Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: May 2013
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2013
Would it not be better to gain more XP when you use your Charisma Skill?

for example:

Quest: Get Item "X" from friendly NPC1

Kill NPC1 = maybe 0XP or 100XP or Quest cannot be completed!

Steal Item "X" from NPC1 (sneak into his house) = 500XP

Talk to the friendly NPC1 and use Charisma Skill = 1500XP

Something like that wink

I think you can always kill really bad guys, but friendly and poor people (like the one who steals the fish on the Market in Cyseal D:OS1) should have the chance to survive through giving a lot more XP by talking to him, instead killing him wink


Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
To be fair that is already the case.
In D:OS there were quests that you would get the smallest amount of XP by just killing the guy. Larger if you bring them an item or other NPC which in turn was locked behind a speech check. (There is one with a troll for example)

Personally I find one of the better side quests in D:OS 1 was the Victoria quest. In that quest you had charisma option, stealth option and combat options. If larian can apply that sort of trichotomy to more of their quests the game will be all the better for it.

@madscientist
Mutually exclusive quests have also been confirmed. An example they show in some of their pre-alpha footage involves working with or against the dwarves in one of the towns. As to wether any of these options are more or less combat or dialogue heavy we can't say yet.

That being said the footage and presentations larian did before pax (pax was combat focused) mentioned many aspects that lend to a more character and story based gameplay (both the origins and the tags system can add a lot of gameplay that is less combat focused)

Take for example a character who is in your party but was secretly hired to kill you. In this scenario convincing them to join your side makes as much gameplay sense as killing them. It just depends how you play your character.

There are probably going to be unavoidable combat sections (bosses, unthinking hostile creatures, ect) but as long as there are a multitude of situations that can be accomplished without a pile of corpses I'll be happy.



Last edited by NinjaSteave; 19/05/16 11:28 AM.
Joined: Jan 2016
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Jan 2016
I think everyone is killable, but every problem can be solved by not killing anyone.

this is a perfect way of gameplay.

Joined: Jul 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2014
I'm for non-violent solutions but if you are going to have them please make those solutions meaningful and in keeping with character motivations and goals. Pay attention to world coherency - a non-violent or violent solution shouldn't undermine that. *Stick to the rules laid down by the fiction of your world* Divinity is floaty enough as it is with its lore.

Here's an example: If you could manipulate an army to stop sacking a town then great but it requires very good writing. Done poorly and at a certain point it impacts the plot, a believable world and its inhabitants. Why would an army bent on conquest just stop unless there is a compelling *material reason* for them to stop. The "You and whose army" retort comes to mind here.

Also it shouldn't always be possible to find a non-violent solution aka Doctor Who in his first meeting with the Daleks. The Daleks plan to wipe out the Thals and they can't be reasoned with. The Doctor must persuade the Thals to attack the Daleks or they will be destroyed. No ifs or buts or maybes - that is the only option. If the Daleks could of been reasoned with it would of destroyed the menace of the Daleks and what they are about.

Joined: May 2013
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2013
Originally Posted by NinjaSteave
To be fair that is already the case.
In D:OS there were quests that you would get the smallest amount of XP by just killing the guy. Larger if you bring them an item or other NPC which in turn was locked behind a speech check. (There is one with a troll for example)


That´s not true!
http://www.divinityoriginalsin.com/usergen/ivar_walkthrough.pdf

Page 52: Victoria / Eglandaer
Kill Victoria = 2745 XP
Kill Eglandaer = 2550 XP
Fool Eglandaer = 2400 XP
Arrest Eglandaer = 2100 XP


Page 55: Guards at the Bridge
Resist Order and Kill the legionnaires = 1080 XP
Accept the orders = 900 XP


Page 101/102: Looting the Warehouse (Cyseal Task)
Fight the guards = 2050 XP
Door is opened = 260 XP
Sneak inside = 0XP


Just to name a few examples wink

Last edited by john carmack; 20/05/16 08:47 AM.

Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Joined: Feb 2015
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2015
Originally Posted by Ayvah
Originally Posted by gGeo
As long as we want to be game more role playing there should be target oriented reward system rather then dead body counter. Story might be bloody, oor story might be about sneaky investigation. One way or another reward for reach the target should be same amount of xp. There one issue with rewarding for non-bloody players. We get used that heroes steal stuff. In fact majority of hero's income is made by stealing from killed bodyes. There should be a way how to deliver item reward for those who fallow non-violent path.

I like what you're saying, but I actually disagree a little bit here.

