I have played a bit of D&D here and there but I am definitely not as familiar with the tabletop world as I am with video games. A few people have pointed out some things I missed. First the original D&D awarded experience for finding gold as well as defeating monsters. This was later changed to an optional rule and then officially discontinued in 3rd Edition. Second I implied that other tabletop games haven't come up with any interesting XP systems which is definitely not the case. If anything tabletop games have experimented more. I was instead trying to explain where the trend started and why it may not work all that well for video games. Thanks for the help guys.
Indeed. The Pen and Paper RPG hobby is very extensive with various progression systems and in many ways it has gone further and experimented much more with this then computer RPGs. And others then DnD have inspired computer games, such as BRP/RuneQuest which skill use progression we see in various computer ones (Yup, the Elder Scrolls system also have its origin in PnP. Although it always irks me when they then try to put levels on top of it :D). One progression mechanic I rather like is from NWOD, there you pick a virtue and a vice for your character. And if you play out and indulge in your vice that directly hinders your character and their progress you get xp from it.
Gothic rewards quests much more than fighting does, and since there's a limited amount of enemies per chapter grind is impossible. Combine it with great balance, stats simplicity and the need to spend learning points by asking someone to teach you and the system is great.
@@janstefanisin320 simplicity is generally thing that makes Gothic great, starting from statistics. You no longer have to calculate what is the best choice and spend more time with numbers than with the story. Strength increases melee damage while dexterity is for ranged combat. No giant division for smaller swords, bigger swords, axes, spears, etc. Just one and two handed variants. Bows and crossbows. Mana is your magic ammo and the spells work in simple tier system. Gothic is basically the first modern action-RPG.
"Ever since DnD released in the 70s, players have been getting XP by killing monsters and doing quest" You'd be wrong. In the original DnD XP was given based on the gold your party returned with. This means if you missed stashes of gold, but killed every monsters you'd get less XP. If you didn't kill any monster but stole all the loot, you'd get more XP. If you're a Wizard but the rest of your party wiped before returning to town, then the amount of XP you can carry would be limited by your physically weak character's carry limit.
Hey thank you so much. I researched D&D for this video and have played a few campaigns. It seemed like that has always been their system but I was obviously mistaken. They must have changed it at some point, I wasn't alive for the original version. Thanks for clearing this up.
@@GamedevAdventures, the change happened when WotC bought TSR, the company founded when D&D was created in the '70s. Here's an example of how that worked in AD&D (aka 1st edition, and what the kids in Stranger Things are playing). In order to get to 2nd level as a Fighter, you'd need to accrue 2,001 EXP. Killing the average orc nets you 14.5 EXP. So in order to gain 2nd level, a Fighter would have to slaughter 138 orcs. And they'd have to do it by themselves, because if they have help, the EXP are divided evenly. So if the Fighter has even just three companions (a small party by 1e standards, though considered average in 5e), a total of 552 orcs must be slain. This the equivalent of over 3 average orc tribes (according to the Monster Manual). As a practical example, the classic adventure Keep on the Borderlands has an orc tribe with only 23 "average" orcs plus a bigger, badder chieftain. Your total EXP for slaying all of them would be roughly 400 EXP. But the treasure they have includes 830 GP (and so 830 EXP) in gems and coins. If you sell their weapons and armour, that's another 195 GP. (There's also another 2,500 EXP worth of magic items, but the PCs only get those EXP if they sell the magic items, and they'll probably keep them and use them.) And here's another wrinkle to the rules from 1e: most encounters didn't result in immedate combat. Unless the adventure dictated otherwise, when the PCs first encounter a monster, the DM would roll a d100. Only on a 5 or less would combat immediately ensue. A roll of 6 to 25 meant "Hostile, immediate action." Which meant combat was only likely (and not even guaranteed) in one out of four encounters before you adjust for a high Charisma score. And the way the Caves of Chaos in Keep on the Bordlerlands is set up implies the PCs will ally with some tribes against other monsters. But wait; there's more! Even if a fight did start, it wasn't necessarily to the death. Every monster had a morale score. You'd check morale when 25% of the monsters were slain, when 50% of the monsters were slain, and when a leader was KOed or slain. If the monsters failed their morale check, they might try to retreat or even just surrender. Orcs had a base 50% to keep fighting when morale was checked, so most fights would likely end before more than half of a group of orcs was slain. And orcs who'd failed their morale check would happily part with treasure in exchange for getting to run away. (A note on morale; not everyone played with it. It was an easy rule to miss if you started with AD&D. But it was a big deal in the Basic rules, so you were more likely to use it if you started with that set.) So it's entirely likely that the PCs will kill only enough of one tribe of monsters to extort them to leave the area and surrender some of their treasure, and be paid by another tribe to do it. (There's also a very mercenary ogre in the caves who is willing to fight for others in exchange for gold.) And that would be a much more economical way to earn EXP than just slaughtering everything they came across. I would love to play with a game that used rules like this, but nobody, so far as I'm aware, has done so. Probably because including the ability to parlay with monsters would completely short-circuit the combat-as-puzzle dynamic and would be a bitch to program.
