An XP-less, class-less and level-less CRPG system

[DraQ]

I don't understand why you guys are trying to patch holes in use-based systems in this thread too. It is a waste of space. In the other thread Telengard already went through the tedious and verbose process of explaining how these band-aids only serve to make a flawed system worse.

Do you have anything specific to say or need help GTFO?

For the record Telengard's points have been adressed earlier in the very same post I quoted.

Even if it was possible to patch up all of the abuses and problems related to grinding in a use-based system, it would still be a system that makes players want to grind and therefore flawed. Some might say more flawed than a naive system, since it would prevent the player who now wants to grind from being able to successfully do so.

Pretty much all the abusable flaws of use-based are also inherent in XP-based systems, except the only cure that can be applied in XP-based is pre-scripting all XP rewards and eliminating all the mechanically derived ones, which in turn is unfeasible in games that are more sandbox and not very goal-driven (the opposite of what Telengard claimed - see previously referenced post for details).

I can respect saying that the only good way out is static build, that doesn't really change after chargen (although I do consder such stance limp-dicked and defeatist), but dismissing use-based while praising XP based which has the same flaws except without actual possibility of patching them is merely a more elaborate way of saying that you're so full of shit that people mistake your webcam feed for tubgirl.

 

[J1M]

I don't think I've ever seen you so defensive Draq.

I'm not dismissive of use-based. I've seen this conversation play out exactly the same way too many times before.

 

[Excommunicator]

The perfect use-based system is his dragon baby.

I used to have a kind of obsession with trying to fix and perfect use-based systems but I have since seen the light. Still at least someone is putting the effort into trying to extract as much as possible from a system that is woefully underdeveloped in general.

I only hope all of this analysis and theory is going into a system that will eventually become a game and is not just pointless masturbatory internet discussion. I'll be very disappointed if that's what it is, partly because I actually want to try it in action.

 

[Norfleet]

Here's a different question: Why is the player achieving high levels of skill in everything even really a problem? Let's say a player can simultaneously become a great fighter, a spellcaster, and a thief all at once, if he grinds insanely for it. What of it? He still won't be able to fully utilize all of those skills to their full potential at any given time. The wearing of heavy armor will likely be a hindrance to advanced spellcasting as it is with many systems, and it's clanky and noisy and platemail gauntlets are not conducive to feats of manual dexterity. To go without would reduce his effectiveness as a fighter. Magical chanting and conjuring glowing runes is not conducive to stealth. The character who learns all these skills is ultimately going to find that he cannot use them all anyway, and his time would have been better spent cherrypicking the specific skills he wanted to make use of. Only OCD completionists would try to max every skill, and even then it will not help, so why stop him?

 

[DraQ]

I don't think I've ever seen you so defensive Draq.

I'm not dismissive of use-based.

You do sound dismissive.

In any case, the only system that completely precludes player wanting to grind is one where once generated character remains static throughout the game or changes in pre-scripted manner.

The perfect use-based system is his dragon baby.

Why, of course.

I used to have a kind of obsession with trying to fix and perfect use-based systems but I have since seen the light. Still at least someone is putting the effort into trying to extract as much as possible from a system that is woefully underdeveloped in general.

Underdeveloped? Compared to what? XP based?

If anything you could accuse use-based of being overdeveloped - more effort than it's worth - but given that goal based XP doesn't really cut it if the game is huge, freeform sandbox without much in the way of clearly specified goals (and even if it had those it would then be subject to the same flaws conventional XP-based has, albeit on higher level) and conventional XP-based has the same flaws as use based, only more rampant, plus some of its own, I'd say that use-based sytems have their important niche to fill where they are irreplaceable.

I only hope all of this analysis and theory is going into a system that will eventually become a game and is not just pointless masturbatory internet discussion.

I do too.

Here's a different question: Why is the player achieving high levels of skill in everything even really a problem?

Spergs gonna sperg. It's our strength but also our burden.

Besides, wouldn't you rather have a ruleset that doesn't amount to devs' wishful thinking but carries actual weight?

