Experience in Dragon Age *possible spoilers*

[Solusek]

I'm on my 3rd/4rth playthrough right now and I can't help but wonder. Why oh why is fighting the only valid way to gain experience? Almost every good RPG I've played over the last few years has strived to reward other possibilities for solving quests and the combat solution equally. Some solutions that require more effort for example having greater exp rewards of course. Heck there are even games that don't award combat exp at all.(VtM: Bloodlines anyone?)

So what's wrong with Bioware? In Dragon Age you NEVER(virtually) gain any experience or reward AT ALL if you don't choose the combat solution. And if you do get experience, it's only by taking the greedy cutthroat route.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that you don't get enough experience/loot in DA:O to finish the game comfortably, but the "lost" exp does accumulate. Furthermore I just often feel "empty" after solving a quest peacefully, which is certainly not how it's supposed to be. It feels as if I've done nothing because there's no change in my character at all and as everyone should know by now there's never any real judgment of your deeds either.

Let's take the Marjolaine encounter as an example. Doing the combat solution, which is not even necessarily evil btw., you get a tough fight(depending on your lvl and difficulty), some nice loot off the corpses, the chest in one of the back rooms and roughly 600XP. That's how it should be. It just feels right.
Avoiding the fight with Marjolaine however, all you get is the chest and the 'Quest Completed' message. Zero XP, zero loot. It feels as if you've just walked into a house and looted a chest. It doesn't satisfy at all. That's how I feel at the very least.

What do you guys think about this? Opinions please!


So long,
Sol

[Crenshinibon]

Honestly, I don't think experience matters that much and you should roleplay your character. My characters that have finished the game were between twenty one and twenty three and at that point, the bonus talents, skills and attributes don't matter at all.

Some none violent solutions yield more gold, which in my opinion is more important than experience as items contribute more to the strength of your character than the benefits of a level (after a certain point). Still, there's an overabundance of each in the game, so it's not important. On my last playthrough, I soloed a warrior all the way through hard and ended as level twenty one (halfway to twenty two), with about five hundred and sixty sovereigns unused. Mind you, I wasn't stingy with my money either: I had over two hundred health poultices and as many poisons as I could buy.

Even in games that clearly have a limited amount of experience and money, such as Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, you have more than enough of each by the time you finish the game, so that the extra points really don't matter.

In any case, you essentially have your endgame character between the levels of twelve and sixteen, depending on class. And that comes really quickly considering the fact that you're level seven by the time you can roam freely.

Also, note that experience and levels matter even less in this game than in others as the strength of your enemies is dependent on your own strength. As such, fighting the archdemon at level sixteen should give you about the same amount of trouble as if you were of a higher level. In fact, what makes the game harder is actually you gaining strength, which in return grants new abilities to your opponents.

[Solusek]

As I said, I'm not complaining about any lack of experience points. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my original post, I am no native speaker.

The thing is that for people like me, it just feels weird when all you get for finishing a quest is a quick 'Quest Completed', which is often the case if you choose a non-violent, non-evil(ish) solution. The cases you're talking about where you get more money for a non-violent solution are always at least somewhat evilish. As the good, non-violent guy you're pretty much scr**** in terms of experience AND money.

And when I say scr**** I don't mean that you don't get enough experience or money points to finish the game comfortably but that you get the lowest possible rewards of both compared to other solutions.

I don't know how else to explain it, but I guess I just like some kind of "fair" treatment in a game, no matter what type of character I'm playing. Other games have been much more successful at that than Dragon Age.
SW: KotOR had a max lvl which you were bound to reach at some point regardless of your decisions or ways of solving quests. VtM: Bloodlines had the best system imho by removing killing XP entirely and granting more XP for special/difficult quest solutions. NWN/NWN2 at least awarded some XP for certain successful persuasions and the likes and sometimes you could actually get better rewards for quests by refusing to accept a reward first. Even Baldur's Gate(2) had ways of compensating the loss of killing XP if I remember correctly.

DA:O on the other hand doesn't even try to be "fair" in that regard and that's so blatantly obvious that it hurts. On your first playthrough that might be less of a problem since you at least get the stories behind certain quests as a form of 'reward'. But after that you might just as well avoid those quests completely if you plan on doing them the 'non-reward-way" anyways.


