Hello,

For a Tactical - RPG game, I wanted to add a system using stamina. I would like to hear your opinion.

- Each character has a amount of stamina.
- At the beginning of his turn the character regain some of his stamina. The amount of stamina recovered depends on the previous situation the character is in. If he is surrounded by enemies, he will regain less Stamina, than a character who is safe.
- Each action cost a certain amount of stamina.
- The stamina is taken into account for most calculus. (for example : damage = Force * stamina)
- When a character take a hit and is about to die because of it, he has a chance to use a large amount of stamina to evade the attack or reduce the impact of the attack. If the evasion don't work, he die. If it work he is safe but exhausted.
- When a character is hit, he lose some hp and stamina.
- A character can burn more stamina to perform some action (a supplementary action, a special action)

- A character can burn its stamina max to be as effective as if he was at full stamina for one turn. Afterward, he will lose his stamina max, and lose a lot of stamina. (Something like, 1/10 stamina left, and stamina max = 5) It's only for the duration of the fight.

- Your maximum stamina depends on your health state. An injured character has only 60% of his stamina max.

And there is the analyse I made for this system.

The + of this system :

- No more over-powerful unit, if he is tired, he became as weak as anybody.

- You have to take care of your character, they are more fragile.

- More comeback possibilities. "Ok, I'm cornered, I will go all out and burn all of my characters stamina to perform a big offensive!"

The - of this system :

- Slower. They may be situation where you'd rather wait that all your characters have full stamina before moving.
- No more over-powerful unit. Even against weaker enemies, you can exhaust your more powerful character. And render him useless.

Thank you for reading.

It seems to limit the character too much. Make the "stamina" mechanic a bit simpler and allow the player to switch it "on" or "off". :)

Source: I'm not a huge fan of limited stamina in games.

Allowing the player to switch it on or off, is totally out of question. Either this feature is implemented, or not. It would be too unbalanced to have some characters with it and some other without.

Maybe I didn't explain it well. There, some added information.

- The recovery rate is sufficient to recover from a move and a simple action. (attack, use item) So, if a character is always doing basic action, he doesn't need to take care of his stamina. The amount of stamina should be enough to not run-out after only 2 turns. I think having the characters for the most time with around 60%-80% stamina in safe situation, and more around 30%-50 in dangerous situation.

- Some actions cost more stamina than other, if a character always use his most powerful spell, he will quickly ran out of stamina.

- It allows the player to make some mistake by giving him an extra-chance.

- It adds more fragility to the characters, thus encouraging player to play safe and in team (by covering exhausting character with "fresh" characters.)

- It also allow the player to make risky, extraordinary actions.

- It also penalize player who are rushing alone. (I remember final fantasy tactics, where I just had to place my main character with a counter attack on the middle of the map, and the enemie's unit where just killed one by one.)

To make it simpler, well, it's just like a mana (magic) bar, but which is influencing other characteristics and the result of actions.

I disagree that it limits the character at all. In fact it could be a big differentiator between characters and tactics. For instance you might have a character that hits hard but goes through stamina quickly VS a high stamina character that does less damage and can be used for quick strikes, or to draw attention.

I like the idea of each action requiring an amount of stamina to act. It gives you the choice to blow through your stamina trying to overwhelm your opponent at the risk of burning out, or playing it more cautiously to preserve stamina and win a drawn out battle.

It also forces you to read the opponent's tactics a bit, so if they are playing a high stamina game, it might be better to withdraw, save your stamina and counter hard when they are tired.

Allowing the player to switch it on or off, is totally out of question. Either this feature is implemented, or not. It would be too unbalanced to have some characters with it and some other without.

I never said to leave some characters with it on and some off. I meant to leave all characters with it on or it off. The stamina feature could be used for more experienced players.

So there are a few reasons I don't like it:

1. I have played simple limited stamina games before and didn't like it.
2. It limits the player's ability so much here, and is such an important aspect of the game, that it becomes unrealistic to me.
3. If I had an injured character, I would want to do a full strike. I would not want to be limited. I would rather you boosted injured players, because they know they are injured and want to get the battle over quickly.

But maybe I'm not being helpful. In which case, I will withdraw from this thread and pretend none of this ever happened :).

The + of this system :

- No more over-powerful unit, if he is tired, he became as weak as anybody.

- You have to take care of your character, they are more fragile.

- More comeback possibilities. "Ok, I'm cornered, I will go all out and burn all of my characters stamina to perform a big offensive!"