One thing that sounds obvious but that a lot of people don't consider due to bad design habits is that the behavior you reward is the behavior you encourage. If players can maximize their power by being murderhobos then the temptation will be there, getting in the way to some degree. In the early Fallout games I notice that this is actually interestingly inverted, with combat (and evil) options being the least rewarding a lot of the time, essentially pushing anyone with much awareness of the game away from those things.
Pathfinder's WotR DLC only gave exp when completing objectives which had multiple solutions. It gave no exp just killing things unless the objective for the quest was neutralizing an enemy and you as a player decided to kill it. If this we apply that to the fire slug encounter, whether you kill them or resolve the relationship through talking, you would only get one exp reward only for completing the objective. This works well by opening up and rewarding play styles which fall outside ones good at lots of combat.
I started formulating a whole new paradigm for especially MMORPGs. It's been stuck for a while now, but the concepts are based on solving typical grievances like this.
Monster Hunter blew my mind back in 2006, no leveling, just gear crafting which determined your stats. So you could only craft gear if you could successfully hunt the "boss" monster multiple times and obtained the requisite parts. This way you %100 felt like you earned your gear, it was a goal that you set because you decided on a strategy for whatever you were stuck on and it was impossible to over level because the grind was focused and has an end goal. Combine that with you having to learn your weapon and the monsters attacks and the complexity of the world and I have NEVER played a game that made me feel as accomplished as early MonHun because everything came down to me. But if it's an RPG, then it is a very limited one because combat is %100 the focus.
Awesome take on a subject,that's frankly been bothering me for quite some time in rpgs. I used to read quite a lot of fantasy books back in the day and those were always the most exciting parts,when the main character alone or his entire team had to disguise or sneak through an enemy camp for example,avoiding any conflict at all,due to being vastly outnumbered OR outpowered. Or even avoid enemy patrolls,while traversing the forests while being on their quest. The problems with video games on this field are numerous,even with such system as the one you've got in Skyrim. 'Cause xp is one thing,but the other one is the loot. If not for leveling up,killing is always profitable for money reasons and in some cases getting better gear directly. In addition - the imperfectness of Skyrim's leveling system also lies in its combat system as such. 'Cause on paper it is an action combat one,rather than the more classical approach,where your stats and active skills play the biggest role. But due to its simplicity (and clunkiness,frankly) in the end it all really boils down to how much damage your gear does and how proficient you are in the combat skill you're using to fight your enemy. Which sounds logical and it is,but its weakness lies in the fact that if you avoid most of the combat,when you actually find yourself in a situation where you need to fight or you just want to do it either for fun or roleplaying reasons you're just unprepared. And here I once again call out to the books,where more often than not,characters rather avoid open conflict,but for when it is necessary they are usually pre-established as very capable in combat,either because of their background (which with rpgs,would be difficult to pull off,'cause you usually want that progression from an absolute noob,to a capable fighter) or because they actually train during the action of the book. And this brings me to the game I genuinly love which uses the "Skyrim skill progression system",but enhances it making the player's manual skills with the gamepad count. And it is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. The premise is identical - the more you use certain type of weapon,the more and the better perks related to it you unlock. But those are useless if you can't actually use the combat system itself. Perks mostly give you new combos,but your fighting capability lies your understanding of how the system works at its core. And you can actually practice it in-game with a certain npc
The recent Shadowrun games have a system where you only get Karma (basically XP) for completed missions and (side) quests. Not so good for the "learning by doing" itch, but very useful for non-violent approaches.
Very nice overview, this gets me thinking. Games also have the nice aspect that the skill of the player is improving. So a Super meat boy player is much better at the end of the game than at the beginning. So improvement systems can be more tuned to give the player more toys to play with instead of simply increasing the damage output after you defeated 500 rats or casted 800 healing spells. These could be given from different ways throughout the game. So for example after defeating creatures or befriending them. Or by finding them in the world or learning them from teachers.
Yea for sure. I feel like that distinction is the fundamental difference between Action Adventures and Action RPGs. I feel like the action adventure genre leans more heavily into player skill and uses progression to give you more tools. But you aren't exponentially stronger. In games like Zelda or Arkham you get more tools to play with but you never get a massive damage increase. But these days I think a lot of games are sitting between the two genres. Dark Souls is a perfect example that I think sits right between the two.
You are assuming that all games are skill based to some degree, but that's just a wrong generalization. Some games need no skill in order to be played, games with turn based combat for example. The player does not become better at it, just more experienced.
I feel like in general games have a lot of things they feel they have to do because that's just how games work, when in reality there's a lot of freedom. A lot of games would be more fun if they didn't have crafting, levelling and skill trees squished in for seemingly no reason.
Hey I came here from a GameDevTV livestream and I just gotta say that I 100% agree with this. This is a good topic and the quality of the video is great too!
