Maybe if it just for your family make it a split screen? Nowadays screens are big and you can easily connect 4 or even more gamepads to PC, which might result in a very unique and enjoyagle gameplay (and since it is arcade it is player skill based mostly).

Are you willing to inroduce arcade elements (that's the easiest and most obvious solution to making a game skill based) or do you want it purely "brain-tactical"?

Are you able to gather all players in front of one computer (this would allow you some very unique options)?

How many players will there be total (this affect the game design drasticly)?

The issue is, eventually with even the lowest form of progression, your character is gaining power. There could be some point, more than likely, where you could strip your character naked and jump into a pit of 50 of the weakest mobs in the game and flutter around like an imbecile taking every one of them out with ease.

Sure, but that's like saying if you gather every penny you find and put them in a pot, eventually you can buy a car. I wouldn't rule out any form of progression because some player who invested 20 hours can jump in a pack of low level rats and survive. What I'm saying is if you feel the game could benefit from progression, but don't want it because it creates weird situations, then there are ways to tone its effects down.

For example, a roguelike idea I had where I wanted progression to be low, there were no levels, but shrines. Activating a shrine would give you +1 to a stat of your choice, +1 to 3 random stats and -1 to the other 3 stats(7 stats total) for a net effect of +1 total stat. To get the shrine, you have to beat a pack of monsters that could rip your head off easily and then hope the RNG doesn't mess up your stats. It's pure player torture since you almost need these shrines to beat the game, but risk dieing every time you attempt one. From a gameplay point of view, they provide a permanent reward for a high risk activity which makes player feel good when they succeed.

If you really want to drop it, create interesting encounters that act as gatekeepers. Something like you need to find a way to beat these 3 ogres to go to the next level. They would be equivalent to puzzles where you have to solve them using the game mechanics. Learning obscure mechanics can motivate players to replay the game.

[quote name='Mythics' timestamp='1326818762' post='4903674']
The issue is, eventually with even the lowest form of progression, your character is gaining power. There could be some point, more than likely, where you could strip your character naked and jump into a pit of 50 of the weakest mobs in the game and flutter around like an imbecile taking every one of them out with ease.

Sure, but that's like saying if you gather every penny you find and put them in a pot, eventually you can buy a car. I wouldn't rule out any form of progression because some player who invested 20 hours can jump in a pack of low level rats and survive. What I'm saying is if you feel the game could benefit from progression, but don't want it because it creates weird situations, then there are ways to tone its effects down.
[/quote]


That's the thing I think. I rather dislike character progression myself. I only ever see it as a carrot on a stick. Your stats go up meaning you can then go to new areas to kill things with stats to match. So, while some might love for there to be character progression in this game of mine, I would prefer to wow them a bit by not including it and having something like immensely strategic combat in it's place. I just figured I could supplement the strategy with something else to ensure that wow factor.

If you really want to drop it, create interesting encounters that act as gatekeepers. Something like you need to find a way to beat these 3 ogres to go to the next level. They would be equivalent to puzzles where you have to solve them using the game mechanics. Learning obscure mechanics can motivate players to replay the game.

The entire game in it's current state would be quite like this. Simply moving from one room to another is a risky venture where every combat situation is in itself a puzzle of sorts using the game mechanics and your own person play style you've chosen to try out. I just worry that this in itself will not be enough to keep a player's attention long term. Not that the game need to last more than 10 minutes even, but I would love to have the interest in the game keep someone playing for a longer period of time.

Maybe if it just for your family make it a split screen? Nowadays screens are big and you can easily connect 4 or even more gamepads to PC, which might result in a very unique and enjoyagle gameplay (and since it is arcade it is player skill based mostly).

Are you willing to inroduce arcade elements (that's the easiest and most obvious solution to making a game skill based) or do you want it purely "brain-tactical"?

Are you able to gather all players in front of one computer (this would allow you some very unique options)?

How many players will there be total (this affect the game design drasticly)?

