next »

[Thomas Finch]

-

[MadWatch]

Ok let's give it a try. I'm not sure what you mean by "turn-based role-playing game" so maybe my proposition won't apply to your game at all.

Allow the player to swap party members during the fight.

In most RPG you can have no more than 3 party member during a fight, which is good because having more would be a mess. But your party often contains more than that. In most RPGs I've played the player can select fighting party member between fights but not during a fight, therefore the player ends up always fighting with his 3 favorite characters and totally ignore the others.

In Final Fantasy X you could swap party members during a fight (the only limitation was that you couldn't swap a dead member, unless you resurrect him first). That way you could choose your members depending on the situation, or replace an almost dead member by a healthy one. Since all the party members kinda had their specialties (at the beginning especially) it added a strategic aspect to the game.

Hope this is what you expected.

[Core Xii]

The most important aspect of a role-playing game is that your decisions matter. Don't just give the illusion of choice - Make those choices have an impact on the world.

[SundownKid]

I think that for a long game like yours, a good thing to keep in mind would be not resorting to contrived ways to hinder the player. For example, "this bridge is broken! We have to fix it!", or "I collected the 5 gems of power, but you stole them again!" That's not to say that the player should not be able to go everywhere, but it should make sense in terms of the story and not leave the player saying "well, I'm right back where I started 5 hours ago...."

[Bree]

In an RPG, setting and art style are everything for me. I'm going to be journeying across the game map for at least 20-30 hours, so it'd better be damn interesting. Even a rather generic setting like the Dragon Quest games make grinding enjoyable through its cutesy art style and charming pun-filled dialogue.

On that note, if you have a big enough overworld, some sort of awesome transportation is a must. Final Fantasy games have their airships, Dragon Quest frequently uses pirate ships, Brutal Legend had that sweet hot rod, but see what you guys can come up with that stands out from the crowd.

[DavidCaruso]

Assuming you're talking about a JRPG: keep things as terse as possible. Many JRPGs are basically filled with bland, repetitive, easy filler battles in between the real highlights of the game, to the point where in most of the ones I've played I don't feel like slogging through the filler to get to the good parts. I'd suggest trying to cut those out and keep only the highlights, even if it means a short (but tight) game. Chrono Trigger kind of tried to do this with its preset battle scenarios (which is a good idea you can steal), but even then the battle system was fairly shallow and many of the regular battles were pretty boring.

If you're talking about a real RPG (i.e. a game in which the player plays a direct malleable character role instead of "directing" the roles of predetermined characters) then yeah, I'll just echo what Core Xii said about choice. Making the player feel like he has a choice when he actually doesn't is much worse then just not giving him a choice at all upfront (But Thou Must, etc.)

[.]

I agree with everyone in this thread so far, very awesome.

Please make the battle system engaging and as less reliant on luck as possible. We've gone through more than 20 years of experience in producing jRPGs, and yet, there are STILL games coming out with mashing one button during battles. Take a look at Mother 3 or any Mario RPGs. They implement accurate button presses whether through rhythm, or specific prompts. I'm not talking about the occasional "PRESS A" during a special move or whatever, I actually prefer if the whole battle system is heavily reliant on the player's skill. It's so much more rewarding when you know you've conquered a battle through mastering a skill rather than through the fact that you grinded for an hour! The latter is un-engaging, and in my opinion, archaic.

To me, a believable and engaging world consists of NPCs that are just like people, something most RPGs rarely do. Whenever you talk to a random NPC, it's always: "I HEARD AT THE TOP OF THAT MOUNTAIN THERE IS THAT THING THAT YOU NEED." And then another, "YOU KNOW, THIS PERSON THAT YOU NEED TO TALK TO LIVES IN THIS TOWN." You might as well replace these people with wooden boards, telling you which way to go. This doesn't work. A person in real life does not concern themselves with your specific goals, they talk about random stuff, and each person is totally different. I know there's a whole discussion with realism vs. fantasy for the sake of the game's fun, but Mother 3 managed to pull it off, so I don't see a problem in implementing that. All I'm saying is make NPCs for the sake of the player's enjoyment, not as guides telling them where to go.

I know old-school RPG fans love random battles, but I really don't. Just a personal thing, but really, it's just not fun to me, and brings back the whole luck factor in. The game turns from concentrating on each battle, and how to masterfully succeed, to biting your nails, hoping you will get out of the dungeon alive. I guess it depends on the kind of experience you are looking to create.

This is an amazing thread, looking forward to more opinions!  

[SundownKid]

I am very random battle-averse, but I think that random battles don't necessarily have to be "inevitable". If you look at a game like, say, Wild Arms 3, it basically lets you bypass certain random battles if you have enough points in a gauge, which you can fill by collecting things in the level or going to the inn. Weaker enemies deplete less gauge points until they can be bypassed entirely. This really helps avoid the annoying "fighting weak enemies" problem which plagues games with random encounters (even when you know they are coming).

