In RPGs, should Party Members who don't participate in combat earn experience?

[LostCrusader]

I like the bioware system, but in the recent games at least only party members that you bring get xp. Other party members still don't get left behind though because they level up when the player does to one below. Its a decent enough system that keeps character swapping useful.

 

[Redryhno]

It is a sign of a good game that doesn't force you to grind to meet the challenge.

Eh, I'm honestly going to disagree on this one hard. Grinding to a point is half the fun of RPGs, really helps with getting invested in a character and if you can face the challenge without getting yourself to the point, then is it really a challenge in a game based on numbers? If there's not time and effort expended, then who the fuck cares if you can do end-game content twenty levels early?



OT: It sorta depends, is the game based on hidden areas and content not everyone gets or needs access to? Then I'm fine with uncombative party members not getting XP. Half the fun is seeing what more levels nets you in each character and getting yourself powerufl enough to fight them.

In more story and character based RPGs, I'm fine with all characters getting XP, there's places that are such a pain in the ass to go through without your mains in alot of them(which I consider both good and shitty game design in that it punishes you for not using all your party members, depends on the day and my mood) and if they've got story, I want to get their story without having to spend another seventy hours to get to the same point with them.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Really depends on whether you have to use some of those guys you usually keep in the bank. If the game is never going to force you to use one of your not-so-favorites, I don't really care. But if the game is going to spring a 'Surprise! X party members only!' moment on you, yes, everyone should get some XP. If not the same as everyone else, then at something so they don't fall too far behind.

I still remember fighting that one weapon in FF7 where you can't use Cloud or Tifa, and getting smeared in a fight you're not really supposed to be able to lose.

Remember the bit where you had to use Barett? Oh so painful!

 

[Bek359]

It depends on the level-up mechanics of the game. For the vast majority of RPGs, sure, why not. For FFVI, where the vast majority of your characters' statups come from having particular magicites equipped on levelup, oh GOD no. That would be a great way to have your characters be completely underpowered for their level. Think "all 2/2/2 statups for 10 levels in Oblivion" underpowered.

An example of a game that has a experience-sharing system that doesn't really work well is Pokemon X/Y. The Exp. Share (from what I've heard) trivializes the difficulty of the game in that with it activated, your Pokemon level up a lot faster than the enemies do, so there's never a level-appropriate challenge.

 

[Dalisclock]

Gonna go with leaked experience, especially if the game is going to a.) Limit the Amount of Characters in your party(to say, 3 of the 9 you have available) and b.) Force them into fights without warning.

One of my fondest memories of this was the one bit in Breath of Fire 2 where the game decided I needed to have a solo fight using Rand, a character I pretty much never used until that point. Without any warning or ability go go and level the guy up decently.

Yeah, that was a painful couple of hours trying to win that battle. After that I pretty much never used him again and I still resent the game for forcing me into that situation.

 

[DementedSheep]

It's annoying if they don't get XP with you regardless of if they were in battle or not. It just ends up funneling you into using the same party members for the whole game or making it so you have grind levels for everyone else catch up. It might be ok for people who stick to their favs and don't want to use the rest (although if they have their own quests it can mess things up) but I'd rather be free to switch things up as the situation demands, try out new things and spend some time with other characters without having to jump through hoops.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

In general yeah. If you don't, I think it's important to have a form of experience scaling that makes it possible to boost the level of very underlevelled characters quickly. That and...

If you're going to give players the option to ignore certain characters, don't force them to use those characters, particularly not without giving them a chance to get them up to the proper level. I remember when I was playing Fire Emblem I ran into trouble with this twice in one game. First time wasn't too bad, because there was another character with the one I was ignoring. The second time was awful, because it was at the very end of a game and Ike had to fight against a boss by himself while the rest of my party was fighting a group of enemies. Ike was severely underlevelled and I could only barely beat him by completely cheesing the system and using every healing item I'd hoarded.

There's been a number of other games I've run into this problem with before as well. Most have turn based tactics games with no ability to level up outside of the story missions.

 

[kasperbbs]

I like how Bioware does it. They level up with my character. Otherwise i would only use a couple that i leveled up and forget about the rest, because screw grinding.

