Experience for random-monster hunters

[Mayhem]

The minute you take away static reward for risks taken...

Never said that. I said that the XP would come from static quests that involved combat, just not from the killing itself.

...is when you encourage PCs to sit around and do nothing unless a DM is on, even more.

And yet that is what you expect any PC that isn't built around combat to do.

***

Its hippocritical, really it is. We tell our players that we want to see well balanced, well rounded, well roleplayed characters. We sneer in disgust at an OAS applicant who plays a half-orc barbarian with max combat stats and minimum INT and CHA.

And then we set up our game world so that that is exactly the sort of character who will flourish, because he can earn XP a lot more frequently than a non-combat-optimised character.

[HEEGZ]

I think the key is that characters aren't min maxed when first built. Then all that matters is whether people role play or not. If you simply want more static content for xp outside of combat I'd say push that instead of removing combat xp. Cause the latter is an uphill battle, and more static RP type quests would be awesome.

[fade]

Add a way to get xp without having to fight then, IE RP scripts.

Personally PCs that don't take risks shouldn't level as fast as one that does. More risk = a higher chance of death, meaning you have to start over all again, or at best you lose a level. Of course you have people that take risks, and don't die, but the house doesn't always win, it just wins most of the time, so it works out in the end. Suggesting that removing combat XP is a viable way to make non-combat orientated PCs more viable, is shortsighted at best.

[Ronan]

Support characters (specialist healers, buffers, scouts, etc) are already awarded just as much by combat as tanks are, provided they are of course in a party. The role of scouts should be increased if we can get a good base pallet down with the creatures having proper perception ranges (no more clerics in full plate skirting those orc patrols).

So that leaves XP from non-combat types overcoming lethal challenges (as I have no intention of rewarding the people who complete challenges which aren't dangerous nearly the same XP as challenges that are). In solo-play I think that pretty much only leaves the sneak slipping past an enemy. That may actually be rewardable, though in a lot of cases it also might be really exploitable. I can't think of a good way to do it at the moment.

Non-combat challenges (whether lethal are not) are essentially static quests, and so should be covered by whatever scripts builders put into place to make them work.

[yavanion]

Ronan

Tell me if i create a smith, i want to make weapons and armour, should i need to kill things to be able to become this great smith ?... Or if i play a farmer, i have my farm, i just walk inside and tell my wife, keep the farm safe im going out to kill some goblins so i can learn to milk my cows better ... its really really silly !!!

Everyone benefits from a RP script, ewen warriors that kills things... so again killing things has the oportuninty to gain progress both from RP and through combat... but the non-combat character has only the RP-script, fair ?

Every character concept should have the same oportunity to gain progress, either create those oportunities for non-combat characters or remove XPs for killing... or does ALFA want and give combat characters a advantage, is that what we want ?

[fade]

Combat HAS an advatange. It is high reward.

Combat HAS a disadvantage. It is high risk. Sometimes the dragon does win afterall.

How much chance does the blacksmith have of dieing while making an item? Not much.

[psycho_leo]

Tell me if i create a smith, i want to make weapons and armour, should i need to kill things to be able to become this great smith ?... Or if i play a farmer, i have my farm, i just walk inside and tell my wife, keep the farm safe im going out to kill some goblins so i can learn to milk my cows better ... its really really silly !!!

If we're going to start discussing this we're going to have to discuss the validity of playing a smith or a farmer. We can't level as commoners. So you lvl as what? fighter? alright. So how do you explain leveling as a fighter if all you do all day is bang a hammer against hot metal or milk cows? Makes sense to you? Not really. It makes as much sense as taking away combat xp from D&D. That's what we're playing, right?

[Mayhem]

Not really. It makes as much sense as taking away combat xp from D&D. That's what we're playing, right?

Actually, we already covered this. D&D doesn't give you XP for combat. It gives you XP for overcoming a challenge.

Sometimes that challenge involves combat. Sometimes that combat is unavoidable. But that's not the same thing.

***

Giving XP for killing any random critter you happen to come across - why not give a rogue XP for randomly picking every lock in the street? I mean, he might get caught, so there is risk there. Not locks that stand between him and his goal, just, you know, any lock he happens to come accross whilst exploring the server.

[psycho_leo]

Giving XP for killing any random critter you happen to come across - why not give a rogue XP for randomly picking every lock in the street? I mean, he might get caught, so there is risk there. Not locks that stand between him and his goal, just, you know, any lock he happens to come accross whilst exploring the server.

If you can do the scripting that is needed to have guards patrolling every corner in the server and the proper reactions I would fully support that. As things are now I don't. As things are now, there's no risk whatsoever in picking breaking into a house, because you just roll 20s when not in combat. As it is now, a rogue is only at risk when braking into a house if he is caught by DM or an overzelous PC.

[yavanion]

Psyco leo

Please explain to me this... A fighter goes out killing things and rps this, after some time he levels and invests all in Craft armour and Craft Weapons... Now a non combat character, a smith stays in a village and Rps being a smith, and gets the same RP revard as fighter... Now they both played the same time but the fighter gets more XPs and thus becommes a better smith... now is this fair ???