As it's for friends and family alike, I'd greatly prefer to have multiple clients and a server rather than split screen. It would be quite difficult for me to get everyone I'm hoping to have play in the game all at once, let alone in the same room.

I am pretty closed minded in certain aspects, but without an example or two I couldn't honestly answer how I'd feel about arcade elements. What exactly do you mean by arcade elements?

I hope to have the game scale in difficulty from 1 player up to about 4. I could see 6 being doable still, but anything more than that would start getting a little silly I think.

It's stunning to see how much perception differs. In my view, roguelike games are 100% player skill. They may not be if you stay at the first 2-3 levels, but beyond that, it's player skill or die.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with a rat dropping dead when you sneeze at it (or, somewhat more realistic, if you step on it with your foot). Nor is there anything wrong if a goblin snuffs it if you kick him once in the face.

But, there is also nothing wrong with 5 goblins teaming up against you if you are more than 5 levels higher. One of them could be backstabbing you, if you are, say, more than 8 levels higher. That's what somehow intelligent goblins would do if it were real, too. On the other hand, attacking you one by one while you are lower level is also realistic. If an opponent is obviously weak, one does take higher risks and does not bother to employ group tactics.

If the game has many-to-one mechanics (such as e.g. each additional attacker = +1 effective level) and backstab mechanics, such thing will work. And yes, you can still kill each of them with one hit.

Rats could randomly give you disease irrespective of level, which makes attacking them unattractive as you advance, avoiding the problem alltogether. If attacking them is not attractive (which level 500 hero would want to admit having died to disease from a level 1 rat?), you don't even notice that you kill them in one hit, because you never do.

Guess I messed up pretty big in having RPG/Roguelike in the title. It would seem the question is irrelevant if no one can get past the idea of no character progression.

How do people enjoy playing something like Chess more than one game in a row if their pieces don't get new abilities?
What keeps you going in Super Mario Brothers if killing turtles is just as difficult on World 1 as it is on World 8?

What drives a game that isn't about collecting items, making your character stronger, or other progression based systems?

Is it all about the level? Making it to level 10/20/30? Is it about the score you earned in comparison to your last play through or your friend? etc

Chess is about an even battle between 2 players who each have hundreds of possible moves at any point during the game. What makes it interesting is the huge number of possible moves our inability to analyze them all.

Mario is about having good timing and reflexes. Players find it fun because they see their skill level go up as they progress in the game and need precise timing of their jumps.

The thing with RPGs and character progression is they usually come together. RPGs are usually simple. You have some choices, but it boils down to 1~3 obvious choices. This gets boring after a while because the outcome is determined by the stats and RNG, not the player's ability to analyze complex situations or the player's ability to time button presses. To compensate, the player is given rewards in the form of items and level ups. Take any roguelike and remove loot and levels. This would be a very boring game.

If your game has the complexity of chess, then you could do without any form of character progression. You provided complex turn examples, but that doesn't mean the game has the complexity of chess. When the player understands the game mechanics, if he's left with an obvious action chain, it becomes as simple as a roguelike where all you do is mash the direction key until that "k" disappears, but with extra tedium thrown in. If there are still lots of interesting things you can do at that point, the game should stay fresh. This could be by having a bunch of flow changing abilities, using the environment during combat or something else that prevents having an optimal action chain at any point.

Chess is about an even battle between 2 players who each have hundreds of possible moves at any point during the game. What makes it interesting is the huge number of possible moves our inability to analyze them all.

Mario is about having good timing and reflexes. Players find it fun because they see their skill level go up as they progress in the game and need precise timing of their jumps.

The thing with RPGs and character progression is they usually come together. RPGs are usually simple. You have some choices, but it boils down to 1~3 obvious choices. This gets boring after a while because the outcome is determined by the stats and RNG, not the player's ability to analyze complex situations or the player's ability to time button presses. To compensate, the player is given rewards in the form of items and level ups. Take any roguelike and remove loot and levels. This would be a very boring game.

