kylelabriola

blogging (ashamedly)

Hello! I'm an artist, writer, and game developer. I work for @7thBeatGames on "A Dance of Fire and Ice" and "Rhythm Doctor."

--

I run @IndieGamesofCohost where I share screenshots and spotlights of indie games. I also interview devs here on Cohost.


There’s a lot of game design systems where I sit and wonder, “Do we really still need this? Is this something that actually interests me?”

And one of the systems that I always seem to land on is the Experience and Leveling systems in RPGs.

While I would be fine with seeing more games completely do away with it, and opting instead for a different form of character progression, there’s one thing I love seeing as a compromise…Experience Share across your party members.

By “Experience Share”, I mean the concept of all of your party members receiving the same amount of experience points for battles. Or, if it’s a game where only 1 party member battles at a time (like Pokemon), the concept of giving the rest of a party at least a fraction of the earned experience.

I don’t have any fancy reason for preferring it except that it’s convenient. It saves a lot of time and effort.


Rather than asking “Why should a game have Exp Share?”, I usually find myself asking the inverse: “Why should a game have certain characters not earn Experience from battles?”

Some RPGs function like this: You have 7 party members, but only 4 party members battle at a time. The 3 members in the “reserve slots” don’t get any experience at all.

But is that fun and interesting? In my opinion, not really. It’s frustrating. It discourages experimentation, because now the other 3 members are behind in level and it’ll be annoying to try to switch it up and try them. In games where all the party members receive experience, I feel free to experiment and try out different party configurations. I can decide to change my mind and swap characters around mid-adventure.

There’s a few small instances where I can see why developers want the characters to get experience in different doses. One might be to characterize the party members differently. In Fire Emblem, there’s often a few older veteran fighters who start at high levels and get diminishing returns from their experience points. There’s also often a plucky young kid or two who starts at level 1 and gets huge gains from leveling up. You find yourself wanting to “not rely” on the veteran fighters and wanting to “coddle” the younger fighters, nudging them into fights so they can get precious experience. That theme, which you feel in your bones as a player purely from the mechanics, would be cheapened a little by having Experience Share.

There’s also situations where RPGs won’t award experience points to party members who were KO’d during the battle. I can see some reasons for this, maybe as a punishment for the player being too rash and careless. But personally, I’d push back against that. If a party member has a particular use in battle, is really effective and helpful, and sort of “sacrifices themselves” for the good of the rest of the team to win the battle…I feel like that party member shouldn’t be punished.

I thought it was very convenient in Baldur’s Gate 3 that the party members pretty much gain experience and level up in unison. I can’t think of any reason why it’d be interesting to have certain party members “falling behind” the rest.

On the other end, I watch my partner playing Eiyuden Chronicle, a game specifically centered around recruiting like 70 characters who can be put in your party for battling, and…………characters fall behind if you don’t use them! Why?! I just think that’s overly punishing, and kind of ruins the whole vibe of wanting to try out different character combinations on the fly.

I’ll admit it can be exciting and maybe “realistic” to raise a character up from Level 1 all the way up to Level 45 where everyone else is at, but the awkward part is when you get them up to like Level 36 and they’re still useless in battle but now it’s taking longer and longer to level up. That middle zone I feel like deflates all the tension and excitement out of catching characters up.

At the very least, if your game doesn’t have Exp Share, I think it should have some sort of option for catching your lower-level party members back up without having to grind. Maybe some sort of gimmicky system like "Protect this character in battle for 5 battles!" and when you do it, it'll magically boost them up to the level everyone else is at. But maybe that’s just my “not a fan of grinding” bias showing.

I’d be curious to hear if anyone has any thoughts on whether characters should get “left behind” in experience if they aren’t used enough.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @kylelabriola's post:

Tales of Phantasia has a character who leaves the party early on and is something like 30 levels behind by the time he rejoins. The next time you rest at an inn with him in the party you get a cutscene where he's training at night because he doesn't want to hold the party back, and he gains like 10-15 levels overnight.

I thought it was very convenient in Baldur’s Gate 3 that the party members pretty much gain experience and level up in unison. I can’t think of any reason why it’d be interesting to have certain party members “falling behind” the rest.

So this isn't an "interesting" answer so much as a practical one and it's very tangential but: staggering level-ups in some way for a group-game like that does mean that you get one person at a time leveling up, which means a) you're not making build decisions for like...a bunch of characters at once, just like one at a time, which is good for games that are heavy on build decisions and b) you get more of that good numbers-go-up feedback because it's not all subsumed into one go.

That's a good and interesting answer! Yeah, kind of having them "staggered" like that. I wonder if there could be a way to force that in a game while still giving everyone experience. Maybe if the party members joined one at a time, they could permanently be staggered off-cycle from each other.

I agree for like 95%+ of cases, yeah.

I can imagine if there's good ludonarrative tie in, not sharing exp could work. Like imagine an RPG where it really delivers a feeling of tension about adventurers risking life and limb, and so both tension and promise surrounds newbie party members.