I like the video but I think the thumbnail title is a little bit off. Xp is not " outdated". The problem is that a dnd style XP system it is often implemented in games that would do better without it or something else. And this is indeed a good point of yours.
I feel like a good example alternative is Dying Light 2. You improve health and stamina by finding a certain collectable and progress the parkour/combat skill trees through usage. It's obviously much simpler because it isn't a full on RPG but I really appreciate it's potential. It also shows the power of using multiple kinds of progression systems at once.
I have for awhile been considering what kind of RPG could be produced that used XP like Minecraft does. As a form of currency to enchant your armor, weapons, and tools with levels being nothing more than denominations of XP you own. It's even used to repair your equipment if it is enchanted with Mending. With a lot of tuning and expansion on the idea, I imagine it would make for a very interesting RPG.
Another great exp system in video games in my opinion is from Project Zomboid. The progression is similar to Skyrim's, but you can already pick some advantages when choosing your character's occupation before the game starts.
Shadowrun cRPG games gave the XP for accomplishing things. Stardew Valley had separate XP for different skills as well and it worked fine - you didn't get too many options at the beginning of the game and had time to explore new recipes as they unlocked There's danger for abuse in D&D when min-maxers sit at the table and create goblin farms
Great thing about XP system is that it's simple to implement and to understand, that's probably why it's reimplemented over n over in different games. But of course, it has issues and one of them is how it "controls" player's action and strategy in games. If we want to fix this or maybe create better system, we need to ask some questions: how do we want players to upgrade their character? does the answer collide with intended gameplay? just to name a few.
I think Ghost of Tsushima is a great example of how to create a sense of progression and player + character growth without relying on an XP system. In the case of that game, I think the fact that its combat is very well thought out and designed around skill was the core that allowed them to create such a progression system. The progression wasnt tied to character and enemy stats, but was tied to your combat ability and the new challenges that were introduced by new enemy types, new environmental obstacles, and new ways to approach (or avoid) combat situations. Ghost of Tsushima is one example of customization not being reliant on an XP system. I think we incorrectly tie together customization and XP in our minds when in reality, they exist separate from each other.
This perspective is extremely limited because the only TTRPG it considered is D&D. There are plenty of other TTRPGs that use much more innovative advancement systems. While the most popular, D&D's design is a relic of 80s and 90s design. The hobby has come a long way since then. If you're open to trying a TTRPG, I'd highly recommend Blades In The Dark. It uses a totally different XP system that rewards narrative stuff and it rewards the use of actions in the domain of the action (i.e. correctly handles your lockpicking example). BitD is in vogue right now and would be a fantastic place to jump into the hobby of TTRPGs in 2022.
Interestingly, D&D has been generally moving away from giving players EXP as a means of leveling up, instead more often leaning on the "milestone" system. When a player or players reach a specific point in the story, area, or reach some benchmark determined by the GM/DM, they all level up. Granted, that doesn't change the fact that games still use EXP as a base line for progression, but I'd be curious to see what games might come about with that milestone system in mind.
Another progression system that i've seen used to good effect is one in which there's no levels at all and your character stats are fixated throughout the whole game after picking up a class, only becoming stronger by unlocking abilities at a skill tree and by getting better gear.
I think you are wrong about D&D. I run old-school D&D on the regualr - 2nd edition in this case - and one of the core methods of gaining experience is by doing things related to your class. For example, whenever a thief uses a thief skill or granted power, he gains experience points. This comes from lockpicking, backstabbing, and sneaking around. There is a definitely tie in between doing what your class aims to do and improving at your class. This is outlined in the Dungeon Master's Guide under "Awarding Experience".
I did really enjoy this one. Great job! I tend to sacrifice XP for roleplay when I play RPG's, but it's always tempting to go for a kill instead just to get closer to the next level.
Hey! Thanks for stopping by! I tend to do that too but I feel like I get more optimal on second and third playthroughs. Unless I really take the time to think up a character with a backstory.
I think a good way to do "experiece" would actually be to let the player find stat boosts and new abilities in the world. That way anything they do can reward them in a way that makes sense.
i would say wartales is a good system, there is the fighting XP (you are a mercenary company, you suppose to fight) but there is also the role XP (cook, blacksmith, etc.) that is only grown by doing the stuff you role is part of, very cool, and the role gives benefits to your character. bannerlord is also good one, is not really RPG, its a bit of everything, but you can do whatever you want there, and the skill are directly related to what you do (trader build. smiths builds that are op, and more) this are few good examples of not full RPG but giving a good experience of XP
Hey, nice mic. I've watched your Gothic videos and the difference is incredible. I JUST HOPE YOU WON'T GIVE UP ON VIDEOS, LIKE OTHER HIDDEN GEM CHANNELS, JUST SAYING
Tabletop roleplaying was beyond this in the 1990s. XP for monsters has been obsolete since the 1980s. It's video game RPGs that decided to stick to the most old fashioned style of RPG rules and they stuck to it for how long? 4 decades? Video games are a conservative force in roleplaying rules systems. You know that revolutionary new combat mechanic in FromSoft games where you do damage to the stance until it breaks for a big HP damage? That appeared in tabletop roleplaying in the 1990s. Me and my friends were in our teens in the 90s when we thought that killing monsters for XP is cringe. Since then I learned that gatekeeping is bad and today I accept it as one of the playstyles, but still, it shouldn't be the main or only way to play RPGs.
