answer depends on particular game - PoE might as well go with xp for kills, no big deal).

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

Except they did not 'add' objective based XP, because that was already in (and called quest reward XP), they just removed combat XP, as the simplest solution to the infamous degenerate gameplay of solving the quest non-violently and then slaughtering everyone involved.

Bioware 'solved' this problem ages ago by not letting you attack anyone that is not hostile already. Obsidian cannot do the same, because they want to let you attack everyone, since it was one of the IE-games staples. So they are 'solving' the same problem by removing a different IE-games staple (XP for kills). Better than Bioware's approach, I admit that, but still not ideal.

Will you be the one to design and balance all that? Because to me it sounds a nightmare.

I would gladly design and balance such a system, if it was my job to design and balance CRPG systems (how I wish I had a job like that). It would be a nightmare to do right, but well worth it in the end.

lol wut?who the fuck killed non hostile characters in IE games?

how was killing peasants in beregost for 5xp points a staple of IE ? it only leads to lose of reputation and sooner or later you have some scripted avengers on your ass.

does sawyer really live in some delusional world where people playing BG2 take Unseeing Eye quest and once solved murder the hole Temple district?

 

[Athelas]

Quest-related NPC's, particularly in BG2, tended to have no reputation modifier associated with them and they were generally important characters that gave a lot of XP. So yeah, finishing the quest for XP and then killing the quest giver, was a way to get a decent amount of extra XP, if you were so inclined.

Objective-based XP also isn't synonymous with quest-based XP, though the two can certainly overlap.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

Really? Cause i remember attacking some faggot in IWD in Easthaven. 5 minutes later i had Hrothgar and Everard raping my ass.

 

[Zombra]

lol wut?who the fuck killed non hostile characters in IE games?

i remember attacking some faggot in IWD in Easthaven.

 

[MicoSelva]

IceWind Dale games might be the exception, because they usually do not allow for non-combat solutions anyway (being linear dungeon crawlers).

My bet is that when people say 'IE games' they usually mean BG2 or BG1, IWDs are on their mind rarely, and Torment almost never.

 

[belated]

Pillars of Eternity is a game which emphasized combat a lot (btw, that's the only reason why I tolerate Sawyer's MMO-like approach to classes), so I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be XP. With some tweaks if needed, like you're not gonna get much xp for killing weaklings, whatever, IE games solved this years ago (65 xp is garbage for level 20 character). This solution is smart because it reaches it's goal with minimal effort. You don't have to program/script shit like "getting xp for this cunt only on level X/only for first 10 kills etc.", you just extend the amount of XP needed for next character's level.

Except games these days all seem to have a linear progression in XP requirement to level up. I guess they think people are afraid of large numbers or something.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

lol wut?who the fuck killed non hostile characters in IE games?

i remember attacking some faggot in IWD in Easthaven.

that wizard/shopkeeper was mean to me

 

[The Fish]

Really? Cause i remember attacking some faggot in IWD in Easthaven. 5 minutes later i had Hrothgar and Everard raping my ass.

Ugh. I just remembered doing the added content at the end of the game. After the possessed king kicked me out of the barbarian camp I decided to murder all of them (it was probably going to happen eventually anyway, I may as well just thin out the numbers a bit). The king had left but whatever, the rest die. So I continue with the game - go through the Trials of the Luremaster, Burial Isle and everything else. When I return I see Hjollder, the touchy cunt, is standing there with a red ring around him trying to kill me thus breaking the game and stopping me from progressing. Hours were wasted.

 

[Roguey]

In before nitpicking, all of the above are great simplifications and would obviously need to be expanded and developed.

Those all seem to me like "I want the illusion that this is making a difference."

Except they did not 'add' objective based XP, because that was already in (and called quest reward XP), they just removed combat XP, as the simplest solution to the infamous degenerate gameplay of solving the quest non-violently and then slaughtering everyone involved.

Bioware 'solved' this problem ages ago by not letting you attack anyone that is not hostile already. Obsidian cannot do the same, because they want to let you attack everyone, since it was one of the IE-games staples. So they are 'solving' the same problem by removing a different IE-games staple (XP for kills). Better than Bioware's approach, I admit that, but still not ideal.

Blind men feeling up an elephant.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63017-level-scaling-and-its-misuse/page-11#entry1298328

Kill experience wasn't "removed" (it wasn't ever implemented) to prevent anyone from outleveling an area. When XP is rewarded for killing creatures, quests solutions than involve not killing creatures still systemically encourage players to go back and kill those creatures -- or make players feel like they have completed the quest "wrong" because they didn't kill the target. The issue isn't necessarily one of balance, because often players will exhibit the same behavior even if the amount of XP gained from creatures is extremely small.

The reason I refer to this as "degenerate gameplay" is because the player chose a non-combat solution but ultimately went back to using combat after the solution was selected because the game systemically provides an incentive to do so. When designers create non-combat resolutions and players select non-combat resolutions, I believe it's reasonable to assume they both created and selected those options because that's what they wanted to do. In PE, nothing will necessarily prevent the player from killing characters/creatures they avoided on a quest, but I don't think it's necessary to systematically reward them for doing so.

 

[roshan]

Quest-related NPC's, particularly in BG2, tended to have no reputation modifier associated with them and they were generally important characters that gave a lot of XP. So yeah, finishing the quest for XP and then killing the quest giver, was a way to get a decent amount of extra XP, if you were so inclined.

This is just stupid. Removing all combat XP from the game because maybe one in a thousand players would kill quest givers after doing the quest is absolutely retarded. Besides, fools that did that were already penalized, they would lose access to future quests, turn much of the town hostile, kill shopkeepers and thus lose access to their goods, lose reputation and thus suffer from increased prices, get pursued by guards or cowled wizards etc.