The traditional EXP system

[Saneterre]

Just my two cents : I don't like it when people force me to remain "weak". I love RPGs which, when I do make the efforts, allow me to become really powerful.

 

[Oddball]

ive removed level ups and stat gains in my game altogether and have stat boosts tied to equipment and temporary boosts from skills in battle


exp is used as a currency to buy skills, a few items and to trigger certain events. exp is not just earned from battling, but from exploring and certain events in the game that add a challenge. im also toying with other ways to use exp

 

[HeathRiley]

@jonthefox 


Thanks for brining this up. It's great to look at what rewards a player and how. For me personally, anything that takes time and effort should be rewarding either by actual in game things such as exp, loot, progression, opening new content/areas, -or- by a sense of feeling/achievements. 


I played a fps once, I think it was deus ex, and I got exp for finding alternative stealthy routes, finding treasure, or other stuff. I really liked that. One downside is while you got exp for those things it didn't teach you how to fight.


In star ocean 4, you got party sp(job points basically) for harvesting and finding treasures.


I did like those things, being rewarded for discovery or working hard at side systems. 


Maybe also like in disgaea, you're rewarded for time in item world, not necessarily with exp, but with Stat upgrades for your gear. 

 

[PsychicToaster]

Pillars of Eternity is a commercial success that stands as a shining example of how experience systems can change. Enemies don't award experience at all as a result of being killed. You are awarded some exp when you fight an enemy you've never encountered before for the first few battles with them, but it's not tied to whether or not you actually defeat them. Instead you're awarded experience for unlocking bestiary information about those enemies. 


The primary means of increasing character level is by world interactions and completing quests. I really enjoy this system because the player is rewarded for exploration and by actually engaging with the story rather than mindlessly grinding out levels on monsters for six hours just to make the game easier by fashioning a crutch on which to lean via being overleveled. 

 

[Oddball]

Pillars of Eternity is a commercial success that stands as a shining example of how experience systems can change. Enemies don't award experience at all as a result of being killed. You are awarded some exp when you fight an enemy you've never encountered before for the first few battles with them, but it's not tied to whether or not you actually defeat them. Instead you're awarded experience for unlocking bestiary information about those monsters

may i add this would be easy to do in rpg maker with evented battles and variables

 

[Diretooth]

Taking this in context of the OP, if I were to rid of an EXP system, I would have some encounters with the reward being sellable objects such as rat pelts. This gives the player some incentive to actually battle, as that can be a decent way to earn cash outside of Boss Treasures. Having them being avoidable can give the impression that they are free to do a relatively pacifistic run if they desired.
That being said, you could also have a system similar to how the Elder Scrolls series approaches skills, where doing certain actions 'levels' certain skills. You don't even need levels if you can do it right.

 

[beenbaba]

I don't know of whether this is something anyone else thinks about but there are two things for me.


1) I'm going to use Guild Wars 2 here as an example. In GW2 you get significantly less EXP for killing enemies than what you do for completing quests, for me this had the effect that quite often I would stop fighting enemies and actually "grind" quests which actually for me became even more tedious than grinding enemies, at least with enemies you are/probably are actively engaging with the game, going here to get that, bring it back and cash in wasn't very fun for me.


2) In the majority of cases, there are some exceptions, stats and skills are only useful in combat and serve the purpose of increasing the characters combat efficiency. Therefore, if levelling up increases your stats and gives you new skills, and acquiring EXP is how you level up, EXP is just a means to increase your combat efficiency. So, by engaging in more combat you become better at it. Why then, would I become better at combat by gathering 5 mushrooms and giving them to the quest giver?


Obviously, this particular levelling mechanic isn't true for all RPG's but is very typical of what to expect. If, however, levels had no effect on your combat efficiency, and instead were used for another means such as accessing new areas or increasing your social status in the world etc then that would make more sense to me.

 

[SpacemanFive]

Currently, I've been thinking of using a system which works a bit differently from normal, even if you can still get EXP from fighting. EXP is "experience", so you can get it from anything you'd get "experience" from. Fighting, crafting, learning knowledge, etc. If it realistically gives the characters "experience", it gives EXP. So potentially, you could play a game avoiding regular encounters and not ending up under-leveled for required encounters because you're getting EXP from non-combat sources.


