next »

[Cheesus]

With all of the Indie RPG talk going on, I thought I would revisit an old concept of mine and sort of think out loud. Over the past few years, I've made a few drafts and playable demos of an NES-style Dragon Quest ripoff set in prehistoric times. Even though the idea has been explored in, say, Chrono Trigger I thought the simple scenario/gameplay and lack of development in the early Dragon Quests meshed well with the setting. As a matter of fact, I planned it as an RPG-lite where a lot of the RPG excesses are curbed - a humorous, lighthearted sendup to the first Dragon Quest. But I always got puzzled by how to make a fun and SIMPLE battle system.

Now, I hate grinding and boredom as much as the next guy so I've tried a couple of approaches. The only worthwhile idea is essentially the Dragon Quest battle system, except you 'equip' your character with four different attacks. In battle you have a supply of battle points; each attack requires a certain amount, etc. The interface is simple, too: each of the four commands was assigned to an arrow and you simply pressed the corresponding key for an attack. It's like a combination of Final Fantasy Legend, Dragon Quest, and Pokemon. The drafts have no random encounters, and leveling up occurs through finding semi-hidden icons -- thus preventing grinding. As I revisit it, though, I think it might be overly tedious still.

I do see potential in this idea, even if it is modeled after the unforgiving RPGs of old. The setting, modeling the game after a series that isn't Final Fantasy, not including anime archetype are all fine. I just need to perfect this idea and not turn it into a complete RPG borefest while keeping it really simple.

Any additions, alternate ideas, generalized discussion... or really, anything? Thanks and tanks.

I'm going to use FlashPunk for this version btw.

[alspal]

The turn based strategy part is always the part I find most enjoyable in JRPG style games. I think The Spirit Engine 2 did it fairly well, it offered a decent variety of skills among the 3 characters classes and the game was designed around encouraging you to try different skill chains. The emphasis was on picking a smart set of skills in each area, rather than grinding to upgrade stats etc.

[noah!]

Some thoughts (that may or may not help ;-):

* Phantasy Star IV had a cool Macro system, where you can specify what your party is going to do for a battle round. Sure, battles are still tedious, but they are over much quicker.

* Related to that, EarthBound's auto-win system was cool, and I think more RPGs should have it.

* Out of curiosity, what's the tangible reward for completing a battle? Because you're separating the leveling up mechanics from the battle system, what's going to stop a player from buying 99 Monster-B-Gone and breezing through the game?

* On that note, how are these non-random battles laid out? Are the enemies scripted out like Chrono Trigger, or smattered randomly along the map like EarthBound, or are the only battles major ones?

* What are you going for in an RPG battle? Are you going for something fast-paced? Or do you want the focus to be on strategy, and thinking about what to do next?

Feel free to take them or leave them, and if I can think of any good suggestions I'll let you know.

[Bree]

Earthbound's system really appealed to me through presentation. Rather than just saying, "Ness is paralyzed!", the game says, "Ness became home-sick and lost in his thoughts". The text made it much more interesting to play the random battles, and the third game added a rhythm component that (I'm told) makes the system even more addictive.

Another interesting route you could take could be to make the system as graphic (i.e. wordless) as possible- Square tried this a long time ago with a section of their game Live A Live. The section concerned a group of cavemen, but all of the cutscenes were told with little word balloons with pictures inside them instead of actual dialogue.

[Tuba]

My favorite RPG battle systems are in the Mario RPGs, the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi series. The battles are still turn-based, but you can press buttons to defend/dodge attacks and use special moves. Not to mention the game is balanced so that some attacks doesn't work on some enemies. For instance, Koopas hide on their shells when you try to attack them, so the jump attack is useless.. you have to use a hammer or a special attack on them. That way you have to think a little before attacking. You should give them a look.

And like Earthbound, they also have an "auto-win" system. I like that.

[Cheesus]

Alright, I'm feeling another wall of text. In no particular order...

That text-free idea was one I've thought was awesome! I barely played Live-a-Live but I think that's a good source to draw from. I do remember the caveman style part. I'm pretty sure I'll experiment with that.

The tangible reward for battles is just money, which goes toward typical RPG stuff like purchasing new items or new "attacks" as I described them. So in a way, battles do still have relevance - just not for the sake of leveling up. I think the balance will work out because of the scope of the game: it's just a simple mini-rpg.

I was thinking with encounters, a mixture between your examples. That is, with some enemies in obvious places (e.g. in front of treasure or exits) and some just sort of chilling out. This is all tentative, though.

I'm a fan of standard encounters going by quickly and more important fights requiring some strategy. I'm following the Pokemon/Dragon Quest 1 model and making them one on one (at the time I hoped the customization with four customizable commands would help). The more I think, RPG battles aren't quite as bad when they are quick and to the point - especially when you don't have random encounters shoved down your throat. I suppose mindless isn't always bad, really.

Also, I'm not sure about strategy battles, mostly because it's so easy to make the A.I. suck and completely ruin things. And also because, given the awesomeness of that idea from Live-a-Live and the fact that is featured a caveman chapter and strategy based system, it might be overkill.

Edit: I have played the Mario RPG series and I totally forgot about that! Thank you for reminding me, good sir.

*phew*

[X3N]

mirage merge:
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=10602.0

[gimymblert]

Don't think enemy as AI but as PUZZLE.

Puzzle with solution and difficulties that evolve depending on the player equipment/abilities/resources/stats.

[Kalebo]

How about, Valkyria Profile?

at first its cool then gets repetitive, but maybe you can evolve to something nice.