The - of this system :

- Slower. They may be situation where you'd rather wait that all your characters have full stamina before moving.
- No more over-powerful unit. Even against weaker enemies, you can exhaust your more powerful character. And render him useless.

I understand the slower part, Hybrid Heaven as my point of reference was basically a stand around charging game. But most games need something to slow down the action. Tactical games give players more time to think if it's close to real time.

These pros and cons, I'm not sure how you concluded most of them. All you have given is an idea, it needs context.

From my experience, no powerful character is viewed uninteresting. At the very least, even in board games, one hero exists, the one wildcard that potentially decides a close game. More context could help.

So, if I understood correctly your point. You feel like there is too big of a limitation with this system.

I would like to know where do you feel limited? Do you fear that the player has to wait before acting? it's not you being unhelpful, but I don't see completely your point as I have the impression of having already answered your point :)

1. I have played simple limited stamina games before and didn't like it.

Can you give me some examples?

2. It limits the player's ability so much here, and is such an important aspect of the game, that it becomes unrealistic to me.

As I said, the character shouldn't run out of stamina easily, except if he is in a dangerous situation. For example, surrounded by enemy, his defense/evasion cost him a lot of stamina. And well, in real life, after some hours of fighting I guess you are tired, and less effective ^^

3. If I had an injured character, I would want to do a full strike. I would not want to be limited. I would rather you boosted injured players, because they know they are injured and want to get the battle over quickly.

It is possible, as I explained, you can go out of a dangerous situation by using up a huge part of your stamina in order to be as effective as if your were with full stamina. however, it's only for a short period, and after that, your max stamina is diminished. You can compare it to a last "baroud d'honneur", your character has nothing to lose, so he go all-out, and either die or succeed.

And of course you don't have to withdraw from this thread if you don't want to. But I guess, my vision of a Tactical-RPG is quite different from yours, mine seems a little bit more complex. But if there is some flaws, I would gladly hear them :)

So, if I understood correctly your point. You feel like there is too big of a limitation with this system.

Yes.

I would like to know where do you feel limited?

The composition as a whole. Too many factors. The more mechanics you take away from the stamina feature, the more I will tend to like it.

Can you give me some examples?

You're going to laugh when you hear this but... Madden. There is player stamina/fatigue, which you can't actually see the values to, as well as an option to turn it off.

The two games I think your game should follow are Madden, which I mentioned, and Fire Emblem 3DS, in which I believe the game plays a little differently for experienced players if they choose that option. You can make it like both these games and cater to gamers like me if you give players the option of not having limited stamina and having it on for more experienced players if they so choose.

. More context could help.

True, I didn't talk about the context at all.

I guess to explain it fully should start a new thread, but there is some more information about the context. (I won't talk about the story, because not really the point here) I will expose the main features. Of course, nothing is certain and can change. But my goal with this thread is to have some feedback and opinions about the rules I would like to implement. And also just discuss about game rules :)

- It's a tactical-rpg with sword, gun (musket-like) and magic.
- The player control between 4 and 10 characters.
- Each character has characteristics (strength, dexterity, constitution, ...) , class (Mage, Swordman, Gunner, ...) and skills (Fire affinity, markmanship, sword mastery, ...)
- The order in which character are playing is determined by characteristics and is dynamic. If you are hit, you lose one place in the fight order.
- During its turn, a character can do 2 simple action (moving, attacking, using item, reloading weapon, ...), or 1 complex action (healing (not magicaly), cast a powerful spell, ...)
- As additional rules I picked up two rules from D&D, the opportunity attack (if you move next to an enemy, he can freely attack you) and the engagement (if you are engaged for exemple fighting an enemy), you can't use a long-distance weapon, and some actions can give your enemy a chance to attack freely (using an item, reloading, ...)
- And, inspired from the Valkyria Chronicles games, you can place some characters (with long-distance weapon/magic) to "be ready" and they will shoot any enemy in range.

I think it should suffice to understand in which context I want to implement the stamina system. But don't hesitate to ask if you have some more questions :)

I'm currently working on the conception and technical research for this project.

Too complex and overall not needed. I would drop it and stick to AP.

The greates stamina system that worked was in Dungeon Master, it was a limit not to combat but to weapons you use (heavy weapons used a lot of stamina while using light weapons meant you could ignore stamina). Note it was not a tactical wargame nor turn based.

Overall, I find stamina pretty useless/redundant in turn based tactics, you have AP already and these at least partially overlap.