Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Sep 2016
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512
I play a lot of DnD and Pathfinder and this is an extremely common issue in those worlds which, in my opinion, is best handled by giving the same amount of experience no matter what happens. It doesn't matter if you decide to take the direct route and mow everyone down, talk everyone down, or talk everyone down and then jump them while their guard is down, at the end of the day you have "conquered a challenge" and should be rewarded depending on the difficulty of the encounter. The one way that exp should be variable is if there are optional side objectives, stated or otherwise, that alter the difficulty of the encounter or create unique ways to handle the problem. In almost all cases creativity in how to handle a situation should at least be attempted to be rewarded but that can be pretty hard to do without making it feel shoehorned or not comprehensive.


So despite the fact the rules for the game system you mentioned say not to give them the same experience you or your GM do anyway?

The rules also state to punish characters and players for trying to break the game system just because it is a game your GM is nicer than mine and also not a very good GM.

Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512
I play a lot of DnD and Pathfinder and this is an extremely common issue in those worlds which, in my opinion, is best handled by giving the same amount of experience no matter what happens. It doesn't matter if you decide to take the direct route and mow everyone down, talk everyone down, or talk everyone down and then jump them while their guard is down, at the end of the day you have "conquered a challenge" and should be rewarded depending on the difficulty of the encounter. The one way that exp should be variable is if there are optional side objectives, stated or otherwise, that alter the difficulty of the encounter or create unique ways to handle the problem. In almost all cases creativity in how to handle a situation should at least be attempted to be rewarded but that can be pretty hard to do without making it feel shoehorned or not comprehensive.


If killing everyone gets you 100 xp and doing the quest and turning it in without killing gets you 100 xp and turning in the quest and killing everyone after gets you 100 xp. Why in gods name would anyone go through the extra time and effort to do the fights?

Do you see the issue?

On the other hand, why do you care if some one puts in that extra time and effort and ends up overleveling?

Going the "good" way is only gonna put you at the correct level...probably higher, anyway, if you do the optional stuff.

And at the end of the game the level difference will be....maybe a couple levels. Is two-three levels between a casual player putting in 40 hours in a "good" play through and someone meta power gaming as "evil" to be slightly above you at 60-80 hours at the end worth crying over?

I have yet to see someone actually make a case against that.

Hell, the most I've seen said is that it's too easy to go with the kill option cause it simply requires a little extra time and no real effort.

My response was Bovine Defense Initiative to make killers work for their extra ill gained rewards and karma system attached to reputation (so it actually matters) so one actually thinks before killing. Also, specific quests tied to spruce action sequences/reputation.....


Edit:

I power gamed in D&D all the time or advised other s how.DM response? Ramp up difficulty too match and/or have specific ivy triggered events based off character actions that would legitimately attempt to punish me by making me prove I "deserved" my gains.

This took place in the form of bounties, groups of city guards, pissing off elementals, etc...They didn't have to change game system rules on me; they used creative solutions that actually made sense and added to the fun without making me frustrated by making me feel like an impotent limp rag with only the barest illusion of real choice

Generally, this meant different quests, box interactions, difficult in over alll combat, and different gear and loot. "Good" players would have a much easier time gaining blessings, high level loot rewards, etc...they'd be fewer but more noteworthy for all the work and then there's the inevitable unique story it creates. "Evil" char had higher levels and generally more loot with a better average level, but the difficulty in gaining really high powered stuff was very risky.

Ex. Someone pure calling to angels for help has a much better chance at getting what they want vs someone calling demons who might just kill them for lolz....unless the summoner is just that skilled and well prepared to attempt that fight and even then it was really damn hard

Last edited by aj0413; 15/10/16 11:23 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2014
Perhaps I'm in the minority but when I make a "good" character, I do so knowing and accepting that I am foregoing the "quick and easy" route to success. This means I will likely gain experience slower (by virtue of scruples interfering with my mass murdering spree and/or turning down quests that interfere with my character's morals and ethics) and likely gain gear slower because I have to take the long "high" road to get it.

