Qui Domi

author=unity
You have a good point. Though, the amount of EXP any one player needs to pass any given battle isn't a static value. Given that fact, I'd generally agree with you that you want to keep things fair and manageable.

But at the same time I still have a lot of fun in games that don't always hold my hand and let me take chances. They don't have to be super cheap about it, but I respect a game that does something like say, at the start of the game, go "Here's the last boss, you can go challenge him now. It's probably not a good idea but you can sure do it." Then the game allows you to wander the world, take risks, and learn about what gets you killed and what allows you to keep living.

I certainly don't think all games should be like that, but I don't think games like that should be deemed inherently "bad" either. I also think allowing players to experiment in ways that might get them killed can also be a lot of fun, if it's done right.

I get the sentiment you're going for, and I think it's going to do well for you if you stick to that. A lot of people love that. I do, most days, as well, especially if you throw me in an interesting world with characters that connect with me. But I'd honestly be pretty disappointed if we only had games like that. I think we'd lose something, something that could potentially be pretty interesting.

To be honest, throwing around the phrase "bad game design" does irk me more than it probably should. I think you've provided a lot of great food-for-thought in this discussion. Even so, I feel like if you didn't cast down judgement like that then it would foster a lot more useful discussion.

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not a fan of hand holding games either. However I still kind of feel like it would be nice if the game didn't punish you for something it allows you to do. (avoiding monsters.)

Also, when I say "bad game design" I don't mean that the whole design of the game is bad. I mean that, the one particular design decision that was pointed out was bad. I'm not trying to pass judgment or trash talk Qui Domi in any way. It's a really good game, much better than my game for sure.

author=Pancaek
If you have to have a certain amount of EXP to progress in the game, it's forced-fed EXP either way. The only difference is one of the options tricks the player into thinking they have a choice when they really don't.

You have a good point. Though, the amount of EXP any one player needs to pass any given battle isn't a static value. Given that fact, I'd generally agree with you that you want to keep things fair and manageable.

But at the same time I still have a lot of fun in games that don't always hold my hand and let me take chances. They don't have to be super cheap about it, but I respect a game that does something like say, at the start of the game, go "Here's the last boss, you can go challenge him now. It's probably not a good idea but you can sure do it." Then the game allows you to wander the world, take risks, and learn about what gets you killed and what allows you to keep living.

I certainly don't think all games should be like that, but I don't think games like that should be deemed inherently "bad" either. I also think allowing players to experiment in ways that might get them killed can also be a lot of fun, if it's done right.

I get the sentiment you're going for, and I think it's going to do well for you if you stick to that. A lot of people love that. I do, most days, as well, especially if you throw me in an interesting world with characters that connect with me. But I'd honestly be pretty disappointed if we only had games like that. I think we'd lose something, something that could potentially be pretty interesting.

To be honest, throwing around the phrase "bad game design" does irk me more than it probably should. I think you've provided a lot of great food-for-thought in this discussion. Even so, I feel like if you didn't cast down judgement like that then it would foster a lot more useful discussion.

If you have to have a certain amount of EXP to progress in the game, it's forced-fed EXP either way. The only difference is one of the options tricks the player into thinking they have a choice when they really don't.

author=unity
Touch encounters are nothing new in RPGs. Raising your level to be able to take on higher level enemies is also pretty common sense in RPGs. Whether you do it by walking around until a random encounter shows up or by engaging monsters you can see on the map, it's mostly the same.

If you touch a monster and take damage, that should tell you "don't touch monsters." If you touch a monster, are taken to a separate screen where you can fight them, and then get rewards like EXP and items for doing so, then it should be clear that the developer put them in for a reason and that maybe, just maybe, avoiding all of them might have consequences.

If you don't like that, that's fine. But to call it bad game design is irresponsible. An entire genre has been built on that foundation. And you may not like that genre. But a lot of us do and are trying to make games a certain way.

No, I personally happen to love the RPG genre. Nothing I'm saying is based off of my personal feelings. I'm talking in response to another player who saw that the game allowed them to get through it without having to fight, and then was told that they're not playing the game right.

If you allow a certain play style, and then tell the player they're wrong for playing that way, it's bad game design. It doesn't matter how many other games do it.

You can easily get around this by having key monsters that are impossible to escape, and give you the bare minimum EXP that you need to survive the game. If you choose to fight more monsters than what the game makes you to, then you can, and it'll make the game easier. But at the same time, you don't have to fight monsters unless the game says so. Similar to how the "escape" option is only available at certain times.

author=eplipswich
I don't know anything about this game, but if what unity said is true about touch encounters, then I have just this to say:

You can't be new to touch encounters, right?

