The World of Layonara
NWN Discussions and Suggestions => Quests Ideas and Discussion => Topic started by: Acacea on October 25, 2007, 01:04:32 am
-
To get straight to the point - I think quest XP should work like combat, to some degree. I don't feel that epic level characters should continue to aspire to crazy levels by going on many quests targeted for lower level characters. I think that rather than a flat time-based XP amount doled out, whether it is level 30 characters attending an "open level" quest dealing with kobold persuasion or a level 2 character thrown into dealings way over his head in the planes and matters of gods, that there be a time-based XP modified by a predefined CR of the quest, by session if necessary depending on its contents.
Sometimes quests are non-combat and don't have a level limit, but skill DCs should not be raised on a mundane event simply because an epic character can do it with his eyes closed. Just like in many cases it doesn't make any sense to raise the challenge of combat because epics attend. I think sometimes (maybe even a lot of times) people attend quests solely because it is a guaranteed source of large XP. But think about it, does a level 20 character get any XP from a kobold? No? Then why should he get epic level XP for advancing his abilities, when just sitting around an inn passing DC 20 persuade checks and such things? Likewise, someone with 5 SC can't identify a disjunction and learn from it, it's over their heads.
I think that if one wants to keep progressing in their abilities, one should have to seek out challenges at their level. That is the way it works for creatures, and I think ideally it should be that way for quests as well. You need to be challenged to progress.
A helpful side effect of this might be encouraging more natural level limits.
For the record, I actually don't like OOC level limits on quests - low or high. After sampling quests from every DM on the team at the time I started questing, I settled mostly on those from World Quest GMs because I really loved being able to contribute even at a lower level than the target goal of the quests, which were epic in scope and combat difficulty. It's easier to quest up than down, but still in the event that low level characters attend World Quests for XP or epics attend quests "aimed" much lower for XP, they should be receiving less experience than if they had found a challenge near their level.
It's not just 'powergamers' or anything that go on quests for XP that they wouldn't otherwise... haven't you ever been in the middle of a quest someone nicely let you attend, only to feel kind of like a 5th wheel, knowing that if your character's abilities are respected, you'll break the plot and overshadow other characters, but if they're not it's not really fair and you just get demoted after all your work, and maybe if you weren't going to get several hours of quest XP you might give them some advice and wards and let them go on their way as you're honestly a little bored?
Or felt that way because you were surrounded by people so much more powerful than you talking about things way over your head that neither you nor your character can really help much with? Sometimes you go because you're genuinely interested and get involved and want to help in whatever way you can - and anyone of any level can contribute to just about anything, don't get me wrong - but other times you just stick it out silently because of the XP.
Is it not IC to realize a quest is not in your field or level of expertise in situations like the latter? I would never have dropped out of Angels' Tear, yet Acacea should probably have gotten less XP than others because much of the going ons were so far over her head. I would have kept going, because I loved the story and she was heavily involved and could contribute in other ways, but on the whole, it was not a challenge at her lower level, when she started. Later, in epic levels, there were lower level quests I would not have dropped out of for the same reasons, yet should not really have received full XP for, either, because of being above the challenge level instead.
The higher you go, the harder it is to find challenges. Should you get the same amount of XP running errands for mercenaries as you did for killing Bloodstone, just because the quest was the same length of time?
CR based quest xp, in this incarnation or the next. Get rewarded for using your abilities where it actually matters.
-
I agree 100% here with Acacea. With Shiff, he's becoming an exceptionally skilled warrior. There are times, just for giggles, I run around west without armor on just to see if anything is still That dangerous for him without it. He's level 18, going for 20 (if he lives that long) and hopefully going for WL someday. But... why should he get 48k xp for helping out a bunch of green adventurers fight goblins and kobolds for 3+ hours, then go hunting for Alpha Were-beasts and get the same amount?
I like her idea. Aragorn wouldn't get 48k XP for finding Frodo's lost shoe, and I don't think Pippin would earn the same for watching epics like Gandalf and Saruman and Galadriel sling disjunctions and Hell Balls around...