To me, that's part of the fun of playing a "good," character. Overcoming the limitations you've placed on yourself by your moral compass and still managing to accomplish the task is the biggest reward to the play style (in my opinion).

I've never really been bothered by the fact that "evil" characters gain more total experience in a game like this because the challenge of not compromising my character in the process of beating the game has always been more appealing to me than hitting level 21 instead of level 20.

Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Fastel
So despite the fact the rules for the game system you mentioned say not to give them the same experience you or your GM do anyway?

The rules also state to punish characters and players for trying to break the game system just because it is a game your GM is nicer than mine and also not a very good GM.


The rules are there to create a system in which the players have fun and are free to be creative. If you don't like the rules you are free to change or even ignore them. I don't play adventure paths most of the time specifically to avoid the murder hoboness of exp min/maxers.


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by aj0413

If killing everyone gets you 100 xp and doing the quest and turning it in without killing gets you 100 xp and turning in the quest and killing everyone after gets you 100 xp. Why in gods name would anyone go through the extra time and effort to do the fights?

Do you see the issue?


If you kill the people, you have completed the encounter and get rewarded for it. If find a way to pacify them, you have completed the encounter and should be rewarded for it. Finishing an encounter and then redoing the encounter to choke out more exp makes very little sense especially from a storytelling standpoint.

Originally Posted by aj0413

I power gamed in D&D all the time or advised other s how.DM response? Ramp up difficulty too match and/or have specific ivy triggered events based off character actions that would legitimately attempt to punish me by making me prove I "deserved" my gains.

This took place in the form of bounties, groups of city guards, pissing off elementals, etc...They didn't have to change game system rules on me; they used creative solutions that actually made sense and added to the fun without making me frustrated by making me feel like an impotent limp rag with only the barest illusion of real choice


If what gives the most exp is what drives you to make most choices then I honestly feel sorry for you, you've completely missed the most beautiful aspects of DnD.


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512
Originally Posted by aj0413

If killing everyone gets you 100 xp and doing the quest and turning it in without killing gets you 100 xp and turning in the quest and killing everyone after gets you 100 xp. Why in gods name would anyone go through the extra time and effort to do the fights?

Do you see the issue?


If you kill the people, you have completed the encounter and get rewarded for it. If find a way to pacify them, you have completed the encounter and should be rewarded for it. Finishing an encounter and then redoing the encounter to choke out more exp makes very little sense especially from a storytelling standpoint.

Originally Posted by aj0413

I power gamed in D&D all the time or advised other s how.DM response? Ramp up difficulty too match and/or have specific ivy triggered events based off character actions that would legitimately attempt to punish me by making me prove I "deserved" my gains.

This took place in the form of bounties, groups of city guards, pissing off elementals, etc...They didn't have to change game system rules on me; they used creative solutions that actually made sense and added to the fun without making me frustrated by making me feel like an impotent limp rag with only the barest illusion of real choice


If what gives the most exp is what drives you to make most choices then I honestly feel sorry for you, you've completely missed the most beautiful aspects of DnD.


If you missed my point that you just removed actual reasons why to do something different.

And no, I did those things cause I enjoy chaotic nuetral, chaotic evil, and chaotic good. I very much love taking advantage of how flexible everything is to let me "anything" I can think up on my whims.

The problem here is that each of those decisions felt rewarding and impactful. Removing that is an issue.

Trying to change core mechanics cause you can't handle a gamer exploiting your loop holes means plug the damn things in. It does not mean to change core mechanics; which is the point of my example

Last edited by aj0413; 16/10/16 08:52 AM.
Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
Fair enough, the only thing i really care about is that solving problems through conversation should give the same or at the very least similar amounts of exp. Whether or not killing them afterwards gives exp doesn't interest me at all because that's not the way I play in almost every case. (the exception being if I am talking the people down so a hostage can escape and then I deliver justice to the villains :D)


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Sep 2016
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Sep 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512
Fair enough, the only thing i really care about is that solving problems through conversation should give the same or at the very least similar amounts of exp. Whether or not killing them afterwards gives exp doesn't interest me at all because that's not the way I play in almost every case. (the exception being if I am talking the people down so a hostage can escape and then I deliver justice to the villains :D)


Which has constantly been my point:

If the game is balanced around the level you should be at given the xp through conversation, and the end difference between you and someone killing everyone is maybe two-three levels (ie that's at max, in game one the difference is one or two depending on optional stuff), why do you care about the other guy?

