The XP for Combat Megathread! DISCUSS!

[Norfleet]

What are you going on about? This thread and discussion was posted in the context of Pillars of Eternity, where the designers made the controversial decision to remove XP for combat. I raised the point that if I am playing a Fighter, it is perfectly appropriate role-playing to fight, and should be rewarded as such. Your first sentence acknowledges this, but it is not what PoE is doing.

But you still get your XP, and if you are being a fighter, you'd get it by fighting your way to the end. That the XP isn't being awarded on a per-kill basis doesn't mean you aren't being awarded XP for fighting. You get your XP for solving the quest, which, as a fighter, you would be doing with your skillset of fighting.

 

[Dorateen]

And now we've come full circle to the post I made earlier. Why must we get the XP for solving the quest? Since the XP would more naturally come from doing the actions needed to fulfill the quest objective. As an adventurer, especially with proper motivations, you are going to accept and complete the quest anyway. By attaching an XP reward, you are just incentivizing taking quests, which may even be out of character.

 

[SCO]

 

[Norfleet]

And now we've come full circle to the post I made earlier. Why must we get the XP for solving the quest? Since the XP would more naturally come from doing the actions needed to fulfill the quest objective. As an adventurer, especially with proper motivations, you are going to accept and complete the quest anyway. By attaching an XP reward, you are just incentivizing taking quests, which may even be out of character.

The way I see it, XP will be given somewhere. Either you are given XP for performing actions, like, say, killing dudes, picking locks, etc., or you're given XP for doing the quest, whatever it may be, or some combination thereof. If the XP is purely for killing dudes, then this basically invalidates any non-killing-dudes solution. If the XP is split between actions and quest reward, then you're incentivized to solve the quest in the most inefficiently action-intensive and perverse manner possible: Pick every lock, evade or persuade every dude, then kill them all anyway. The only equitable solution that doesn't favor a dominant path, often one that is ritually perverse, is to reward mission completion, and nothing else.

Your drawback to this is, obviously, as you mentioned, that you are incentivizing taking quests. But, as you pointed out, as an adventurer, you're going to accept and complete quests anyway, so the incentive here has minimal effect as far as distorting player behavior goes.

 

[Rake]

And now we've come full circle to the post I made earlier. Why must we get the XP for solving the quest? Since the XP would more naturally come from doing the actions needed to fulfill the quest objective. As an adventurer, especially with proper motivations, you are going to accept and complete the quest anyway. By attaching an XP reward, you are just incentivizing taking quests, which may even be out of character.

The way I see it, XP will be given somewhere. Either you are given XP for performing actions, like, say, killing dudes, picking locks, etc., or you're given XP for doing the quest, whatever it may be, or some combination thereof. If the XP is purely for killing dudes, then this basically invalidates any non-killing-dudes solution. If the XP is split between actions and quest reward, then you're incentivized to solve the quest in the most inefficiently action-intensive and perverse manner possible: Pick every lock, evade or persuade every dude, then kill them all anyway. The only equitable solution that doesn't favor a dominant path, often one that is ritually perverse, is to reward mission completion, and nothing else.

Your drawback to this is, obviously, as you mentioned, that you are incentivizing taking quests. But, as you pointed out, as an adventurer, you're going to accept and complete quests anyway, so the incentive here has minimal effect as far as distorting player behavior goes.

Actualy the optimal solution is to take it one step further like Draq suggested Remove Quest XP as well, and keep in game rewards (money,items,information,favors) as quest rewards. XP rewards should be given only in main path quests, which the player is forced to do anyway in order to finish the game. That also allows the devs to know at what power level the Player is at any moment, plus it mitigates the extent of XP level as a power source and gives items/spells etc. a bigger role in power progresion.

 

[Shevek]

Two things: One, it really doesn't matter since once you start playing all xp gain fades into the background and you do what you wanna do regardless. Two, even ignoring the point previously made, I think the best solution is a per game solution. In other words, if your game is about exploring, then you need to have an xp system that rewards that (see Underrail for the best exploration xp I have ever seen), if your game is all about combat (see IWD and other dungeon crawlers) do lots of combat xp, etc etc. I think you have to have an xp system that makes sense for your game. There is no one size fits all solution.

When I backed PoE, I thought it would be a dungeon hack. While there is alot of combat, I must admit to being surprised by the amount of non-combat solutions even in the small slice of the game presented in the beta. This is way way different (in a good way!) from the IE games. Their xp system makes sense for their game.

The last thing we should look for is the optimal system to fit all games because that doesnt exist.