[McMutton]

I rather liked how later Persona games handled the encounters. When traveling around the current level, enemies are represented by these shadow blobs that you can avoid if you're careful. Eventually, at higher levels, wandering enemies will flee at the sight of you if they're weaker.

[saturdaymorning]

Off the top of my head, I like what the Zeboyd guys did with Cthulu Saves the World battle count for an area. It forces you into battles randomly that give you some time to mess around with skills/spells, gear setups, enemy traits/quirks, etc, but after a fixed number of random encounters, battles become completely optional for that particular area. The random battle count is set to a point where the player's party is strong enough to beat that section's boss while still providing a challenge.

This may or may not have inherent design problems. I dunno, but it feels alright so far for the 3 hours I've played. Oh, and I've reached the count in every area before I get to the boss too.

[Bree]

I think Earthbound even had the ability for you to automatically win fights against enemies of a low enough level; they'd run away from you, and if you caught up to them Ness would kick them and they'd explode in a shower of coins and EXP.

[gimymblert]

I would substitute level with rank, it would do the same except be a multiplier of stat. Instead rank raise with exp to unlock spell, resistance, weapon use, skill etc... Much easier to balance and focus the game on the strategy (you still can't beat easily that grass monster because he absorb all your water attack and you need rank 7 to unlock fire spell, and rank 8 to equip "sword of mass destruction +5").

[JasonPickering]

Costume Quest had a cool way of doing random Battles. you went trick or treating and if you went to a door either a grownup gave you candy or a goblin opened the door. this way the player initiated the random encounter and they could heal before if necessary.

[baconman]

Attack, Magic, Item.

25 years of this crap has gotten BORING. Soulless. Lifeless, even. What I suggest instead? Allow each party member to equip 2 (maybe 3) weapons, and a goodie bag of about 3-5 item types. At each turn, you choose the corresponding weapon, and they each get skills/spells associated with them intrinsically. This basically gives you a "magic system" that, rather than being cumulative, keeps navigation down to 4 or 5 "spells" apiece, tops. And it allows them to be combined with attacks, to avoid the generic "spellcaster" motion.

If you want, you could even use the equipment/spell levels to regulate player levels, instead of XP/grinding.

Cure, Heal, Revive, Elixir, Ether, Potion, and the ever-lovin' Zinzu Bean.

Just make a simple cure-all item and stick to it. Yes, status effects too. You eat, it recovers life. You use the bathroom, it recovers MP*. Maybe 3 tops, because I know reviving a fallen comrade - however nonsensical - is such a popular notion. Although, if anything gameplay-oriented could affect a storyline departure, it's losing a party member in battle.

If you really wanna get fancy? You could always do something like what Ehrgiez did with food groups. Make a number of all-purpose healing items, and then tie each one's use to a specific statistic level-up. So one kind of healer item ups your strength one level, another your dexterity, etc.

* Just like with real players, I suggest a nice, hearty dump before every major boss encounter.

You can lose the battle but still win the war.

There should be a few encounters that ARE beatable, but are also designed to continue the game win or lose. Sort of a 'fork in the road' point in plotline, where winning gets you a specific, unique reward that cannot be attained by losers. Note that this may be an offset of the "Disc One Final Dungeon," but what would be even better? If it were disguised as a normal, random encounter. Or perhaps there's already a conflict between two affiliated parties, and your (accidental?) intrusion makes you take one side and face off against the other?

Speaking of "random encounters..."

There's a number of designed, non-random things that work. PokeMon's "vs. Trainer" system is a great example. However you decide to handle encounters, there's a few design things I would keep in mind. But more to the point:

The 60/30/10 system. Yeah, there's some regular blobs you can take out for easy XP in a mostly-nonthreatening setting (the 60%). The occasional bigger goon that is all by their lonesome, or occasionally in a couple, that will actually inflict some easily-recovered damage on you, for a change (the 30%).

But that other 10%'er? Make that fucker a MONSTER. Like, boss or sub-boss level shit. The point may not be to wipe you out. (Okay, that is a total lie. You want people to FEAR THIS SHIT. But make it still beatable, IE: no insta-kills.) The bigger point is - that WHEN you survive an encounter with this beast, YOU WILL BE HURTING! One of those 30%'ers, all of a sudden, becomes realistically THREATENING. (You can easily counter-balance this with a 5-minute timer that prevents a second boss-level encounter from reoccuring, too.) Sometimes it's FUN to fight stuff like that, too. But either way, it gives a level of excitement and tension that people play adventure games to feel!

Maybe make that guy a 8%'er, and give the player a 2% chance at tripping over free, decent equipment or treasure, too. How is it that people are getting eaten by giant wildebeasts, and yet you never see one G of gear just dropped off somewhere?

