Experience

[vurdijak]

It used to be that experience could be earned in three ways.
Completing quests, killing things, and getting skill improves.

Is there a way that the studious, non-fighting types can make up for experience lost from not killing things? If not, does this put the studious types at a disadvantage when it comes to improving stats and generally building their char.?

Based on the above presumptions, I have three proposals.
1. Experience could be earned from successfully studying a book, even if
the skill improve never comes.
2. Extra experience could be awarded (slightly extra) for achieving 'studious' skill improves.
3. Remove experience awards from killing things.

[Andreati]

Hmm..I'm not exactly sure how to word this, but here goes.

I disagree with all three of the proposals (to some extent), but I do believe that those who are not combatants should certainly another equal have a way to gain experience.

1. Experience could be earned from successfully studying a book, even if the skill improve never comes.
2. Extra experience could be awarded (slightly extra) for achieving 'studious' skill improves.

These are the two that I agree with the most, but I don't think it should be experience that adds on to all the stats; but instead exp. that gets added solely to int/wis/...erm... the other learning stat!

3. Remove experience awards from killing things.

In real life, if you get in a fight and win, you're going to learn something from that fight. The same should keep being applied to the combat system.

Sorry if this post is a bit jumbled and difficult to understand--I didn't get much sleep last night.

[rafael]

Since I only play one character and am relatively new I don't have anything to compare with, but I do at least play one of the so-called studious characters.
My character has been steadily growing, yes slowly but steadily. It is true that physically he is push-over, but otherwise he has developed well.

Since I've never had a high character, I don't know what exactly high mentals would be, but his sure do seem high enough, especially compared with his physical stats. I can't say that I NEVER get combat exp, but I usually avoid teaming to kill exp-rich game. He can fight to some extent, but he is not terribly strong. It is a handicap, but it's not really a big problem since he can earn enough coins for himself and kill to get what he needs for his purposes. Until the game forces me to change this, I'll keep playing my character this way.

It is true that I am limited in what I can do and where I can explore, but until the roleplay trickles to a stop and I find nothing else to do nor ways to progress in the "studious" style, it's an acceptable trade-off.

If you tell me i'm being overly punished for rp choices, I think you'll have to first fill me in on how that's so. But I will admit that being so weak physically makes it hard to do some quests, things I rather enjoy. I imagine I could ask for help but I prefer to do them alone most of the time. In any case, one can always hire mercenaries. So if they can be improved so that they're more helpful for non-combat oriented characters, then all the better.

I imagine it is a problem for those who categorically don't kill anything. But even those with philosophical reasons not to do so, will find acceptable targets in game, and at the very least, the roleplay can be rewarding enough for these plays so that they don't need to become a regular Hercules to be able to play and enjoy the game.

If the thread is still alive then, I'll try to fill you in on how the game progresses as my character advances. It could be that there is some middle-point where a character has no choice but to do un-studious things to progress, but so far I don't think that's been the case.

EDIT: But we could always use more quests!

[tessa]

Not sure what you mean from exp from studious skill improves, but you already get more xp for improves the better the skill is (as far as I know), so I suppose that would take care of that.

As for how to get xp... if I remember correctly, the formula was something along the lines of 3/6 xp you get is from skill training, 2/6 is from quests and explore xp, and 1/6 is from combat xp.

So, those that don't fight aren't losing out on much. Except I suppose combat skill xp, but there are several several skills out there that don't require slashing through orc camps and such. Tessa, after all, is a mediocre fighter at best, and didn't learn all the fancy things she knows from just combat.

[isengoo]

And it should be said that any fighter-type will have a tough time learning how to speak multiple languages fluently, how to read multiple fonts, how to cast magical spells, how to brew potions, etc., because they are too busy hacking and slashing through orcs.

I don't see a problem here...

[anglachel]

There is fourth source of xp: 'exploration'. Is is very a small small source compaired with skill-xp

[vurdijak]

As I noted above, I am assuming that those who do not hunt are a disadvantage in gaining experience. I might be wrong, and the imms may have already balanced this in ways unseen. If this is right, then Isengoo is correct, and there is no problem. However, no one has indicated anything to that effect.

-Andy I agree with your points, and I see now that my three proposals are probably not the most elegant solution for this.

-The 1/6 point is good, but as anyone who has played a lot can attest, a loss of 1/6 of total experience over a long period of time is pretty substantial.

-The fact that a skill improve at a higher level earns more experience (if true) makes no difference. There is still a 1/6 experience reduction, since fighters get the same bonus.

