Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
FUNDAMENTAL RPGOLOGY THREAD
Posts
karins_soulkeeper
View playlists
CloseHmm? PyWeek? Mind if I ask what that is?
Sounds interesting :3
Yeah, the thread died pretty quick. And that started after you announced the winners, apparently.
Sounds interesting :3
Yeah, the thread died pretty quick. And that started after you announced the winners, apparently.
I apologize for entirely forgetting to try and keep discussion in this thread going - because I feel there is still a lot to talk about and this thread should by no means die already. We have finished our "experimenting phase" and examinated the results, but now we should draw more conclusions and try to develop new things based on what we found. Hasvers has already done so by creating his prototype (which I haven't had the time to play yet, shame on me, but I'll try it out later). I think it would be a worthwhile idea to keep discussing and presenting concepts of battle systems here, even now that the official event has ended.
Let me just start with this:
The original emphasis of the RPGology event was on reexamining the concept of damage over time/per round in RPG battles. We did that, and came to different results. However, damage over time is not the only core component of RPG battles, which is why I think we should think about other design aspects as well.
One important component of games (especially more complex games) that has always fascinated me is the existence of rules, and their manipulation. What I mean by that is that we usually have certain "laws" that determine how a game is set up to work, but at the same time the dynamics of the game are enabled through exceptions from these very rules. This applies to board games, card games and of course video games. For example, in The Settlers of Catan, building roads always costs a certain amount of ressources - except if you use a specific card, which allows you to build two roads for free. Similarly, in some RPG Maker games I've played, using a potion will usually replenish a fixed amount of HP - except when they are used by a certain character class, which results in the doubling of the healing effect.
Passive traits, resistances, states and additional effects (for example environmental effects, special boss fight rules, etc. etc.) are all ways to manipulate the ruleset of the game and force the player to adjust their strategy accordingly. These in-game exceptions from or expansions on previously universal laws of the game can, if used well, make a game feel truly unique and engaging. If not used well, they can make a game horribly imbalanced or even plain boring. But fact is, rule manipulation is a powerful source for mechanics in RPG battles.
A few days ago, the RPGology discussion inspired me to make up my own concept for a possible battle system that takes this "rule manupulation" one step further (although I currently don't have the time to actually program it). But I would rather like to hear other people's stances on the general topic. In fact, I think we should try to identify and develop more possible core aspects of battle systems together and come up with ways to expand them or make them more interesting. What do you think?
Let me just start with this:
The original emphasis of the RPGology event was on reexamining the concept of damage over time/per round in RPG battles. We did that, and came to different results. However, damage over time is not the only core component of RPG battles, which is why I think we should think about other design aspects as well.
One important component of games (especially more complex games) that has always fascinated me is the existence of rules, and their manipulation. What I mean by that is that we usually have certain "laws" that determine how a game is set up to work, but at the same time the dynamics of the game are enabled through exceptions from these very rules. This applies to board games, card games and of course video games. For example, in The Settlers of Catan, building roads always costs a certain amount of ressources - except if you use a specific card, which allows you to build two roads for free. Similarly, in some RPG Maker games I've played, using a potion will usually replenish a fixed amount of HP - except when they are used by a certain character class, which results in the doubling of the healing effect.
Passive traits, resistances, states and additional effects (for example environmental effects, special boss fight rules, etc. etc.) are all ways to manipulate the ruleset of the game and force the player to adjust their strategy accordingly. These in-game exceptions from or expansions on previously universal laws of the game can, if used well, make a game feel truly unique and engaging. If not used well, they can make a game horribly imbalanced or even plain boring. But fact is, rule manipulation is a powerful source for mechanics in RPG battles.
A few days ago, the RPGology discussion inspired me to make up my own concept for a possible battle system that takes this "rule manupulation" one step further (although I currently don't have the time to actually program it). But I would rather like to hear other people's stances on the general topic. In fact, I think we should try to identify and develop more possible core aspects of battle systems together and come up with ways to expand them or make them more interesting. What do you think?
Treason89
360
Never Silent, wouldn't that end in "movement spamming"? Say, you have a character that has healing properties with items... Wouldn't you just use it for item healing? That just remembered me the Medic ability from FFVIII (where a lot of rule breaking as you propose it also exist)... which is a very nice entry but is, in fact, very dissapointing about character handling. As I see it, at the very end, only three characters would have done nicely, as the "characters" really are the junction combinations that the player uses or finds more suitable.
I get your idea... but probably if it was be more like a process it would be nicer, or more strategic... Like the need for at least two character interactions to make a good move (I think that was Azalathemad bull's-eye, right?) Something like that Medic ability is a buff, and not a passive ability.