I don't think that there should be a single pool of XP covering everything. I mean, why should talking improve your combat ability? I think that taking a non-violent approach should provide a form of XP that improves your non-violent approach.
You are opening another issue. Leveling system. Currently there is only one type of story reward - xp. Doesnt matter how it gets them character proceed. Please keep this interesting topic on the root. :-]

>>> How to combine hack&slash RPG and point&click adventure games to the one game The DOS:2 regarding story progress. <<<

Originally Posted by john carmack
That´s not true! - Page 52

Kill Victoria = 2745 XP
Kill Eglandaer = 2550 XP
Fool Eglandaer = 2400 XP
Arrest Eglandaer = 2100 XP

nice try for solution we are talking about. It was one side quest. How to make similar solutions for another quest?
Lets brainstorm Black cove alternative progress. ^^

Last edited by gGeo; 20/05/16 08:43 AM.
Joined: May 2013
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2013
Originally Posted by gGeo

nice try for solution we are talking about. It was one side quest. How to make similar solutions for another quest?
Lets brainstorm Black cove alternative progress. ^^


That´s not true!
http://www.divinityoriginalsin.com/usergen/ivar_walkthrough.pdf

Page 52: Victoria / Eglandaer
Kill Victoria = 2745 XP
Kill Eglandaer = 2550 XP
Fool Eglandaer = 2400 XP
Arrest Eglandaer = 2100 XP


Page 55: Guards at the Bridge
Resist Order and Kill the legionnaires = 1080 XP
Accept the orders = 900 XP


Page 101/102: Looting the Warehouse (Cyseal Task)
Fight the guards = 2050 XP
Door is opened = 260 XP
Sneak inside = 0XP


Just to name a few examples wink

Last edited by john carmack; 20/05/16 08:52 AM.

Killing shouldn't be the solution for everything!!!
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
The quest I was speaking about was with fumble the troll, where the only way to complete it is via dialogue, killing him doesn't work for the quest.

I agree that the numbers can be played with particularly for quests like Victoria's but the fundamental aspect that the quest offers you 4 different resolutions depending on your playstyle and that should be encouraged.

FYI the PDF you linked is for the classic edition and not the enhanced edition but your numbers are probably still fine.

You also have simple quests like the one to kill or spare the charmed orc that nets the same amount of XP.


At the end of the day sometimes the quests will make sense to give more XP. As long as the times when a non combat solution would be equally viable or make more sense and that it is rewarded, the game should have something for everyone.


Joined: Oct 2015
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2015
Originally Posted by BlueGuy
I'm for non-violent solutions but if you are going to have them please make those solutions meaningful and in keeping with character motivations and goals. Pay attention to world coherency - a non-violent or violent solution shouldn't undermine that. *Stick to the rules laid down by the fiction of your world* Divinity is floaty enough as it is with its lore.

Here's an example: If you could manipulate an army to stop sacking a town then great but it requires very good writing. Done poorly and at a certain point it impacts the plot, a believable world and its inhabitants. Why would an army bent on conquest just stop unless there is a compelling *material reason* for them to stop. The "You and whose army" retort comes to mind here.

Also it shouldn't always be possible to find a non-violent solution aka Doctor Who in his first meeting with the Daleks. The Daleks plan to wipe out the Thals and they can't be reasoned with. The Doctor must persuade the Thals to attack the Daleks or they will be destroyed. No ifs or buts or maybes - that is the only option. If the Daleks could of been reasoned with it would of destroyed the menace of the Daleks and what they are about.


I don't necessarily think it should be necessarily 100% no-kill. RPG plots generally need a scary bad guy, and often they can only be defeated via some form of murder.

However, I have been impressed by how this was handled by the game Metal Gear Solid and similar stealth games. Successfully infiltrating an enemy base without being seen and without killing anyone is a great achievement that the games actively reward you for. This is an example of a game for which violence and killing is only a secondary mechanic.

Metal Gear Solid also provides one of many possible solutions to your problem. In MGS, the evil army has a secret weapon. Your mission is to destroy the secret weapon, and not to stop the war. But even Doctor Who's solution is fine. It's very different from simply fighting your way through the evil army until you meet the boss and then kill the boss. Outside of video games, heroes often have to find a more rational approach.

The problem at the moment is that D:OS doesn't really have any strong non-combat mechanics. Sure they could write some good story-driven solutions to problems. However, game mechanics for things like stealth or diplomacy simply aren't very robust.

Joined: Oct 2015
N
old hand
Offline
old hand
N
Joined: Oct 2015
I know I am a minority but here is my viewpoint

EXP is by definition "Experience points" not "Reward Points" it is a representation of the overall development of skills and abilities of your character.

The reason why you get quest experience is to represent the experience one gets for doing a series of tasks that doesn't really fit in with combat or that is the result of multiple combats.

of COURSE you should get more experience for "doing it the hard way" and slaughtering everyone versus the easy way of simply picking a lock in the back and waltzing in...

Of COURSE talking someone down shouldn't give more experience then fighting the dragon they were going to release otherwise.

Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
I agree with you that experience should be related to the difficulty to obtain a result, whereas a reward system may not be equivalent.