oddity (crackhead) xp is not going to fit every game. I don't think it's a serious issue and the reason most xp is given to you from violence is because you are a protagonist or a hero in most games you are not usually a farmer who lvls up by planting and harvesting fruit that is a stardrew valley experience not a fallout skyrim experience. i mean can you argue that xp doesn't fit the context of those games?
I feel like a lot of games have an issue with definitive failure states I do love divinity BUT imagine for a moment you could skill things based on what you do there You talk yourself out of 75% of the game But in the 1 of 4 chance of failure you are stuck in combat Unavoidable Because your lightedhearted joke that you rather court a chicken then another lizard made the guard captain angry because he is married to one He wants to kill you Aaaaand you dont have any combat abilities This very issue is also in some deus ex titles You go for non lethal and diplomacy Aaaaand bossfights are mandatory so your are out of luck and at a severe disadvantage
A misconception IMHO. The problem lies in what the XP is awarded for and how it's spent, not XP itself. It's just "mana" for progression. Use based systems are notoriously broken (eg. Morrowind acrobatics), and even Underrail oddity simply favors meta-gaming (ie. knowing beforehand where they are). 90s cRPG were closest by giving varied amounts of XP and (equally important) loot, based on dialogue and combat alike, just being somewhat prone to double dipping by killing quest NPCs, like you mention. The most outdated XP concept I'd say is leveling - characters getting exponentially better (lv10 PC easily defeating several lower lever ones etc.).
A flawed approach, your videos are usually better. You do not highlight negatives of the explained systems. -The problem with your DOS2 example is that you already know the story and the consequences of your actions. If you did not know how killing the slugs influenced your playthrough, you would hesitate. New players would not know how much xp every possible option rewards (DOS2 also rewards XP for non combat options, you fail to mention that). DOS2 could easily be "fixed" by having some respawning enemies and a level cap on each act. -The problem with the Skyrim example is that enemies level up according to your level and your level is increased by all skills and non combat perks as well (lockpicking, pickpocketing, speech, smithing, alchemy and enchanting). This is counter productive as the player is incentivized to not use different kinds of weapon/magic/armor in order to keep your own level low and therefore the enemy level. Leveling up (beyond a certain point) is not actually that beneficial to the player. If the game did not force me to level up every time I open the perk screen I would probably stay at a relatively low level after I picked up the perks I value most. I would even argue that Skyrim would be a better experience with a more traditional xp system. -I have not played the third of your examples so I cannot judge it and am kind of reluctant to follow your opinion since I already disagree with your analysis of the first two examples. Edit: The FFX sphere grid just came to mind as a system that I very much enjoyed and is not the "traditional level up"
Definitely disagree with you. In divinity 2 my mate and I went and slaughtered every NPC at the end of each act for the gains that it gives us (and the hilarity of it). So even if the player didn't know the reward beforehand for the slug, the system still motivates people to come back and finish off enemies just for the sake of it (though players obviously have choice in this). For the Skyrim example, your complaint is valid but distinct from what he's trying to say. He was discussing the skill based levelling not the auto scaling enemies.
Bad level scaling is not a flaw of skyrim's leveling system, morrowind for example has almost the same skill progression system without the awful level scaling. So I think your comment is more flawed than the video. You are just seething that your baldur's gate's clones are not really as good as actual RPGs.
So what you're saying is that one could just as well just give xp for "defeating" monsters through talk or other actions... And then remove those xp from the monster to avoid double dipping... Grinding... Oh boy... Count yourself lucky. I have played with GMs and players like that...
Vehemently disagree. Every time you younger people change things you make them suck. Just by virtue of you people being involved in a thing you turn it to shit. There is no way in green hell that you can hope to come up with anything better than what's come before. Besides xp should already be awarded for stuff other than killing monsters. If it isn't that's not a failure of the xp system that's a failure of the DM or game developers. Honestly the world would be such a better place is everyone under the age of 35 just ceased to exist. That's still plenty of time to start over and fix the mistakes we made the first time.
I have played a bit of D&D here and there but I am definitely not as familiar with the tabletop world as I am with video games. A few people have pointed out some things I missed.
First the original D&D awarded experience for finding gold as well as defeating monsters. This was later changed to an optional rule and then officially discontinued in 3rd Edition.
Second I implied that other tabletop games haven't come up with any interesting XP systems which is definitely not the case. If anything tabletop games have experimented more. I was instead trying to explain where the trend started and why it may not work all that well for video games.