Also, that got me thinking, beenbaba. That character stats can affect other things, not just combat. High intelligence? Might want to put that character to work researching stuff. High strength and stamina? You could have the character try smithing, or helping haul cargo for people. Meanwhile, a character with low strength or stamina might not be a good choice to successfully pull off manual labor work like that.

 

[beenbaba]

@SpacemanFive You're absolutely right. The question, however, is would doing those tasks yield the character EXP? If it would, and this would increase your level after a certain amount gained, which would increase all stats(?), then your benefiting in areas that were not tied to the way you got the EXP. If you take the person of high intelligence and them researching, it would make sense that after enough time or actions their intelligence would increase some more, which would make their magic stronger for example, not there defence or agility.


I fear I maybe going of in a direction of "what EXP does" as opposed to "EXP delivery methods" though haha


Trying to get myself back on track I also think that the way the player wants to play would be something to consider when deciding how to deliver the EXP. In my case I would much rather grind enemies and come up with the perfect strategy to kill my opponent as fast as I could as opposed to having to do a quest, I have more control over what enemies I fight, how I fight them etc. Others would rather explore, complete quests, craft stuff etc. As long as the delivery method isn't detrimental to the players enjoyment, I think it will work out okay.

 

[SpacemanFive]

Yeah. So I guess the question there is "how realistic do you want it to be?"


To have it realistically make sense with the different EXP gaining methods, it might be better to use a system like in games like Final Fantasy II (the original one, not IV) where you level up individual skills corresponding to what you actually have the characters do. Unless the characters do something like... read combat and tactics manuals, which could benefit both intelligence and combat proficiency.

 

[beenbaba]

Yeah I completely agree, Diretooth also mentioned this way of levelling in regards to Elder Scrolls. This would probably be a hefty amount of work to accomplish and balance though.


Another point here could be why is the traditional method not "good enough"? Do you want to just have something different in the game that is not the norm as to differentiate your game or is their a good reason for not necessarily gaining exp in battle? The OP mentions having more control over what EXP gets given so they could better predict under/over levelling. This could be good for balancing sure, but would it be too much restriction on the player? Or even more important would the player even care/notice?

 

[PsychicToaster]

Yeah I completely agree, Diretooth also mentioned this way of levelling in regards to Elder Scrolls. This would probably be a hefty amount of work to accomplish and balance though.


Another point here could be why is the traditional method not "good enough"? Do you want to just have something different in the game that is not the norm as to differentiate your game or is their a good reason for not necessarily gaining exp in battle? The OP mentions having more control over what EXP gets given so they could better predict under/over levelling. This could be good for balancing sure, but would it be too much restriction on the player? Or even more important would the player even care/notice?

The traditional method isn't necessarily not "good enough" but it's been shown that in many RPGs that permit grinding, the player will at some point resort to spending several hours farming encounters just to make the game easier. In a story driven RPG, all grinding really does is detract from the experience a developer has put time and effort into making. Grinding is best left to MMORPGs, where longevity is artificially generated by locking everything behind a massive time gate instead of adding more content. As a single-player developer, we all have the option to provide an enriched experience not based around watching numbers go up solely for the sake of doing so. While number based progression is ultimately how we determine the worth of our character, it should never be how we determine the value of a game's experience as a whole. What made getting those numbers up fun and rewarding is important. 


Overleveling can be solved easily if you wanted to go with the traditional experience system by introducing an experience point threshold. Gains from fighting significantly weaker enemies will show diminishing returns or even give no experience at all, encouraging the player to move forward.  


As a sidenote relevant to this topic, I've broken down three principles of role-playing games into sections based on research and experience to better help myself with my own project. Hopefully everyone can benefit from this as well.


Growth-every player wants to see his or her character make progress. Starting from a lowly adventurer that barely knows which end of the sword is the pointy one and becoming a demigod capable of killing dragons with a single disapproving glance. Growth can be encouraged through more than just killing monsters and completing quests to level up. Rewarding a player for exploring and discovering areas off the beaten path, interacting with the world in certain ways, crafting items, random events the player can stumble across and influence the outcome of, and even through dialogue choices. Story growth is just as important as character growth, and the two are interrelated. Having a character/party that marginalizes the central conflict of a storyline because he or she grew that character/party to a point where all potential threats are little more than inconveniences or minor roadblocks makes for far less exciting, enduring gameplay. As a game designer, there are ways to minimize the possibility of the player growing too much too quickly, and balancing out how the player grows contributes to this fact. The story in the game needs to make progress with the player as well, so that it can meet the player in the middle and provide a cohesive experience without being muddled, too easy, too difficult, or offputting through senseless complexity.