 

[Norfleet]

Actualy the optimal solution is to take it one step further like Draq suggested Remove Quest XP as well, and keep in game rewards (money,items,information,favors) as quest rewards. XP rewards should be given only in main path quests, which the player is forced to do anyway in order to finish the game. That also allows the devs to know at what power level the Player is at any moment, plus it mitigates the extent of XP level as a power source and gives items/spells etc. a bigger role in power progresion.

Well, at the point at which you can no longer actually earn any XP at all, and it is instead simply doled out to you at fixed points regardless of what you do, you may as well just not *HAVE* any XP. I mean, why do we really need XP, anyway? What is it with incompetent chosen ones? In any case, if there's nothing I can actually do to get XP, why bother even having it?

 

[DraQ]

Well, at the point at which you can no longer actually earn any XP at all, and it is instead simply doled out to you at fixed points regardless of what you do, you may as well just not *HAVE* any XP. I mean, why do we really need XP, anyway? What is it with incompetent chosen ones? In any case, if there's nothing I can actually do to get XP, why bother even having it?

True.
Still if you're going for an ever-prevalent farmhand to hero kind of story where the protagonist vastly increases in competence you might need an XP mechanics.
In general, if you want to have non-specific character growth (as in not predefined abilities or techniques) for the need of specific story or at specific points, you will do well with this sort of XP system.

 

[Norfleet]

Nah, even there, you can dispense with the notion of "XP" entirely and just flat out give levels or even just skillpoints. There's no need to pretend you earn XP to gain levels, because there's no actual earning of XP. The middleman is unnecessary if you're not actually going to ever earn any XP. Reach chapter 2, become level 2. Etc.

 

[Dorateen]

I'm not interested in RPG systems that do not include an experience points advancing mechanic. That's not really the discussion. All the pnp and computer role-playing games I have enjoyed include XP as a fundamental part of the ruleset, and in this regard Pillars of Eternity is no different. The problem is that the designers have arbitrarily decided not to grant XP for one aspect of playing, but give out XP for another. Their approach, and worse, the mindset behind the shift is foolish.

Suddenly spiders in the wilderness that are not associated with any specific quest, yield no XP. Isn't that magical.

 

[Norfleet]

The flipside of this is that you will no longer need to grind spiders for XP, and can just go through the game normally.

 

[CyberP]

The only equitable solution that doesn't favor a dominant path, often one that is ritually perverse, is to reward mission completion, and nothing else.

Nope: Exploration also. Mission completion & exploration only. It's the model System Shock 2 and Deus Ex use, and I strongly feel it to be vastly superior for a number of reasons that I already mentioned in this thread before: balance, challenge, no encouragement to play a certain way, and so on. It's amazing that so many RPGs get this "wrong".

 

[Norfleet]

I would lump "exploration" as a type of mission completion, "Reach Point X". This, as opposed to killing things, because killing random things isn't a mission, it's just grinding for XP/loot. Killing a SPECIFIC thing might qualify as a mission, but just grinding random respawning rats doesn't.

 

[CyberP]

Grinding is the bane of many a great RPG. The only game I feel it fits is in Dark Souls: you can grind but your xp level doesn't have a considerable effect on your overall power. Player skill is dominant. Also weak enemies can still fuck you up if swarmed, and then you lose all the xp/souls. It still doesn't really fit, but the threat of danger is always there and careful planning & observation is always required regardless, so it is acceptable.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, if you grant XP for combat independently of any quest/mission objective, then you're either punishing non-combat (completing a quest without killing everyone = XP penalty), or enforcing/incentivizing grinding (run around killing respawns and random encounters for additional XP).

If XP is ONLY gained through quests (exploration counts as a quest, codewise), then it doesn't matter how you solve the quest, whether you slaughter, persuade, or otherwise, then there's no grinding, but the player is incentivized to do quests, and any non-quest activity, like fighting random encounters (read: grinding), grants no reward at all. There is, of course, then no reason to grind mobs for XP. This, in my view, represents the minimal distortion of gameplay and reward, because players are inclined to do quests ANYWAY, but some complain that have to do quests, whether or not you consider those quests "in-character".

Taken even further as some suggest, where XP is granted only for strictly mandatory activities, basically just invalidates the point of having XP entirely. If you receive advancement ONLY for direct main-story advancement, then why bother with having XP at all? XP exists to measure and grant subquantum advancement: You've advanced, but there is no actual change. There's no need to have XP if advancement is exactly the same for everyone and utterly predictable. You simply receive a level/skillpoint/whatever at point X in the game, period. If you received "half" a level in XP at point X-1, it makes no difference at all since you cannot earn XP in any way, so it's the same as receiving nothing at all until point X. At this point, the only reason to even still have an XP count is pure cargo cultism.