-
That sounds more like an example of bumping up a difficulty to account for epic levels, when the actual level limit was announced as something like 20...making it harder for people who were actually in the original target zone and making them feel out of place.
-
Acacea's stated it very eloquently, and has hit the proverbial nail on the head, in my estimation.
As I can't seem to get much more that's coherent out of my mouth, I'll just leave it at the nice little cheerleading post.
Go, Acacea.
-
I agree 100% here with Acacea. With Shiff, he's becoming an exceptionally skilled warrior. There are times, just for giggles, I run around west without armor on just to see if anything is still That dangerous for him without it. He's level 18, going for 20 (if he lives that long) and hopefully going for WL someday. But... why should he get 48k xp for helping out a bunch of green adventurers fight goblins and kobolds for 3+ hours, then go hunting for Alpha Were-beasts and get the same amount?
eh wish I could do that with rain lolol
I don't really know what to say about this. For me quests are just an other place to get good rp. Yes they can advance your character, yes it can change the world if it is that sort of quest. But I have a different view of that. Some time I feel it's beneficial to actually have old timers (epic) char to show the new comers (low level) the way around things. Bring their experience into view.
Other time, yep I have had a couple of quest were even at mid level for the quest cr, I though I was out of place when there was epics there. But i stick it out and got great RP and for me that's what is important in the end. Oh I don't mind receiving the xp, not at all, but I wont feel that its wrongly gain xp if me or the people that are the higher level in the quest gives a good rp experience.
-
In case I was not clear, I am for old timers showing people around, for low level characters being creative about how to contribute in situations over their heads, and for in general people of different levels interacting.
It's simply that I don't feel one's mechanical abilities should increase as much when they are far out of challenge range than they would if they were of appropriate difficulty.
-
I understood what you meant.
-
I think this concept sounds interesting but the devil's in the details. Setting the CR of various quests would be the difficulty and I think that would be so subjective that it would be more trouble than it's worth. A pure RP quest can be just as hard for any level. Of course if the quest hinges on persuading someone and a particular charcter has a high persuade that can make a big difference but that isn't something you will know before the quest starts. If you set CR based mostly on combat then you neglect the hard to solve mysteries and puzzles. All in all I think what you're saying has merit but as I think through how to implement something like this it seems like there could be more arguing over what the CR should have been or such things than if you just have a set standard for XP.
-
Very good points Acacea. I think that the scaling can be done fairly painlessly if done on a sliding scale equation after the initial xp tally. In other words, the gm calculates normally the XP/hour/level per usual, and then appends a post-equation variable on a sliding scale of difficulty. Say... 3 levels per every 10%. So if there's a 10th level quest where they bring in a 16th level character, they get the initial xp minus the taxation for 20%. Multiply the original amount by 0.8, and boom, there's the sum total affected by CR. A 30th level player on a 20 level CR quest would hit -20-30%, so multiply by 0.8-0.7.
I have to agree, that despite good intentions, sometimes the temptation there is too great for uber level characters to join lower quests when their TNL reaches in the multi-millions. I'm not against the epics joining in on the fun at all, but we should look at naturalizing the xp-gain process a little so that following a few level 9s doesnt become more lucrative an xp tradeoff than say... killing several hundred lvl 30 creatures. This is much the reason why CDQs no longer give xp, because people were abusing the system so often signing up for xp-boosters.
-
@Skywatcher - What is the goal of the quest? Who is the villain? What is the level of combat if present - and in my original post I was referring just as much to non-combat quests - and the types of DCs seen in opposing skill checks? You don't have to assign an opinionated level of difficulty to every single action possible, and there is always bonus XP, but all of these questions are usually answered before a quest even starts.
I've been in a series where the behind the scene villain was once the right hand of a goddess, and ones where we must negotiate with a hostile tribe of monster race x to stop terrorizing a village. You can't tell me there's not a pretty obvious difference in the scope of the quests.