 

[ecoho]

I think it depends on how the game mechanics work. Take FF 10 for example. In that game, you had the capability, and the necessity, the swap out people on the fly, to deal with the threat at the time. This means that at any time, your entire team might be utilized for the fight. But, perhaps not everyone has time to actually do an action, to get credit for xp. So, you have to arbitrarily force them in, just to do 1 action, so they can get some XP. So that they don't get left behind in the progression. I did this, and it was annoying as fuck.

Personally, I have zero issue with the idea that they level up with you. In games like the Dragon Age series, or Mass Effect, the understanding, is that the entire crew is coming with you on these missions (or at least most missions). They are there for the cutscenes, but somehow weren't there for the combat. But, when you load them into your team after a break, they've got levels to spend. I find this WAY more practical.

The game gives me a huge list of characters, and then forces me to shave that list down to a smaller list to use. And then, it might, just to fuck with me, decide to take those people hostage, and now I've got to use my B-List heroes in fights that are tough for my A-Team? No thank you. That's a level of annoyance and frustration that I don't need in my entertainment.

Let them stay on par with the rest of the group, so I can switch out as I need.

honestly I think bioware got that part completely right with their RPGs.

as to how it should work for other RPGs as many have said that depends on the game but im of the opinion of half XP for those not actively in battle for games like FF.

But why? What purpose does intentionally handicapping the other party members serve to the player? Other than to force them to grind more pointless battles to make up the arbitrary difference? If the game is designed to allow a rotating cast of teammates, then all it serves is to force you to play catch up with the other characters. And sometimes, when the game forces you to use a new set, you might not even have any time to prepare for it on your first playthrough. Games exactly like Final Fantasy. Suddenly you are stuck using underpowered characters, without any forewarning, and if you never use the character (because for example, you don't like their personality in the cutscenes), they could be so underleveled that you are basically doomed to fail. And are forced to load up a previous save, spend hours leveling them up, and THEN get back to the story.

I just...I don't see how that is a positive game mechanic at all. It's not player friendly, or fun, or efficient. It's just a sloggy grind that I'd rather avoid.

well at half xp they would still be within 1 level of you main party just not as strong which would still give you that sense of accomplishment of making your main party powerful without making it too easy.

 

[shrekfan246]

A lot of people are saying it takes away from the grind, but we're talking about RPGs. Half of it is enemy grind and the other is weapon grind. Like would Pokemon still be the time-sink it is if all your Pokemon leveled up, even the ones in the Bank, during battles? Or if all your WOW toons dinged when your main dinged?

It would be better gameplay, sure, but we're talking about a genre with deliberately tedious gameplay. sorta' not in the spirit of things. It'd be like if there was just a generic 'AMMO' crate in FPS, or just 'STUFF' in crafting survival games.

Uh, I don't know what RPGs you've been playing, but for me half of the experience is the narrative/questing and the other half is the characters. Or I suppose for games that actually have a decent selection of equipment, it's thirds, with the final third being decking out characters with sweet armor and weapons.

Yes, there are games where the grind is part of the enjoyment, such as Pokemon or Diablo, but they are very much not the same sort of game as something like Final Fantasy. You say that grind is the point, I say that you have a very narrow view of what RPGs are and can be. Kinda like those people who insist that for a game to be a "true" RPG, you need to be micromanaging your stats and skills in clunky menus every five minutes.

Sometimes, I'm not looking for an RPG to just be a time-sink, as wild as that sounds.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Nah, (by that, I mean yes, weirdly) fuck having to grind any lazy ass mofos who didn't have the common sense to train or live their lives while I'm away on crazy adventures properly. If they really are insistent on not keeping fit during those periods, then it's off to the workhouse for you, my deadbeat chumling! We'll make use of you one way or another!
*Twirls moustaches and cackles maniacally*

 

[Gengisgame]

Yes, allows for variety and does not discourage you from trying out different party members.

Not a big fan of trying out new characters being considered a punishment.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

As a game designer, YES. YES BENCHED PEOPLE NEED TO GET EXP.

Why? Because if for some reason you stick with the same 3 or 4 for a long time, then the benched guys eventually get so far behind that the player will just ignore them because of the time investment needed to bring them up to speed.