I get your idea... but probably if it was be more like a process it would be nicer, or more strategic... Like the need for at least two character interactions to make a good move (I think that was Azalathemad bull's-eye, right?) Something like that Medic ability is a buff, and not a passive ability.
Ah, I'm sorry, Treason89. I probably worded my post badly. My goal was to discuss the possiblities of "rule changing" in RPG combat on a more general level. The Medic ability for healing items was only an example, and probably not the best one. In fact, I think it shows pretty well what can happen if rule exceptions are not integrated well into the gameplay: They limit characters and the player to certain "optimal" roles or approaches.
I brought up this topic because I hoped to discuss and develop ways to make "changing the rules" in RPG combat interesting and meaningful. Your idea about it requiring multiple character interactions is one possible idea. It reminds me of games like Remnants of Isolation, where the effect of some skills is significantly altered by the skill the other character has cast before. That, for example, is a way to make "changing the rules" an integral part of a game's strategy.
P.S.: As far as I know, "buff" means an increase of certain parameters (for example, an ATK buff). A passive ability however is a special rule that applies only to a certain character type. Another example for this would be a venom monster that regains health when poisoned, while all other types of characters normally lose health when inflicted with poison.
This is just game terminology, though, and probably not too important.
I brought up this topic because I hoped to discuss and develop ways to make "changing the rules" in RPG combat interesting and meaningful. Your idea about it requiring multiple character interactions is one possible idea. It reminds me of games like Remnants of Isolation, where the effect of some skills is significantly altered by the skill the other character has cast before. That, for example, is a way to make "changing the rules" an integral part of a game's strategy.
P.S.: As far as I know, "buff" means an increase of certain parameters (for example, an ATK buff). A passive ability however is a special rule that applies only to a certain character type. Another example for this would be a venom monster that regains health when poisoned, while all other types of characters normally lose health when inflicted with poison.
This is just game terminology, though, and probably not too important.
caparo
25
I think Divinity: Original Sin has a good example of 'changing the rules'.
During one of the battles where my party is fighting against fire-based enemies, my main characters were in trouble as they had been inflicted with the burning status effect, which not only damages them every turn, but also lowers their resist against further fire damage.
Luckily I had a rain scroll in my inventory, which I used. The rain subtly altered the battlefield terrain with puddles forming on the ground. But more importantly the rain had put out the burning status effects, which was downgraded to warm instead. Further burns my characters received only lasted for the immediate turn instead of the normal duration of 2 turns. This had changed the rules quite significantly.
Not only that, whenever the enemy used a fire skill targeting an area near a puddle, the fire interacted with the puddle and it became a cloud of mist. That mist cloud can easily be electrified (via thunder magic, stun arrow, etc) which stuns anyone that comes into contact with it. But that didn't stop my characters when I used the air shield scrolls that I had saved up, which granted protection against stun, which allowed my characters free movement whereas the enemies were often stunned as they tried to navigate through the static cloud.
Through the use of a few scrolls (scrolls are expensive though!), what was once an area filled with burning terrain and random fires everywhere (which benefited fire creatures as they healed while on fire) quickly became an environment that was hostile to the fire creatures.
Yes, I highly praise the deep level of environmental interaction in Divinity: Original Sin and how it has a significant, sometimes critical, effect on the battlefield.
During one of the battles where my party is fighting against fire-based enemies, my main characters were in trouble as they had been inflicted with the burning status effect, which not only damages them every turn, but also lowers their resist against further fire damage.
Luckily I had a rain scroll in my inventory, which I used. The rain subtly altered the battlefield terrain with puddles forming on the ground. But more importantly the rain had put out the burning status effects, which was downgraded to warm instead. Further burns my characters received only lasted for the immediate turn instead of the normal duration of 2 turns. This had changed the rules quite significantly.
Not only that, whenever the enemy used a fire skill targeting an area near a puddle, the fire interacted with the puddle and it became a cloud of mist. That mist cloud can easily be electrified (via thunder magic, stun arrow, etc) which stuns anyone that comes into contact with it. But that didn't stop my characters when I used the air shield scrolls that I had saved up, which granted protection against stun, which allowed my characters free movement whereas the enemies were often stunned as they tried to navigate through the static cloud.
Through the use of a few scrolls (scrolls are expensive though!), what was once an area filled with burning terrain and random fires everywhere (which benefited fire creatures as they healed while on fire) quickly became an environment that was hostile to the fire creatures.
Yes, I highly praise the deep level of environmental interaction in Divinity: Original Sin and how it has a significant, sometimes critical, effect on the battlefield.