 

[Excommunicator]

Underdeveloped in the sense that "I will now do stupid shit I don't enjoy, over and over to get better" still exists in every pure use-based system I know of. If proponents haven't agreed on a basic way to sort that out, then it's underdeveloped. To be overdeveloped I would say people would have to have solved the fundamental problems and then started adding layers derivative mechanics to "enhance" and differentiate it from other instances out there.

You could say XP based is also underdeveloped but I would say it's more a matter of it being easier to develop into something that works so people don't need to do the same amount of work for equivalent results.

 

[DraQ]

Underdeveloped in the sense that "I will now do stupid shit I don't enjoy, over and over to get better" still exists in every pure use-based system I know of.

Use-based isn't used frequently and most of the times it's been used was by people who couldn't code the way out of wet paper bag or even conceive the outline of system without huge loopholes.

You could say XP based is also underdeveloped but I would say it's more a matter of it being easier to develop into something that works so people don't need to do the same amount of work for equivalent results.

Actually the only way XP based can achieve worthwhile results is if you make your game small and story-driven, then pre-place all the XP player can get as rewards for meeting goals. It won't work in wide open sandbox, because with the content overheaqd typical for sandbox games you're effectively giving player the means to frontload their character with levels (and do remember there can't be bad or useless levels in XP-based system).

Other than that it has the same problems as use based, but no ways to tackle them.

Grind is serious problem but I'm pretty sure that what I have outlined would effectively reduce it to negligible levels if not eliminate it.
OTOH conventional XP based system breeds completely pathological behaviour, like seeking everything you can kill to maximize XP, picking every lock if there are XPs for that, backtracking to do as many alternative solutions to each quest as possible at once (so, for example - sneak by, backtrack, persuade then fight for triple XP).

Maybe, just maybe, use based is a wasted effort, but then any sort of character advancement outisde of possibly critical path is going to be bad design that should be dropped.
Then, you'd better embrace your static builds and put a lot of thought into making your character during chargen, as there will be no corrections to that.

 

[baturinsky]

XP and use-based are not only options.

Take Daggerfall (so it is open world), remove train-by-use and train-for-pay, give skill training only as rewards for guild quests. I think it would work.

 

[DraQ]

XP and use-based are not only options.

Take Daggerfall (so it is open world), remove train-by-use and train-for-pay, give skill training only as rewards for guild quests. I think it would work.

It might work, but it would depend on how well can you limit guild membership and position.

 

[Excommunicator]

Underdeveloped in the sense that "I will now do stupid shit I don't enjoy, over and over to get better" still exists in every pure use-based system I know of.

Use-based isn't used frequently and most of the times it's been used was by people who couldn't code the way out of wet paper bag or even conceive the outline of system without huge loopholes.

Since we are talking about implementations rather than just a design then we agree.

You could say XP based is also underdeveloped but I would say it's more a matter of it being easier to develop into something that works so people don't need to do the same amount of work for equivalent results.

Actually the only way XP based can achieve worthwhile results is if you make your game small and story-driven, then pre-place all the XP player can get as rewards for meeting goals. It won't work in wide open sandbox, because with the content overheaqd typical for sandbox games you're effectively giving player the means to frontload their character with levels (and do remember there can't be bad or useless levels in XP-based system).

Other than that it has the same problems as use based, but no ways to tackle them.

Well that is what most RPGs of the past have been like (more story driven and linear than the open world ones) and most of their systems are quite OK, they just aren't perfect. I know you are more focused on proper open worlds as am I, but I don't believe the answer lies in the standard XP system either. I'm working on something a bit more complicated but I've always liked the point buy system most. There's no doubt that to have a thorough system you have to have many inter-dependent layers or build a hybrid from the basic advancement systems.

Grind is serious problem but I'm pretty sure that what I have outlined would effectively reduce it to negligible levels if not eliminate it.
OTOH conventional XP based system breeds completely pathological behaviour, like seeking everything you can kill to maximize XP, picking every lock if there are XPs for that, backtracking to do as many alternative solutions to each quest as possible at once (so, for example - sneak by, backtrack, persuade then fight for triple XP).