If the game is designed around grinding (Say The Etrian Odyssey series), then it's fine. But in most cases you want the backup party to be no more than 2 levels behind the main party at all times. Otherwise people will just ignore those characters and not use them even if they're the best ones to use in a given situation.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Yes. Especially if at some point in the game you need to use certain characters for certain boss fights. Going up against a boss with a level 70 and a level 12 party member is *not* fun.

I will say that a catch-up mechanic doesn't quite work in games where levels aren't... as important? Like where equipment is the big deal, not how many experience points you dump into someone so that you can usually just boost your low-level guys with better gear. I've found that's more an 'Has RPG Elements' rather than 'Pure RPG' game though - so, like, Steamworld Heist or Xcom: Enemy Unknown where slapping some high level gear on your level 3 guy means they'll have a good chance against a high-level enemy rather than being completely fucked over regardless.

The weird thing is though, since Final Fantasy is so bad with this, it's weird to note that Final Fantasy XII was one of the games that didn't really need the shared experience - level ups were important for HP and MP levels, but by-and-large the major source of gear was in equipment, and you never got locked into certain parties after the early game. If anything, LP was the thing to grind rather than EXP, and if you stuck around killing wolves in the early game you could just say 'fuck it' and avoid fighting things for a heavy part of the main game. A very... weird system in that game. Very weird.

 

[go-10]

I've always been pro, everyone gain experience. I never understood the notion that just because they'ere not in the active team they wouldn't get experience. I mean think about it, they're still traveling with you or sometimes taking an alternate route who's to say they're not getting into their own random battles, naturally the active team would get more experience as they are the ones going up against the boss but the other members should still get some experience.

unless it's pokemon or other million character games, then it doesn't make sense for a member that's hanging out in a PC or a castle away from any sort of danger to level up.

 

[Jeopardy Surface]

Unless the game is specifically designed to make grinding them fun and relatively painless, potentially at the very endgame, then hell yes. Practically speaking that just means, "Yes" 99% of the time.

 

[Denamic]

Depends on the game. Disgaea? No. It's about building up one character at a time. FFX? No. It has a in-battle character swapping mechanic. I am Setsuna? Yes, because once your party is set, it's a bit of a chore to set up your party all the time just to spread out experience, and it would not add anything to the game to leave characters behind in terms of levels. That only discourages using other characters.

If a game does not have shared XP when it should, there should be at least a mechanic to get characters up to speed faster. Such as low level characters earning more XP.

 

[Inazuma1]

Sometimes characters in RPGs don't get used for a good reason. Either they suck on their own due to bad stats (BoF 2's Jean, FF VII's Vincent, many members of the Shining Force roster,) or another character does their schtick better. Mallow from Mario RPG is my favorite example of the latter because he's initially the only guy with a magic heal until Peach comes along and she heals better than he can. The only time Mallow becomes useful is during the Yaridovich boss fight because he's weak against Mallow's Shocker magic. After that, everyone trumps Mallow in some way: Mario does more damage, Bowser has better defense, Geno has higher speed and damage, and Peach has better healing. As for bad stats, well there's little to nothing that can be done about that.

The death knell for a character is if they have a bad gimmick or they have bugs attached to them. Two poster children for this are Cyan and Relm from FF VI. Cyan sucks. Period. He does decent physical damage, but his sword tech takes too long to charge and you really have to jump through hoops to take advantage of the Psycho Cyan glitch. Relm also sucks apart from her absurd base magic stat. And her sketch gimmick is bugged all to shit, so most don't use her because they don't want the bug kicking in and fucking up their save file.

 

[Gamerpalooza]

I don't mind it. Especially if you don't want to use that character early on but there's something that allows them to gain experience despite not being in battle.

It all depends on each individual game and how it's handled and I haven't had an issue with any game and their exp system except for FFXIV 1.0. Putting a cap on exp gain per day/week was pretty annoying.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Yes, because usually many games progress by just increasing numbers, thus makin' the ones sitting on the bench even more useless and less likely to be used without grinding the more fights you fight.

And then you end up like Pokemon, where 1 characters beats everything and the other 5 are decoration. That's also the reason why they started handing out ep-share items like candy after a few gens.

I mean the whole XP concept is as abstract as it can be most of the times anyway, so i do not consider diffrent approaches to the same overall concept as "breaking immersion" in the first place. There's no immersion in xp systems for me anyway.