A far reaching quest may have smaller things along the way, involving many different levels of abilities. If I'm going to break 100 on a lore check and really just be getting that a rune looks like something necromancy related and that doesn't matter or that a piece of information is 'secret', my character is probably a bit above the skill level in that area if often coming short in combat. If I out spellcraft every mage in the group despite the problems she has had with that skill, and the DM is thinking eh... I don't really want to give it away but I don't want to arbitrarily raise the difficulty, either... I'm probably above the target range for the quest.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why do some quests have level limits even when there isn't going to be any combat? Because they have ability range targets. If you're too far outside of them, I just think you shouldn't be looking for full XP based on sitting there for 4 hours.
-
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why do some quests have level limits even when there isn't going to be any combat? Because they have ability range targets. If you're too far outside of them, I just think you shouldn't be looking for full XP based on sitting there for 4 hours.
That's another good point. Also consider that in many level dependant quests where there is no combat, sometimes a lower level bard or rogue with a silver tongue is much better suited to surpassing some obstacle than the team of combat-skilled fighters, clerics, mages, etc. A 10th level bard would be far more likely to negotiate a peaceful diplomatic situation than say, a 30th level barbarian. In this and many other aspects of party dynamics, I am less apt to choose my hunting or questing parties based on level, than I am on what unique skills they bring to the party. You better believe that in a group of 20s I would bring a lvl 10 rogue for the traps! However, if Bjornigar the 18th level dwarven defender chooses to help do guard duty for a group of level 10 diplomats, I wouldn't expect his xp gains to be based on his level as much as the levels of the foes he was potentially guarding the peace talks against. So I agree, we shouldn't limit the mix of levels of participants so much as we should moniter the extent of their gains. World leaders should be leading the younger folks of course, rather than consistantly limiting themselves to the company of their peers. They should not however, find such tasks which are easy to them as rewarding as a task of their level.
-
I am not disagreeing with any of the reasons that have been listed for this to be a good idea. I just think that the setting of the CR of a quest would be very subjective. If done after the fact it would be easier to determine how difficult the quest was. I have been on quests that were supposed to be simple but because of the actions of the group they became very difficult. So the CR would have to be set after the fact.
You could argue by a lot of the same reasons that each individual character should have a factor applied to them after the fact based on their level of participation and how much their individual skills were exercised. I mean if a rougue goes on a quest and never picks a lock or finds a trap or sneaks and just sits back while people are talking then should he become more proficient at rogue skills? It would make sense to have this sort of factor applied but in the implementation you would get so many complaints of who got credit of what that I think the team just decided to have a per hour amount of XP for quest participation. It's not the best system but it is good and avoids many problems.
I think the system you are proposing would have much of the same sort of baggage due to the subjectivity. I wouldn't mind a system like this being used but I think it would be hard to implement without incurring the complaints that would come with it.
-
Very good post Acacea. I do think that it brings one problem with it and that's balancing the cr of quests through the week and across timezones to give all levels a fair shot at at least to get to a quest meant for them.
Other than that, I would say why not use it right now.
-
I disagree. The central pillar of Layonara is questing, in my opinion. The standout difference between Layonara and many other PWs is that there are global storylines that get interwoven around the stories players develop on their own. The main source of XP is supposed to be GM quests, not hack&slash. By attending the quests you, in effect, are pushing forward the story of the world. That's why you deserve XP.
-
Pen N Popper, Acacea is not disagreeing with that, just stating that four hours on a quest for a lvl 10 aren't the same like the four hours spend on the same quest by a lvl 25.
-
Skywatcher, in every quest there are subjective aspects, certainly. But there are also many objective elements, specifically within the numbers. These are what Acacea refers to. And yes, GM's define their quest level range by those objective numbers (DC's, Monster CR, Ability checks), whether that occurs before or during the quest. You either set a level limit or you adjust to your PC character levels during the quest.
XP via CR is the exact method by which you receive XP when adventuring and killing monsters. It does not take into account the subjective aspects of who did the most killing, who figured out the monster's weakness, who made life difficult for the rest of the party, etc. It simply gives everyone in the party XP based on the CR of the monster and their level-- Two very objective numbers. Which is why a CR 25 monster only drops 1 XP to a level 5 PC. The CR is out of range for the PC level. Obviously, it works the same way if the PC level and the monster CR is reversed.
By that same token, by applying the basic mechanics of CR vs. Level to quest XP, you can better match character ability with an appropriate challenge. And this is based on objective elements, not subjective.