Yes! That is a great example of what I was thinking about, caparo. Actions like those you described do not directly deal any damage, they don't directly change the status of any combat participant, yet they influence the entire battle. The gameplay as such stays the same, but an entire set of effects and strategies has fundamentally changed just by altering some rules. Interaction between multiple combat factors, which determines what effects these factors have, is a huge field of possibilities for "changing the rules". Of course, it's not the only way to do this, though.
I haven't played Divinity: Original Sin, but it sounds more like an example of a strategy/tactical RPG rather than a "pure" RPG. I know this distinction is quite vague and nonsensical, I'm just curious whether and how others think such rule changing could be applied to typical RPG combat, thus making it more atypical.
Another example I just remembered are (again) the weather conditions in the Pokémon games. They immediately change certain rules (which applies to all combat participants, in this case) and have special effects on certain attacks and Pokémon. Also, in the newer games, some Pokémon have inherent traits that can allow them to ignore some rules that usually always apply (for instance, an immunity to recoil damage).
I haven't played Divinity: Original Sin, but it sounds more like an example of a strategy/tactical RPG rather than a "pure" RPG. I know this distinction is quite vague and nonsensical, I'm just curious whether and how others think such rule changing could be applied to typical RPG combat, thus making it more atypical.
Another example I just remembered are (again) the weather conditions in the Pokémon games. They immediately change certain rules (which applies to all combat participants, in this case) and have special effects on certain attacks and Pokémon. Also, in the newer games, some Pokémon have inherent traits that can allow them to ignore some rules that usually always apply (for instance, an immunity to recoil damage).
Crystalgate
694
The rule manipulation idea requires that different situations occurs where different rule manipulations are useful. In the Divinity: Original Sin example, the trick with creating electrified mist would quickly lose it's novelty if it were useful and usable in every single fight. Generally, manipulating rules must interact with the action of the enemies and not only with the player. Rule manipulating that interact with player actions only leads to the player just repeating the same rule manipulation for every battle.
Hasvers
1298
I'm so glad to see this discussion revive, thanks NS!
Actually I focused on the damage over time component just because I think it's the most stereotypical of RPGs versus other genres - if you remove it, like I ended up doing in my Chimera, you get something that feels a lot more like an abstract board game or a puzzle game with characters. It's actually not a component I liked much initially, but thanks to the contest and discussion, I have more ideas on how to use it.
I love the idea of changing the rules, but I do think that the Divinity/Pokemon example is
1) more about changing the environment, i.e. a third neutral component beyond allies and enemies (which is also something interesting in its own right, admittedly) than changing the rules. It's just more rules to remember.
2) more likely to end up as a gimmick rather than a consistent mechanism (see The Drop and other roguelikes for something like this done a bit systematically, but even then, you have to learn series of transformations and use them again and again, it's not exactly freedom in changing the rules)
I think to avoid this problem, instead of adding new rules arbitrarily, you should be able to manipulate what the rules are made of - i.e. the effective rules should be composed of smaller elements rather than stated rigidly. As mentioned by both Crystalgate and Treason, effects should arise from combinations of multiple changes.
A very straightforward implementation would be to make a battle system where the rules are a certain number of sentences, and skills can simply change the words. For instance some skills could swap nouns between two rules, or verbs, or replace a word by its opposite, to transform "Ethers heal some MP" and/or "Swords remove a lot of HP" to "Swords heal some HP" and so on. Of course you would have rules about when or how a sentence can be changed (e.g. whether it applies to everyone or just the caster, for one turn or forever), and those rules could probably be modified by the exact same skills :P
Edit: soulkeeper> PyWeek is a bi-annual game design challenge in python, where you have to make a game from scratch in a week, but there's an imposed theme. That would obviously require adapting the concept some (and dropping RMXP). But it's really fun, and I guess after a few times I'd finally learn how to prototype fast AND well. If someone wants to do it with (or against) me this October, I'll keep everyone updated when it gets closer.
Actually I focused on the damage over time component just because I think it's the most stereotypical of RPGs versus other genres - if you remove it, like I ended up doing in my Chimera, you get something that feels a lot more like an abstract board game or a puzzle game with characters. It's actually not a component I liked much initially, but thanks to the contest and discussion, I have more ideas on how to use it.
I love the idea of changing the rules, but I do think that the Divinity/Pokemon example is
1) more about changing the environment, i.e. a third neutral component beyond allies and enemies (which is also something interesting in its own right, admittedly) than changing the rules. It's just more rules to remember.
2) more likely to end up as a gimmick rather than a consistent mechanism (see The Drop and other roguelikes for something like this done a bit systematically, but even then, you have to learn series of transformations and use them again and again, it's not exactly freedom in changing the rules)
I think to avoid this problem, instead of adding new rules arbitrarily, you should be able to manipulate what the rules are made of - i.e. the effective rules should be composed of smaller elements rather than stated rigidly. As mentioned by both Crystalgate and Treason, effects should arise from combinations of multiple changes.