I haven't read through your writeup in the other thread yet. In many of the D&D adaptations of the past I have been happy with the sense of reward and mostly unmotivated by meta-game decision making. I didn't have an obsessive urge to seek more XP, although the rewards are often there to do so. Being able to backtrack or "double dip" is surely a failure on the designer in linking the action to the reward as it doesn't make much sense. The big advantage is that XP can be linked to overall events and not just highly specific actions, giving it much more flexibility right from the beginning. There's nothing wrong with awarding XP just for seeing something happen or reaching somewhere, in fact I like that. The more you can mix up what the player is being rewarded for, the more fresh the gameplay and the less likely they are to analyse actions to quantify the rewards.

Maybe, just maybe, use based is a wasted effort, but then any sort of character advancement outisde of possibly critical path is going to be bad design that should be dropped.
Then, you'd better embrace your static builds and put a lot of thought into making your character during chargen, as there will be no corrections to that.

Don't give up on it if you believe you can make it work. It isn't even that I think a used-based system can't be good, but just that other systems have a massive head start. The use-based system has to really contribute a lot to the experience by being there, "I'm getting better at what I do" isn't enough.

 

[dibens]

I always liked Ultima Online's system and wish more games implemented it. No levels, no classes, abilities rise as you hone skills, and every special ability was tied to a skill or weapon. There was a 700 skill point limit per character and you could rise them however you saw fit. Base limit for single skill was 100 (120 with skill scrolls) meaning you could be a master in 7, grandmaster in 5 or rise a little bit of everything and be a jack of all trades. Each weapon had two different special attacks tied to them, so choosing one that suited your needs the best was cruital.

 

[DraQ]

I don't believe the answer lies in the standard XP system either. I'm working on something a bit more complicated but I've always liked the point buy system most.

Fair enough, though the term "XP" based is more about in what form you receive character development tokens, while "point buy" is more about the way you spend them, so point buy is an alternative to discrete levels, but both can depend on XP based system.

There's no doubt that to have a thorough system you have to have many inter-dependent layers or build a hybrid from the basic advancement systems.

TBH I don't really see the point in hybridizing. It's basically twice the work and twice the bugs for the same effect.

The only case for it I can imagine it being worthwhile is trying to incorporate generic "discipline in face of danger" badassery, but you might just as well make it a special and separate skill in use-based that goes up when something tries to kill you.

I haven't read through your writeup in the other thread yet. In many of the D&D adaptations of the past I have been happy with the sense of reward and mostly unmotivated by meta-game decision making. I didn't have an obsessive urge to seek more XP, although the rewards are often there to do so. Being able to backtrack or "double dip" is surely a failure on the designer in linking the action to the reward as it doesn't make much sense.

A question to you - would you say that you were a younger and more impressionable player back then, more in it for the thrill of adventure and less inclined to think about systems at play?

Because the first time I played Morrowind I was blown away by openness of the world, mechanics (magic allows me to run on water? It isn't just for fireballs and buffing/debuffing ostensibly with combat in mind? what sorcery is this?), and the game flown very organically and naturally for me - no Creeper exploits, exponential alchemy or wiki-guided beelining, I would even describe my first playthrough as ad-hoc, with character evolvingi n response to immediate needs and possibilities (like finding some sweet pieces of dwemer armour).

The big advantage is that XP can be linked to overall events and not just highly specific actions, giving it much more flexibility right from the beginning. There's nothing wrong with awarding XP just for seeing something happen or reaching somewhere, in fact I like that. The more you can mix up what the player is being rewarded for, the more fresh the gameplay and the less likely they are to analyse actions to quantify the rewards.

Is giving the dev ability to disjoint the character development from any tangible worldly source a true advantage?

Doesn't it permit lazy and nonsensical quest design, where quest that shouldn't be advantageous for the player to undertake suddenly are because they yield a completely abstract reward because the developer said so? Isn't it better when developer has to think *how* he rewards the player and *why*?

Do note, that you can award skill experience or even skill increases manually in use based as well - skill books, watching someone training (scripted), an NPC sharing their knowledge of some skill as quest reward, reaching forgotten temple with otherworldly lore inscribed on walls can all be valid ways of rewarding the player in use based system. They have also been used in virtually every modern TES game (apart from the last one, maybe).