Also note, Acacea is not suggesting we take away XP for quest time, but rather that the time-XP be modified by the CR vs. Level system. So, say, instead of 25k per quest hour for a CR 20 quest, you get 10k per hour plus an hourly amount scaled for your 25th level character in a (mostly) CR 20 set of situations.
-
Milty, are you also suggesting giving more/less XP based not only on the difficulty of the quest as compared to the level of the character, but also on what the character does and how they behave on the quest?
That can open up a potential problem of the players screaming favoritism at the GMs.
Also, What if the quest is all RP? How do you devise a proper "Level" for it? You can't go by character level (Unless you take into account the outcome of decisions/riddles) and it wouldn't be right to assess the brain power of each character/player for personal reasons...
So Im confused
-
I do think that it brings one problem with it and that's balancing the cr of quests through the week and across timezones to give all levels a fair shot at at least to get to a quest meant for them.
I don't think it will work. It's a nice sentiment, and I can grasp the origin and intent, but I don't see it being a benefit to the server at this time. Maybe a year ago, maybe a year from now... but right now we have discussions that are polar opposite arguments from this on questing in general and some of the downfalls we see in closed quests, level related quests, or ongoing plot specific quests whereby we don't get enough server inclusion. In an ideal roleplay server setting, we wouldn't have to worry about inclusion or harnessing the motivation of the playerbase. But I think that situation is an ongoing balancing act and this sort of idea just adds one more ball to the GM's and players juggling on a pretty tempermental scale.
And hey, I like the sentiment. But I also like the simplicity of our existing system which promotes quest involvement on a very tangible level, which helps gather the playerbase in a pool where they can find their own balance with the roleplay standards folks set. If you make this simple equation more complicated, then we potentially end up with a different set of issues in the bigger server picture. Dunno.
-
Milty, are you also suggesting giving more/less XP based not only on the difficulty of the quest as compared to the level of the character, but also on what the character does and how they behave on the quest?
Not at all. Please re-read my post. The XP would be based on an objective CR rating, not a subjective determination of who contribues what. Which was my whole point.
I've never been on an "all RP/riddle/non-combat" quest that didn't require some use of player character ability and skill checks. Perhaps you could say that we can't take into account a player's experience in creatively accessing their PC's abilities and skills, but certainly the point of a fantasy character is that he/she has skills you don't, and it's these skills that are typically required in quests. How do you access those skills? You access them through checks and DC's. Naturally, you make stuff up, then you back up your idea with rolls based on your PC's skills.
So here again we come back to objective numbers based on character level.
-
So in an rp quest base the CR not on the CR of the monsters but on the DC of the skill checks needed. Okay! Thanks!
-
I do think that it brings one problem with it and that's balancing the cr of quests through the week and across timezones to give all levels a fair shot at at least to get to a quest meant for them.
This confused me. We already have quests limited by level, ie not 'open but you'll get less XP' but full out closed to someone not in a certain level range. If you're not epic, you can't go. If you're not below level ten, you can't go. Most quests have level limits, because of quest CR, which already need to be balanced through the week and across timezones to give all levels a fair shot at a quest meant for them. That's why you occasionally see threads crop up whining about how epics need more quests because they're not allowed to go on anything, or threads popping up because no one cares about low level characters and just favor high levels because they get all the quests. CR balance.
It's simply that in this version, which is an unlikely implementation and was more something to consider because I think the current one is simple but silly, there might be fewer quests that are actually level locked barring others from going period, and more that are simply aimed towards a certain range and those outside of that range will not find it as rewarding. So actually, I would like more open quests, but take away the reason for characters to go on every single one for the same amount of flat time-based XP. If Moraken wants to help save the village, fine, but he's not going to get as much XP as he would for saving the planes. He'll be there mostly for show-off value and to stretch his dusty limbs and taking a more 'direct' goal in guiding for a change.
Yes, all quests would still give XP - if anyone has read previous debates I have always defended the large amount of quest XP received because I think that no matter how tough the monsters, a character's abilities are never challenged and never matter as much as they do in a difficult quest. So no, it's not a taking away.
