Alright, I know what I want. But that might not be what the "consumer" wants. If you were to make an RPG battle system what would it resemble? what would you change from other battle systems, etc. Let me know.

What I want a system to resemble. A good set of mechanics based on the design of common sense resolution.

What the consumer wants is a system that gives them wow cool, mine is better than yours.

1. I would change the concept from
HP vs Damage(Resulting in a high HP and constant weapon increase)
Defence vs Attack(potential more interesting combat)

2. Very slow performance skill increase, but often specialization increase.
What I mean by this, is that rather than constantly increasing the prime skill like Melee as the ONLY weapon skill. To a
Melee with a large subset of weapons and attack bonuses.
Design example:
Skill ranges 1-10(1 rookies, 2 job min, 3 job competent, 4 vet..)
Specilization 1-3

Characters would roll number of D10 equal to there skill taking the highest die, then adding there attribute.
4D10(melee) + 4(Agi)
1 (Short Sword) + 1(Human Strikes) + 1 (Dragon Tail)
Specilications could change the secondary bonus die.
coming out to a 4d10(10,9,3,2) + 4 = 15;
Maximum die + 1 for each additional (10-SpecBonus)7-10

The defender would be building a similiar defence values.

Just a quick idea. This allows for a more common sense system in that your not constantly only comparing HP vs Damage. The Bonuses don't offset too much since they only apply to the likely chance of rolling an extra +1 wich is determined on the die value.
(Hell I think I'll use this system myself)

use MOS damage ie the higher the difference between attack vs Defence roll, you do more damage. This is then subtracted by a soak armour resulting in either a wounding system or static HP system.

Make teh system lethal, but allow for player bonus by adding a extra rule. I mentioned in another post about adding City of Heroes Inspiration design.

Lots of specializations allow a wow becuase it's often and does tally up. But your performance skill still holds within a common sence range.

I would like the consumers to know that there's more than Final Fantasy and d20 type systems for roleplaying games. Come to think of it, I'd like game designers to do the same.

Since we're just talking battle system here, I'll give you a brief rundown of my wants list.

1. Detailed Sequencing system:
In my own game, I'm using an Master Phase Count system. Essentially, every action has a start time, and an end time. Different actions, like drawing your sword, aiming a bow, or recovering your axe swing takes a certain amount of Phases. The crucial thing to understand the difference between acting first, and completing first. Just because a character has a higher speed or reflexes means he'll beat the other player to the punch. Depending on what kind of action he is doing, it may take longer. All of thees actions are recorded in a non-ending fashion. All actions start at zero, and increment one by one. Every phase, you see if an action is completed, then it's resolved.

2. Overhauled Damage System without HP
In my ideal game, there are several forms of damage. You have Structural damage (damage to bones, muscles, ligaments), Neuromotor (paralyzing kind of damage, usually nervous system damage), Neurologic (getting dazed/stunned or knocked unconscious for example, and perhaps most importantly, pain), Critical (penetrating damage to crucial life support maintaining systems....ie damage to one of the major internal organs) and Support (things like blood loss or hunger which can be life threatening over time). There are also "secondary" damage forms of mental and physical fatigue as well as Neuroses.

Damage is calculated based on the person's Health or Willpower as well as their physical build. Instead of hit points, a cascading damage track is used based on the ratio of the character's attributes to the damage class of the weapon as well as the damage type of the weapon (for example, a blunt weapon is more likely to cause massive structural damage, while a piercing weapon is more likely to cause critical damage). There will be hit locations, and the hit location will also partially determine which damage form(s) are to be taken.

The damage track will degrade character performance depending on the damage form. This avoids the "I have 1 HP left out of 100, but fight as well as I ever did" as well as the "my character had 1 HP left, got hit in the big toe and keeled over."

3. The fear and confusion factor
Perhaps the most important element of fighting is being able to control your emotions as well as always being constantly aware of your surroundings. I'm tired of games that totally ignore the emotional and mental states of the character, assuming that the character, being the protagonist of the story should have no in-game repercussions for attempting any action no matter the possible consequences. In games, you don't think twice about making your character charge headlong into 20-1 odds. They do this on the assumption, "but it's what makes games cool...being able to rise above the traps of the mundane world". But in doing so, they have forgotten the cardinal rule of diminishing returns...."if everything is easy, it loses its appeal". Being heroic means pushing yourself to do something you don't want to do.

