Restricting the player is perfectly acceptable. It''s *necessary*, even.

The problem is that you also appear to be restricting the player choice. Without player choice, there is no gameplay.

If the player has slots for 4 healing potions, and the only thing that fits in those 4 slots are healing potions (not any other kind of potion, nor any other kind of equipment), then you have already made the player''s choices about what equipment to have. Don''t waste the player''s time acquiring (buying, etc) the potions. Just give them to the player.

You can add a variable recovery rate for the potions, or opportunities to expand to 6 slots and get some gameplay mileage out of the feature. But you''ve removed the choice of what the player should equip (healing potions vs firebomb potions; potions vs magic fans). This may be perfectly acceptable to your design.

You can get more gameplay out of some of the alternatives presented in the thread. Here gameplay == "The player is given some interesting and meaningful choices". It''s also possible that these do not satisfy your design (or other constraints like times/money).

If the player doesn''t get a choice in what to equip, then where will the player be involved instead?

JSwing

I think it is definatly good to force the player to make choices, but it is not ok to force limits. Chioices produce gamplay, limits produce frustration.

Giving a player limits would be like
you can carry:
4 healing potions
4 mana potions
4 antidote potions

This would give the player frustration. Say they arnt wanting to be doing magic for "fill in with somthing" reason. Then they are going to want to carry possibly 8 heling potions 2 mana and 2 antidote. Or if they are in a dungeon with poisonous stuff so they want more antidote. They are going to burn with anger when the max for any type is 4.

but saying you can carry:
12 potions of any type(s)

The player now has to stratigicly decide what to bring, and the result is fun. The player knows he will not need 12 of one kind of potion (it is up to the designer to make shure of this or else it will just be a limit again instead of a choice) so taking into consideration the players class/stats/dungeon headed to they will get to make a choice.

I would say having to make these choices would be plenty more fun than the old "carry as much as you want" approch.

the point is

choices = fun/deapth/excitement....ect.
limits = frustration/anger....ect.
no-limits = boringness/desire to stop playing....ect.

If you have ever played diablo 2, you would know how fun choices can make things. Some people have been playing the game scince it came out and are still not bored of it because the entire thing is based on choices, and lots of em.

ps. its not really nesscisary to derasticly increase the amount of stuff you can hold but more just the potency of the potions as you go along. Because you dont want to rid of the choice aspect.

Well, I agree with you all on that much that choosing what to bring in more fun then just being limited. Lets shift the topic of the discussion to more offensive measures.

As part of the magic-items list, we have the standard set of the elemental attacks with differing strength. Firebrand Eins, Wenig, Halb, Voll. And we allocate some of these really loosely at the start of the game, and hide A LOT in the various treasure boxes in the dungeon. Now, considering the Rock-Paper-Scissors nature of element damage, and the tightness of the resource, would this force the player to strategize his magic use wisely?

Take into fact that we can recover this magic somehow (towns or whatever) and that the amount of battles is some fixed number that a smart player could figure out. Maybe going around and counting the monsters in each area.

I think I need more explanation to respond. Could you give a better description of this? I think too much of it is in your mind and didn''t make it into the post.

The "standard set" is Fire, Earth, Air, Water? Or Fire, Earth, Metal, Wood, and Water? Or something else?

At any given time, how many different weapons/attacks can the player carry around?

Are the enemies rated only in terms of the elements?

You say that there are a lot of attacks (weapons?) in the treasure boxes, but you''ve only got 4 levels of attack and maybe 4 or 5 elements. That sounds like no more than 20 treasure boxes ever, unless something is being consumed continuously.

Something is being consumed since you say you can recover this magic outside of the dungeon. So what does the player get from the treasure boxes?

And how does the damage figure into it?

If your goal is to force the player to figure out the level, with fixed and limited resources placed by the level designer, then it sounds like you are building a puzzle game. Which is fine, it''s just not clear from your post.

More info, please.

JSwing

Alright, let me redescribe this idea.

I want to see what it would be like to combine a magic system and an item system. So this just doesn''t become a item system with a lot more comprehensive set of items, I will make the items reusable, and have a big set of the items findable. What this amounts to is an arbitrary limit on the amount of items you have on a per-item basis. To visualize it, the menu for this type of thing would probaby read:

CUREITEM........ 07/11
ATTACKITEM...... 03/08

Meaning, you have 11 cure items and 7 are usable (4 need recharging). I''ll have varying strengths going of each item type (convienience for a rigid turn-based combat system).

This doesn''t exactly vary from standard ideas, it just combines them. It also removes the burden of some expendable points from the party-characters involved. Having a potion-item system here is redundant. Equipment I haven''t quite worked out yet, but it''d be seperate from this idea. Since our magic-items are only restricted by how many you have (and not some limit-of-limit), it''d make sense just to have an unrestricted list of those equip-items. Then equipping to characters would probably go favorite three or something.

My primary focus here is ... well, Puzzle strategy I guess makes a good term. Is this enough of an elaboration?