No, I'm not new to them. I use them in my own game.

author=Pancaek

author=unity
While I get where you are coming from, there are plenty of problems with that statement. If people are employing a poor strategy that is getting them killed, then, yes, even though that's something the game allowed them to do, that doesn't mean it has equal weight as a "correct" way to play the game. In a particular game, it can indeed be "wrong" to, say, turtle and stay on the defensive, even though the game allows it, for example.

The escape command exists to allow the player to get out of battles when they aren't going well. That does not mean a developer is obligated to make running away from every single encounter a valid game strategy. They could, certainly, and come up with a different and possibly interesting alternative kind of game, but if they don't, then they are in no ways guilty of "bad game design."

You can say "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty. It's my personal preference" and that's fine. Start saying "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty, because otherwise that's bad game design" and you are both speaking nonsense and trying to push your own preferences above the developers. If you don't want to have to fight battles then perhaps an combat-centered RPG isn't for you.

Koi stated that they made the monsters free roaming, and not random encounters, so you could get away from them if you want to. The 'escape' option is a completely different story, as you often can't escape from monsters, and you can't choose when you hit a random encounter anyways. In the free roaming monster system, the player is encouraged to try and avoid monsters if they don't feel like fighting them. Simply saying "yeah you can run from them if you want but you're not suppose to all the time" doesn't make any sense. How is the player suppose to know when they are and aren't suppose to avoid a monster? What's the point of avoiding monsters in the first place if you're not suppose to be able to do that?

Touch encounters are nothing new in RPGs. Raising your level to be able to take on higher level enemies is also pretty common sense in RPGs. Whether you do it by walking around until a random encounter shows up or by engaging monsters you can see on the map, it's mostly the same.

If you touch a monster and take damage, that should tell you "don't touch monsters." If you touch a monster, are taken to a separate screen where you can fight them, and then get rewards like EXP and items for doing so, then it should be clear that the developer put them in for a reason and that maybe, just maybe, avoiding all of them might have consequences.

If you don't like that, that's fine. But to call it bad game design is irresponsible. An entire genre has been built on that foundation. And you may not like that genre. But a lot of us do and are trying to make games a certain way.

author=Koi

author=Corfaisus
And I think you should disable the monster's ability to reengage you after a battle for a few seconds. If you escape, you'll just immediately hit the same encounter over and over again until you cave in and fight it.

You are not the first person to suggest this, and I actually would like to put it in! But I don't know how. If you can tell me how to implement this, then I will definitely do it.

The way I do it is to use the Erase Event command after the Battle Processing command. That way, the event will be erased from the map (until it's revisited) regardless of whither or not the player wins the fight, or runs. I'm not sure how viable this tactic is for this game, though, as I've not played it.

author=Pancaek

author=Koi
I put in free-roaming monsters for a couple of reasons. One, so that you can run from them to go heal up and get prepared if you're in a bind. Two, I absolutely hate random encounters. And three, just to give you a chance to escape if you want to, but it's not intended for players to completely disregard them.

Also, another factor to consider is that if you don't fight, you can't save the game. Monsters are the only way to get candy wrappers. I did this on purpose.

I'm not trying to tell you how to make your game or anything, but giving the player an option and then saying that they're not suppose to choose that option at certain points without any indication, is kind of bad game design. If you give the player an option to not battle if they don't want to, that's great. But if you give them that option, and then say they're not playing the game right when they choose that option more often than not, then what's the point of it anyways?

As a game designer, you can't tell people they're not playing by the games rules. (Unless they're hacking.) The rules of the game are what you allow the player to do an not do. If they can do it in the game, they're playing by the games rules. You can't try and force people into a specific play style and expect them to be fine with that.

While I get where you are coming from, there are plenty of problems with that statement. If people are employing a poor strategy that is getting them killed, then, yes, even though that's something the game allowed them to do, that doesn't mean it has equal weight as a "correct" way to play the game. In a particular game, it can indeed be "wrong" to, say, turtle and stay on the defensive, even though the game allows it, for example.

The escape command exists to allow the player to get out of battles when they aren't going well. That does not mean a developer is obligated to make running away from every single encounter a valid game strategy. They could, certainly, and come up with a different and possibly interesting alternative kind of game, but if they don't, then they are in no ways guilty of "bad game design."

You can say "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty. It's my personal preference" and that's fine. Start saying "I'd like a game that allows me to avoid battles with no penalty, because otherwise that's bad game design" and you are both speaking nonsense and trying to push your own preferences above the developers. If you don't want to have to fight battles then perhaps an combat-centered RPG isn't for you.