XP system flawed?

[seebs]

So what is the actual way to make sure exp is received? Is it simply if a character lands a successful hit?

You get half XP regardless. To get full XP, each slot must have damaged each monster. Note that a skeleton-quad is four monsters.

Internally, monsters have a flag bit showing which of the four character slots have damaged them; those slots get full XP.

[Marak]

EDIT: why you say no tank roles? dodge rogues and armor fighters are tanks and low dps.

Because if you stand in front of pretty much any monster tougher than a Snail or basic Herder and exchange blows, your party members are either going to A) die outright or B) get so hurt that you're going to have to burn Consumables (potions/food via resting) once the battle is over.

You can't tank in this game. Standing in front of anything is actively discouraged from the instant you fight the hits-the-whole-party Poison spitting mini-herder-things on the very first floor.

Since you can't go toe to toe with anything, I consider that "no tanking". And since there are no healing or stat-buffing spells, there's no "healing" role. It's all about getting your Protection or Dodge where you want it (for the times you foul up your dodging or get cornered) and then piling on the damage.

The XP system reflects this. Deal damage or go home. =p

[Brodie301]

Do 2x2 or backup attacking all of my squad are at the same level. 2 fighters, rogue, & Mage.
All of them only one battle away from leveling in any given order. Only a hundred or so xp apart.
I hardly ever die or use potions.

[seebs]

At other times it seems reasonable - in a game like this, with no Tanking or Healing combat roles to speak of, you give the most XP to those who contribute to the only remaining role: damage dealing.

There are more than three roles; WoW's oversimplified descriptions do not reflect reality. In fact, Grimrock certainly has tanking, and also has buffing/defense roles. Tanking doesn't mean "always standing toe to toe and just sitting there"; it just means that when you do screw up and get hit, the guys the monsters are facing are the ones who take the damage, and having the front line have protection, evasion, and health makes a huge difference in your chances of survival.

And if you seriously think that the guy plinking away at that spider with a little knife is doing more good than the person who brewed the antivenom and kept the poison shield up...

[King Semos]

If it was a game based around convenience like WoW, it would be a flaw.

That's a pretty total non-sequitur.
It's nothing to do with convenience or inconvenience; it's that if you play pretty normally, your party as a whole is likely to end up a level or two behind where they would have been if you play with careful attention to XP.

It's actually completely relevant, not sure how you think it's non-sequitur that's extremely surprising to me. Unless you just wanted to use that term. My opinion is relevant in a topic titled with a question.

So this is a problem to you, but not an inconvenience? I figured you found it an inconvenience that you have to tag every mob with each character in order to get full xp. If your goal is indeed to level up at the exact same time on every character, then maybe that mentality is what's making it seem flawed. They didn't want every character to level up at the same time, it would ruin replay value on this game. Knowing exactly which mob would cause you to level up. I personally enjoy each character leveling up at different times. Its nice to allocate points throughout the dungeon, rather than all at once and grind on to the next level up.

If certain classes get penalized for it, so be it. The end result is really the same regardless. The worst I've had a character fall behind is one level, that being a mage. That being because his fire couldn't hurt Uggardians. However he shielded my group with fire resistance proving useful still. Since he lagged behind, I gave him a Tome of Infinite Wisdom, and Bam. Inconvenience solved.

That didn't solve anything, that just got you back to almost where you would have been if XP had been divided rather than reduced.

Yes, it solves EVERYTHING. Because when I play, it is in the style intended by the developers.

Rather than obsess over XP, and who is ahead or behind. I fight monsters to kill them, and if someone is lagging behind and I feel that they actually need to be at par or ahead I will give them the Necklace with 25% xp bonus, or some Tome's of Infinite Wisdom. That's what these items are for, to adapt and customize. If you don't find these Treasures, tough luck, you're just going to have to wing it in this dungeon. You are after all a group of prisoners scavenging the dungeon and doing your best to escape.

I think other games have conditioned your expectations of how games should work. It's very common.

So, my opinion still stands. Flaw?? No.

[TheRealKony]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this.

[Draken]

Agreeing with King Semos all the way. You're taking the PURPOSE out of a GAME when you make it into a CHORE to "tag" all your characters in order to get full exp. GAMES are to have FUN, not to make it a CHORE on micro-management, number crunching, power-building, etc.

In my newest party, playing on hard, my Fist-Fighter Rogue keeps biting the dust most often than not, despite him having stratospheric evasion, by consequence he lags behind. My mage with her lightning bolt can pretty much 1hit KO anything weaker than an Uggardian, taking the most exp, next in line is my archer rogue who shoots 2 bolts per attack, dealing a tonnage of damage and 1 hit KOing a fair deal of mobs too.