It sounds very reminiscent of the kinds of item limits used in Zelda(am thinking of 1-4 in particular here), only moved to a turn-based game. Zelda had hearts and heart containers, of course, but also had limits on bombs, arrows, magic powder, and medicine(and possibly some other things). One of the major parts of the games was in looking for secret rooms to increase the maximum amounts of each - though one memorable room in the first Zelda featured one of the "old men" demanding either money or a heart container to leave!

However, I don''t think it''ll really translate well. One of the features of Zelda is that you have to learn to use each of your tools, as well as applying them correctly to the scenario at hand. Left with only half of that equation, since all you have to do is press a button, the player will probably be left wanting. Pokemon also has a rechargable item idea to some extent with the various powers, but I can''t remember that they increase in uses very much unless you use a rare item to do so; usually you swap them for a new set in that game, anyway.

Another game series to look at for comparison is the SaGa series, specifically the first ones for Game Boy(aka Final Fantasy Legend in US release). In general, all the weapons, and hence all your attacks(depending on character - the mutant powers are a different ball game), are disposable items that you use a given number of times before running out. However, you can purchase multiples of said weapons, and by the end you usually have an arsenal including many valuable artifact-type weapons that you can save for bosses. I really loved this system, especially in its original rough implementation in the first game before it got watered down with a large number of 99-use and infinite-use items.

If you continue with the system you have right now, I''d suggest to allow the player to change up his abilities as well as simply increase them; say, give him a choice of rings or pendants or something that serves as a device for modifying his items. I wouldn''t simply go from "Fire 1" to "Fire 2" though, that''ll probably just inflate the numbers.

If you make the game *too* puzzle-like and only focused on maintaining your stockpiles, the process of building the character(s) will then be only work.

I think I get what you''re saying. In your first post you asked "What does this do to player strategy?"

The answer is: there is no strategy involved. At least, not with just limiting the items like this. You give the player the decision: have a cure item or don''t have a cure item. Obviously the answer is, have a cure item.

Based on what you have presented so far, having a cure item (or a full set of cure items) doesn''t seem to require the player to give up anything, or make any trade-offs. So far, there is no gameplay.


So this returns me to my previous question, where does the player get involved? What decisions or trade-offs must he make? Are these decisions purely functional (needed to solve the level), or are they stylistic (letting the player do things his way)?


If the gameplay is for the player to figure out the best sequence of items to use to get through a fixed, pre-made level, then it''s a puzzle game. Focus your efforts on how to design interesting levels (puzzles). Limit the number of resources lying around and the player will figure out that he needs to optimize his item use pretty quick.

If there are a lot more items lying around than the player can carry, then the player spends time backtracking after pursuing an inefficient solution. If there are a lot more items than the player needs to solve the levels, then the rewards become worthless since the player doesn''t need them, and can''t carry them anyway.

But this is making a lot of assumptions about how the game plays, and I might be missing your game idea altogether.

JSwing

The gameplay I wanted going was one where the player has to strategize his usage of items, rather then just stocking up on the best stuff. Let me present a situation.

Player has wandered pretty far into the dungeon, and his inventory has 4 low level fires, 1 high level fire. Knowing there will probably be at least one strong enemy upcoming: Am I convincing the player to save that high level fire? This is of course a simple situation, so Yeah. But consider it more complex when hes got dozens of enemies blocking the paths, and he''s got a variety of elemental magics of varying strengths.

So, yes. It is a puzzle with some RPG elements.

What happens if a player makes a bad decision, and wastes resources?

In your example, what happens if the player uses a high level fire before he gets to the big critter? Does he just lose the game, have to repeat the level, or what?

If the penalties for making a bad choice are harsh (requiring him to replay the level, or losing the game) then the player''s choice of which items to use when is an illusion. This is ok. But it means that the player will need to see the whole dungeon level so that he can make a decent plan or figure out how to get through. The gameplay becomes the mind of the player pitted against the mind of the level designer.

If the penalties for making a bad choice are light (requirng him to restock, or kill a few more lesser critters to rebuild supplies) then there''s going to be slack. Likewise if there is ecess stuff lying around. You won''t be able to force a player to play the game in a particular way. The good news is the player gets to express himself by playing the game in different ways. The bad news is design is tougher because testing takes longer and there will be balance problems and loopholes.

Either of these is fine.

The worst of both worlds would be to make the game look like the player gets to choose how to play the game by scattering various items around, but inflict harsh penalties on the player if they choose something other than the designer''s solution. Bad bad bad design.

My two cents, anyway. Maybe someone else has a different idea.

JSwing

Earthbound for the SNES featured a great item system. Each character in the party could only carry so much. The was one point in the game where the lead character was separated for the rest, and it was challenging to balance carrying the cool weapons that would make you stronger and the healing food that would keep you alive. Really a great game...

[edited by - fisheyel83l on April 22, 2003 4:07:42 AM]