I think it can also feel better if it doesnt just result in you doing repetitive things that you wouldnt otherwise want to do. Perhaps you have multiple parties, and when one rests you take control of another one and go to a different, easier area- so like you do some adventuring with a veteran squad, and then with a less experienced squad. So you're doing different stuff and its not just "ugh, catchup". At some point perhaps the latter catches up, or there's some ability to mix the two which may work out in certain ways(like support/caster characters being more safe to put in a higher level party).

I feel like exp gaps are most meaningful in war games because victory isn't a given. There's a lot of tension about committing a highly experienced unit to a battle going poorly- it could be the thing that turns things around, or it could be a horrendous waste. RPGs generally structurally dont allow for the same types of dynamics because of other, greater competiting design goals in RPGs, understandably.

I think lack of EXP share could also be fine if the game is just so good at A)putting varied things in front of you, so "i gotta go to do this easier stuff" isnt a drag but is instead just fun variety you'd be doing anyway and B) leveling is super rewarding, like getting really excited about new points to put into dazzling new talents or skills or whatever.

That's unfortunate about Eiyuden- if i recall, catching up in Suikoden games was always really easy, because exp gain was very rubber banded.

I agree there's probably some good uses out there. Although for a standard, story-based "JRPG" I feel like it doesn't seem like they're usually going for a stark survival feeling, and more of a "getting the band together let's save the world" feeling, which is why it feels out of place there.

I love your idea about the different squads tackling different things. I would love stuff like that. Give the "weaker" characters a different quest to do that still feels meaningful, either for story reasons or mechanic reasons. Then eventually they can graduate the higher stakes stuff. In a sense I almost get that satisfaction from games like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, which lets you send your lesser-used characters off on their own expeditions. That way, it feels like they're at least doing something proportional to how good they are, and you don't feel bad for not using them.

And yeah, agreed about keeping the variety fun and making the act of leveling rewarding.

I see we're getting into the Kylelab blogs that are inspired by previous cohost posts, for the true kyle labriola fans out there /lh
Honestly though, exp shares feel like a pretty necessary QoL feature. There's also ways to avoid "the grind" when it comes to character progression that doesn't need to involve exp. As long as you still have to allocate points to a skill tree, an exp share is really just saving you time.
I really like the idea of giving it a gimmick, though I think a lot of people might find that annoying.
I would prefer it being an option (the kind most people enable but some people don't) because I want the option to allocate exp how I want when I want to.

Honestly, though, in Bravely Default/Second I was pretty okay turning off encounters most of the time and doubling them when I wanted to grind real quick. Every day we stray further from those games which just did random encounters so well.
While I'm thinking about it, there was also that apple arcade game that tied skipping random encounters with adding to the exp multiplier, and I think systems like that can work in place of a basic exp share, because then it feels like you're engaging with the system instead of how some people see exp shares as kind of a crutch.

Wait which post is this a follow up to??

Yeah, somewhat separate from the Exp Share topic there are definitely RPGs that make the activity of grinding more streamlined. "No Encounters" and "Increased Encounters" as things you can toggle or equip are huge, I love that. For Apple Arcade I think you're thinking of Fantasian, where you seal monsters in the Dimengeon, and I absolutely loved that. Walk when you feel like walking, battle when you feel like battling. I hope other games steal the idea.

Hearing about Eiyuden and I'm curious, do they not do the thing that Suikoden does? Where EXP gains are variable and scale to help characters rapidly catch up? Because in Suikoden level just isn't a real issue in fielding characters since they'll catch up to a usable level quickly.

Though more on topic, it really depends on the game but I agree that most games would be improved with some form of just giving the people on the bench EXP. If the EXP system isn't designed to let characters rapidly catch up then them falling behind can just put you off even more from using them, not to mention why would you possibly have your main team get less overall experience if they won't get anything while on the bench.

Dungeon Crawlers are some of the main games I think of where I'm fine without it though, since in those games the "bench" is your other party members being back at the inn and generally those fill the role of being Capital 'B' backups. Though even then it's not too weird to see games of that genre have some kind of EXP share or spillover going on for them even if you have to put some work into it. Strangers of Sword City Revisited is one I know that has that going on, and you could even build someone in a passive class that just sits at the base all day playing games helping out which can include increasing the EXP that characters at the base earn.

Coming back to this post because I remembered about the Bonus EXP system in Fire Emblem Path if Radiance and Radiant Dawn. In these games (and all linear FE games which don't have an explorable map) the problem of a good unit joining too late to be used is very legitimate, so the way these two games compensate for that is rewarding the player with exp when they engage with extra map mechanics (typically ones that tie into the gimmick of the level, e.g. avoiding being detected by the enemy on a stealth map) but can also just be for playing well by giving it as a reward for clearing the chapter within X amount of turns. This bonus EXP can then be given out between chapters to units which are lagging behind. The game also gives you some just for clearing the chapters at all, which is good so some players can still use the mechanic.

I really love it in Path of Radiance specifically because it's just normal levels so you can get either great level ups or just nothing at all, in Radiant Dawn they made it so it was always three stats. never forget what they took from us lol

but yes, just rewarding players with more exp for playing well in general because exp is such a valuable resource to the player