So long,
Sol

[fable]

And when I say scr**** I don't mean that you don't get enough experience or money points to finish the game comfortably but that you get the lowest possible rewards of both compared to other solutions.

I guess you don't realize writing screw is perfectly fine. On the other hand, the site owner has noted that he won't accept people trying to get around the vulgarity filter, so just type whatever word you want, and let fly, without changing the asterisks that might appear.

[Xandax]

The short answer obviously is - it was this type of game they wanted to build.
They wanted a game with such emphasis on story and then the fighting - it is throughout the game visible that it is very action orientated when not in the dialogues.

So basically - the "why" is pretty redundant outside the fact that you would like to see the game different then how it is made.

However, some times I do think they've flipped the scales a bit because at times you do get XP for avoiding fights and solving issues peacefully - but the fighting and action is a deep part of the game.

So yes - they could have made a different game, but they didn't. It's like asking why Diablo isn't more "RPG" game then it is, or why Oblivion has so much emphasism on graphics over gameplay ..... it is just how the games are.

I for one don't have any problems with the ratio of how DAO is set up, because I had no real expectations until I read Buck's preview and was surprised at the quality of the game. Are there things I would have liked in the game that wasn't there? Sure. But the reason they aren't there is - well, because that's how the game was build. And yes - in BG you did get XP for solving some situations nonviolent, but fighting was a very huge part of the BG-series. I'd be looking more at PlaneScape instead. BG was combat as well.

I know it is "Stating the obvious 101", but well - that was what the question was.

[fable]

So basically - the "why" is pretty redundant outside the fact that you would like to see the game different then how it is made.

Well, yes, but that doesn't deal with the issue of whether his complaint has validity or not. I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, I think he does. If I follow Solusek correctly--and I don't know that I do--he's pissed that optional combat-oriented situations and quests yield no experience, where most RPGs (going back to Bioware's first game, BG1) do this. So no one has been robbed, but certain longstanding expectations are not being met. He's not suggesting the combat should be removed, only that the traditional experience cookie at the end of the quest should have been there. Alternatively, if Bioware wanted to remove experience from the equation, it's the kind of thing that deserved a prominent mention in their manual. Just my two cents.

[Scottg]

I think it's a problem as well. The overall direction of the game comes off feeling like it's target market is for mid-teen segment, rather than adults.

This means:

1. More fighting
2. To get "ahead", you need to ask/demand. (..in virtually every bit of dialog.)
3. A matron companion there to provide the "wisdom" your character seems to lack via trite interactive dialouge.
4. Provoked into "evil" acts by companions via peer-pressure/approval rating.
5. Cheap love entanglements.
6. Cheesy "awards".
etc..

In other words it's geared to a 15 year old male with a "beta" personality that wants to virtually live what they might believe as an "alpha" personality in a fantasy world.

I still enjoy the game, and it is something of a successor to BG 2 .. but it does lack a fair bit for an adult rpg'er.

As an example of some the absurdity I find myself going through for XP via fights:

If I enter dialog with a potential group of hostiles that might "withdraw", (..like the first stop in Lothering), I find myself killing every opponent EXCEPT the leader so that I can "rack up" as much XP before taking down the Leader - just in case I want to except their "withdraw" from combat. As a result I feel compelled to "power-game" in such situations. You don't HAVE TO, but you do tend to feel as if you aren't getting what's available if you don't.

[Xandax]

@Fable:
Well - it was comments like
So what's wrong with Bioware? In Dragon Age you NEVER(virtually) gain any experience or reward AT ALL if you don't choose the combat solution. And if you do get experience, it's only by taking the greedy cutthroat route.

Which more then indicates that the problem was the focus on combat and not non-combat solutions which were the problem moreso then the experience points not being awarded after quest completion......


@Scottg:
I know the "teen" argument is often used on the Internet when trying to peg down something one disagrees with - but I do not think it is justified.
The game might be "marketed" towards "teens", but then again - every mainstream game is as it is where the money is - otherwise it is time to look for niche and indie productions.
And that does not mean it is people with just that mindset which plays them. Every gamer at my work in excess of 30 years of age loves DAO and have played it a lot; whereas the younger crowd falls into other games and genres.
Just because the elements of "action" and "powergaming" and the others on your list exists - does not mean the game is marketed towards "15 years old" who want to "live as alpha male" or any such nonsense.
if anything - complaining about lack of rewards for your specific choice in the game (ei. letting somebody live instead of killing them) - would be more "teen" then otherwise as it displays a need to be rewarded for your actions.