 

[baturinsky]

If it's world exploration first and foremost for you, is skill advancement, or even skill existence, necessary at all? Why not just let customize/select character from start, and live with it?

 

[DraQ]

If it's world exploration first and foremost for you, is skill advancement, or even skill existence, necessary at all? Why not just let customize/select character from start, and live with it?

Static builds are definitely a viable model, but depending on projected timeframe it might be desirable to have some way to get better at stuff.

 

[Excommunicator]

I don't believe the answer lies in the standard XP system either. I'm working on something a bit more complicated but I've always liked the point buy system most.

Fair enough, though the term "XP" based is more about in what form you receive character development tokens, while "point buy" is more about the way you spend them, so point buy is an alternative to discrete levels, but both can depend on XP based system.

Yes, but I don't think any of the standard systems are quite enough for what I want.

TBH I don't really see the point in hybridizing. It's basically twice the work and twice the bugs for the same effect.

The only case for it I can imagine it being worthwhile is trying to incorporate generic "discipline in face of danger" badassery, but you might just as well make it a special and separate skill in use-based that goes up when something tries to kill you.

Well if you allow them to gain through use but also to spend points manually (that are awarded either automatically to character, via XP award or something else) you are free as a designer to slow down how fast use-based gains occur and then effectively halve the temptation of grinding. You don't need to calibrate things as strictly because you are giving players more options. Characters who still use the skills frequently will see benefits from doing so, and other characters can still learn those skills without needing purely to grind them with use. It softens the downsides of use-based a lot while still providing that use-gain connection that people like.

A question to you - would you say that you were a younger and more impressionable player back then, more in it for the thrill of adventure and less inclined to think about systems at play?

Because the first time I played Morrowind I was blown away by openness of the world, mechanics (magic allows me to run on water? It isn't just for fireballs and buffing/debuffing ostensibly with combat in mind? what sorcery is this?), and the game flown very organically and naturally for me - no Creeper exploits, exponential alchemy or wiki-guided beelining, I would even describe my first playthrough as ad-hoc, with character evolvingi n response to immediate needs and possibilities (like finding some sweet pieces of dwemer armour).

Well although I find meta-gaming a lot easier to do these days, I have less time to spend playing games so I think that helps distract away from the urge. I think a lot of it comes down to the challenge of the game though. It's a kind of tug of war where the game needs to keep pulling against the player at each step but not so hard that they continually screw up and need to start meta-gaming to progress, and the player should feel that compulsion to keep going because they want to face the challenges and explore the world but not be able to do so without constant opposition. I think if you can achieve that balance then most players won't feel the urge to metagame like that. There are different types of meta-gaming and if people don't feel they have to metagame to enjoy it, then they probably won't. There are those who will do it anyway, and they probably should be left to their own devices.

Is giving the dev ability to disjoint the character development from any tangible worldly source a true advantage?

I think so yes.

Doesn't it permit lazy and nonsensical quest design, where quest that shouldn't be advantageous for the player to undertake suddenly are because they yield a completely abstract reward because the developer said so? Isn't it better when developer has to think *how* he rewards the player and *why*?

It "permits" laziness but that's the responsibility of the designer not the advancement system. It's the designers judgement that should tell him when he is being lazy, and it's also his judgement to know when and why he should not be lazy. You have to give the designer the freedom to craft and tweak things along the way. It can't be left only up to rigid automation because it's very easy for players to catch on, predict a response and start to think about how they can game it. You have to keep things fresh and have them question how something might unfold or how they might be rewarded for an action without going too far away from what is reasonable for the player to expect.

Do note, that you can award skill experience or even skill increases manually in use based as well - skill books, watching someone training (scripted), an NPC sharing their knowledge of some skill as quest reward, reaching forgotten temple with otherworldly lore inscribed on walls can all be valid ways of rewarding the player in use based system. They have also been used in virtually every modern TES game (apart from the last one, maybe).