So there has to be a way to represent this in games. I posit having a limited pool of resources that you must allocate during combat. One of these is a Discipline Pool, and another is a Focus pool. All combat will generate stress levels that reduce the character's mental and emotional states (by a level according to their Willpower and Concentration attributes). SO when a character is under a heavy volume of suppression fire, this generates a stress level and therefore creates a negative reaction emotional state. If the emotional state isn't high enough, he can't even act period...simulating freezing up or hesitating. He can ovveride this by spending his Discipline Pool.

This also works the same way for mental states (awareness). Getting all emotional can have some emotional benefits...for example, getting angry at your friends dying all around you can make you get out from behind your cover to override the suppression fire. But all emotions ultimately narrow one's awareness. And being aware of one's surroundings is intimately tied into how well one can defend himself. The tighter your focus is, the more effective you become at whatever your focus is on, but consequently you become less effective at everything else...including defending yourself.

4. Different Attack modes
Melee combat should be based on several fundamental principles. In actual armed melee combat, there should be a differentiation in how the attack is made. For example, you can swing a sword, or thrust a sword. Thrusting does impaling damage while swinging does cutting damage. As I mentioned in the damage system this affects the amount and kind of damage done. Moreover, this has other ramifications. When you swing a sword, you generate more force...but this force is also acted on a greater area. Less penetration but greater surface damage area. Stabbing generates less force, but it has a higher penetration. It also has a higher chance of missing. Furthermore, swing attacks take longer to complete and are harder to recover from than a stabbing motion making them overall more slow.

There's a lot more I'd like to see, but I'm way too tired right now....

dang it, that was me posting that....

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster I would like the consumers to know that there's more than Final Fantasy and d20 type systems for roleplaying games. Come to think of it, I'd like game designers to do the same. Since we're just talking battle system here, I'll give you a brief rundown of my wants list. 1. Detailed Sequencing system: In my own game, I'm using an Master Phase Count system. Essentially, every action has a start time, and an end time. Different actions, like drawing your sword, aiming a bow, or recovering your axe swing takes a certain amount of Phases. The crucial thing to understand the difference between acting first, and completing first. Just because a character has a higher speed or reflexes means he'll beat the other player to the punch. Depending on what kind of action he is doing, it may take longer. All of thees actions are recorded in a non-ending fashion. All actions start at zero, and increment one by one. Every phase, you see if an action is completed, then it's resolved. 2. Overhauled Damage System without HP In my ideal game, there are several forms of damage. You have Structural damage (damage to bones, muscles, ligaments), Neuromotor (paralyzing kind of damage, usually nervous system damage), Neurologic (getting dazed/stunned or knocked unconscious for example, and perhaps most importantly, pain), Critical (penetrating damage to crucial life support maintaining systems....ie damage to one of the major internal organs) and Support (things like blood loss or hunger which can be life threatening over time). There are also "secondary" damage forms of mental and physical fatigue as well as Neuroses. Damage is calculated based on the person's Health or Willpower as well as their physical build. Instead of hit points, a cascading damage track is used based on the ratio of the character's attributes to the damage class of the weapon as well as the damage type of the weapon (for example, a blunt weapon is more likely to cause massive structural damage, while a piercing weapon is more likely to cause critical damage). There will be hit locations, and the hit location will also partially determine which damage form(s) are to be taken. The damage track will degrade character performance depending on the damage form. This avoids the "I have 1 HP left out of 100, but fight as well as I ever did" as well as the "my character had 1 HP left, got hit in the big toe and keeled over." 3. The fear and confusion factor Perhaps the most important element of fighting is being able to control your emotions as well as always being constantly aware of your surroundings. I'm tired of games that totally ignore the emotional and mental states of the character, assuming that the character, being the protagonist of the story should have no in-game repercussions for attempting any action no matter the possible consequences. In games, you don't think twice about making your character charge headlong into 20-1 odds. They do this on the assumption, "but it's what makes games cool...being able to rise above the traps of the mundane world". But in doing so, they have forgotten the cardinal rule of diminishing returns...."if everything is easy, it loses its appeal". Being heroic means pushing yourself to do something you don't want to do. So there has to be a way to represent this in games. I posit having a limited pool of resources that you must allocate during combat. One of these is a Discipline Pool, and another is a Focus pool. All combat will generate stress levels that reduce the character's mental and emotional states (by a level according to their Willpower and Concentration attributes). SO when a character is under a heavy volume of suppression fire, this generates a stress level and therefore creates a negative reaction emotional state. If the emotional state isn't high enough, he can't even act period...simulating freezing up or hesitating. He can ovveride this by spending his Discipline Pool. This also works the same way for mental states (awareness). Getting all emotional can have some emotional benefits...for example, getting angry at your friends dying all around you can make you get out from behind your cover to override the suppression fire. But all emotions ultimately narrow one's awareness. And being aware of one's surroundings is intimately tied into how well one can defend himself. The tighter your focus is, the more effective you become at whatever your focus is on, but consequently you become less effective at everything else...including defending yourself. 4. Different Attack modes Melee combat should be based on several fundamental principles. In actual armed melee combat, there should be a differentiation in how the attack is made. For example, you can swing a sword, or thrust a sword. Thrusting does impaling damage while swinging does cutting damage. As I mentioned in the damage system this affects the amount and kind of damage done. Moreover, this has other ramifications. When you swing a sword, you generate more force...but this force is also acted on a greater area. Less penetration but greater surface damage area. Stabbing generates less force, but it has a higher penetration. It also has a higher chance of missing. Furthermore, swing attacks take longer to complete and are harder to recover from than a stabbing motion making them overall more slow. There's a lot more I'd like to see, but I'm way too tired right now....