Thanks for the help guys.
Indeed. The Pen and Paper RPG hobby is very extensive with various progression systems and in many ways it has gone further and experimented much more with this then computer RPGs. And others then DnD have inspired computer games, such as BRP/RuneQuest which skill use progression we see in various computer ones (Yup, the Elder Scrolls system also have its origin in PnP. Although it always irks me when they then try to put levels on top of it :D).
One progression mechanic I rather like is from NWOD, there you pick a virtue and a vice for your character. And if you play out and indulge in your vice that directly hinders your character and their progress you get xp from it.
Gothic rewards quests much more than fighting does, and since there's a limited amount of enemies per chapter grind is impossible.
Combine it with great balance, stats simplicity and the need to spend learning points by asking someone to teach you and the system is great.
Yeah, glad someone mention gothic, it's suprising how much the expirience system work being so simple.
@@janstefanisin320 simplicity is generally thing that makes Gothic great, starting from statistics. You no longer have to calculate what is the best choice and spend more time with numbers than with the story. Strength increases melee damage while dexterity is for ranged combat. No giant division for smaller swords, bigger swords, axes, spears, etc. Just one and two handed variants. Bows and crossbows. Mana is your magic ammo and the spells work in simple tier system. Gothic is basically the first modern action-RPG.
"Ever since DnD released in the 70s, players have been getting XP by killing monsters and doing quest"
You'd be wrong. In the original DnD XP was given based on the gold your party returned with. This means if you missed stashes of gold, but killed every monsters you'd get less XP. If you didn't kill any monster but stole all the loot, you'd get more XP. If you're a Wizard but the rest of your party wiped before returning to town, then the amount of XP you can carry would be limited by your physically weak character's carry limit.
Hey thank you so much. I researched D&D for this video and have played a few campaigns. It seemed like that has always been their system but I was obviously mistaken. They must have changed it at some point, I wasn't alive for the original version. Thanks for clearing this up.
@@GamedevAdventures, the change happened when WotC bought TSR, the company founded when D&D was created in the '70s. Here's an example of how that worked in AD&D (aka 1st edition, and what the kids in Stranger Things are playing). In order to get to 2nd level as a Fighter, you'd need to accrue 2,001 EXP. Killing the average orc nets you 14.5 EXP. So in order to gain 2nd level, a Fighter would have to slaughter 138 orcs. And they'd have to do it by themselves, because if they have help, the EXP are divided evenly. So if the Fighter has even just three companions (a small party by 1e standards, though considered average in 5e), a total of 552 orcs must be slain. This the equivalent of over 3 average orc tribes (according to the Monster Manual).
As a practical example, the classic adventure Keep on the Borderlands has an orc tribe with only 23 "average" orcs plus a bigger, badder chieftain. Your total EXP for slaying all of them would be roughly 400 EXP. But the treasure they have includes 830 GP (and so 830 EXP) in gems and coins. If you sell their weapons and armour, that's another 195 GP. (There's also another 2,500 EXP worth of magic items, but the PCs only get those EXP if they sell the magic items, and they'll probably keep them and use them.)
And here's another wrinkle to the rules from 1e: most encounters didn't result in immedate combat. Unless the adventure dictated otherwise, when the PCs first encounter a monster, the DM would roll a d100. Only on a 5 or less would combat immediately ensue. A roll of 6 to 25 meant "Hostile, immediate action." Which meant combat was only likely (and not even guaranteed) in one out of four encounters before you adjust for a high Charisma score. And the way the Caves of Chaos in Keep on the Bordlerlands is set up implies the PCs will ally with some tribes against other monsters.
But wait; there's more! Even if a fight did start, it wasn't necessarily to the death. Every monster had a morale score. You'd check morale when 25% of the monsters were slain, when 50% of the monsters were slain, and when a leader was KOed or slain. If the monsters failed their morale check, they might try to retreat or even just surrender. Orcs had a base 50% to keep fighting when morale was checked, so most fights would likely end before more than half of a group of orcs was slain. And orcs who'd failed their morale check would happily part with treasure in exchange for getting to run away.
(A note on morale; not everyone played with it. It was an easy rule to miss if you started with AD&D. But it was a big deal in the Basic rules, so you were more likely to use it if you started with that set.)
So it's entirely likely that the PCs will kill only enough of one tribe of monsters to extort them to leave the area and surrender some of their treasure, and be paid by another tribe to do it. (There's also a very mercenary ogre in the caves who is willing to fight for others in exchange for gold.) And that would be a much more economical way to earn EXP than just slaughtering everything they came across.
I would love to play with a game that used rules like this, but nobody, so far as I'm aware, has done so. Probably because including the ability to parlay with monsters would completely short-circuit the combat-as-puzzle dynamic and would be a bitch to program.
VtMB only gives XP for completing quests. Bonus XP for optional objectives.
