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

[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.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

SNIP

Dude, I was playing JRPGs on my SNES in the 90s, and they were grind-tastic. It was a grindalypse. FF6 anyone?! Getting every character to 100% every Esper to even have a chance against Kefka?

Super Mario RPG was a grind.

Fire Emblem, Dragon View, the Castlevenaia/Metroid games to a somewhat lesser degree. Grind Grind Grind. More grinds than a industrial-scale coffee factory with really bored stippers.

And from what I've heard modern JRPGs are a nightmare of breakfast blend Krystles and Brandys.

Taking the grind out of RPGs is like taking the puzzles out of Myst. That was the whole point! Without the grind RPGs are just angtsy people with easily solved problems who just talk endlessly for 4+ hours of cutscenes and then the credits.

Grinding in Metroid? Are you nuts? Unless you count exploring old areas trying to find expansions with your new abilities to be grinding, and I don't.

FF6 and SMRPG are both completely doable at minimum levels, only fighting what gets in your direct path to the goal. In those game, grinding is only something you force on yourself in those games by not using the right abilities. I once beat it without using Espers at all just to challenge myself- the Figaro brothers are just that powerful. Heck, FF6 is uniquely-well designed for that since you only bring as many characters to the final dungeon as you're willing to go pick up (though since you must split into three parties bringing fewer than 9 is probably a bad idea, but it could be done). Except for a few choice bosses, SMRPG is incredibly easy if you pay attention.

Grinding is something that nearly all of my favourite RPGs (FFX, Wild Arms 3, Paper Mario TTYD...) make entirely optional if you're skilled. SMT: Nocturne probably does require it most of the time, at least before you start running into the Fiends, but it should never be the dominant activity in a game. Exploring new places and meeting new foes and characters beats grinding every time. Any mandatory boss or dungeon you absolutely must grind in order to beat no matter what strategy you use is one that I would consider a poorly-balanced one.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

 

[Kotaro]

In class-based RPGs, it's a godsend, as it greatly detracts from having to spend extra time leveling up characters that you might need later on in the game, but don't fondly use.

Final Fantasy X has a habit of doing this, as some characters are needed for their range to hit enemies that are too far for close combatants and you will constantly be paired with Rikku, who only excels at stealing and dismantling robot enemies. The benefit of the Sphere Grid is that you can customize your characters to have skills and traits to go around these limitations, but that means that it also necessitates to grind with those particular characters; in many instances, they might not even survive the fight before they gain the necessary XP.

This. Personally, I find that when only combat participants gain EXP, I tend to just pick one somewhat balanced party and stick with them exclusively, whereas in games that have leaked EXP, no one falls behind and it's actually reasonable to swap folks out as you need them.

 

[votemarvel]

I remember reaching the final boss of Final Fantasy VIII and being given a party of people I hadn't used throughout the rest of the game....things didn't go well for them.

Personally I do prefer it when the whole party, even those members not on active duty, get experience. It means I don't feel that I have to stick with one particular party makeup throughout the game. I just headcanon it that the others are training back at camp.

 

[Mister K]

When it comes to JRPG's, I've always imagined that when your "active" party is fighting an enemy, your "inactive" party members aren't just napping, but fighting an enemy of their own.

So for me personally, if inactive party members level up it is not only thematically appropriate, but also takes away unneccesary grinding.

 

[G00N3R7883]

Yes, because otherwise, when you reach the mission where that one character whose personality you absolutely hate and you've been ignoring them for the whole game, is suddenly in your party by default for plot reasons, you are screwed.

 

[rosac]

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.

I got absolutely destroyed in the Yuna only bit of FFX, so much so I started from scratch. So yes, I'd prefer it if all party members who were on the field got exp (a la pokemon) also, I'd like all characters to actually be useful *cough* Kimahri *cough*

 

[FalloutJack]

It's a pain in the butt to level people not in your party. Trust me, I know. A system for them getting SOME of the EXP is reasonable.

 

[Callate]

Experience has always been a rather abstract mechanic, frankly. "I've beaten a bunch of people up! Now I'm much more adept at repairing clockwork mechanisms!" (Or, whatever.)