i like it. quite reality based. only with so many numbers, so man things to deal with and so many things to think about while playing the game. everything is crucial.

...skipping the above posts for time...

Well, in the more classical style, such as FF or Chronotrigger, I'd go with something like Chronotrigger, but easier to grasp. I liked how units moved around, and where they were affected tactics.

In the modern sense, that really depends on the game. D&D provides a basic model, but if you're using a computer, you can definitely improve on anything pen and paper has to offer. Your system should (obviously) reflect your world, and should never have a steep learning curve. It can be complex, but it should be easy to pick up on at first. In-depth tactics can always come later.

The key thing I'd look for in a combat system is to keep player choices meaningful...





For example (skip ahead if you've read my FF rant before) FF games have a combat system where the outcome of combat is usually determined by the decisions you made in the game menus outside combat rather than in decisions made during combat, to the extent that it is literally possible to just rig up your controller so that your character is left running into a wall, tape down the X button and come back a couple of days later once your characters are at maximum level... In other words, you can play a major portion of the game competently without even being there! [/rant]





If the player is in a situation of not needing to make decisions in order to win battles, then you shouldn't be requiring any player input either.





Conversely, if you have a situation where the player has to provide input, there should be a requirement for either decisions, or skill of some description...

I think the big thing is though, to what degree are you going to have the player control the game?

Are they going to control all aspects of it like striking, parrying, dodging? In which case what kind of attacks should be allowed? Just one preset attack or numerous attacks?

I think the thing we have to remember is that we can't make a game that is realistic but is too hard to play or a game that is easy to play but is way to unrealistic. I think that there is a really thin line there that we have to be careful of.

Quote:

3. The fear and confusion factor

Wonderful. I've been wondering where this has been in every game since the 1980s...

In general, I like Dauntless' ideas, some seem a little over-complicated-realistic, but mostly very sound.

I can say some of that stuff has been on my list of things to do as well, particularly what I quoted.

It iffs me that a character is completely emotionless during combat, though perhaps, that is why they are the hero?


...nah..

Skies of Arcadia can be seen as a system that took many experimental ideas from other games and combined them. Damage depends on what 'Color' your weapon is and the Color of the enemy. Characters change positions based on the attacks they use, and you can line up multiple enemies to increase the effectiveness of a single attack. The player has to be far more active than in other RPGs.