One thing that sounds obvious but that a lot of people don't consider due to bad design habits is that the behavior you reward is the behavior you encourage. If players can maximize their power by being murderhobos then the temptation will be there, getting in the way to some degree. In the early Fallout games I notice that this is actually interestingly inverted, with combat (and evil) options being the least rewarding a lot of the time, essentially pushing anyone with much awareness of the game away from those things.
Pathfinder's WotR DLC only gave exp when completing objectives which had multiple solutions. It gave no exp just killing things unless the objective for the quest was neutralizing an enemy and you as a player decided to kill it.
If this we apply that to the fire slug encounter, whether you kill them or resolve the relationship through talking, you would only get one exp reward only for completing the objective.
This works well by opening up and rewarding play styles which fall outside ones good at lots of combat.
I started formulating a whole new paradigm for especially MMORPGs. It's been stuck for a while now, but the concepts are based on solving typical grievances like this.
Monster Hunter blew my mind back in 2006, no leveling, just gear crafting which determined your stats. So you could only craft gear if you could successfully hunt the "boss" monster multiple times and obtained the requisite parts. This way you %100 felt like you earned your gear, it was a goal that you set because you decided on a strategy for whatever you were stuck on and it was impossible to over level because the grind was focused and has an end goal. Combine that with you having to learn your weapon and the monsters attacks and the complexity of the world and I have NEVER played a game that made me feel as accomplished as early MonHun because everything came down to me.
But if it's an RPG, then it is a very limited one because combat is %100 the focus.
Awesome take on a subject,that's frankly been bothering me for quite some time in rpgs. I used to read quite a lot of fantasy books back in the day and those were always the most exciting parts,when the main character alone or his entire team had to disguise or sneak through an enemy camp for example,avoiding any conflict at all,due to being vastly outnumbered OR outpowered. Or even avoid enemy patrolls,while traversing the forests while being on their quest. The problems with video games on this field are numerous,even with such system as the one you've got in Skyrim. 'Cause xp is one thing,but the other one is the loot. If not for leveling up,killing is always profitable for money reasons and in some cases getting better gear directly. In addition - the imperfectness of Skyrim's leveling system also lies in its combat system as such. 'Cause on paper it is an action combat one,rather than the more classical approach,where your stats and active skills play the biggest role. But due to its simplicity (and clunkiness,frankly) in the end it all really boils down to how much damage your gear does and how proficient you are in the combat skill you're using to fight your enemy. Which sounds logical and it is,but its weakness lies in the fact that if you avoid most of the combat,when you actually find yourself in a situation where you need to fight or you just want to do it either for fun or roleplaying reasons you're just unprepared. And here I once again call out to the books,where more often than not,characters rather avoid open conflict,but for when it is necessary they are usually pre-established as very capable in combat,either because of their background (which with rpgs,would be difficult to pull off,'cause you usually want that progression from an absolute noob,to a capable fighter) or because they actually train during the action of the book.
And this brings me to the game I genuinly love which uses the "Skyrim skill progression system",but enhances it making the player's manual skills with the gamepad count. And it is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. The premise is identical - the more you use certain type of weapon,the more and the better perks related to it you unlock. But those are useless if you can't actually use the combat system itself. Perks mostly give you new combos,but your fighting capability lies your understanding of how the system works at its core. And you can actually practice it in-game with a certain npc
Cataclysm Dark Days Ahead is another game with an interesting exp system.
The recent Shadowrun games have a system where you only get Karma (basically XP) for completed missions and (side) quests. Not so good for the "learning by doing" itch, but very useful for non-violent approaches.
Very nice overview, this gets me thinking. Games also have the nice aspect that the skill of the player is improving. So a Super meat boy player is much better at the end of the game than at the beginning.
So improvement systems can be more tuned to give the player more toys to play with instead of simply increasing the damage output after you defeated 500 rats or casted 800 healing spells.
These could be given from different ways throughout the game. So for example after defeating creatures or befriending them. Or by finding them in the world or learning them from teachers.
Yea for sure. I feel like that distinction is the fundamental difference between Action Adventures and Action RPGs. I feel like the action adventure genre leans more heavily into player skill and uses progression to give you more tools. But you aren't exponentially stronger. In games like Zelda or Arkham you get more tools to play with but you never get a massive damage increase. But these days I think a lot of games are sitting between the two genres. Dark Souls is a perfect example that I think sits right between the two.
You are assuming that all games are skill based to some degree, but that's just a wrong generalization. Some games need no skill in order to be played, games with turn based combat for example. The player does not become better at it, just more experienced.
I feel like in general games have a lot of things they feel they have to do because that's just how games work, when in reality there's a lot of freedom. A lot of games would be more fun if they didn't have crafting, levelling and skill trees squished in for seemingly no reason.
Hey I came here from a GameDevTV livestream and I just gotta say that I 100% agree with this.
This is a good topic and the quality of the video is great too!
I like the video but I think the thumbnail title is a little bit off. Xp is not " outdated". The problem is that a dnd style XP system it is often implemented in games that would do better without it or something else. And this is indeed a good point of yours.