I was going to say it was as much a suggestion for the next version as this one, but I actually hate the XP system and would rather just get rid of experience points entirely than devise a new quest reward system using it. ;) Like some of the previous suggestions people have given for the new game, I think you should get better at something by doing it.... so if you go on a quest and act as the diplomat, maybe get some hits to persuade instead of this strange universal points thing :P
-
We already have quests limited by level, ie not 'open but you'll get less XP' but full out closed to someone not in a certain level range.
True.. but it differs a lot from the system you propose. At least, what I think you're proposing would be much more dynamic than having a quest capped to lvl 15, which is the most common one I believe.
Such a system would require that every quest has some CR? There are enough quests where level doesn't have to matter at all, but at the same time there might just be as many where it does.
Right now most quests are open to all levels and if I'm not mistaken your suggestion would imply that each quest comes with a certain CR? Which means that having a good spread becomes more of an issue than it is now.
-
Isn't setting a level limit sort of like applying a CR to the quest? By saying, "These are the levels this quest is for," you are saying, "This is the range of monster, trap, and skill roll CRs and DCs this quest has," right?
-
Isn't setting a level limit sort of like applying a CR to the quest? By saying, "These are the levels this quest is for," you are saying, "This is the range of monster, trap, and skill roll CRs and DCs this quest has," right?
Well, Acacea's suggestion would allow for a quest to have mechanically meaningful suggested level range that falls short of outright level restriction.
I like the way that this would (hopefully) encourage people falling outside of the targeted level range to participate for RP reasons or whatnot, rather than xp reasons.
-
Right. The way I'm reading some posts makes it sound like labeling a quest with a CR is radically different than what already happens, though. A DM designing a quest with level limits must have some range of CRs and DCs in mind, which seems to automatically suggest a "Quest CR." A no-level-limit quest would have its Quest CR determined by the average of the CRs and DCs involved.
It already sounds like there are Quest CRs to me, but they just aren't called that or explicitly stated. Maybe I'm just misreading the posts, and no one has implied otherwise.
-
And if a quest is really just as difficult for level 1 or level 40, there could/should be an option to ignore quest CR and give standard quest XP.
-
I've always kind of thought the amount depending only on how long you sit through something rather than how difficult the challenge was, is kind of weird, no matter who you are or what level. But it most recently reasserted itself after Acacea was getting poison lessons from Triba and Pan noticed Tribs was only like 400k from level 30...and I said something like, "Hey that's only like 5 quests! You can totally do that!" meaning regardless of difficulty level.
And then I kind of squinted an eye and imagined Triba leveling to 29 by driving the Blade of Shadows through Bloodstone's back after her life full of destroying bloodpools and dealing with dragons and generals and breaking into the most sacred and protected of Rofireinite sanctuaries, the last big event in her life being the destruction of the villain that threatened the whole world and who killed the dragons, the 'new' attempt at a threat, or sent them shrieking into hiding... and leveling to 30 with a few quests about saving some villages or escorting some priests, or even dealing with the big scary awful dragon threat that the previous threat scared the pants off of... solely because they were of the appropriate length...
My brain just got kind of boggled, you know? Gulnyr and I were joking a little about the server imploding when Acacea and Jennara reach Triba's level because it just feels weird, even though our characters have been involved in some crazy things. And it does, at least for me. Because I'm still playing, still going on quests (even if they will never again be quests in which she is the healer at the Bloodwell or another quest in which she is in the presence of a goddess), and still getting full XP for my time, regardless of what level it is or if it's really a test of her abilities.
Should it not be hard to find new challenges once you get to a certain point of mechanical level power? This brings me to something else that I have been turning in my head regarding the new game, so I'll have to make a new post (http://forums.layonara.com/nwn-ideas-suggestions-requests/141502-mmo-objectives-discussion-constantly-lifted-level-cap.html#post673802) about that or something...
-
Yes there should. Maybe its simple lack of time, I don't know. but it sounds like there should be more quest with a higher cr tapped in the 40's if that is even possible.