The game is balanced around your method so it's not like your gimped. The other guy is literally doing more work and has to meta game, thus requiring an extensive guide or multiple play through, and the end difference isn't even that notable. There's also the whole reputation/karma thing to consider and the fact that evil = wants power traditional understanding.

Do you see why I call this whole thread silly?

The most in willing to concede is that killing shouldn't be that easy of a decision for non combat NPCs.

More thought should go into it then: MOAR POWAH!

Even yourself, the only reason you seem to show concern is "fairness" because it's not your playstyle so you wouldn't be effected if such a playstyle was gimped.

This whole idea that things are currently "unfair" is what I find truly silly

Edit:
And yes, stabbing stab to the face any who would hide behind another. Blood for the BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

Last edited by aj0413; 16/10/16 05:20 PM.
Joined: Oct 2016
R
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
R
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Cylion
So normally I search the entire beach before going to town, in town I kill the two guys trying to steal from the elf. After that I kill the 3 guys playing cards. I always hit lvl 2 after this, always. But today I wanted to be nice, I dint kill the 2 guys by the elf, but I helped her anyway. I did kill the 3 guys playing card but this time I did not hit lvl 2. I am at 90% or so. This really makes me want to kill them anyway just for the xp.

Agree, most games reward being bad way better, like you get twice as much exp and junk. Realy annoying for people like me who are more civil.

That is, beside other things, the reason why i decided to not play bethesda games ever again after fallout 4.

Last edited by Rasly; 17/10/16 03:10 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Rasly
That is, beside other things, the reason why i decided to not play bethesda games ever again after fallout 4.

I rather enjoyed FO4, and I do tend to play a bit of a do-gooder sort of character. I'm currently attempting to play through as an evil character, but it's not going well: she's already been downgraded from evil to bad, and further downgraded to unpleasant, then slightly coarse, through rude to occasionally sarcastic. Which is admittedly not very evil.

Sigh. Well I tried, but as hard as I try, all my characters basically end up being the same.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
The issue that I still take with the current system is that both of the current paths are not rewarded equally. Being "the bad guy" is rewarded more heavily making being "good" basically punishing people for being good. The thread isn't silly because this problem should be addressed and realistically isn't a hard issue to address.


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Oct 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512
The issue that I still take with the current system is that both of the current paths are not rewarded equally. Being "the bad guy" is rewarded more heavily making being "good" basically punishing people for being good. The thread isn't silly because this problem should be addressed and realistically isn't a hard issue to address.


In all fairness, being the "bad guy" instead of the "good guy" isn't especially rewarding. However, being the guy who resolves the quest without violence for full reward and then kills everyone for more reward is strictly more rewarding.
Although, with ever-increasing amounts of XP required for each level-up and ever-increasing gold costs for better items, the impact is low (or certainly can be) if these extra costs scale up fast enough.

For example, it won't matter how many level 1 peasants you killed, once you're level 10, the gold and XP impacts will be too low to matter.

Joined: Sep 2016
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Sep 2016
“Virtue is its own reward. There's a pleasure in doing good which sufficiently pays itself.”
Sir John Vanbrugh


Research suggests that being good is inherently rewarding, neurological evidence proves that generosity activates positive and pleasure centers in the brain.
Besides, bank robbers and bandits always get more money faster until the powers that be shut them down or lock them up.