A very straightforward implementation would be to make a battle system where the rules are a certain number of sentences, and skills can simply change the words. For instance some skills could swap nouns between two rules, or verbs, or replace a word by its opposite, to transform "Ethers heal some MP" and/or "Swords remove a lot of HP" to "Swords heal some HP" and so on. Of course you would have rules about when or how a sentence can be changed (e.g. whether it applies to everyone or just the caster, for one turn or forever), and those rules could probably be modified by the exact same skills :P
Edit: soulkeeper> PyWeek is a bi-annual game design challenge in python, where you have to make a game from scratch in a week, but there's an imposed theme. That would obviously require adapting the concept some (and dropping RMXP). But it's really fun, and I guess after a few times I'd finally learn how to prototype fast AND well. If someone wants to do it with (or against) me this October, I'll keep everyone updated when it gets closer.
I'm wondering...
What if we make a battle system where the player himself is the one who defines the rules? Of course, there should be a limiting factor.
I don't know how this'll work, but the player is given the chance to choose his own restrictions. Albeit, not freely, but the thought is there...
Hasvers> I don't think I'm ready for that just yet. I just started messing around with python two days ago. Made a couple of stuff utilising the basics and wrapped them all together, then called it 'my first program in python'.
It's actually a really fun language :3
What if we make a battle system where the player himself is the one who defines the rules? Of course, there should be a limiting factor.
I don't know how this'll work, but the player is given the chance to choose his own restrictions. Albeit, not freely, but the thought is there...
Hasvers> I don't think I'm ready for that just yet. I just started messing around with python two days ago. Made a couple of stuff utilising the basics and wrapped them all together, then called it 'my first program in python'.
It's actually a really fun language :3
caparo
25
Crystalgate> I agree the trick would become a rinse-and-repeat strategy if it was useful in every fight. However the requirements of pulling it off successfully are tedious. You need a puddle of water, it needs to interact with fire, the resulting mist cloud needs to be hit with lightning, and even when you do pull it off, it isn't guaranteed to be useful because enemies not in the affected area can simply run around the static cloud.
Karins> This could become really tricky to implement. But it sounds interesting. Playing as a god would be refreshing!
Hasvers> Rules about rules that manipulates rules ... ? What extra depth will this add to the game? I'm not sure it is worth the increased complexity.
Karins> This could become really tricky to implement. But it sounds interesting. Playing as a god would be refreshing!
Hasvers> Rules about rules that manipulates rules ... ? What extra depth will this add to the game? I'm not sure it is worth the increased complexity.
Hasvers
1298
It would (hopefully) work if there are few such rules. I was describing the potential complexity of the player's actions, which is very different from the actual complexity of the ingredients. (my dumb example of a special rule for swords was for fun, actually you'd have only a few global rules that combine variously to define things like swords or spells)
For instance, the recursive aspect (rules about manipulating rules) will appear on its own, because of the rules themselves, not as the result of the devs defining every single situation and consequence (as with the puddles and everything).
soulkeeper> Yep that's more or less what I was imagining, essentially giving a small, constrained programming language to the player and showing him the "source code" of the battle system. Only you don't start from scracth, and you don't have access to everything all the time (e.g. you can at first modify only peripheral rules, and you must work to get closer to the "core" ones like "skills cost MP"). At the very worst it would still be less complicated than using RPG Maker, except with constraints and an enemy playing against you.
(and yes Python is awesome :P)
For instance, the recursive aspect (rules about manipulating rules) will appear on its own, because of the rules themselves, not as the result of the devs defining every single situation and consequence (as with the puddles and everything).
soulkeeper> Yep that's more or less what I was imagining, essentially giving a small, constrained programming language to the player and showing him the "source code" of the battle system. Only you don't start from scracth, and you don't have access to everything all the time (e.g. you can at first modify only peripheral rules, and you must work to get closer to the "core" ones like "skills cost MP"). At the very worst it would still be less complicated than using RPG Maker, except with constraints and an enemy playing against you.
(and yes Python is awesome :P)
I'm glad to see this running again, too. Lots of great input here!
The original idea that I had floating in the back of my head when posting about the "rule changing" thing was indeed that of playing in a sort-of "god mode". (For fun, I codenamed the concept "Eye in the Sky", after the song by the Alan Parsons Project.) It's very cool to see you didn't only draw the same conclusion, but have lots of ideas that are way better than what I had come up with.