-
I've always kind of thought the amount depending only on how long you sit through something rather than how difficult the challenge was, is kind of weird, no matter who you are or what level. But it most recently reasserted itself after Acacea was getting poison lessons from Triba and Pan noticed Tribs was only like 400k from level 30...and I said something like, "Hey that's only like 5 quests! You can totally do that!" meaning regardless of difficulty level.
I totally agree here, that is a wrong way of thinking about leveling. However we are here for fun and leveling is part of that fun because it is fun to test new skills and such, but you should never attend a quest looking to earn just that little xp before you get over the bump to the next level.
And then I kind of squinted an eye and imagined Triba leveling to 29 by driving the Blade of Shadows through Bloodstone's back after her life full of destroying bloodpools and dealing with dragons and generals and breaking into the most sacred and protected of Rofireinite sanctuaries, the last big event in her life being the destruction of the villain that threatened the whole world and who killed the dragons, the 'new' attempt at a threat, or sent them shrieking into hiding... and leveling to 30 with a few quests about saving some villages or escorting some priests, or even dealing with the big scary awful dragon threat that the previous threat scared the pants off of... solely because they were of the appropriate length...
My brain just got kind of boggled, you know? Gulnyr and I were joking a little about the server imploding when Acacea and Jennara reach Triba's level because it just feels weird, even though our characters have been involved in some crazy things. And it does, at least for me. Because I'm still playing, still going on quests (even if they will never again be quests in which she is the healer at the Bloodwell or another quest in which she is in the presence of a goddess), and still getting full XP for my time, regardless of what level it is or if it's really a test of her abilities.
Now now... While this sets things in perspective you must remember that we can't save the world from destruction constantly. Plus RL and other constrants makes it impossible for some to ever get the chance of doing something of that magnitude even if they are just the same level and have the same skills and classes as someone who had the chance there.
I feel that it is wrong to judge someone so heavily on the scale of what you are and what you are not, surely some are greater heroes/villans than others but if you are level 30 then you are level 30 the way you got there being having fought a lot of small battles or a lot of huge ones wouldn't matter.
One thing that does matter though is how well known your character is and in which circles the character is know, while Triba is a great hero some of equal or higher level might or might not be so. Level is magnitude of power but by no means a way to measure the success of your character.
The problem with testing a characters powers is that by doing so quests would often end up in being one man shows. And really I must say I hate when that happen, because clearly everyone should have a chance to shine on quests, even if the person is 20 or more levels lower than some of the other characters. Yes power should be tested, but again unless you want pure combat quests it is hard doing so without making the quest very boring for some.
Should it not be hard to find new challenges once you get to a certain point of mechanical level power? This brings me to something else that I have been turning in my head regarding the new game, so I'll have to make a new post about that or something...
It should indeed be hard but again real life tends to hit very hard there. I would surely preffer to challenge Storold some more and have decided to do so by submitting him for a WLDQ but again RL limits play times and DM avalibilities and such, I am by no means complaining here just stating a fact of life.
If I had my way with Storold I would have build him up in a much different way than I have now, however one learns from ones mistakes and I guess that if I ever were to start a new character I would make a lot of changes in the way I played the first twenty levels.
But done is done and right now I have at least five different ways of testing Storolds abilities, if I will ever persue more than one of them only time will tell but I would sure wellcome even more fun and challenging quests from the very competent DM team. However I think that the focus should be shared all over the spectre as far as I see it we have at least two very high level series going on plus several are going to have or are having their wldq quests run in the comming time.
All in all I find it very fair that you get the same amount of hourly xp based on your level as you have done so far since there are no way you can make it fair for everyone. Surely some end up as greater heroes as others but the levels doesn't make them that it is what they do.
And just a few words of wisdom a wise halfling told me once, you don't have to accept the xp you can always have some removed ;)
-
I'm not sure that that was really what I was referring to, though. I was not for example saying that oh none of the current epics are as good as some of the older epics because they did more. That's why I used my own character as an example instead of someone else's, because I didn't really want anyone to feel that way, as it wasn't the point.
Rather, I used Triba's specific case because a) it is what reminded me of this and b) it illustrated what I was talking about - receiving the same amount of XP for a high level plot quest, for a kobold escort mission, because it lasted the same amount of time.