You can, but it's a bit different. You're dealing with small chunks of specific abilities rather than larger chunks of general experience. It's more "realistic" and low-level to award specifically to an ability being used and players usually can see the direct connection, but there's not as much freedom and flexibility offered to the designer, and they can't ensure the character is going to benefit from the activity. 1 point in book-reading for one character may be completely useless if they have no skill there, but if you still award the character for the reading via general XP, they'll still benefit. In a use-based system to ensure that point wasn't wasted on a skill no one had you'd have to do a script to check the character's skills and award accordingly, and that's going to get cumbersome.

The real world is very nuanced and you can't really anticipate what someone is going to learn from a particular activity. Reading a book can teach about the main subject of the book, it can teach you better vocabulary, it can teach you something about a topic which is only glanced over in the book at one point, or it could teach you how to handle and read a delicate and ancient book. Use based systems tend to have difficulty accounting for these things, while XP don't need to account for it because it goes into a pool that is eventually always going to be allocated to abilities the player/character wants.

Static builds are definitely a viable model, but depending on projected timeframe it might be desirable to have some way to get better at stuff.

I'm of the opinion that characters in roleplaying games as a general rule should be around 50% defined by static characteristics and around 50% defined by dynamic characteristics. Each game will have its own necessary balance but I think there should always be a strong and significant effect on the way the game plays out based on static characteristics chosen at creation. If the game is well built then the player has little to worry about choosing the "wrong" thing or what choice is good or better because the game should be able to offer something interesting regardless of the choice. I don't like those poor systems where you have a weakling in the beginning and a super-strong person towards the end as it twists the very laws of reality (for most settings at least) to fit the character system. It throws balance out and often cheapens decisions made earlier in the game. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[baturinsky]

Gear and permanent buffs (such as Agent of Dibella, Force Without Effort, Vampirism/Lycanthropy etc in Skyrim) can be that dynamic characteristics.

 

[DraQ]

I don't believe the answer lies in the standard XP system either. I'm working on something a bit more complicated but I've always liked the point buy system most.

Fair enough, though the term "XP" based is more about in what form you receive character development tokens, while "point buy" is more about the way you spend them, so point buy is an alternative to discrete levels, but both can depend on XP based system.

Yes, but I don't think any of the standard systems are quite enough for what I want.

Maybe try defining what you *do* want first?

Well if you allow them to gain through use but also to spend points manually (that are awarded either automatically to character, via XP award or something else) you are free as a designer to slow down how fast use-based gains occur and then effectively halve the temptation of grinding.

Didn't really work all that well for Wizardry 8, did it?

You don't need to calibrate things as strictly because you are giving players more options.

In an open-world you are already giving players option to GTFO and try their luck smoewhere else where they won't have thier asses kicked. No need to encumber yourself with not only both systems' summed up problems, but also problems coming from their interactions.

Pretty much the only hybrid I could consider worthwhile would be awarding generic character points via scripted events on critical path, but even this might end up abusable by timing the MQ.

It "permits" laziness but that's the responsibility of the designer not the advancement system. It's the designers judgement that should tell him when he is being lazy, and it's also his judgement to know when and why he should not be lazy. You have to give the designer the freedom to craft and tweak things along the way.

But can this additional freedom actually be used for anything positive in this case?

What *can* you do with it you'd otherwise *not* be able to?

The real world is very nuanced and you can't really anticipate what someone is going to learn from a particular activity. Reading a book can teach about the main subject of the book, it can teach you better vocabulary, it can teach you something about a topic which is only glanced over in the book at one point, or it could teach you how to handle and read a delicate and ancient book. Use based systems tend to have difficulty accounting for these things, while XP don't need to account for it because it goes into a pool that is eventually always going to be allocated to abilities the player/character wants.

Actually you're giving XP based a free ride here.

In use based you can prevent player from learning bashing goblins over the head with heavy things better if book isn't relevant to it. In XP once the points are awarded, they are player's. You can't do anything to regulate their use.
Technically it isn't much of a problem to make some activities depend on multiple skills in use based, either by breaking them down into sub-activities or hardcoding.

 

[Excommunicator]

Yes, but I don't think any of the standard systems are quite enough for what I want.

Maybe try defining what you *do* want first?

Nothing I can talk about at this point.