Acquisition:The next step on a player's path to growth in a role-playing game is usually acquiring power, whether it be through collecting loot, crafting, quest rewards, boss rewards, exploring and discovering rare weapons, training via exchanging gold to NPCs, or re-running marathon dungeons for the chance at some good drops. This stage of gameplay isn't about putting an end to growth and finishing the game, but rather seeking enjoyment in the mid to late game, getting geared up and prepared to tackle the challenge ahead.


Perfection:The final step on a player's journey, and the most rewarding part of playing a game. This is the time where equipping the best items, finding the most effective combinations of spells and abilities, and going for some completionism is all that is left before tackling the ultimate chapter of a game. When a player knows the final conflict of the game is on the horizon, he or she will do everything to make certain that the character(s) are ready for that last step. Perfection can and usually does loop back around to Acquisition as a means of getting the most power possible. 

 

[SpacemanFive]

That got me thinking. One of the things I was thinking of doing with games I make is make the leveling and stuff relative. For example, characters in one game set in a medieval period of a setting may start off with little "power", but even if they become really powerful by endgame, their relative progression may only take them to "exceptionally skilled combatant" relative to the time period and stuff, instead of "a god". Unless they actually do in the story, unavoidably or optionally.


One of the methods I'd thought of using before was to try making stats less overly important without making them... not important, or something. Like for example, one possible method could be to have most enemies appear in a level range tied close to the current level range of the party during each encounter, although that would also mean I'd need to carefully calibrate EXP gain so that it doesn't become exponential growth if players start willfully grinding.


So, if I used that, I'd probably need to put in a formula for non-combat methods of gaining EXP - unless I used a "per skill" system like in FF2 or Skyrim - so that something that should still give the same proportional amount doesn't give too much or too little depending on character level when it's earned.

 

[PsychicToaster]

Just be sure you properly script per-skill experience, because in the NES Final Fantasy II, all you needed to do in order to gain experience in a skill was simply select it from the menu. It did not need to be completed, no animations had to be played, so players could grind skills to the cap on the first encounter they run into. 

 

[SpacemanFive]

Wow. I played that game, and I didn't know that was a thing. Yeah, I'd have to be careful if I did use a per-skill experience system.

 

[PsychicToaster]

It was fixed in the PlayStation and GBA versions. FFII is probably my favorite game to break next to Morrowind. 


Here's a great Let's Play on just how mechanically broken FFII was. 


http://lparchive.org/Final-Fantasy-II/ 


It's a screenshot LP, so you'll have to do some reading but it's hilarious and informative.

 

[Victor Sant]

Why is it good?   I understand that levels are good for giving the player a sense of progression and growth in power , but why award EXP for enemies killed rather than say, killing a boss, or completing a quest?  

First, the game become too predictable. You will be always at the same power range no matter what you do in-between each "milestione point".


- player A avoid all battles


- player B fights all battles


Yet, both have the same base power.


Also there is the problem about the challenge, With exp system you can sometimes make a harder challenge, knowing that if someone is having a hard time with it, he can just grind a bit to get stronger. With a "milestone system" how you do that? With sidequests? Then you just changed the exp grinding to "quest grinding" wich in the end is the same thing, just more complicated.

What if we changed the paradigm of "I am going to go fight these enemies so that they give me EXP" to "I am going to go do this quest because it was given to me by the story of the game, and any enemies I face are obstacles in my journey."

This is a too "dreamy" way of thinking. players generally won't do something that sometimes can be annoying without any reward just because of this "role play" mentality. The masses want rewards, yes a very niche group might just don't care about rewards and just fight because it's enjoyable.


Basically i think that if you don't want to reward exp for battles, you should simply scrap exp althogether and go with an alternative way for the character growth. "Milestone-only" exp system can be very annoying.

This is literally what I did. During my very first demo cut I found levels would overpower enemies within two levels and you're 1-Shotting everything in three which made the battles SUPER boring so I increased the amount of exp required to gain a level and lowered the stat boosts for leveling up. To compensate, the amount of HP/SP you receive on a level up was boosted and the spacing between new skills was significantly lowered. The number of new skills learned at once was also doubled.

In fact there is another and better way around this: highrs base stats.


Let's say your level 1 character starts with 10 atk and gains +5/ level.at level 3 he doubled it's atk.,


Now gets an actor that at level 1 have 100 atk and grains +5/level, only on level 21 his natural attack will be doubled.


