Advertisement

RPG Mechanics

Started by April 14, 2015 04:46 PM
25 comments, last by Thaumaturge 9 years, 8 months ago

If that original diagram contained the Pokemon games then there would be at least one with no loot.

Unless you count capturing the Pokemon as loot...

Anyway, the main thought that struck me is that if you have a class system that determines some attributes like caps and so on at the beginning, maybe don't have an exp system where what skills you use get more exp. It seems like you only need one of those two systems, having both does not (to me at least) seem to add anything to the game-play. Either pick a class at the beginning, or focus on a play type that will indirectly determine your class. Maybe I'm missing something though.

I did not imply that I knew what would be wrong with this balancing, just that you would figure it out as you go. In essence, trying to balance this early is impossible. There's a theoretical foundation to game balancing, but it needs to stand the test of actual playtesting.

I wouldn't focus too much on numbers for now, they get in the way of what you're trying to convey.

I can definitely agree with that. smile.png

If that original diagram contained the Pokemon games then there would be at least one with no loot.

Unless you count capturing the Pokemon as loot...

Haha...no, but you actually get literal loot (money) from the trainers you beat. If you're talking about Pokemon Colosseum though, that's a different story.


Anyway, the main thought that struck me is that if you have a class system that determines some attributes like caps and so on at the beginning, maybe don't have an exp system where what skills you use get more exp. It seems like you only need one of those two systems, having both does not (to me at least) seem to add anything to the game-play. Either pick a class at the beginning, or focus on a play type that will indirectly determine your class. Maybe I'm missing something though.

No, you're not missing anything. That's perfectly reasonable. I'm leaning toward just picking a class at the beginning. No need to complicate things in the early stages. I realize that now. If a mage has strong spells but weak physical attacks, then it really would be ridiculous to use a melee weapon. I don't know what I was thinking before.

Advertisement


. It's an Olympic-style game that's held annually to demonstrate the strategic abilities of the seven nations. Also, it serves a sort of diplomatic purpose to maintain good relations with the other countries. The purpose that drives the contestants is to represent their home nations well in the competition. I'll have to give each main character a unique goal as I continue development.
There's an obvious divide between a game in which the goal is winning the Games and design choices lean towards a fair strategy game (custom-built arbitrary characters, evenly matched resources and conditions, etc.) and a more traditional plot where "each main character a unique goal" and there are main characters to begin with and design choices lean towards a challenging and engaging journey (tight control of the difficulty of uneven battles, adjustment of resources according to contingencies). It seems you are trying to do two different things at the same time.

Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru


. It's an Olympic-style game that's held annually to demonstrate the strategic abilities of the seven nations. Also, it serves a sort of diplomatic purpose to maintain good relations with the other countries. The purpose that drives the contestants is to represent their home nations well in the competition. I'll have to give each main character a unique goal as I continue development.
There's an obvious divide between a game in which the goal is winning the Games and design choices lean towards a fair strategy game (custom-built arbitrary characters, evenly matched resources and conditions, etc.) and a more traditional plot where "each main character a unique goal" and there are main characters to begin with and design choices lean towards a challenging and engaging journey (tight control of the difficulty of uneven battles, adjustment of resources according to contingencies). It seems you are trying to do two different things at the same time.

You'll have to explain a bit more about the divide you mention (I don't really understand what you mean). Someone mentioned earlier that it would be beneficial to have plot-relevant characters, so I've begun to trek down that path. The goal of the game is to win, of course, but each character needs to have a personal reason for wanting to participate. Otherwise, there wouldn't really be a story (I don't think there would be one, anyway). That aspect is there so that players might care about the characters in the game, and help them achieve their goals.

On both sides, the point of the competition is that it is unbalanced. So for that reason, strategies need to be used by the player to tactically earn coins throughout the game. For instance, if the player encounters a party that is obviously stronger, then battle might be ruled out. In that situation, the player can choose to use stealth (follow the party without being discovered, wait for them fall asleep, search for where they hid the coins). I don't know.


My goal is to create a very standard, single-player turn-based RPG.

...

Any feedback would be appreciated!

then just make a computerized version of classic edition tabletop d&d rules and be done with it.