-As for my own progress, I am not unhappy with it. I am just questioning the fairness of the situation. And then there is always the possibility that the imms have intentionally made it harder to advance without killing things, and that may have its own sort of balance to it. In other words the slow progress may be counterweighted by benefits at the other end of the tunnel.

[tessa]

-The 1/6 point is good, but as anyone who has played a lot can attest, a loss of 1/6 of total experience over a long period of time is pretty substantial.

Well, again, Tessa doesn't fight often, never has fought often, most of her combat skills are pretty low, even compared to middle-sized characters, and she's still got more experience than most pure fighters I know (or most characters I know besides just one), so I still say that it won't be an issue, unless you're choosing to sacrifice combat entirely, and if that's the case, then it's a matter of your roleplay and not any limitation the mud's part.

[vurdijak]

Unfortunately, comparing Tessa to other characters is probably not a reliable way to look at this. Every character in Geas is unique to some extent, and Tessa probably more unique than most.

Yes, I do think that someone who sacrifices combat entirely should not be at a disadvantage in experience earning, despite the fact that this is dictated by roleplay.

Imagine two extreme paths, on the one hand is the person who only fights...rarely does anything involving 'mentals'.
On the other hand is the person who never fights, rarely doing anything 'physical'.
I am of the opinion that even if roleplay dictates which of these paths you choose, each path should be equally viable for a long term character in terms of total experience earned. Especially as Geas turns the corner and incorporates magik.

Andy had a nice point earlier, if you fight something and win you will learn something from that fight. If you expend a good amount of mental energy and study a book, you will likely learn a little something from that also. If you successfully cut a gem, write a book, or mix up a potion, you will learn something.
If you get experience for fighting and killing things, then why not for other things not involving combat? To quote Isengoo, "I dont see a problem here...."

[luminier]

to be honest the only real problem, if you want to call it that is this.

the fact that fighters can fight and gain 1/6 experience where as people who are more "scholarly" cannot. i guess waht this topic is trying to say then is those who can't fight well should be able to read a book or cut a gem and gain that 1/6? fair enough.

i thought 1/6 was fighting
2/6 was exploring and quests
3/6 was skills

i think depending on what you do more that last 1/6 should be weighted accordingly. being a warrior giving u more fight experience. being a scholar giving you more experience for learning something new.

i had another point but i forgot it....

[tessa]

I think Isengorn meant it seemed fine to him if non-combatants missed out on a little combat xp since combatants will usually miss the skills like languages or magic, and thus it tends to even out.

Anyway, if you feel people who choose not to fight have a large handicap to those that do, that's your opinion. But, from personal experience, I feel either path is already equally viable. In fact, I think there's more to offer with non-combat skills than there are with combat skills. But, again, that's just from my personal experience, and not even counting super-exclusive skills, either.

As for getting combat for killing things, I would guess it's because you physically exert yourself when slaying an ogre or an orc, whereas you don't really do so with studying a book or cutting a gem. Or because it would be really hard to code bonus xp for the hundreds of small tasks that could be done beyond killing livings.

And lastly... I don't think people should be given an easier time if they choose to not take what's already offered to them. Much the same as it's a fighter's choice if he doesn't want to learn languages or magic, I think it's a scholar's choice if he doesn't want to learn combat. The opportunity is already there to take both, but it's your choice as a player whether you want to take it or not.

[luminier]

well tessa in my experience it has been the case that if you are a warrior you can't be a scholar as well because once you get to the higher levels your skill improves in everything tend to slow alot. and if you want to be successful in either you have to focus your skills.

[tessa]

Actually, a fair few of the current masterscribes are also accomplished warriors of some degree to another.

[jezz]

I can't get the point of this discussion:

The problem is that someone who just train mental skills will be weaker than a fighter? I see that's pretty logical.

If you train _only_ mental skills, trust me, you will rise them high quickly, and your mental stats will be _huge_ if you set your stat preferences right.

So what's the big deal? You want to be a scholar and you have super-high mental stats and high skills. I find it pretty fair.

Warriors get that 1/6 experience because even if you only fight things, to one degree or another you'll be training other "collateral damage" specials, like appraise object, appraise enemy... So want it or not, to one degree or another, fighters will spread their skills a bit, and what's more important, they have to balance a bit their stats because specials suck mana.

So yes, you can become a very powerful mage or bard or whatever mental char, but I think expecting to be also a mix between Artemis Entreri and Elminster is not possible (or at least extremely difficult) in GEAS, and I like it that way.

[amrat]

I would like to clarify to anyone reading this something that took me over six years of playing here to understand and caused a lot of frustration over the years.