"Leveling up" characters who don't participate directly in combat is entirely acceptable to me, especially in games that already have arbitrary mechanisms restricting how many party members can take part in combat anyway. For a game to restrict the player to using the three characters it can cover without the hardware slowing down, and then punish the player further down the line for not spending more time having that mage with the annoying voice punch goblins because said character is the only one who can use spells that break through the level 30 specialist mook's defenses is just bad, player-hating design.

 

[hermes]

Yes.

Grinding is part of the JRPG genre tropes but even then, forcing you to grind through the same content just so that all characters are evenly matched is stupid design. At that point, it just becomes a cheap way to artificially extend the playtime of the game; so I am in favor of games that give the unused characters at least some amount of XP.

It becomes extra egregious when the game has sections that force you to play with certain characters, meaning that, if they are not the ones you choose to grind with, you are pretty much boned; or the game doesn't give you XP for characters that fell during combat, which makes balancing levels extra challenging, because now grind not only means fighting but nursing characters that are likely too weak for the zone you are in, so you have to micromanage the team so that, if changing all but one character to make the grinding doable, the over-leveled character doesn't get enough XP to widen the gap further.

 

[FPLOON]

I'd say that every party member's base level/stats should increase regardless if they're assigned to do battle or not... However, if the game will never put you in a position with only one character or a set number of characters throughout, then the game can make you work for gaining specific stat increases... unless it's all tied to trochievemtents or some [optional] bullshit like that...

Other than that, nothing say "bad luck"/"fuck you" than having to fight with just your least played/weak teammate...

 

[The Harkinator]

I like the BioWare system best, and that works because the BioWare RPGs usually have sections where you don't have the player character and have to control the entire party broken up into segments. Or are forced to use certain players. It's particularly useful because you meet different party members at various points in the game. I was two thirds through Dragon Age: Origins before I got Oghren, and he really needed to have the same level of XP as the rest of my party otherwise he'd be practically useless and you have to have him during the long Deep Roads section. It's an anti-frustration feature as much as anything, and it means that the player can take a different type of character with them if they really wanted at any point in the game (depending on equipment). It'd be very restrictive if you get halfway into the game and there's no point using the party members you've neglected to travel with until then.

I can understand how other ways could be useful in other games. I always use the XP share item in Pokemon, and I've got to the point in my current game where I'm having to grind to an annoying degree to level up some of my party. Everyone levelling up together wouldn't make sense in Pokemon, but I do wonder if there could be some sort of rubber band XP share item that will quickly level up a pokemon several levels lower than the one that actually earns the XP, but becomes less effective the closer in level they are and doesn't give XP to pokemon of a higher level. It would be useful when you've got the makings of a party you want to build up but have run out of trainers to battle or can't battle the trainers with your current pokemon because they're too low level.

 

[chadachada123]

Party members not in combat should instead earn some sort of non-combat experience, like healing or survival or crafting or something. It'd depend on the game, of course, but otherwise you run the big risk of overleveling certain characters.

 

[Frankster]

I don't consider replaying the exact same battles over and over to be good game design ty vm.
This is an aspect of jrpg I've always hated, there is no challenge involved and whatever fun you might have the combat system gets sucked out because you're going through the same motions over and over.

So yeah I hate having to grind up my less used characters, though usually isn't a problem since most rpgs tend to allow me to focus on my favorites and ignore characters I don't like.

 

[Pyrian]

For an RPG, I'd say leveling all the characters in the style of Bioware games makes the most sense. If characters are more of an expendable, replaceable resource a la X-Com, that's where they should be leveled individually.

 

[verdant monkai]

YES yes yes

I'm at a point in my life where I wont play an rpg if it doesn't level up benched characters. I have a life to live and I don't want to spend it replaying a game to see slight differences by leveling characters I didnt use first time round, just so i can see minor differences.

I hate it when games do this. Persona games being massive offenders for this. It shows an utter disrespect of the players time. Its just a shitty cheap way of making your replay the game.

 

[Michel Henzel]

I think it's fine to do, but only if there is never a single "Can't use X Y Z character in this battle" ever forced on you. Otherwise, fuck that shit, shared XP all the way.