I thought that making the rule manipulation the very core aspect of combat could in the most extreme form result in a battle system where the player controls only the rules. That means both sides (the heroes and the enemies) would be controlled by the computer, and the player's task would be to adapt the rules to the situation in order to give the heroes an edge in the fight and make them win. Enemies and heroes could take different stances depending on previous actions (like in "Delusions of Duty") to give the player an idea of what they could do next. Instead of changing the characters' battle strategy depending on the world's rules like in normal RPGs, here the player would have to change the world's rules depending on the characters' battle strategy.
Of course, if not thought out well, such a battle system could become boring very quickly, since the player would only actively choose a minority of the total actions. I like Hasvers' idea about having the rule changing revolve around actual sentence structures a lot more. So I wonder if it could be possible to combine all of our ideas into an RPG battle system where rule manipulation plays a decisive role but isn't game-breaking or a rinse-and-repeat solution to everything, which is what Crystalgate warned us about.
The original idea that I had floating in the back of my head when posting about the "rule changing" thing was indeed that of playing in a sort-of "god mode". (For fun, I codenamed the concept "Eye in the Sky", after the song by the Alan Parsons Project.) It's very cool to see you didn't only draw the same conclusion, but have lots of ideas that are way better than what I had come up with.
I thought that making the rule manipulation the very core aspect of combat could in the most extreme form result in a battle system where the player controls only the rules. That means both sides (the heroes and the enemies) would be controlled by the computer, and the player's task would be to adapt the rules to the situation in order to give the heroes an edge in the fight and make them win. Enemies and heroes could take different stances depending on previous actions (like in "Delusions of Duty") to give the player an idea of what they could do next. Instead of changing the characters' battle strategy depending on the world's rules like in normal RPGs, here the player would have to change the world's rules depending on the characters' battle strategy.
Of course, if not thought out well, such a battle system could become boring very quickly, since the player would only actively choose a minority of the total actions. I like Hasvers' idea about having the rule changing revolve around actual sentence structures a lot more. So I wonder if it could be possible to combine all of our ideas into an RPG battle system where rule manipulation plays a decisive role but isn't game-breaking or a rinse-and-repeat solution to everything, which is what Crystalgate warned us about.
caparo
25
If any of you ever decide to develop this idea into a full project, I'll volunteer myself to be a alpha or beta tester!
Hasvers
1298
author=NeverSilentHaha that idea is so cool, a kind of Black&White/Populous RPG... or actually, the first ever CRPG where you play the Game Master. Like "Oh god my players are so stupid they are bound to die, how can I cheat with the rulebook to keep them alive". I'm sure you can sell that pitch if you make a Kickstarter :P
a battle system where the player controls only the rules. That means both sides (the heroes and the enemies) would be controlled by the computer
(OST by Alan Parsons as a stretch goal?)
This is definitely something that can be prototyped quickly, so we can discuss it very concretely if you'd like. I don't know when you're planning to start this project, but we could go through the actual rule design in detail, if only as an exercise in collaborative creativity.
author=caparoIf I'm in it, I'd appreciate having your watchful eye to tell if we're going crazy :P
If any of you ever decide to develop this idea into a full project, I'll volunteer myself to be a alpha or beta tester!
Treason89
360
That's a very creative concept! I'm not very tecnical (I have enough of it in my job) so excuse my vagueness. (And while I was writing this two post came in! so much movement jeje)
I just wonder... what would make the difference (using Hasvers example just to stretch this a bit) of changing the rule "swords attack" to "swords heal" of using holy/moon/vampire (or whatever) element into a weapon (like SD3 sabers)? At some point using magic and defeating the bad guy is breaking the rules... As I said before, just a stretched interpretation.
About an idea to make it work... Well it isn't like gods answers are immediate... and rules changing every turn would be a mess up (I think) and wouldn't give enough time to change stances as all the time the rules are being changed. Just after reading last NeverSilent comment a gear system came into my mind.
Just think about it: the player is god-like and can manipulate rules. Say, for attack (like swords heal) it would need two gears. A gear for objects (swords, axes, arrows, etc) and for effects (heal, attack, double attack, banned, etc). The player would need to move those gears so that the pins that have the words match, and they would move slow so that the effect would take a couple of turns to take place, then the need to think beforehand. Attached to those gears you could have another two or three uncontrollable gears. So... lets say player moves to match the pins"swords" and "heal" but the other gears move and, in other part of the gears the pins "arrows" and "fire" match. That would be great if you have an archer... or terrible if your enemy is an archer.
You may say "oh but that is so random! No strategy there" Well... probably. As the gears can have different number of pins they may be able to move at different velocities, hence not giving the same effects always OR you can spin the gears around and around until you get exactly the same setup. That would take more time but it would still be possible to reproduce a certain setup. Just a math game.