Do you see me worrying? nope
do you see micro-managing my attacks so everyone gets "tagged"? nope
do you see me complaining that XP system is flawed? nope

I am in fact relieved that the XP system pays 100% Exp to EVERYONE who dealt damage (and 50% to those who didnt) instead of 25% to everyone alive... If math over there is the same as it is over here, that is from TWO TIMES to FOUR TIMES more experience than what the other system provides.

[Elderian]

Hi,

GAMES are to have FUN, not to make it a CHORE on micro-management, number crunching, power-building, etc.

Why don't you let everybody define "FUN" in their own way?
In party based RPGs with equipment and all, micro-management sure is part of the game.

I am in fact relieved that the XP system pays 100% Exp to EVERYONE who dealt damage (and 50% to those who didnt) instead of 25% to everyone alive... If math over there is the same as it is over here, that is from TWO TIMES to FOUR TIMES more experience than what the other system provides.

That would be true, if the total number of EXP stay the same in both systems. But you would have to increase that number make it comparable again.

As described, the current system is flawed, although the flaws usually do not affect the the game much. But that still _is_ a flaw after all. It is slot based istead of character based, protection spells so not count for full exp, although they have impact on battle... and last: Dead characters do not get exp, even if they give their life for the group (and can be revived).

I all the threads that describe some anomalies in the game, the posts are alle the same: Some simply want to know, how the system works, others explain it to them and state, that the system is flawed. Then many people come and say, that they do not see that flaw, and that they have fun, and all the other should accept it or go play other games or the like..... it's always the same.

Elderian

[seebs]

Agreeing with King Semos all the way. You're taking the PURPOSE out of a GAME when you make it into a CHORE to "tag" all your characters in order to get full exp. GAMES are to have FUN, not to make it a CHORE on micro-management, number crunching, power-building, etc.

Well, that's the thing. I have less fun if I'm getting half XP.

I am in fact relieved that the XP system pays 100% Exp to EVERYONE who dealt damage (and 50% to those who didnt) instead of 25% to everyone alive... If math over there is the same as it is over here, that is from TWO TIMES to FOUR TIMES more experience than what the other system provides.

The other system would usually have a larger number being split. Basically, if killing a monster is such that all four characters get 90xp, then under the other system, the total XP for that monster will always be 360xp, no matter how many people kill it. Under this system, it might be 360xp, it might be 225, or 315, or 270.

[seebs]

If it was a game based around convenience like WoW, it would be a flaw.

That's a pretty total non-sequitur.
It's nothing to do with convenience or inconvenience; it's that if you play pretty normally, your party as a whole is likely to end up a level or two behind where they would have been if you play with careful attention to XP.

It's actually completely relevant, not sure how you think it's non-sequitur that's extremely surprising to me. Unless you just wanted to use that term. My opinion is relevant in a topic titled with a question.

WoW is totally irrelevant, except for the emotional appeal to "old-school gamers hold WoW in contempt".

So this is a problem to you, but not an inconvenience?

Well, that certainly isn't the word I'd have used for it.

Yes, it solves EVERYTHING. Because when I play, it is in the style intended by the developers.

That doesn't solve "everything".

If anyone anywhere ever can describe a problem which it doesn't solve, it doesn't solve everything -- and it is quite likely, given how the mechanics work, that the developers had not actually considered the question at all.

Here is the thing. Imagine that two people play this game. They both kill exactly the same number of mobs. At the end of the play experience, one player has all level 14 characters, and one has all level 12 characters. The first player can have a level 50 skill on each character, and another skill with at least a few points in it, not even including any tomes of wisdom...

I think other games have conditioned your expectations of how games should work. It's very common.

Why, yes. Every game I have ever played that is not this game, which assigns XP to monsters at all has taught me that a monster's XP value is an attribute of the monster, or possibly the monster's relationship to the party's level.

So, my opinion still stands. Flaw?? No.

Yes, and it's a very nice opinion, I'm sure, but you haven't provided any sort of rationale, justification, or support. You have not argued that this is a desireable trait. You have not shown a way in which this model produces a better game experience than other designs do. You have not offered any real arguments against the way every other RPG has done this, except a hilariously blatant appeal to how you expect old-school gamers to hate WoW. (And I am assuming you have never actually played WoW, as its XP system is pretty totally non-comparable.) Oh, and a completely point-missing rant about keeping people even, which is unrelated to the core issue. The core issue is that one player might get 50% more XP for the same monsters, killed with the same characters, than another.

You've also done nothing to explain how it makes sense that everyone in the party gets 100% XP if you have a single mage move from one slot to another tossing poison clouds, or that the mage who actually did all the damage could get half XP. (Use poison cloud. Cast poison cloud, then move the mage to another slot. When something dies from the cloud, the person now in the slot you were in when you cast it gets full XP, the mage gets half.)

Meanwhile, I've offered actual game design considerations, with solid numbers rather than vague anecdotes, and pointed out concrete ways in which the rationalizations on offer do not actually work.

You gotta come up with something better than contempt for an irrelevant game if you're going to try to advance an argument at some point.