next »

[JWK5]

Final Fantasy 6 has a nice workaround in that there are items, spells, and relics that temporarily modify the encounter rate. Some reduce it by a certain degree (and only for enemies of a certain level), some stop encounters altogether. It is a nice way to adjust the encounter rates "within the system" so it doesn't quite feel like a cheat (especially since the means to do it must be purchased, found, or earned).

[HyMyNameIsMatt]

pretty much just arbitrary design without much thought given to it.

I mean I like it.  I don't think it's fair the say an entire mechanic is not allowed to exist for any reason.  It's reasonable to say your not a fan of it, but at the end of the day someone enjoys it and that justifies it's existence.

[s0]

yeah i don't mind "unavoidable loss" aka spending resources.

[Netsu]

otoh it'd be cool to see separate inventories tied into a social sim mechanic where some characters don't want to share certain posessions for whatever reason. maybe have family heirlooms or just items that mean a lot to them for w/e reason. or maybe they're just greedy?

I think Wasteland 2 did something like this. For example you could recruit an old drunk, but you can't take away his bottle.

As was said earlier in the thread, there shouldn't even be random encounters (and therefore an ecounter rate) the enemies should be visible on the map.

Unless it's Fallout 1/2 and every time there's a random encounter you hope it will be one of the hidden scripted ones. Those were so good, and I didn't mind the mechanic at all, especially since there was a skill that let you choose each time whether you want to participate in the encounter or not.

[JWK5]

pretty much just arbitrary design without much thought given to it.

I mean I like it.  I don't think it's fair the say an entire mechanic is not allowed to exist for any reason.  It's reasonable to say your not a fan of it, but at the end of the day someone enjoys it and that justifies it's existence.

I am a fan of it as well (when it suits the game overall). The "random dice" mechnanic in RPGs is just basically gambling (which not everyone is a fan of). You are trying to roll high while hoping the dealer rolls low (in some cases). The possibility of loss creates tension but the fact that you might win big keeps things exciting.

Where the "dice" mechanics really fail is where they are more in the dealer's favor (overall) than the player's. A low chance to succeed on a sub-par prize (for example, high miss chance on a low damage/utility attack) is frustrating but a low chance to succeed on a very big prize can be pretty exciting. There has to be balance, especially in the cost of use. The harder it is to succeed the lower the cost should be (since the player will likely have to use it multiple times to finally make it happen).

[s0]

randomness doesn't matter that much in most jrpgs anyway. does it really make a difference whether you lose 523 or 554 of your 5000 hp? sure there might be small chances to miss but those are usually so tiny that theyre basically irrelevant. i can't think of any popular jrpg i've played that isnt consistently winnable if you play right.

other games where hit chances are more important (srpgs to stay on topic) usually have some form of "luck management" where you can get an almost 100% hit chance through e.g. positioning. single player turnbased strategy gams need some sort of randomness, or else they're just puzzles.

[HyMyNameIsMatt]

One thing I feel is worth noting since a few people here have player Bravely Default is how predictable the bosses are most of the time.  While there is a bit of randomness to them, most of the time you know exactly what move they will perform or which two they will perform after being in combat for a short while.  I actually really like the predictable nature of these bosses because I was capable of making strategies around their attacks rather then just hoping they didn't use a particular attack next turn.  Would anyone say this is really much of a flaw or would you say it's actually a really positive attribute?

[Pfotegeist]

Matt,
it's a positive. If you have a guaranteed way out that's more like a puzzle, but it's better than having no way out.

You'll see bosses with infinite powers, including setting everyone's hp to 1. The boss optimal strategy is your guaranteed loss.

Some games I've seen have completely random attacks. You spend a half hour fighting and die repeatedly on an otherwise easy boss because they repeat power moves.

There's also the boss that can hide as long as it wants and counterattack any of your attacks, and you happen to get the one in a million chance it spends an hour reusing this move, it's too random.

[Uykered]

single player turnbased strategy gams need some sort of randomness, or else they're just puzzles.

Yeah, I mean most single player software are solvable puzzles (due to lack of randomness and matchmaking) but I don't think just throwing randomness in the "chance to hit" is very satisfying place to make it less-solvable (make a decision then randomly it decides whether you fail or not). I think it's more fun if you do randomness in a way you have time to respond to (that doesn't feel unfair), like random maps/enemies/placement.

[ThemsAllTook]

single player turnbased strategy gams need some sort of randomness, or else they're just puzzles.

Yeah, I mean most single player software are solvable puzzles (due to lack of randomness and matchmaking) but I don't think just throwing randomness in the "chance to hit" is very satisfying place to make it less-solvable (make a decision then randomly it decides whether you fail or not). I think it's more fun if you do randomness in a way you have time to respond to (that doesn't feel unfair), like random maps/enemies/placement.