As I think my performance explaining may not be the best, I attach a little mock-up drawing of the system proposed above. Player controls BLUE gear and the GREEN gears move accordingly:
So pins "sword heal", "arrow fire" and "earth double" are matched. Accordingly swords would be curative, arrows would be covered in fire and earth magic would be more effective.
I just wonder... what would make the difference (using Hasvers example just to stretch this a bit) of changing the rule "swords attack" to "swords heal" of using holy/moon/vampire (or whatever) element into a weapon (like SD3 sabers)? At some point using magic and defeating the bad guy is breaking the rules... As I said before, just a stretched interpretation.
About an idea to make it work... Well it isn't like gods answers are immediate... and rules changing every turn would be a mess up (I think) and wouldn't give enough time to change stances as all the time the rules are being changed. Just after reading last NeverSilent comment a gear system came into my mind.
Just think about it: the player is god-like and can manipulate rules. Say, for attack (like swords heal) it would need two gears. A gear for objects (swords, axes, arrows, etc) and for effects (heal, attack, double attack, banned, etc). The player would need to move those gears so that the pins that have the words match, and they would move slow so that the effect would take a couple of turns to take place, then the need to think beforehand. Attached to those gears you could have another two or three uncontrollable gears. So... lets say player moves to match the pins"swords" and "heal" but the other gears move and, in other part of the gears the pins "arrows" and "fire" match. That would be great if you have an archer... or terrible if your enemy is an archer.
You may say "oh but that is so random! No strategy there" Well... probably. As the gears can have different number of pins they may be able to move at different velocities, hence not giving the same effects always OR you can spin the gears around and around until you get exactly the same setup. That would take more time but it would still be possible to reproduce a certain setup. Just a math game.
As I think my performance explaining may not be the best, I attach a little mock-up drawing of the system proposed above. Player controls BLUE gear and the GREEN gears move accordingly:
So pins "sword heal", "arrow fire" and "earth double" are matched. Accordingly swords would be curative, arrows would be covered in fire and earth magic would be more effective.
Treason89
360
author=TungerManU
pauueq? smojje?
Sorry, "banned" and "arrows". If the gears are spinning they may be downwards sometimes... looking that way :)
Wow, that's a much more positive reaction than I had expected, caparo and Hasvers. Thank you! Glad to hear you think the idea is worth pursuing.
The idea of taking over the role of the Dungeon Master (i.e. "The Maker of Rules") was indeed one source of inspiration for this concept. Though to be honest, I hadn't actually planned to make a real project out of this any time soon, especially since it would require programming knowledge which I'm not sure I have. I would definitely like to see the concept used in an actual game, though.
As to your doubts, Treason89, I think the main differences are that:
- the rule changes affect the entire battle, not just one character or faction.
- the changes can eventually have a much deeper impact and affect the very core rules of combat, which skills/items/abilities etc. usually don't.
I think your idea of using a more or less spatial component to limit how the player could influence the rules is a great idea. I'm just not sure whether your gear system isn't a bit too complex and difficult to control - although I actually like it better than my own attempt.
This is a very simple mockup of my own simple idea:
Think of it a bit like a slot machine, only without the randomness. In this case, the player is given control over elemental resistances, but much more interesting examples might be available later. The sentence in the middle ("Ice is strong against Fire")defines the rule that is currently in force. Just by moving one of the three vertical slot ranges one step up or down (which the player can do once per round or so), the rule could suddenly become for example "Ice is weak against Fire".
Just by looking at the RPG Maker database, you could come up with tons of ideas for other "Slot machines" for the player to control: Effects of items or weapons like Hasvers gave as examples, the scope of abilities ("Healing spells/Offensive spells/Buffs/Debuffs target the user/one ally/one enemy/all enemies"), what parameters do what ("The power of Physical attacks/Magical attacks/Healing spells are determined by INT/ATK/DEF/AGI"), or even core mechanics ("Using skills depletes/restores normal/double/half their cost in MP/HP") etc. etc.
Now, I am aware that this is still a very crude idea, but I thought I'd just share my thoughts anyway. But maybe you can come up with improved ways to implement such a system?
The idea of taking over the role of the Dungeon Master (i.e. "The Maker of Rules") was indeed one source of inspiration for this concept. Though to be honest, I hadn't actually planned to make a real project out of this any time soon, especially since it would require programming knowledge which I'm not sure I have. I would definitely like to see the concept used in an actual game, though.
As to your doubts, Treason89, I think the main differences are that:
- the rule changes affect the entire battle, not just one character or faction.
- the changes can eventually have a much deeper impact and affect the very core rules of combat, which skills/items/abilities etc. usually don't.