Last edited by Surrealialis; 17/10/16 11:57 PM.
Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by error3

In all fairness, being the "bad guy" instead of the "good guy" isn't especially rewarding. However, being the guy who resolves the quest without violence for full reward and then kills everyone for more reward is strictly more rewarding.
Although, with ever-increasing amounts of XP required for each level-up and ever-increasing gold costs for better items, the impact is low (or certainly can be) if these extra costs scale up fast enough.


I am referring specifically to the exp gap between the two primary choices. It's not an opinion, just a fact. You get more experience if you kill everyone than if you don't. My opinion is that both options should give the same exp. If people decide to power game then more power to them.

Originally Posted by error3

For example, it won't matter how many level 1 peasants you killed, once you're level 10, the gold and XP impacts will be too low to matter.


Saying that if you ignore the problem long enough it will go away =/= there is no problem. You are correct that, in theory, eventually you will not feel the loss of 50 exp when you are dealing with 5000 exp, but if the same design philosophy continues then you WILL feel the thousands of experience you miss out on then which will continue to be a trend throughout the entire game.


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Oct 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512

I am referring specifically to the exp gap between the two primary choices. It's not an opinion, just a fact. You get more experience if you kill everyone than if you don't. My opinion is that both options should give the same exp. If people decide to power game then more power to them.


Unless you double dip by killing after the quest, it isn't always more XP to kill instead of resolving things peacefully. I can think of a few examples, if you're interested. Perhaps it is more rewarding more often, do you have any examples of your claim?

Originally Posted by Kilroy512512

Saying that if you ignore the problem long enough it will go away =/= there is no problem. You are correct that, in theory, eventually you will not feel the loss of 50 exp when you are dealing with 5000 exp, but if the same design philosophy continues then you WILL feel the thousands of experience you miss out on then which will continue to be a trend throughout the entire game.


Players who do more will always have more XP, but it'll mostly just be an extra level at any given time, it likely isn't too impactful. This is the case for people who kill all optionals, do all sidequests, etc. Even if the rewards for good/evil were exactly the same (which would make the choice super meaningless).

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I think the problem is more likely to be that Larian does not expect the majority of their players to be genocidal psychopathic min-maxers, and they will aim the difficulty assuming players do NOT murder the entire map, which leads to the min-maxers being overlevelled.

That problem though, can be more easily solved by assigning experience based on the challenge of enemies, so level 1 peasants and rats offer chump change, and the level 4 Silent Monks 700 XP will also likely be toned down a bit because they do not offer much challenge because they're always fought 4 on 1.

Joined: Oct 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Stabbey

That problem though, can be more easily solved by assigning experience based on the challenge of enemies, so level 1 peasants and rats offer chump change, and the level 4 Silent Monks 700 XP will also likely be toned down a bit because they do not offer much challenge because they're always fought 4 on 1.


This sounds good to me.

Giving exponentially more XP for higher level enemies and requiring exponentially more XP for each additional level would accomplish the same thing.

Another option would be to scale enemies and rewards with player level in the effort that things will continue to be rewarding and challenging regardless of previous choices. But this is a very divisive idea whenever it is used.

Edit: I love exploring everything and doing all the quests, but dislike it when over-leveling encounters makes them too easy. A system allowing me to have both sounds great!

Last edited by error3; 18/10/16 02:31 AM.
Joined: Oct 2016
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by error3

Unless you double dip by killing after the quest, it isn't always more XP to kill instead of resolving things peacefully. I can think of a few examples, if you're interested. Perhaps it is more rewarding more often, do you have any examples of your claim?


Generally speaking once you have resolved situation, either through violence or other means, you expect the player to move on. This creates two or more "core" methods of resolving each circumstance. For an extreme example, it would be unusual for a person to talk someone down from committing suicide only to follow that action by killing them. The idea of "double dipping" as you have mentioned is a real thing and currently very possible, but you can't balance exp around that possibility because most players are not going to do it.

We actually discussed this idea earlier where I suggested removing exp from killing enemies after you resolved a situation peacefully and other people don't like that solution for their own reasons. I don't really care whether it gives exp or not because I will choose not to do it. If other people do, for whatever reason, good for them.