I feel like a good example alternative is Dying Light 2. You improve health and stamina by finding a certain collectable and progress the parkour/combat skill trees through usage. It's obviously much simpler because it isn't a full on RPG but I really appreciate it's potential. It also shows the power of using multiple kinds of progression systems at once.
>collectables
I have for awhile been considering what kind of RPG could be produced that used XP like Minecraft does. As a form of currency to enchant your armor, weapons, and tools with levels being nothing more than denominations of XP you own. It's even used to repair your equipment if it is enchanted with Mending. With a lot of tuning and expansion on the idea, I imagine it would make for a very interesting RPG.
Another great exp system in video games in my opinion is from Project Zomboid. The progression is similar to Skyrim's, but you can already pick some advantages when choosing your character's occupation before the game starts.
Shadowrun cRPG games gave the XP for accomplishing things.
Stardew Valley had separate XP for different skills as well and it worked fine - you didn't get too many options at the beginning of the game and had time to explore new recipes as they unlocked
There's danger for abuse in D&D when min-maxers sit at the table and create goblin farms
Great thing about XP system is that it's simple to implement and to understand, that's probably why it's reimplemented over n over in different games. But of course, it has issues and one of them is how it "controls" player's action and strategy in games.
If we want to fix this or maybe create better system, we need to ask some questions: how do we want players to upgrade their character? does the answer collide with intended gameplay? just to name a few.
I think Ghost of Tsushima is a great example of how to create a sense of progression and player + character growth without relying on an XP system. In the case of that game, I think the fact that its combat is very well thought out and designed around skill was the core that allowed them to create such a progression system. The progression wasnt tied to character and enemy stats, but was tied to your combat ability and the new challenges that were introduced by new enemy types, new environmental obstacles, and new ways to approach (or avoid) combat situations. Ghost of Tsushima is one example of customization not being reliant on an XP system. I think we incorrectly tie together customization and XP in our minds when in reality, they exist separate from each other.
This perspective is extremely limited because the only TTRPG it considered is D&D.
There are plenty of other TTRPGs that use much more innovative advancement systems.
While the most popular, D&D's design is a relic of 80s and 90s design. The hobby has come a long way since then.
If you're open to trying a TTRPG, I'd highly recommend Blades In The Dark.
It uses a totally different XP system that rewards narrative stuff and it rewards the use of actions in the domain of the action (i.e. correctly handles your lockpicking example). BitD is in vogue right now and would be a fantastic place to jump into the hobby of TTRPGs in 2022.
Interestingly, D&D has been generally moving away from giving players EXP as a means of leveling up, instead more often leaning on the "milestone" system. When a player or players reach a specific point in the story, area, or reach some benchmark determined by the GM/DM, they all level up.
Granted, that doesn't change the fact that games still use EXP as a base line for progression, but I'd be curious to see what games might come about with that milestone system in mind.
Another progression system that i've seen used to good effect is one in which there's no levels at all and your character stats are fixated throughout the whole game after picking up a class, only becoming stronger by unlocking abilities at a skill tree and by getting better gear.
I think you are wrong about D&D. I run old-school D&D on the regualr - 2nd edition in this case - and one of the core methods of gaining experience is by doing things related to your class. For example, whenever a thief uses a thief skill or granted power, he gains experience points. This comes from lockpicking, backstabbing, and sneaking around. There is a definitely tie in between doing what your class aims to do and improving at your class. This is outlined in the Dungeon Master's Guide under "Awarding Experience".
I did really enjoy this one. Great job!
I tend to sacrifice XP for roleplay when I play RPG's, but it's always tempting to go for a kill instead just to get closer to the next level.
Hey! Thanks for stopping by! I tend to do that too but I feel like I get more optimal on second and third playthroughs. Unless I really take the time to think up a character with a backstory.
I think a good way to do "experiece" would actually be to let the player find stat boosts and new abilities in the world. That way anything they do can reward them in a way that makes sense.
Thank you good mister, poeple need to hear it. XP has become problem so big, that people can't even imagine games without it.
There's actually a mod for Skyrim that rewards XP for gold pieces. Very old school.
i would say wartales is a good system, there is the fighting XP (you are a mercenary company, you suppose to fight) but there is also the role XP (cook, blacksmith, etc.) that is only grown by doing the stuff you role is part of, very cool, and the role gives benefits to your character. bannerlord is also good one, is not really RPG, its a bit of everything, but you can do whatever you want there, and the skill are directly related to what you do (trader build. smiths builds that are op, and more) this are few good examples of not full RPG but giving a good experience of XP
Another banger. (:
Thank you dude! ....... First.
Hey, nice mic. I've watched your Gothic videos and the difference is incredible.