[Scottg]

..but then again - every mainstream game is as it is where the money is - otherwise it is time to look for niche and indie productions.

And that does not mean it is people with just that mindset which plays them. Every gamer at my work in excess of 30 years of age loves DAO and have played it a lot; whereas the younger crowd falls into other games and genres.


Just because the elements of "action" and "powergaming" and the others on your list exists - does not mean the game is marketed towards "15 years old" who want to "live as alpha male" or any such nonsense.

..if anything - complaining about lack of rewards for your specific choice in the game (ei. letting somebody live instead of killing them) - would be more "teen" then otherwise as it displays a need to be rewarded for your actions.

Actually that isn't the case with games, at least not for the rpg variety. A few years back I'd read that the largest segment was actually late 20's early 30's. So yes, your experience with co-workers seems to be their target market.


I feel that it isn't "nonsense", nor that they are in fact targeting a 15 year old. Rather to me it *feels* like they are, or perhaps more likely have "lowered the bar" for a wider audience (aka "dumbing it down").

Now the question of complaints by not having additional quest XP for non-violent action is an interesting one. Is it more "teen'ish" to want multiple options to game-play and still have similar gaming progression? I don't think so. I'd imagine that most individuals, teen or not, would want greater options and variety. If it sounds like I'm "whining" about this, I'm not. Again, I still think the game is good - but sure as hell it could have been better, and this IMO is just one aspect that could have been better - a lot better (..especially considering the time & resources put into it's development).

[mr_sir]

I don't really have a problem with how xp and rewards are given in DAO, in fact I find that, for my style of play, it works quite well ... most characters I play use a mixture of non-violent and violent solutions depending on the quests involved, and my first character still finished the game at level 23. I must admit though that I am a bit put off playing as a lawful good kind of character simply as I will no doubt finish the game well below level 20 and its the higher levels that I enjoy most in the game as I find the combat far more challenging when the opposition has access to the higher talents and spells.

[GoldDragon]

I wouldn't say that, mr_sir...

While not a true paladin by any means, I tend to roleplay on the Borderline between Lawful and Nuetral good. In NWN2, I did this, and ended up 92/100, for example (I can be a bit chaotic, but I find it very difficult to be truely evil. SO I'm a Jedi Master. Big deal )

Anyways, In three playthrus, all of them being "good girls", i still managed 21-23 level range.

The hardest quest to obtain for me: Sten's Personal one. I'm no warrior, I'm a mage! I had to cheat to get it....

[Scottg]

..I must admit though that I am a bit put off playing as a lawful good kind of character simply as I will no doubt finish the game well below level 20 and its the higher levels that I enjoy most in the game as I find the combat far more challenging when the opposition has access to the higher talents and spells.

There is a "cheat" around this.

Any place you can do some exploitation leveling, particularly the Lothering girl wanting traps, gives you the ability to level up the character/party.

Interestingly though, for the most part it isn't really a cheat (for XP, but it is for gold). The reason it isn't is that the entire game "levels" with you, and becomes that much more difficult. (..an exception seems to be dialog, that doesn't seem to increase in difficulty.)

I suppose you could use this logic to say that just because you are LOWER in level to finish the game, that you aren't missing anything - and technically that would be mostly correct, BUT to me at least it doesn't *feel* that way. Why? More talents/spells provides greater options for game-play (if if they are only fairly limited).

[Mister Bean]

I'm with Solusek on this one.

In DA:O, nice guys finish last. I'm accustomed to RPGs where if you're polite to the questgiver, you'll get a nice fat reward. But in DA:O, you have to constantly remind people you're not questing out of the kindness of your heart. Unless of course you are, in which case a warm fuzzy should be the only reward you need.

Even when you're RPing as a good guy, it feels nice to get some reward for all the effort you put in to a quest. That's how RPG's are supposed to work: you put in time and work, you become more powerful as a reward. When you put it work and get no reward, you feel like you've wasted your time.

Result: On every playthough, you must RP as a bloodthirsty pragmatist who has no compunction about lying and manipulating to get what he wants, regardless of whether he wants to fight and save the world, or to fight and see the world burn.