Right, this needs a lot of care. Repeating an action and hoping for a different RNG result is almost never enjoyable gameplay. If I have a chance to plan for random events, and no sequence of events puts me into an unwinnable state (unless I've planned incorrectly), it's fine - improvisation is fun as long as you have the tools to actually improvise something viable.

That said, there's nothing wrong with puzzle games. See the DROD series for an example of a single player turn-based strategy game with no randomness at all.

[Netsu]

Yeah I would take a non-random system over a random one any day provided the system and AI are good enough. Having hidden information helps a lot, like in Frozen Synapse (or Game of Thrones board game) the orders are hidden from the enemy.
Chess or Go aren't random either.

[Uykered]

This is getting a bit offtopic from RPGs! But anyway Chess and Go are greatly designed elegant games compared to videogames but are bad in that they suffer from too much information ("analysis paralysis"). In those games it's optimal to examine every choice/position and look ahead as far as possible into the future for every single turn since there is no limit, which could take a very long time, which is why people often have a timer (or a social pressure timer, "hurry up!") but that then changes it into something like a who can "calculate faster contest".

Hidden information (like fog of war) is great when when used well, it can enhance the flow of the game so you don't get bogged down with too much information to analyze, providing you also have time to think/strategize with the new information you are given ("fairness"). The less time, or turns, you have to respond to something the more unfair it is (and thus more random) but if you go too far in the opposite direction the game becomes closer to a puzzle, so somewhere in between is ideal. Thus not having some of the information prevents you from being able to solve the entire state of the game. If the game is not dynamic in anyway (human-opponents/difficulties/matchmaking/randomization) then it just becomes a matter of trial and error/brute force approach until you've memorized everything.

While I personally don't often enjoy videogames that you solve/complete then throw away, this is not to say there is no value in solving puzzles! I think most gamers actually enjoy them immensely since the majority of videogames are probably puzzles (most also have an execution/dexterity requirement in order for you to solve them though).

[Netsu]

Actually hiding information usually increases the amount of possibilities to analyze, since to play optimally you should consider all the different values the hidden information can be. Is the enemy just around the corner or is he still far away from me? What is more probable at this point? Did he order his units to attack or retreat? Maybe he chose the less obvious path on purpose to mislead me?

Of course this works much better with a human player than an AI, since you can predict what an AI would do once you learn its patterns. Unless the patterns are chosen randomly, but then we're back to square one: randomness.

Still, I think randomness in AI behaviour is better than randomness in action outcome.

[Uykered]

you should consider all the different values the hidden information can be. Is the enemy just around the corner or is he still far away from me? What is more probable at this point? Did he order his units to attack or retreat? Maybe he chose the less obvious path on purpose to mislead me?

I call that guessing, and guessing is just the same as randomness since it's impossible to be 100% certain of what will happen in the future. Though you can base your decisions on the available information, which is why it's good to have hidden information that's revealed a couple of turns ahead of when you need to respond to it so that's its less of the bad kind of random (unfairness).

In the context of social/party situations then good game design can be half thrown out the window, as unfairness is actually valuable thing for a game as it closes the skill gap and makes the game more chaotic (some people find that funny).

[Netsu]

I call it mind games, and for me this is infinitely more interesting than just random action outcomes Even when you have zero time to respond, like in Frozen Synapse or Game of Thrones.

[rj]

i genuinely don't see the problem with things just becoming puzzles. an rpg where every battle is a uniquely designed puzzle (obviously this leaves out the possibility of random encounters) sounds lovely

edit: though i guess if it was a puzzle you were forced to play over and over that would be asinine. but bosses as puzzles has always been something i've liked

[Netsu]

Randomly generated puzzles

[s0]

i genuinely don't see the problem with things just becoming puzzles. an rpg where every battle is a uniquely designed puzzle (obviously this leaves out the possibility of random encounters) sounds lovely

its a problem for people who don't especially like puzzles, such as me. personally i enjoy the "play" aspect (the process of interacting with a system) of games more than the "game" aspect (exploiting the system to win) and because fixed-solution puzzles (multi-solution ones are great!) are pretty much only about the 2nd aspect where the mechanics get boring once you've learned how to use them, i tend to not enjoy them that much.

[Netsu]

What do you mean by multi-solution? Wouldn't all turn based combat systems be multi-solution?

[Uykered]

How much should death/game-over matter in an RPG? Should the player be punished? Should you just go back to 2 seconds before you died, or back to a checkpoint?

The system in FF6 is pretty awful, it doesn't remember anything you did when you die, if you forgot to save in the last few hours then every thing you did was wasted as if it never happened.

I probably like how the Souls series handles it. When you die it still basically has everything remembered/saved, you don't have to watch those cutscenes or buy those items again, it just takes you back to the recent town/bonfire you were at (along with dropping those souls!).