Yes, there are high level series, this thread was not meant to discuss not having something to do, or not having challenges. That is the other thread. *Snickers.* No, this was a thread saying that high level characters should profit most from their high level series that do exist, and from their WLDQs, etc. Not finding who murdered Nina's grandfather, which while it might be entertaining, does not help to as great a degree as something that tested their epic abilities.
If someone has all these time constraints, then they wouldn't be going on low level quests just because they can anyway, surely? Again, I am not trying to remove XP rewards for quests or anything, and this was not related in any way to non-DMed quest activities.
-
My personal experience with some players who has some time constraints tells me that people would actually like to go on the low level quest, not because of the xp but rather for the chance of DM time. Because when it comes down to it going on a quest is pretty much more fun than getting silver on Dregar for the 100th time or talking over some dayly talk in Hempstead because you sort of ran out of subjects for now.
I know this draws a sad and boring picture of the game, but some times you just end up feeling like that and well that is when you go find something else to do. I have found myself there a few times now, but well I always found something to do.
But I don't think the solution here is to lower the reward for these people who thinks it is fun to tag along on a low level quest to have some fun and do something different in the play time they have avalible.
-
I have been there too, and I have enjoyed my times on lower level quests. I just don't think those lower level quests are what should carry people to the heights of supreme epic power just by virtue of lasting 6 hours, heh.
-
Well then you should ask yourself the very old question, should killing ten million things get you to epic power? I would like to go back to Chongos answer and say that this is the wrong time for this. However I think it is a very important discussion for the new game as you brought it up in the other thread you just started. Here and now though I think is the wrong time to make any signifigant changes into the xp for quest system.
-
Pibe, I understand what you're saying, it's just that it doesn't really seem to address what I'm saying, like you're answering a different point or something. Should killing ten million kobolds make someone level 40? I don't know, but at least they're only getting 1xp instead of 100k?
I'm not proposing to take XP from quests - you'll still level if you kill ten thousand kobolds if that's what you want - merely making it so that quests do not give you 100k for 5 hours no matter what you are doing. If you spend it hunting kobolds, you'll just get 60k or something.
As well, there are still high-level series that will give full 100k chunks as well as XP for monsters killed on it. I posted this knowing that it would most likely be considered too 'complicated' to be implemented here, but it's hard for me to understand the argument of "you can do it with kobolds, why not with quests?" when the difference between kobolds and quests is exactly the one I am speaking of. 1xp vs 100k.
-
If you are going for the sole purpose of leveling you could level faster than quests in most cases by simply just killing the right CR of creature. Then you would rather see the xp ratio being 100k xp vs. 100k xp or maybe even tipped sligtly in favor of killing over questing.
Again I am not trying to say that the idea is wrong, just saying the time for it is.
-
A couple of thoughts.
Is the life of one worth less than the life of thousands? I suppose it depends on who that one 'is' to your character. If that one is the life of a family member many would probably work harder to prevent them harm than to save faceless thousands.
A high CR (reflecting their combat effectiveness) of an opponent doesn't necesarily make them more difficult to roleplay with/against.
Layo: Maybe the CR2 kobold chief is far more stubborn about relaxing the knife at the throat of the little boy than it was convincing Blood to glance towards the distracting thrown pebble so Triba could sneak up on him?
RL: Maybe Miyamoto Musashi was the trickiest swordsman but also the most gullible and all his samurai buddies used to use the jedi mind trick on him to get him to do what they wanted?
Point is, maybe the opponents with the potential for globe-spanning harm are not necessarily more difficult to deal with (reflected by the DCs of the skill checks) than someone with a more localised potential for harm?
-
Sneaking up on Bloodstone requires a stupendously sneaky creature (Triba). Bloodstone basically had one weakness. If negotiation fails, you've got to retreat.
Sneaking up on the goblin chief can be done by most anyone not wearing heavy armor. The Goblin Chief can be killed in numerous ways. If negotiation fails, a sneak attack in the back does nicely.
You don't become an exceptional being without maintaining an impressive amount of ability on almost all spheres- physical, social, political, etc.
That's my view, anyway.