Originally Posted by error3

Players who do more will always have more XP, but it'll mostly just be an extra level at any given time, it likely isn't too impactful. This is the case for people who kill all optionals, do all sidequests, etc. Even if the rewards for good/evil were exactly the same (which would make the choice super meaningless).


We are talking about two solutions to the same problem, there is no doing more or doing less in this situation. There have already been a few examples of where you get less experience for choosing the peaceful option. I suggest reading up a ways. I would be curious to hear your examples of when the opposite is true unless of course the only example is taking the peaceful option and then turning around and murdering them. I don't care about that option.


Chaotic neutral, not chaotic stupid.
Joined: Oct 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2016
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512

I would be curious to hear your examples of when the opposite is true unless of course the only example is taking the peaceful option and then turning around and murdering them. I don't care about that option.


I've got a few I can remember offhand;


If you have a Yarrow Flower when you approach the madman on the beach you can give it to him to avoid combat. This then gives you the option of turning in the quest to Magister Yarrow. If he hasn't been killed you will be rewarded with more XP when you do this. When you speak to her on the beach you will also be rewarded with knowledge of the secret entrance to the Fire Slug Cave. I'm actually not 100% sure this is more XP, than the 2 kills, but it gives XP and the option of the location, and requires 0 fighting. I'm not sure if Magister Yarrow's kill XP should be counted against the "good" option anyway, as the attack against her would be unprompted.


Another example:

When approaching the dogs in the basement of the keep prison (the room with several dogs) if you have a slobbery red ball you can give it to them and gain somewhere around 2k XP. I'm confident this is more than killing them is worth.


Another:

Just past the Blue Ambush boss there is a weakened guard that will attempt to arrest the player. If you opt not to kill him it will prompt several skeletons to spawn and attack. The XP for killing them is more than what you'd get from the weakened guard, and he lets you go free after. I don't think they spawn if you just kill him.


An interesting one:

Opting to NOT fight and kill Griff's entire gang when returning his orange and instead turning in the lizard who stole his drugs. You gain XP, then you can go prevent the assassin from killing the lizard. This nets the kill XP, and the lizard gives you XP for saving him. The biggest "good" player gain here is that you retain access to all of the skill book vendors.
One could argue this isn't necessarily a "good " solution, but it ties for least deaths, and only a single "bad" character at that.


More gold example:

When approaching the gambling thugs, you can get into a fight with them and kill them if you refuse to pay up. However, if you first get the Sparkler card you can resolve the situation peacefully and gain 100 gold. This is much more gold than you get for killing them.


I don't have exact numbers of XP on me, and these are the only cases I remember offhand.

Edit: I guess I have a ton of cases where doing someone's quest instead of killing them (with no apparent provocation) gives more, but this seems like a trivial case that isn't worth specifying.

Last edited by error3; 18/10/16 03:29 AM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Kilroy512512
Generally speaking once you have resolved situation, either through violence or other means, you expect the player to move on. This creates two or more "core" methods of resolving each circumstance. For an extreme example, it would be unusual for a person to talk someone down from committing suicide only to follow that action by killing them. The idea of "double dipping" as you have mentioned is a real thing and currently very possible, but you can't balance exp around that possibility because most players are not going to do it.

We actually discussed this idea earlier where I suggested removing exp from killing enemies after you resolved a situation peacefully and other people don't like that solution for their own reasons. I don't really care whether it gives exp or not because I will choose not to do it. If other people do, for whatever reason, good for them.


I don't remember what reasons those are, but they're probably bad and should not be encouraged. This is a roleplaying game, not a number maximizing game. If you have the choice between resolving a situation peacefully or violently, those each have consequences.

I vote in favor of setting NPC XP to zero if you make the choice to resolve a situation through peaceful methods and succeed. That is the consequence you get for making a choice to be peaceful. You should not be rewarded for then doing the opposite.

Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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