next »

[Kegluneq]

So if any of y'all watch The Big Bang Theory, then you probably saw Sheldon's attempt at making 3 player chess and couldn't help but cringe. The addition of the poisoned status suddenly made the game much more complicated.

Now I understand that the reason poison doesn't belong in chess is because complicating such a simple to learn game is poor game design, but it got me thinking about "poisoned" and other status effects like stone, haste, etc. as well:

Are they really a good design choice?
I thought about it for a decent amount of time but I just couldn't decide.
What do you all think?

[Alec S.]

It depends on what sort of game system the rule is going into, of course.

But for a turn based RPG, I think it's quite an effective mechanic.  Basically, it provides for situations where strategies can play out over multiple moves.  For example, you could put a status effect on an enemy that then makes further moves more effective, and you would then have to balance the benefits of that with just dealing the normal amount of damage on that turn.  It also plays into the item mechanic, as, if you're going to an area with a lot of enemies with the ability to poison your character, you need to be prepared by buying antidotes.

[SplinterOfChaos]

I can't think of a game where it was a bad decision. I've found in certain Final Fantasy games that understanding status effects is the difference between getting through a battle easily, and grinding until you're a higher level. For example, i went through all of FFVIII and got to the final boss with seemingly no chance of winning. Even after grinding. Then i learned to case haste on myself and slow on the enemy and it was easy.

Whether or not status effects actually made my experience more deep is debatable, but i can't think of a game where it was needlessly complex or anything negative. Sometimes, though, it's just fricken annoying, trying to get through an area without spending all your money on poison cures. But usually these games are balanced so that even if you have to depoison your team after each battle, you'll have all the resources to do so.

[eclectocrat]

Status effects can be strategically useful, and also annoying and frustrating. I can't count how many times I've had a character poisoned in some RPG and just been annoyed at how it disrupts me from normal play because I have to open the inventory screen, select an item, use it, select the target and only then can I get on with my game. If you've got a cure potion in your inventory then the game should be smart enough to allow to use it in one UI action, from the main screen.

[tergem]

My only issue with status effects are the facts that certain bosses are immune... when the by all rights shouldn't be. A mech immune to poison is okay, a plant immune to getting burned is not okay. So try to stay out of useless useful spells. They annoy the heck out of me.

[SundownKid]

In my experience playing RPGs, status effects only exist to add difficulty to battles and usually don't help you much. This is because small enemies are better off being pounded into oblivion, and large enemies are usually immune. Even when large enemies are not immune, it's basically like a one-off thing. So, in my opinion, unless they are equally as useful as a regular old attack, don't put them in. Instead, add some kind of useful gameplay modifier like making the enemy lose their turn or stalling them from attacking if you play skillfully.

[radioact1ve]

It's another tool in a designer's box. Definitely believe it's a good design choice that adds depth where it belongs, but like everything else it all depends on the implementation. Adding spells, items, armor, etc to combat status effects can really complicate things. And as eclectocrat mentioned the UI plays a major role which can make or break it especially once you're in "battle mode". (Which reminds me of White Knight Chronicles  ... but thats for another topic.)

[Kegluneq]

I think tergem's got the idea. Status effects and status effecting abilities are inherently good, but when the designer makes a choice like making them ineffective against bosses, they start to lose their value.

[Ben_Hurr]

I think tergem's got the idea. Status effects and status effecting abilities are inherently good, but when the designer makes a choice like making them ineffective against bosses, they start to lose their value.

Yes.
For love of me I don't understand why we can't mute/poison/stone/def down/atk down, etc bosses, excluding statuses that would kill them instantly.  Couldn't you just make the boss cure its own status like the player?

[jwk5]

Play Kongai, see status effects done right.