With this you can make so the player will still level up often, but the difference in power for each level will not be so high.

 

[PsychicToaster]

First, the game become too predictable. You will be always at the same power range no matter what you do in-between each "milestione point".


- player A avoid all battles


- player B fights all battles


Yet, both have the same base power.


Also there is the problem about the challenge, With exp system you can sometimes make a harder challenge, knowing that if someone is having a hard time with it, he can just grind a bit to get stronger. With a "milestone system" how you do that? With sidequests? Then you just changed the exp grinding to "quest grinding" wich in the end is the same thing, just more complicated.


This is a too "dreamy" way of thinking. players generally won't do something that sometimes can be annoying without any reward just because of this "role play" mentality. The masses want rewards, yes a very niche group might just don't care about rewards and just fight because it's enjoyable.


Basically i think that if you don't want to reward exp for battles, you should simply scrap exp althogether and go with an alternative way for the character growth. "Milestone-only" exp system can be very annoying.

Enemies can still drop loot. Not awarding experience doesn't mean they're worthless. Have you ever played Pillars of Eternity? It's a great example of a game that is properly paced where despite enemies not giving exp, you don't feel underpowered unless you wander into an area meant for higher level parties. If you find an enemy encounter is difficult, it's usually a matter of adjusting your strategy and doing something different. If you get absolutely annihilated, come back later. Non-linear games aren't a bad thing, and don't punish the player that hard just because the party gets their faces caved in. It's a learning experience. Games don't have to hold your hand and coddle you every step of the way. It is possible to leave room for critical thinking skills without being a total jerk to your player. 

 

[Victor Sant]

Enemies can still drop loot. Not awarding experience doesn't mean they're worthless. Have you ever played Pillars of Eternity? It's a great example of a game that is properly paced where despite enemies not giving exp, you don't feel underpowered unless you wander into an area meant for higher level parties. If you find an enemy encounter is difficult, it's usually a matter of adjusting your strategy and doing something different. If you get absolutely annihilated, come back later. Non-linear games aren't a bad thing, and don't punish the player that hard just because the party gets their faces caved in. It's a learning experience. Games don't have to hold your hand and coddle you every step of the way. It is possible to leave room for critical thinking skills without being a total jerk to your player. 

And most of those games don't have exp and generally uses alternative systems for the character growth.


But when the core of the system is tied to the character levels and experience, then in most cases it is bad.


What i said is: if you want exp, don't make it limited to quest, in most cases it will end bad.


Also, pillar of eternity is not a "milestone only" game. it DO give exp for killing monster (even if it's indirect, by filling the bestiary) and have many "side quest for grinding), along with the fact that it's have only 12 levels.


It just don't reward monster grinding and uses quest as it grinding method. For me it's not much different, just replacing 6 for 3+3. ('role play' feeling asind)


Replacing "kill some mosnster" with "talk with some npcs and visit some places" is not really much different for me.

 

[PsychicToaster]

And most of those games don't have exp and generally uses alternative systems for the character growth.


But when the core of the system is tied to the character levels and experience, then in most cases it is bad.


What i said is: if you want exp, don't make it limited to quest, in most cases it will end bad.


Also, pillar of eternity is not a "milestone only" game. it DO give exp for killing monster (even if it's indirect, by filling the bestiary) and have many "side quest for grinding), along with the fact that it's have only 12 levels.


It just don't reward monster grinding and uses quest as it grinding method. For me it's not much different, just replacing 6 for 3+3. ('role play' feeling asind)


Replacing "kill some mosnster" with "talk with some npcs and visit some places" is not really much different for me.

You have a somewhat narrow perspective on quests. PoE doesn't encourage quest grinding because quests are integrated into the game quite well. If you're going off to Magran's Fork for the main story, chances are you'll have picked up a few quests that are easy to complete while you're already there. That's why it succeeds. You typically don't have to go out of your way to accomplish something, and sure, it only has 12 levels, but the point is that it is entirely possible to control player experience gains by making levels feel less like just another number and more like a secondary part of the game.


As I said, it depends on the gameplay. Certain designs for progression work with different kinds of games. PoE's works because it is story driven rather than combat driven. Final Fantasy's works because it is simplified, along with the framework for the story. Grinding doesn't take away from the big picture because the big picture is "kill dudes because they're bad".