If your game has the complexity of chess, then you could do without any form of character progression. You provided complex turn examples, but that doesn't mean the game has the complexity of chess. When the player understands the game mechanics, if he's left with an obvious action chain, it becomes as simple as a roguelike where all you do is mash the direction key until that "k" disappears, but with extra tedium thrown in. If there are still lots of interesting things you can do at that point, the game should stay fresh. This could be by having a bunch of flow changing abilities, using the environment during combat or something else that prevents having an optimal action chain at any point.

Thank you very much. It may simply be how I needed it explained, but either way this helped me quite a bit.

I'm pretty confident that my game at it's current stage would barely compete with the intricacies of tic-tac-toe, let alone chess. I'm constantly trying to add to it's complexity while also keeping it very simple to understand/use.

The examples of flow changing abilities and environment are exactly what I was looking for. I'll more than likely start trying to consider the environment as my next big challenge once more bugs get squished. Thanks for the pointers.

If anyone else has any good ideas on how to expand on this, please feel free to let me know

Chess is about an even battle between 2 players who each have hundreds of possible moves at any point during the game. What makes it interesting is the huge number of possible moves our inability to analyze them all.

Mario is about having good timing and reflexes. Players find it fun because they see their skill level go up as they progress in the game and need precise timing of their jumps.

The thing with RPGs and character progression is they usually come together. RPGs are usually simple. You have some choices, but it boils down to 1~3 obvious choices. This gets boring after a while because the outcome is determined by the stats and RNG, not the player's ability to analyze complex situations or the player's ability to time button presses. To compensate, the player is given rewards in the form of items and level ups. Take any roguelike and remove loot and levels. This would be a very boring game.

If your game has the complexity of chess, then you could do without any form of character progression. You provided complex turn examples, but that doesn't mean the game has the complexity of chess. When the player understands the game mechanics, if he's left with an obvious action chain, it becomes as simple as a roguelike where all you do is mash the direction key until that "k" disappears, but with extra tedium thrown in. If there are still lots of interesting things you can do at that point, the game should stay fresh. This could be by having a bunch of flow changing abilities, using the environment during combat or something else that prevents having an optimal action chain at any point.

Now that is a fantastic post.

Maybe I'm off-topic now and I apologize for that, but you could also analyze Street Fighter along these lines, because it's theoretically simple to pick up and play, but complexity is soon discovered as players refine their timing, combos, etc. However, there are no level-ups. Ryu is Ryu no matter how long you have been playing.

You could also contrast Borderlands to Quake, because in Quake, the only way to advance is to pick up better weapons, armor, and items, which you can also lose just as easily. In Borderlands, you do all that, but all that equipment can also advance, and you also earn money from missions and loot on the ground. The rewards were frequent, but with such a large, free-roaming, geographically spread out game as Borderlands, it would've been really boring without all that. Just as if it were a rogue-like.

Maybe I'm off-topic now and I apologize for that, but you could also analyze Street Fighter along these lines, because it's theoretically simple to pick up and play, but complexity is soon discovered as players refine their timing, combos, etc. However, there are no level-ups. Ryu is Ryu no matter how long you have been playing.

Street Fighter and competitive games are replayed because of the competition. It's much more satisfying to beat a human opponent than some brainless AI. As long as the players still have interesting choices in how they play, they will come back. If it becomes a competition of who can use a single feature of the game the best, then it becomes boring.

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]

How would you go about putting skill in the hands of the player rather than the character in a RPG/Roguelike?

[/font][/quote]
You shift the focus of your thinking from the action/button-mashing pov to some other pov. Tabletop RPGs have never been about action, rather the fun was in the dialogues (roleplaying) and in calculating the odds of successfully beating the mob. If you judge RPGs from an FPS/TPS pov they will always lack the action elements and seem boring, because as you said: whether you win or lose is determined not by your skill but rather by what skills the character has. You should look at it from the pov of deciding what is the best way to grow your character to complete the game, trying to make strategic decisions on how to build the character, rather than randomly piling up skills.