Fade
Tell me why combat has its advantage ?, the only advantage combat has is that you become a more skilled warrior in arms and armour... not all wish to focus their RP on this, so why insist that combat should be and have a advantage ?... personally i dont want to rob anyone of anything, but iwant equal revard for equal time spent, regardless of what you play

[psycho_leo]

Psyco leo

Please explain to me this... A fighter goes out killing things and rps this, after some time he levels and invests all in Craft armour and Craft Weapons... Now a non combat character, a smith stays in a village and Rps being a smith, and gets the same RP revard as fighter... Now they both played the same time but the fighter gets more XPs and thus becommes a better smith... now is this fair ???

If I am your DM and you start taking points in craft without ever actually RP it I will take issue with it. And you bet that unless you start playing it out you're gonna be deep in it.

Now explain to me how is it fair that a smith that stays in a village all day long working can be just as efficient in killing ogres as the warrior that exposes himself to danger all week. Beacuse that's what would happen in your scenario.

[HEEGZ]

What I will never understand is why people would want to create a character to do mundane things like farm and smith horseshoes. I play D&D to get away from my 9 to 5... I hope we don't get so caught up in role playing that we no longer have adventure, or become players who are more interested in playing commoners than adventuring classes.

[psycho_leo]

What I will never understand is why people would want to create a character to do mundane things like farm and smith horseshoes. I play D&D to get away from my 9 to 5... I hope we don't get so caught up in role playing that we no longer have adventure, or become players who are more interested in playing commoners than adventuring classes.

I agree wholehartedly with that, but I say if they want to do it let them. But don't come crying to me because my warrior gets more xp and gold than their farmer.

I think its time we stop with the whole "your PC has more gold/xp/gear than mine" culture. Play what you want how you want and let me do the same. As long as we both respect the standards and rules set by the community and manage to have our fun its all good.

[yavanion]

Psyco leo

We can twist this back and fourth, but main issue is, killing things will get you more progress... tell me, im listing skills, why do you think that if there is this many skill, and of these so few is really viable to get better in for killing things... so tell me, spending time in a village studying, crafting, performing etc... why should killing things make you better of ALL these skills when there is so many...

Should you raise following skills if you kill things, why is the act of killing things revarded, just becouse its easy ???

Appraise - no
Bluff - no
Concentration - yes
Craft armour - no
Craft weapon - no
Discipline - yes
Diplomacy - no
Disable device - no
Hide - no
Intimidate - no
Knowledge - no
Listen - no
Move silently - no
Open locks - no
Parry - yes
Perform - no
Search - no
Slight of hand - no
Spot - no
Speak language - no
Spell craft - no
Survival - no
Taunt - no
Tumble - yes
Umd - no

As you yourself argue, its wrong for the "smith" to become a better fighter, but then if Alfa choose to reward more in average if you kill things, shouldent those characters be limited how they can spend their skill points and how do we check this ?... simply said, we cant, the only thing we can do, is make sure equal time played, gives equal revard regardless if you want to fight, craft, study... It will newer be fully fair, but ALFA should strive to promote all types of characters and not give a advantage to a certain type... Taking high risks as some said, wont make you better, it will make you richer ...

[AlmightyTDawg]

Let's not take this too far folks.

Yav's argument is essentially an indictment of the D&D level system tying everything together. Should a fighter become a better crafter for beating on an orc patrol until they cry for momma? No. But correspondingly, a crafter shouldn't up his/her hit points or attack bonus for crafting. Nor can we possibly account for "pure RP" that involves no RP practicing any of those skills (either combat or anything in the skill list).

Ladies and gentlemen, D&D's "level" concept is so far outside the scope of what ALFA's going to tackle that it wastes precious brain cells discussing it. The thread has moved into the territory of "omg D&D isn't realistic."

Combat, while often coming down simply to statistics and rolls, does involve certain combinatoric elements (spatial/tactical, spell/item choice, etc.) that make it at least moderately interactive as a challenge beyond mere dice rolling. Granted it doesn't have to be, but it's at least got variance to it handled objectively by the engine. Any interactivity from "RP" comes as a function of a builder (who say adds conversation options, etc.) or a DM; we have zero chance of designing a system that "grades" RP at any other level. Outside of RP scripts (award can be toggled by a DM - the "smart" element) the only other systems I know are modified roll/click-fests. Basically anything we build which adds interactivity/subjectivity/choice to be rewarded has to "create" the entire world-physics - because all the engine gives us is a combat-centered universe.

Nor does it necessarily comport with the "adventurer" vision which predominates in ALFA. It's lovely that someone wants to play a farmer or a baker or a smith or what not, but more or less, skills are the "lighter" side of level up. The dominant side of level up is combat-related - HP/BAB/saves, and I think it would actually be silly by design not to emphasize combat in the XP format. Other things brought up in this thread, including support capacity in parties and RP scripts, have already bridged the gap sufficiently.

About the one thing I know to do that hasn't been done yet is including a "party bonus" on mob XP, which would up the value of monsters for larger parties (though that total XP is being divided amongst party members) to collectively encourage party v. solo play. Anything else is tipping the balance far too heavily towards the non-com side given the way the engine and universe is constructed.

Until someone finds a workable leveling system that decouples skills from other combat elements, I think ALFA's gone about as far as it needs to go. It's a known limitation of a non-com character, end of discussion.