Well if you allow them to gain through use but also to spend points manually (that are awarded either automatically to character, via XP award or something else) you are free as a designer to slow down how fast use-based gains occur and then effectively halve the temptation of grinding.

Didn't really work all that well for Wizardry 8, did it?

I haven't played it. There's no doubt it can work well if done right.

In an open-world you are already giving players option to GTFO and try their luck smoewhere else where they won't have thier asses kicked. No need to encumber yourself with not only both systems' summed up problems, but also problems coming from their interactions.

Except that doesn't help deal with the same problem. If you have to grind for a skill using a specific sequence of actions then it doesn't matter if it happens in one area or another. If you don't like what the designer has conceived for you as the activity to gain the skill then there's nothing in place to help you as a player.

But can this additional freedom actually be used for anything positive in this case?

What *can* you do with it you'd otherwise *not* be able to?

The real world is very nuanced and you can't really anticipate what someone is going to learn from a particular activity. Reading a book can teach about the main subject of the book, it can teach you better vocabulary, it can teach you something about a topic which is only glanced over in the book at one point, or it could teach you how to handle and read a delicate and ancient book. Use based systems tend to have difficulty accounting for these things, while XP don't need to account for it because it goes into a pool that is eventually always going to be allocated to abilities the player/character wants.

In use based you can prevent player from learning bashing goblins over the head with heavy things better if book isn't relevant to it. In XP once the points are awarded, they are player's. You can't do anything to regulate their use.

You might be able to say what can be learnt from doing something, but very rarely can say what can't be learnt from doing something. Designers are not capable of divination.

This is where our opinions differ significantly. I don't believe in strictly policing players and or telling them that they absolutely must learn X if they do action Y.

Why? There are many reasons. Games are fundamentally abstract. They aren't meant to show you every action undertaken by a character from the very start to the very end of the game. They're a representation of that, just like a book or a movie. We know when a scene changes in a movie from being in a house to being in a car, that the characters haven't simply teleported there. We accept that things have happened that we didn't get to see. no fiction is meant to be illustrative of all of the grunt work that a character goes through. Do you want players to have to perform all the grunt work? Why? Because it feels "thorough" for you as the author of the game? "You must do exactly X because this is the easiest thing for me as the designer to conceive as leading to Y. Now get to it" Come, now.

If you can't say with absolute certainty exactly what a given character will learn from a particular activity (and you simply can't), then you should not be so quick to dictate everything as if your position is unquestionable. Why do you want to dictate everything for the player? Because you feel it's "silly" when the connections are not blatant? Is this really a designer instinct or a compulsive obsessive one?

At some point you just have to let go of the obsessive need to dictate. This is the magical advantage of the XP. If there's even the slightest conceivable connection (even indirectly) between an action and a reward, then you should not be upset when the player invests certain points into an area that is more difficult for you to conceive a connection to. At least this way even if they didn't enjoy the activity that gave them the XP, they'll enjoy the character they get to build using the XP (or vice versa). It's a game, after all. This is something as fundamental as "more notes don't automatically make better music" or "more ingredients don't necessarily make a dish taste better".

This is the fundamental dynamic of the P&P experience compared to the strictures of the cRPG. A good DM could make any connection between an action and a response/reward if they really wanted to. No matter how outlandish, it is still conceivable if they do a good job of coming up with an explanation. A computer isn't capable of coming up with its own explanations or excuses, and the designer can only explain so much through text descriptions. It doesn't mean the computer then has to do only things that are patently obvious to every player. In abstraction of simulation there's always some vagueness and that vagueness can be very much a strength.

 

[J1M]

Underdeveloped in the sense that "I will now do stupid shit I don't enjoy, over and over to get better" still exists in every pure use-based system I know of.

Use-based isn't used frequently and most of the times it's been used was by people who couldn't code the way out of wet paper bag or even conceive the outline of system without huge loopholes.

You could say XP based is also underdeveloped but I would say it's more a matter of it being easier to develop into something that works so people don't need to do the same amount of work for equivalent results.