 

[CyberP]

Taken even further as some suggest, where XP is granted only for strictly mandatory activities, basically just invalidates the point of having XP entirely. If you receive advancement ONLY for direct main-story advancement, then why bother with having XP at all? XP exists to measure and grant subquantum advancement: You've advanced, but there is no actual change. There's no need to have XP if advancement is exactly the same for everyone and utterly predictable. You simply receive a level/skillpoint/whatever at point X in the game, period. If you received "half" a level in XP at point X-1, it makes no difference at all since you cannot earn XP in any way, so it's the same as receiving nothing at all until point X. At this point, the only reason to even still have an XP count is pure cargo cultism.

Why is there relevance in how much xp player X has obtained over player Y? What matters is the character build/choices they've made, not how much they've grinded.

With the Deus Ex model not all players end up with the same skill points. Exploration cannot be lumped with objectives. It is rewarded for secret areas, character interaction, and very rarely minor accomplishments, but never anything that influences your playstyle beyond encouraging you to seek out every nook of the game.

If you received "half" a level in XP at point X-1, it makes no difference at all since you cannot earn XP in any way, so it's the same as receiving nothing at all until point X.

Not quite. If in your current xp pool you already hold half a level left over from previous purchases when you reach location X-1 then you get to level up.

 

[Johannes]

Encouraging you to seek out every nook of the game, vs. encouraging you to genocide every mook of the game - which is better and why?

 

[CyberP]

Encouraging you to seek out every nook of the game, vs. encouraging you to genocide every mook of the game - which is better and why?

The former. All games by default encourage exploration if they aren't linear, because there's always loot, characters, secret areas, quests etc to find, so there's no harm in further encouragement. Awarding xp for combat and other tasks however, many problems arise.

 

[CyberP]

In fact most old school games exploration is a requirement because no objective markers, so encouraging and rewarding it is a must.

 

[DraQ]

Nah, even there, you can dispense with the notion of "XP" entirely and just flat out give levels or even just skillpoints. There's no need to pretend you earn XP to gain levels, because there's no actual earning of XP. The middleman is unnecessary if you're not actually going to ever earn any XP. Reach chapter 2, become level 2. Etc.

Depends on granularity you need and linearity you have.

If you can perform some mandatory tasks in different order you might want to dole out partial levels. You may also want your XP to translate into levels in non-linear fashion, like in most cRPGs using XP system.
And, while doling out XP for every sidequest is a bad idea, you might still give some out for major optional tasks that should be desirable for all protagonists - for example finding out more about backstory of the MQ conflict or finding an artifact of power.
As long as there is absolutely no reason for any possible PC to not be doing something, you can give out XP for it.

The only equitable solution that doesn't favor a dominant path, often one that is ritually perverse, is to reward mission completion, and nothing else.

Nope: Exploration also. Mission completion & exploration only.

Information, loot, sidequests and environmental awareness (meaning more tactical advantage) are all the rewards one needs when exploring.
They are natural rewards for exploration and anything more means exploration turning into hidden XP hotspots hunting minigame. For example I can have ventilation system layout more or less mapped out in my head, be reasonably sure I won't find anything worthwhile inside and have no tactical need to use it but noo - I must crawl inside each and every branch because muh explorashun XP.
It's bad and unnecessary.

Yes, that also means Deus Ex isn't perfect and would be better the way it is except without exploration XP, deal with it.

 

[AN4RCHID]

The way I see it, XP will be given somewhere. Either you are given XP for performing actions, like, say, killing dudes, picking locks, etc., or you're given XP for doing the quest, whatever it may be, or some combination thereof. If the XP is purely for killing dudes, then this basically invalidates any non-killing-dudes solution. If the XP is split between actions and quest reward, then you're incentivized to solve the quest in the most inefficiently action-intensive and perverse manner possible: Pick every lock, evade or persuade every dude, then kill them all anyway. The only equitable solution that doesn't favor a dominant path, often one that is ritually perverse, is to reward mission completion, and nothing else.

God forbid that you should be able to play in a certain manner in order to maximize rewards. I mean, what is this, some kind of a game?

 

[Ninjerk]

Encouraging you to seek out every nook of the game, vs. encouraging you to genocide every mook of the game - which is better and why?

Is every mook/nook unique content?

 

[DraQ]

Encouraging you to seek out every nook of the game, vs. encouraging you to genocide every mook of the game - which is better and why?

The only winning move is not to play.

 

[CyberP]

Yes, that also means Deus Ex isn't perfect and would be better the way it is except without exploration XP, deal with it.

I disagree for a number of reasons, but I'm not getting into this argument again.

 

[DraQ]

Yes, that also means Deus Ex isn't perfect and would be better the way it is except without exploration XP, deal with it.

I disagree for a number of reasons, but I'm not getting into this argument again.