Geas is a multi-user fighting game, where roleplaying is allowed and staying IC is enforced.

I believe that this is fundamentally the issue that is being discussed here, although everyone is using their own words and expressions, and has their own views based on their expectations and experience.

My first character was a healer. I didn't want her to be a priestess, but someone who could just do layman aiding and maybe grow some herbs. It took me some months to realize that there was really no way to practice first aid or medical except by fighting yourself. And even if you managed to max them, all the fighter chars have them good enough already. And they healed in a minute of rest anyway, you stuffing herbs into them would be only comic relief. I went through several others ranging from mountain guide wannabes to very guild-focused characters who were less focused on fighting and more on the other aspects of the guilds that were supposed to be there.

The point here is, if you want to have a character who is not about fighting, you should also accept that he or she is not going to be relevant to an extent greater than what fighter characters are going to allow him or her to be. The skills that are not about fighting directly are there to support the fighting, not to support additional roles. Even if you got combat-exp every time someone fought in a book you are reading, that is not going to give you any real use for your skills and stats. For a long time I was pushing for ways to make non-fighting elements important in ways not related to direct combatant support. This is not going to happen. There are no benefits at the other end of that tunnel. It gets a lot easier once you accept this.

If I am wrong and you are actually only concerned about the little numbers and pieces of text on the 'stats' view, not about the big picture and the fact that there is little outside the combat, I apologize for the long and unnecessary rant.

@Amrat

[vurdijak]

To Amrat: I think you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for clarifying it for me in words I probably could not have put together.

Of all the varying responses I got to my original post, I feel Amrats answers my question best.

The answer is: Geas is not built for non-fighters, so dont expect to be on equal footing if you choose to play one.

[isengoo]

You should ask poNaga about that, before you jump to any rash conclusions.

[chara]

Geas is a multi-user fighting game, where roleplaying is allowed and staying IC is enforced.

Geas is a multi-user roleplaying game in a world where fighting is a way of life for gods and mortals alike, and roleplaying the world as such is enforced. You can be a scribe, a miner, a skald, an alchemist, or many other non-fighting professions if that's what you want to do, but you can't just ignore the conflicts in the larger world and treat everyone equally. That's in no way fitting to the world of Geas.

Who has more experience is not really important; much more vital is what you can achieve with your experience. If you never fight, then not being able to fight isn't important to you, so why worry about it? I don't think there is any player in the game with every bit of experience able to be gathered.

[Abharsair]

After reading the thread and thinking about it carefully I felt compelled to add a few words.

I am not quite sure if I understand the reasoning for the original post. It is true that one gains a bit of experience ("experience: direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge") from fighting enemies, but this is a sensible system. After all, there is a difference between a trained soldier and an experienced one. Therefore the knowledge of how to best fight and survive an enemy in a real combat scenario is a part of the overall experience a character can gather in his life.

However, this is completely meaningless for the question whether a non-fighting character can excel in a non-fighting profession. The experience such a character misses out by not fighting monsters is completely negligible and irrelevant in comparison to the expertise he can achieve in his chosen profession. One can be easily the best scholar in the world and not fight one single orc, and that's what should be important to those characters, and the complaint that they might miss out on a fraction of the maximum possible experience strikes me as somewhat odd and completely anti-RP.

Finally, we are aware that there is a general lack of professions, crafts and non-combat oriented activities, but introducing them to the game is a slow yet constant process, and in comparison to what the game originally looked like, it has already gone a long way.

[vurdijak]

Thanks all for the answers.

I think the original post that I put here was pretty clear. Perhaps its meaning is muddled because its a rare thing for a player to post a criticism of the game, that isn't really intended as a complaint about their own characters progress. This isn't a complaint. It is a constructive criticism based on my own observations. Maybe its not constructed all that well, because several of the responses seem to assume that I am mad about something, or that I am complaining because my char. MIGHT be missing out on a fraction of experience.

Abharsair answered this criticism by saying that, "The experience such a character misses out by not fighting monsters is completely negligible and irrelevant in comparison to the expertise he can achieve in his chosen profession". Alright, this I can accept. From someone who writes the code, and can see how characters at different ends of this 'spectrum' fare in the long run.

Chara reinforced this answer by saying that, "Who has more experience is not really important; much more vital is what you can achieve with your experience."

Abharsair also said that, "the complaint that they might miss out on a fraction of the maximum possible experience strikes me as somewhat odd and completely anti-RP".

I would think that constructive criticism of the game would be welcomed and not considered 'odd' or unfairly labeled 'anti-RP'.