RPGs are about role playing - being someone else in some other world. To do that you need to simulate a world to play in. So you need to model how everything in the world works - combat, experience, magic, etc. Game mechanics are how one models these things. Modeling in simulations can be accurate or inaccurate. Which leads to game mechanics that are realistic and make sense, or game mechanics which seem contrived. Game mechanics are merely a way to simulate things in the world. As PCs become more powerful, the fidelity of such simulations can be increased. Now there's enough processor power for realtime combat. turn based simulation is no longer necessary. So turn based is not required, in fact its a sub-optimal game mechanic (way of modeling time in combat), which you only had to settle for when the PC couldn't do realtime combat, or when you were playing a tabletop rpg where realtime combat can't really be modeled at all - except as a turn based approximation of what you're trying to simulate.

loot - most rpg's model treasure / money in some form.

XP - most rpg's model the gaining of knowledge, skill , and experience over time. various means of modeling this include general xp, skill specific xp, classes, levels, and skills.

some games have classes, some have skills, some have both. some have xp, some have levels, some have both.

Story is not required in an RPG. the player actions define the story. any storyline in the game is basically an optional or mandatory quest.

Acting - the idea in role playing is to give the player the opportunity to behave as their character would. Whether they choose to do this is up to them. As dungeon master, its your job to set the stage and present the situation, its the player's job to act accordingly to their character.

(FYI: i've been playing RPG's for 38 years, and have been a ref and DM for 37 years).

Turn based battles - a less accurate way of modeling realtime combat, which is no longer necessary given the power of today's PCs.

Party - common, but purely optional.

Lone hero - do they mean "hard coded protagonist" (you play mario, and only mario, every time) or "no other party members" (character creation, but no henchmen).

as part of "role playing", its common to let the payer choose the role they wish to play. this leads to things like classes, or specialization in specific skills (like magic, sword, SMG, Communications, Heavy Weapons, or stealth) that let the player customize their character. other ways its done is letting them choose from a fixed set of hard coded characters, or no choice (in Zelda, you play Link!).

Exploration - pretty much all RPGs have this. You can't go places in the world without exploring (except for stuff like fast travel between hold capitals in skyrim). a typical dungeon romp includes exploration, even if you've cleaned out the dungeon before, you still need to explore it again to find new badguys that have re-populated it.

arena combat might be the only place where you don't explore. but then again, an arena combat only game might not even be considered a RPG.

you've determined your setting already:

"the seven countries of the world (each based on a particular element)."

it looks like you've opted for a mandatory main quest:

"the player's goal is to form a party and collect the most coins within 90 days"

now all you need to do is decide what you want to model in your world, and how to model it (select a mechanic).

the key is to remember that game mechanics are means of modeling things in a simulation. not an ends in themselves.

if you want a better model, lose arbitrary things like turn based, classes, and levels, and go with more accurate continuous (vs discreet) modeling such as realtime, skills, and xp in specific skills.

for some strange reason, folks seem to think that games are about game mechanics. and that good mechanics makes a good game, and if only i can find the right combo of game mechanics i'll have the next big hit.

games are simulations, good simulations (of something the player wants to do) make good games.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1989"

rocklandsoftware.net

PLAY CAVEMAN NOW!

http://rocklandsoftware.net/beta.php

re: items

check out the book "medieval arms and armor" if you can find it. it was about 3 inches thick and written in the 1960's.

a quick check of amazon only revealed late model light weight BS titles.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1989"

rocklandsoftware.net

PLAY CAVEMAN NOW!

http://rocklandsoftware.net/beta.php

Advertisement

So turn based is not required, in fact its a sub-optimal game mechanic (way of modeling time in combat), which you only had to settle for when the PC couldn't do realtime combat, or when you were playing a tabletop rpg where realtime combat can't really be modeled at all - except as a turn based approximation of what you're trying to simulate.

I disagree: there seem to be plenty of people who prefer turn-based combat, and thus a real-time system isn't necessarily better. I imagine that the main divide is whether the player prefers a tactical experience (in which case turn-based or real-time-with-pause is probably better than real-time) or an action-based experience (in which case real-time is probably preferable to turn-based or real-time-with-pause).


if you want a better model, lose arbitrary things like turn based, classes, and levels, and go with more accurate continuous (vs discreet) modeling such as realtime, skills, and xp in specific skills.

Similarly, I'm not convinced that continuous models are necessarily better than discrete ones; different, yes, and preferable to some, yes, but not universally better. Indeed, one truism of game-design, I believe, is that increasing realism doesn't necessarily increase enjoyment or engagement.


then just make a computerized version of classic edition tabletop d&d rules and be done with it.

The D&D system may be overkill in this case, but it is admittedly one possible source for mechanics.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

My Twitter Account: @EbornIan

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement