Hi

Making a retro RPG game influenced by Darkest Dungeon, Battle brothers, XCOM etc.

You manage a group of heroes on an adventure. Visit dungeons and towns, collect loot etc.

Most hero classes can use different weapon types so you can choose what to equip from your looted/bought items.

Combat is turn-based, randomly generated groups of enemies on a grid. (see pic)

Right now ALL attacks/skills hit (there is no percentage). All missiles and magic attacks as well. Both for heroes and monsters.

There is no hero stat to affect % either. Typically you would have approx 90 % to hit with a sword (and less maybe 50-70% to hit with ranged attacks) in these kind of games.

Im not sure if I want to include it (to hit chance). Some pros and cons I can see:

(Include "to hit chance" in the game)----------------------------

It feels more realistic

It can add variety to weapons and skills (some deal less damage but has higher to hit)

It adds complexity to heroes/stats (this can also be bad)

(Do not use "to hit chance" in the game)--------------------------------

It streamlines games, make them more direct, less wasted turns where your units just miss

It removes some luck and makes it feel more skill-based (your action counts more)

It simplifies interface

More gameplay effects if including/skipping to-hit chance? Dont agree? Other input?

Thanks!

Well, you can't please everybody with the RPG you're making. I personally would prefer there being hit chance because it offers more complexity but i'm the kind of player who wants as much complexity as possible in games. It really depends what kind of audience you want. Do you want to make the game for players who want realism and complexity or players who want a simpler less luck based experience? There are probably more people who want a simpler game, since most people don't have a lot of time to play games. It probably matters most what you want. What kind of game do you want to play? Do you feel like the game needs to be more real and complex or more simple?

Im not sure what i want:) This is why im asking for more input. Do you guys agree on my pros and cons? Is there more?

You could always try implementing both systems and see how they feel. Sometimes actually testing things out gives best results. You also can have both systems in the game at the same time. Some weapons have hit chance and some weapons always hit. The weapons that have a hit chance could do more damage.

I say keep it out. I like games with and without random chances of success. But games with random elements are more common, and many times players complain endlessly about the random numbers they get causing their failures. The new Xcom games actually do a silly amount of under the covers stuff to make the game feel more fair, mostly because players are really bad at percentages and chances. By not using percentages, you can avoid that kind of dev time, and concentrate on designing the game without it from the ground up. I think it will help your game feel more unique, and strategic.

If you've planned and balanced you're game carefully then you know that if a player has played the game well and gotten to any particular point in your game then it is likely he has certain stats and equipment. Given those stats and equipment are necessary to be at a particular point, you know what kind of encounters to throw at the player to provide a challenging but not impossible experience. Which means that the random element isn't actually there anyways.

Personally, I prefer to feel as though my actions count more. I say, remove the element of chance and force the player to plan his actions more.

all your 'cons" might be considered 'pros" in some peoples minds. this is because the definition of "good gameplay" is an opinion, not a fact. twitch game players might think skill based is more important than the additional realism of random chance in combat, for example.

so the two big questions would be:

1. what do the players of such games expect? random or not?

2. what you YOU want to build? random or not?

note that random chance is a good mechanism for implementing combat abilities that increase over the course of gameplay by leveling up, etc.

No the "Cons" are not cons to the game (confusingly expressed i admit).

Its cons to the idea of rand to hit itself.

Edited first post for clarity.

1. Why is random chance mechanics better for skills that develop as the heroes level up?

2. I might make all weapons always hit, and reintroduce critical damage for SOME weapons to make them stand out. I dont want crits generally in the game anymore, but it might be just for some weapons/skills. This adds randomness without adding "wasted turns" where you just miss.

3. Having "to hit" might make more sense on ranged attacks. This can also fix the issue of ranged weapons in close combat: you can still shoot your bow in close combat but with much lower % to hit. So maybe only on ranged attacks? And make melee attacks always hit? This is used in XCOM for example (although that game has a focus on ranged weapons).

I think it is something very very subjective (for the player). I like the both, for instance.

What about give the player the choice? A config flag like "Hit Always" ? And maybe a constant factor to reduce the damage (if I hit everytime maybe a can make only 4 of 8 damage with a weapon; when I have to pass a to hit check I can blow full 8 damage).

This is something like a d&d (table) rule in which you can choose to throw damage dice or using a fixed value everytime (half the max damage).

FWIW In the games you've mentioned that I've played I've modded out "chance to hit".