I'll use the Vitoria quest as an example of how I see a good balance could be achieved.

Solution A: Kill Victoria.
- XP for the fight A
- XP for completing the quest as the quest giver requested
- Material reward for completing the quest as the quest giver requested

Solution B: Kill Englandaer.
- XP for fight B
- XP for completing the quest as to Victoria's satisfaction.
- material reward from Victoria

Solution C: trick Englandaer.
- XP for completing the quest as the quest giver requested
- XP for completing the quest as to Victoria's satisfaction
- Material reward for completing the quest as the quest giver requested
- Material reward from Victoria.

Solution D: Arrest Englandaer.
- XP for completing the quest as to Victoria's satisfaction
- material reward from Victoria
- small XP for arresting someone dangerous


Gaining XP is not the only reward for a quest and if both the loot and the XP are balanced based on the difficulty involved in the solution the game should provide something for everyone.

Like Neonivik said, talking the bad guy down before they summon the ultimate evil doesn't get you as much experience. You can argue that changing their mind is the more beneficial result for a world, and is difficult (probably impossible in most stories, they have their motives)

But I would still like to have more situations in the game where someone is rewarded for lateral thinking, even if that means more gold or loot. (Yes I know money was easy to come by in D:OS)

Joined: Feb 2015
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2015
Steve, nice analyze.
However - immediate xp reward for kill someone must go. If you keep that element in game it is still tempting to kill on sight and get immediate reward. If you keep element of the immediate xp gain on kill, then sweeping area from any living creature will remain.

XP gain should be only for tasks. e.g. when quest ( milestone in the longer quest) is achieved.

Solution A: Kill Victoria.
- Journal note - quest progress
- XP for completing the quest as the quest giver requested
- Material reward for completing the quest as the quest giver requested

Solution B: Kill Englandaer.
- Journal note - quest progress
- XP for completing the quest as to Victoria's satisfaction.
- material reward from Victoria
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Those Journal notes should be done by noticeable way. Maby they should scroll on the screen forced ? It happend to offten to me that I missed a lot journal notes when they occurred. Its crucial, that player is informed that something has happend.

Last edited by gGeo; 21/05/16 05:20 AM.
Joined: Oct 2015
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2015
Originally Posted by Neonivek
of COURSE you should get more experience for "doing it the hard way" and slaughtering everyone versus the easy way of simply picking a lock in the back and waltzing in...

Who said it should be easy?

Stealth in Metal Gear Solid certainly isn't easy.

But even in terms of combat, the hard work is in winning the fight. Killing is the easy part, but it's currently the only part that gives you XP, and it's currently the only way to successfully resolve combat.

Anyway, I think the problem is probably less about whether or not you get good XP from pursuing alternatives to violence, but more about the lack of attention that is put into the alternatives. If non-violence is fun, then people will do it anyway, XP be damned (as long as you don't end up in a dead-end later because you're forced into combat and your party is underpowered).

Joined: Jun 2013
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jun 2013
Originally Posted by gGeo
Steve, nice analyze.
However - immediate xp reward for kill someone must go. If you keep that element in game it is still tempting to kill on sight and get immediate reward. If you keep element of the immediate xp gain on kill, then sweeping area from any living creature will remain.

XP gain should be only for tasks. e.g. when quest ( milestone in the longer quest) is achieved.

Solution A: Kill Victoria.
- Journal note - quest progress
- XP for completing the quest as the quest giver requested
- Material reward for completing the quest as the quest giver requested

Solution B: Kill Englandaer.
- Journal note - quest progress
- XP for completing the quest as to Victoria's satisfaction.
- material reward from Victoria
--------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem is though, if you remove kill XP the game ceases to be what it is to some extent.

As NinjaSteave mentioned last page, the design philosophy for the game N+ dictates that there must be fallback solutions. Especially with regards to the main quest. Combine that with the concept that everyone must be killable and that means you necessarily cannot rely on quest givers for all of your XP rewards.

If you kill that NPC and you never got the quest, how would you complete the task? If you can't complete all these tasks how do you gain XP and beat the game?

I think there is room to balance how intended non-combat solutions reward you to bring it up on par with combat solutions. But going farther then that changes what the game is.

Joined: Feb 2015
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2015
Originally Posted by SniperHF
If you kill that NPC and you never got the quest, how would you complete the task? If you can't complete all these tasks how do you gain XP and beat the game?
In a tabletop RPG players often comes with their own ideas of a guest like "lets burn a pub and rape a waitress". Good dungeon master then, prepares ad-hoc quest.

Computer game could use similar technique. As soon as you kill couple citizens (and do not receive any xp) a new quest is self initiated - new journal event : "Lets purge this city, to the ground. Everyone seems infected by the source. " when you finish it, you get your reward.

e.g. Not every quest must have a 3rd person of quest quiver.

or another one
as soon as you pick pocket few citizens a message boy popup with a letter from local chief of underground asking for a favour. Pickpocket certain people.

e.g. get noticed, you could even have a person the quest quiver who is not visible or players could meet. For example a mage who communicate thru crystal. Or a thug chief who is somewhere underground and you could only initiate a dialog with a sewer bar on the ground.

Well, I am not a big fan of traditional quest givers, standing in the local pub all day long waiting for a band of heroes. Most of quests should be hidden or initiated by some action.

The main quest line could be self powered - e.g. main characters have an idea what to do. So there is no big boss who pays them, they fallow ther own will. Would want to save a kidnapped princess and kill the wizard, maby they would rather offer their bodyguard services to the wizard and rape a princess as reward. Depens on good/evil character. Anyway, finaly they will live happily ever after on the wizard's castle with a princess. laugh

Last edited by gGeo; 22/05/16 07:59 AM.
Joined: Mar 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2016
WTF is your problem...You sick f@!%!!! Yeah it's true that this is a fantasy RPG...But you mentioned rape twice in your comments, which is a very REAL and terrifying subject for some people!!! It's not a joking matter and if this were my column ANY and ALL comments such as yours would be banned permanently from the site. I mean seriously man, I'm sure that about half of Larian fans/forum members are of the female species did you even think before writing I'm sure what you think to be a "cool" subject , how it would and could have an effect on individuals that may have been exposed in the past to this horrifying and demeaning subject matter??? Think about any special women involved personally in your own life and how if they would have to go through an awful experience such as the one you pridefully tap onto your message page, Not so Cool now is it??? How do you have the audacity to say "Rape",as a reward??? Where the F@?!! is your SICK mind??? I know it's a game that the general subject matter spawns from but what your so called Fantasy talk revolves around is in reality is a class A felony and a word that sometimes just the mere mention of will terrify certain people. Seriously you should secure yourself some help.

Joined: Mar 2016
Location: Canada
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2016
Location: Canada
I think you SHOULD be able to kill everything and still complete the game, but make it more enjoyable to not kill towns people and stuff, you know.


The mind is better suited for imagination.
Joined: Oct 2015
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2015
Originally Posted by gGeo
In a tabletop RPG players often comes with their own ideas of a guest like "lets burn a pub and rape a waitress". Good dungeon master then, prepares ad-hoc quest.

Perhaps this means I'm a terrible dungeon master, but I have to say I agree with DayVlad73 (with less hyperbole). I find this kind of mindless violence (sexual or not) rather tasteless.

When I sit down to play an RPG, I'm not in the mindset of wanting to play a random murder simulator, and I really can't relate to anyone who plays Divinity in the mindset of "Let's rape, pillage and slaughter this entire innocent village because evil" and gets frustrated when this option is not available (although the cheese merchant does make murder a little tempting).

I think that the "kill everyone and still be able to finish the game" started as a philosophy that was supposed to be about freedom with what limited mechanics the games originally had. But now it simply reinforces that violence is the only mechanic that matters. The only choice that has been expressed as a fundamental philosophy is the choice to kill anything you want.

I really don't think this philosophy needs to be on a pedestal.

Joined: Feb 2015
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2015
Originally Posted by Ayvah
Originally Posted by gGeo
In a tabletop RPG players often comes with their own ideas of a guest like "lets burn a pub and rape a waitress". Good dungeon master then, prepares ad-hoc quest.

Perhaps this means I'm a terrible dungeon master, but I have to say I agree with DayVlad73 (with less hyperbole). I find this kind of mindless violence (sexual or not)
Maby you are. Maby my players just read Discworld series by Terry Prachet so felt in love with Cohen the Barbarian and his Silver horde. meme-->"Hey dude, get out off the building. I told you, we burn buildings and rape woman not vice versa." horsey


Last edited by gGeo; 23/05/16 04:36 PM.
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
As horrible as the act is, and no one should disput that, it is still something that did and still does happen. As such it will continue to be used in narratives when trying to get an emotional response from the audience, be it readers of a book or other gamers in an RPG.

Generally speaking if a game is for a wider audience (so not a game with just your friends that you know the boundaries of) the subject may be alluded to, but will generally not be explicit.

As for murdering everyone because that is how you want to role play your character, if the game allows it I won't stop them. As long as the game is enjoyable and balanced if I don't murder everything with a pulse (be it blood or necromagic) then I will be a happy gamer. Conversely sometimes an NPC annoys me or does something my character does not agree with, and not having arbitrary game armor helps you feel a level of freedom even if you never take the option.

Ultimately I view the benefits gained by allowing you to kill anything, outweigh the costs of some players min maxing through the game. For that reason I am in favor of adding non-combat options, but not removing combat ones.

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5