I think your idea of using a more or less spatial component to limit how the player could influence the rules is a great idea. I'm just not sure whether your gear system isn't a bit too complex and difficult to control - although I actually like it better than my own attempt.
This is a very simple mockup of my own simple idea:
Think of it a bit like a slot machine, only without the randomness. In this case, the player is given control over elemental resistances, but much more interesting examples might be available later. The sentence in the middle ("Ice is strong against Fire")defines the rule that is currently in force. Just by moving one of the three vertical slot ranges one step up or down (which the player can do once per round or so), the rule could suddenly become for example "Ice is weak against Fire".
Just by looking at the RPG Maker database, you could come up with tons of ideas for other "Slot machines" for the player to control: Effects of items or weapons like Hasvers gave as examples, the scope of abilities ("Healing spells/Offensive spells/Buffs/Debuffs target the user/one ally/one enemy/all enemies"), what parameters do what ("The power of Physical attacks/Magical attacks/Healing spells are determined by INT/ATK/DEF/AGI"), or even core mechanics ("Using skills depletes/restores normal/double/half their cost in MP/HP") etc. etc.
Now, I am aware that this is still a very crude idea, but I thought I'd just share my thoughts anyway. But maybe you can come up with improved ways to implement such a system?
Merlandese
3235
This is all some interesting stuff!
I think it's a weird deviation (a good one) that instead of determining how to design a battle system in which we have all of the elements we've discussed beforehand, we're instead designing a system in which we can all design a battle. XD I think the problem with this setup is that we, as designers, have fun designing, and now we're gearing towards developing a Battle Engine game rather than a Battle System. Although I really like the looks of these ideas.
When Never Silent first brought up rule altering, I was thinking of games like Small World (board game) or Smash Bros.
In Small World, a kind of boring game, the rules of your turn are based on one set of rules every time. But you have an Adjective-Noun pair you represent, like Hill Giant or Hill Triton or Angry Dragonrider. Each Adjective and each Noun has a property that defies the main ruleset of the game. So everyone plays the same set of actions, except their pair allows them to cheat.
In the Smash Bros. example, it's a little more basic. Every character is based off of Mario with a few slight deviations. It's almost like Mario is the rule, and when you learn to play as him, you can then play as anyone. Except other people take the rules of Mario and break them a bit.
None of that has any bearing on what you're doing right now, though. XD
@Hasvers: I played the Chimera Battle System a few days ago! I really couldn't see what was happening, but I kind of liked the ideas in it. I got to a point where Yellow and Red crystal were at a stalemate, I think.
One thing I think we're overlooking is an aspect of RPG battles that I've only brought up to Hasvers in the dark recesses of the PM Universe. To make these battles actually for RPGs, we have to consider the role-playing. That is, part of a good RPG Battle is themeing, and how it fits into the rest of the game. This entire contest ignored that.
If we were making board games, this would be fine, because we could make a great system and then cover it with the best theme. But RPGs typically rely on the confrontation system to enhance the narrative and the world. It's a big piece that isn't being considered. Without it, I don't really see this as RPGology so much as Confrontation System-ology. It might seem like a minor point to some people, but the difference between an awesome RPG battle and an awesome confrontation system is the difference between FFIX's battle system and FFIX's Tetra Masters. Both are good, but only one is a roleplay-enhancing system while the other is just a cool system that happens to be in an RPG. (EX: The fight between Zidane and Kuja is a narrative necessity, made more dramatic by the player's involvement in the battle system, and wouldn't be very good if they played Tetra Masters instead.)
This is just another point to consider. It's cool to make rule ideas where you can have fire arrows and healing swords, but this confrontation system wouldn't work in Mass Effect or Wild Arms as well. And if we leave the objects and names open to be changed once it's plugged into a world, then we create a sort of MacGuffin-based battle, rather than one that organically pulls from the RPG.
I think it's a weird deviation (a good one) that instead of determining how to design a battle system in which we have all of the elements we've discussed beforehand, we're instead designing a system in which we can all design a battle. XD I think the problem with this setup is that we, as designers, have fun designing, and now we're gearing towards developing a Battle Engine game rather than a Battle System. Although I really like the looks of these ideas.
When Never Silent first brought up rule altering, I was thinking of games like Small World (board game) or Smash Bros.
In Small World, a kind of boring game, the rules of your turn are based on one set of rules every time. But you have an Adjective-Noun pair you represent, like Hill Giant or Hill Triton or Angry Dragonrider. Each Adjective and each Noun has a property that defies the main ruleset of the game. So everyone plays the same set of actions, except their pair allows them to cheat.