I JUST HOPE YOU WON'T GIVE UP ON VIDEOS, LIKE OTHER HIDDEN GEM CHANNELS, JUST SAYING
Tabletop roleplaying was beyond this in the 1990s. XP for monsters has been obsolete since the 1980s. It's video game RPGs that decided to stick to the most old fashioned style of RPG rules and they stuck to it for how long? 4 decades? Video games are a conservative force in roleplaying rules systems. You know that revolutionary new combat mechanic in FromSoft games where you do damage to the stance until it breaks for a big HP damage? That appeared in tabletop roleplaying in the 1990s. Me and my friends were in our teens in the 90s when we thought that killing monsters for XP is cringe. Since then I learned that gatekeeping is bad and today I accept it as one of the playstyles, but still, it shouldn't be the main or only way to play RPGs.
oddity (crackhead) xp is not going to fit every game.
I don't think it's a serious issue and the reason most xp is given to you from violence is because you are a protagonist or a hero in most games you are not usually a farmer who lvls up by planting and harvesting fruit that is a stardrew valley experience not a fallout skyrim experience.
i mean can you argue that xp doesn't fit the context of those games?
i like Valheim. You get XP for what you're doing
I feel like a lot of games have an issue with definitive failure states
I do love divinity BUT imagine for a moment you could skill things based on what you do there
You talk yourself out of 75% of the game
But in the 1 of 4 chance of failure you are stuck in combat
Unavoidable
Because your lightedhearted joke that you rather court a chicken then another lizard made the guard captain angry because he is married to one
He wants to kill you
Aaaaand you dont have any combat abilities
This very issue is also in some deus ex titles
You go for non lethal and diplomacy
Aaaaand bossfights are mandatory so your are out of luck and at a severe disadvantage
A misconception IMHO. The problem lies in what the XP is awarded for and how it's spent, not XP itself. It's just "mana" for progression. Use based systems are notoriously broken (eg. Morrowind acrobatics), and even Underrail oddity simply favors meta-gaming (ie. knowing beforehand where they are). 90s cRPG were closest by giving varied amounts of XP and (equally important) loot, based on dialogue and combat alike, just being somewhat prone to double dipping by killing quest NPCs, like you mention. The most outdated XP concept I'd say is leveling - characters getting exponentially better (lv10 PC easily defeating several lower lever ones etc.).
XP should be granted even for the speech or sneak options.
A flawed approach, your videos are usually better. You do not highlight negatives of the explained systems.
-The problem with your DOS2 example is that you already know the story and the consequences of your actions. If you did not know how killing the slugs influenced your playthrough, you would hesitate. New players would not know how much xp every possible option rewards (DOS2 also rewards XP for non combat options, you fail to mention that). DOS2 could easily be "fixed" by having some respawning enemies and a level cap on each act.
-The problem with the Skyrim example is that enemies level up according to your level and your level is increased by all skills and non combat perks as well (lockpicking, pickpocketing, speech, smithing, alchemy and enchanting). This is counter productive as the player is incentivized to not use different kinds of weapon/magic/armor in order to keep your own level low and therefore the enemy level. Leveling up (beyond a certain point) is not actually that beneficial to the player. If the game did not force me to level up every time I open the perk screen I would probably stay at a relatively low level after I picked up the perks I value most. I would even argue that Skyrim would be a better experience with a more traditional xp system.
-I have not played the third of your examples so I cannot judge it and am kind of reluctant to follow your opinion since I already disagree with your analysis of the first two examples.
Edit: The FFX sphere grid just came to mind as a system that I very much enjoyed and is not the "traditional level up"
Level scaling is not an inherent feature of the Elder Scrolls learn by use system. Morrowind did not have it, or the Quest for Glory games
Definitely disagree with you. In divinity 2 my mate and I went and slaughtered every NPC at the end of each act for the gains that it gives us (and the hilarity of it). So even if the player didn't know the reward beforehand for the slug, the system still motivates people to come back and finish off enemies just for the sake of it (though players obviously have choice in this).
For the Skyrim example, your complaint is valid but distinct from what he's trying to say. He was discussing the skill based levelling not the auto scaling enemies.
Bad level scaling is not a flaw of skyrim's leveling system, morrowind for example has almost the same skill progression system without the awful level scaling.
So I think your comment is more flawed than the video.
You are just seething that your baldur's gate's clones are not really as good as actual RPGs.
wb pog
xp good
So what you're saying is that one could just as well just give xp for "defeating" monsters through talk or other actions... And then remove those xp from the monster to avoid double dipping... Grinding... Oh boy... Count yourself lucky. I have played with GMs and players like that...
Vehemently disagree. Every time you younger people change things you make them suck. Just by virtue of you people being involved in a thing you turn it to shit. There is no way in green hell that you can hope to come up with anything better than what's come before. Besides xp should already be awarded for stuff other than killing monsters. If it isn't that's not a failure of the xp system that's a failure of the DM or game developers. Honestly the world would be such a better place is everyone under the age of 35 just ceased to exist. That's still plenty of time to start over and fix the mistakes we made the first time.
Holy shit, who yanked your chain?
😉 "promosm"!!!