About leveling, you have many solutions, only boses level up, finite enemies, or simply your dont have to grind to past de boss but you can if you want to...

[Miko Galvez]

Legend of Legaia is a great example of an RPG with a great battle system.

[synapse]

RPG battle systems are popular largely because in general RPG fans like tedious battle systems, whether they admit it or not.

That said, there are a few mechanics to make battles more engaging:

1) Reflex/timing-based attacks or combos
The player has to hit button(s) at a certain time to hit or for a damage boost or to complete some combo

2) Puzzle-based attacks
Solve a puzzle to cast a spell (tetris, mini-match-3, whatever)

3) Tactics
Combat is based heavily on formations, position, or group composition

4) Resource management
You have a limited amount of <mana/turbo/boost/whatever> per battle and they offer boosts that must be used at the correct time or in the correct way to maximize effect and/or minimize time to complete the battle

5) Elemental weakness/ status effects
Lightning beats water, water beats fire, etc
Poison does slow but steady damage against long-lasting enemies
Pierce shelled enemies
Sleep enemy just before key attacks

[SirNiko]

A simple way to make a successful RPG would be to pick an RPG you really liked, and then come up with a few original concepts for a battle system. There's nothing wrong with incremental changes to something that already is working.

Maybe players collect items from monsters and dungeons, and they slot those into skills to get bonuses (extra damage, accuracy, elements, auto-counter, etc.). As the game progresses, they get better stuff.

Perhaps it's pokemon, but instead of gaining skills by level-up, you collect them in caves and by defeating trainers. Sort of like having every skill taught by HMs. That satisfies the "Collector" urge too, since you can marvel at your heaps of skill machines and strategize about which ones are best for when.

Maybe you have Chrono Trigger, but position is really important in battle, as you lure enemies out to cliffs to knock them off, or move the party to avoid getting hit by area attacks (which is not really all that different than Chrono Trigger.).

Then just come up with an original cast of characters, include some decent graphics, add in some fun areas to explore with a few traps and surprises, and voila, you have a great RPG.

-SirNiko

[Amirai]

RPG battle systems are popular largely because in general RPG fans like tedious battle systems, whether they admit it or not.

I disagree. I think people want to find out what happens in the story, so they're willing to put up with tedious battle systems to find out.

[DYRE]

RPG battle systems are popular largely because in general RPG fans like tedious battle systems, whether they admit it or not.

I disagree. I think people want to find out what happens in the story, so they're willing to put up with tedious battle systems to find out.

I don't know about that.  They're willing to put up with tedious level design, though.  I like the battle systems themselves in the RPGs I play, the real problem is the fact that random encounters are tedious, simply because there's so many of them and they don't usually provide any real challenge.  But boss fights are fun, as are the first few random encounters in a new area.  So... I dunno.  That's just my thoughts, as a person who plays and enjoys RPGs.  Make of that what you will.

[Amirai]

RPG battle systems are popular largely because in general RPG fans like tedious battle systems, whether they admit it or not.

I disagree. I think people want to find out what happens in the story, so they're willing to put up with tedious battle systems to find out.

I don't know about that.  They're willing to put up with tedious level design, though.  I like the battle systems themselves in the RPGs I play, the real problem is the fact that random encounters are tedious, simply because there's so many of them and they don't usually provide any real challenge.  But boss fights are fun, as are the first few random encounters in a new area.  So... I dunno.  That's just my thoughts, as a person who plays and enjoys RPGs.  Make of that what you will.

That's a good point. It's not really the battle systems that I find can get tedious - I should have said "they're willing to put up with tedious battles to find out."

[Ben_Hurr]

I can tell you two ways to make it less tedious:

1. No more battles every 5 steps.
2. No more easy battles that take 2 minutes to conclude.

You should be golden if you do that, hurhur

[AndyKorth]

I lost my patience for old fashioned JRPG style battles after a bunch of Final Fantasy X (I think FF X, could have been 8 or 9) battles. I was in an area where I was able to defeat enemies in one shot. So I timed how long the battle took, and it ended up being about 90 seconds! So that's a fade out transition, loading, a really long spin around the battle field. Intro animations for the characters and enemies. A 3 second attack, and then more dancing, UI screens, and loading. The percentage of time when the player is actually engaged in what is going on there is tiny.

Whereas an action game like anything in the Legend of Zelda series, you're always engaged. Sure it's a different genre, but can you apply those lessons to RPG-style battles? Absolutely. Chrono Trigger battles were fast and fun. You spent very little time waiting around.

[I_smell]

Everyone allways says RPGs are about grinding, but I never fight just to level up in an RPG.
If I'm playing like Final Fantasy or somethin and I get wasted by some boss, I'll reload n go straight back to it again n again n again using different tactics until I do it.
I never ever grind on enemies, because it's just stupid.

So make that clear to the player somehow. Give a boss more than one vulnerabillity and make sure there are a lot of different buffs n debuffs so you can experiment.

[Xion]

I never got the point of random encounters, be they five steps apart or fifty. Is that supposed to be surprising or something? Like "boo! I'ma fight you!" At the very least let me see shit before I get into a fight with it.

[Cheesus]

Yeah, random encounters are a big no-no. The more I think about it, Earthbound got just about everything right. Sure, the battles were pretty conventional, but the enemies had personality and I really liked that rolling health gimmick. Not to mention, easy encounters were never a problem with the auto-kill touch encounter thing going on, while the bosses weren't too mindless. I loves me some Earthbound, so I'll probably borrow some of those ideas.