In the Smash Bros. example, it's a little more basic. Every character is based off of Mario with a few slight deviations. It's almost like Mario is the rule, and when you learn to play as him, you can then play as anyone. Except other people take the rules of Mario and break them a bit.
None of that has any bearing on what you're doing right now, though. XD
@Hasvers: I played the Chimera Battle System a few days ago! I really couldn't see what was happening, but I kind of liked the ideas in it. I got to a point where Yellow and Red crystal were at a stalemate, I think.
One thing I think we're overlooking is an aspect of RPG battles that I've only brought up to Hasvers in the dark recesses of the PM Universe. To make these battles actually for RPGs, we have to consider the role-playing. That is, part of a good RPG Battle is themeing, and how it fits into the rest of the game. This entire contest ignored that.
If we were making board games, this would be fine, because we could make a great system and then cover it with the best theme. But RPGs typically rely on the confrontation system to enhance the narrative and the world. It's a big piece that isn't being considered. Without it, I don't really see this as RPGology so much as Confrontation System-ology. It might seem like a minor point to some people, but the difference between an awesome RPG battle and an awesome confrontation system is the difference between FFIX's battle system and FFIX's Tetra Masters. Both are good, but only one is a roleplay-enhancing system while the other is just a cool system that happens to be in an RPG. (EX: The fight between Zidane and Kuja is a narrative necessity, made more dramatic by the player's involvement in the battle system, and wouldn't be very good if they played Tetra Masters instead.)
This is just another point to consider. It's cool to make rule ideas where you can have fire arrows and healing swords, but this confrontation system wouldn't work in Mass Effect or Wild Arms as well. And if we leave the objects and names open to be changed once it's plugged into a world, then we create a sort of MacGuffin-based battle, rather than one that organically pulls from the RPG.
caparo
25
Ah! Thanks for reminding us Merlandese. All this rule making/breaking/altering had ignored the theme of RPGs.
From my perspective, in the theme of a typical swords & sorcery RPG world, it wouldn't make sense for razor sharp swords to heal enemies when the hero inflicts a slash wound on them. Some level of consistency must be maintained in order to keep the game universe believable. Eg, common sense dictates that fire will melt ice. It would be ludicrous to let fire heal ice enemies.
I understand and agree with your point that the battle system should enhance the game's theme. In this regard, the game's lore should be able to explain the player's abilities to alter the game world's rules.
Anyways, here is my simple story idea for this kind of game:
From my perspective, in the theme of a typical swords & sorcery RPG world, it wouldn't make sense for razor sharp swords to heal enemies when the hero inflicts a slash wound on them. Some level of consistency must be maintained in order to keep the game universe believable. Eg, common sense dictates that fire will melt ice. It would be ludicrous to let fire heal ice enemies.
I understand and agree with your point that the battle system should enhance the game's theme. In this regard, the game's lore should be able to explain the player's abilities to alter the game world's rules.
Anyways, here is my simple story idea for this kind of game:
Player is the wandering soul of a deity who lost most of his/her power after losing a battle against a rival deity. The rival deity, although victorious, was severely weakened and unable to completely destroy the player's body. He/she had sealed the player's body in an ominous temple/ruins/cave/desecrated area, while taking the time to recover his/her power in order to destroy the player's body for good.
Down in the mortal world, the player's worshipers/religious order fell into decline and gradually disbanded (because player deity is unable to answer their prayers or even communicate with his/her oracle). A group of the player's former worshipers decided to become adventurers, earning a living by doing odd jobs here and there.
During one such job which involved hunting beasts that regularly attacked a farmer's livestock (or something similar), the group eventually found themselves surrounded and overwhelmed. Player's soul heard their desperate pleas to the deity they had once worshiped. Player is relieved that some mortals still remember and believe in him/her and decides to help the adventurers. Although the group cannot see the player, they inexplicably feel encouraged and confident despite their dire situation. First battle starts - tutorial battle explaining the role of the player, how the heroes are not controlled by the player, etc.
Player's first usable skill should be something that would strengthen what the adventurers have - eg, if adventurers have shields then player's first usable skill should alter the rules to double the protection of shields.
With the fall of the leader beast, the other beasts scatter. Player absorbs essence of the slain beast and becomes stronger. (may learn/unlock other skills)
Player follows adventurers and tries to influence them into working towards freeing the player's body.
But the rival deity's followers were hunting down the player deity's followers, actively trying to halt their quest to free the player's body. Rival deity was barely able to communicate with his/her oracle and thus the rival religious order survived and became the dominant force.
Later battles can introduce the rival deity, who had by now recovered enough power to influence the mortal world without actually being in the mortal world. There can be a battle between the player's heroes and the rival's heroes, with the rival deity also trying to manipulate the rules to its advantage.