Level design a factor?

As a less-random alternative to the aforementioned, you should probably give many areas a "long road" and a "short road" through the parts, and maybe some particular item/secret-excavation excuse for attempting each one. The long road is populated by more weak enemies, and functions as a sort of detour that enables recovery; whereas the short road is a quick, to-the-point way of travelling, but at higher risk against tougher enemies.

Then the balance is all up to the player. They can pussyfoot their way through the easy side, or really push themselves through the toughness. Although it may be highly improbable (even impossible wouldn't be a BAD thing) to ALWAYS take the hard route successfully; statistically speaking, hard roads will break you down, and easy roads will build you up.

Alternative Endings 201?

Okay, so this goes back to the whole win/lose-but-the-game-goes-on Decisive Battle idea above. So different plots get you a different ending, right? But what if - on top of that - different outcomes also give you an entirely different final boss?! :D

[JasonPickering]

I have never heard that 60/30/10 thing before but it makes total sense. That is just what I need for balancing my current game.

[DavidCaruso]

I would substitute level with rank, it would do the same except be a multiplier of stat. Instead rank raise with exp to unlock spell, resistance, weapon use, skill etc... Much easier to balance and focus the game on the strategy (you still can't beat easily that grass monster because he absorb all your water attack and you need rank 7 to unlock fire spell, and rank 8 to equip "sword of mass destruction +5").

Speaking of this, why even have exp and etc. from random battles? Just have specified level up points at certain parts, where the player can increase his level and upgrade a certain number of stats he chooses. Completely gets rid of level grinding, and also lets you balance the game better (since now you have complete control over the game's difficulty curve) and make every battle interesting.

[gimymblert]

Exp is part of the resource management, removing them send me either in heart piece/container territory or make for an even more abstract system (plot progression). Basically it would be useless to call the game RPG anymore "by convention". The way I would control XP is by relative difficulty, fighting monster under your rank give less xp than monster within your rank, too low and they stop completely giving anything. Stronger monster increase the reward by magnitude relative to their difference with you. What happen is that each area has a set cap of rank since you can only go so far as the strongest monster allow you with decrease return as you level up until you stop having reward at all. it allow people who like grind to maximize their rank for each chokepoint but regular player would better move toward the next zone. It also favor taking risk.

Another solution is to go princess maker style, not having only increasing stat, but I have a set of move which decrease some stat and increase other, with the possibility to max them out at the price of careful and constant management. This is best with game with no ending as it remove the cap of maxing out definitely your stat (and the game). It's basically importing management gameplay to character stat and mimick real life routine of working up to keep shape.

[.]

Oh and please, keep death penalties to a minimum. This includes both: exp/currency loss and starting back 30 minutes before and having to sit through ten minutes worth of cutscenes. I'd say, if the player dies at a boss, spawn them not to far back and have the battle begin right away instead. Or, if you do want it to be so that the player has to traverse through the dungeon again, at least don't take anything away from them. It's such an annoying and outdated mechanic, I can't even.

Say you know how to get through a cave and know the strategy for the boss already. Then this rare monster comes out in a random battle out of fucking nowhere and destroys your team, forcing you to start twenty minutes back. Then you do the same thing you already know how to do, but hope that luck is on your side. I guess, I really don't like luck in large amounts, especially when it contributes to an artificial game lengthening system such as described above.

[Tumetsu]

Oh and please, keep death penalties to a minimum. This includes both: exp/currency loss and starting back 30 minutes before and having to sit through ten minutes worth of cutscenes. I'd say, if the player dies at a boss, spawn them not to far back and have the battle begin right away instead. Or, if you do want it to be so that the player has to traverse through the dungeon again, at least don't take anything away from them. It's such an annoying and outdated mechanic, I can't even.

This. When player dies in boss battle in Baten Kaitos series, player is shown "Try again?" screen where if player selects yes, s/he can edit card deck of characters and try again. That made game much more enjoyable than if it had thrown player to last save point like it did with regular enemies if player died.

I haven't read the full thread so I apologize if this has been already said, but try to make grinding at least partially avoidable. For example players can beat the game without grinding almost at all if they manage their resources well (weponry, strategy etc.) while still allowing grinding for players who don't want or can develop other means for victory or at least help with other strategies. Personally I don't mind little grinding but I hate games where everything is about levels or where last boss was passable with 40 and next requires lvl. 60 to have any chance of victory. Most commonly this seems to be final boss btw.

[Tumetsu]

In my current project I'm aiming for that but it uses card based battle system which means player should have rather large pool of different moves and abilities which aren't tied into level ups, except that most cards you get by beating enemies which also rise your level. I agree though that it will require lots of balancing and though IMO I'm getting promising results, I'm still not sure if it will work out.

In general I think that is possible course for game which has lots of strategic options to exploit and compensate lack of raw power of stats.