Actually the only way XP based can achieve worthwhile results is if you make your game small and story-driven, then pre-place all the XP player can get as rewards for meeting goals. It won't work in wide open sandbox, because with the content overheaqd typical for sandbox games you're effectively giving player the means to frontload their character with levels (and do remember there can't be bad or useless levels in XP-based system).

Other than that it has the same problems as use based, but no ways to tackle them.

Grind is serious problem but I'm pretty sure that what I have outlined would effectively reduce it to negligible levels if not eliminate it.
OTOH conventional XP based system breeds completely pathological behaviour, like seeking everything you can kill to maximize XP, picking every lock if there are XPs for that, backtracking to do as many alternative solutions to each quest as possible at once (so, for example - sneak by, backtrack, persuade then fight for triple XP).

Maybe, just maybe, use based is a wasted effort, but then any sort of character advancement outisde of possibly critical path is going to be bad design that should be dropped.
Then, you'd better embrace your static builds and put a lot of thought into making your character during chargen, as there will be no corrections to that.

This is a big strawman. There is no rule that says having a character system with levels needs to be tied to experience points or that one cannot instead gain a level-up for each major quest completed, etc.

In an open-world game, each major quest chain could reward an item and additionally a level-up if the character's level is less than or equal to the quest level. A simple solution to a problem that is not nearly as big as you make it out to be.

It is difficult to take your arguments seriously when you repeatedly compare a hypothetically perfect version of the system you prefer with an imperfect existing system you don't prefer + zero imagination.

The real world is very nuanced and you can't really anticipate what someone is going to learn from a particular activity. Reading a book can teach about the main subject of the book, it can teach you better vocabulary, it can teach you something about a topic which is only glanced over in the book at one point, or it could teach you how to handle and read a delicate and ancient book. Use based systems tend to have difficulty accounting for these things, while XP don't need to account for it because it goes into a pool that is eventually always going to be allocated to abilities the player/character wants.

Actually you're giving XP based a free ride here.

In use based you can prevent player from learning bashing goblins over the head with heavy things better if book isn't relevant to it. In XP once the points are awarded, they are player's. You can't do anything to regulate their use.

Technically it isn't much of a problem to make some activities depend on multiple skills in use based, either by breaking them down into sub-activities or hardcoding.

An excellent example. Just as the benefits of a repeated action can diminish to zero in a use-based system, so can the benefits of a repeated action when awarding experience points. Even the Diablo 3 devs were able to figure this out...

 

[J1M]

I always liked Ultima Online's system and wish more games implemented it. No levels, no classes, abilities rise as you hone skills, and every special ability was tied to a skill or weapon. There was a 700 skill point limit per character and you could rise them however you saw fit. Base limit for single skill was 100 (120 with skill scrolls) meaning you could be a master in 7, grandmaster in 5 or rise a little bit of everything and be a jack of all trades. Each weapon had two different special attacks tied to them, so choosing one that suited your needs the best was cruital.

Why is that preferred to simply spending 700 skill points over the course of playing the game?

The result is identical but use-based has grinding.

 

[J1M]

If it's world exploration first and foremost for you, is skill advancement, or even skill existence, necessary at all? Why not just let customize/select character from start, and live with it?

Static builds are definitely a viable model, but depending on projected timeframe it might be desirable to have some way to get better at stuff.

Why have a character build at all? If running across water is fun, why should the players who didn't select 2 points in "buff magic" before the game started not have a chance to try it out?

Why not go with a zelda model where an item grants you the spell/ability and you collect such items as a way of building up the ability to explore new areas?

You could even have a form of 'character development' by allowing the player to upgrade or trade these items at NPCs during the game. Allow the player to only carry 6 such items at a time and leave the rest in his stash in town, etc.

 

[dibens]

Why is that preferred to simply spending 700 skill points over the course of playing the game?
The result is identical but use-based has grinding.

This discussion is beyond the topic of this thread. I have no problems with point based system at all.

However, if given a choice between grinding XP or grinding skill, I'd prefer the latter. Using one skill to save up points to raise another, completely unrelated skill is simply not as satisfying. How often do people pick a basic melee or fireball skill at the beginning so that they can earn enough points for their final envisioned build or until they find a really powerful items for those skills.