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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsHASVERS'S PROFILE
Hasvers
1298
Close
Exeunt Omnes
A game of strategic sophistry. Convince or crush the teenage girl who wants to end your reign of evil.
A game of strategic sophistry. Convince or crush the teenage girl who wants to end your reign of evil.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Fundamental RPGology
Fundamental RPGology
Thanks a lot for the save, that means a lot really :) But I kind of expected such reactions - more of them than I've had, actually. Doesn't make them pleasant, but you never please everyone, so I guess not everyone pleases you back.
I'm challenging things that people love, some reluctance is to be expected. I just really wish my intentions wouldn't be misconstrued, since I'm investing time (and 20 bucks) into a community event out of nothing but pure scientific curiosity (and perhaps the utopian belief that we, small indie community, can do better than the pros we admire - not in terms of polish and scope, but at least in terms of game-changing ideas). To my great pleasure, I'm not the only one who sees this as a worhty investment. That's all fine and dandy but it's the kind of idealism that gets far better people shot, so I know what to expect :P *cue dramatic music*
I'm challenging things that people love, some reluctance is to be expected. I just really wish my intentions wouldn't be misconstrued, since I'm investing time (and 20 bucks) into a community event out of nothing but pure scientific curiosity (and perhaps the utopian belief that we, small indie community, can do better than the pros we admire - not in terms of polish and scope, but at least in terms of game-changing ideas). To my great pleasure, I'm not the only one who sees this as a worhty investment. That's all fine and dandy but it's the kind of idealism that gets far better people shot, so I know what to expect :P *cue dramatic music*
Fundamental RPGology
Oh noes, i has been discovered~
I'd love it if more help topics actually had high-and-mighty analyses though. I am a sucker for both theoretical debate and empirical testing.
Link> Didn't think of that. Well I guess I will arrange something when that bridge needs to be crossed. Technically I have 5 prizes on offer for three contestants, and I might find a couple others if necessary.
I'd love it if more help topics actually had high-and-mighty analyses though. I am a sucker for both theoretical debate and empirical testing.
Link> Didn't think of that. Well I guess I will arrange something when that bridge needs to be crossed. Technically I have 5 prizes on offer for three contestants, and I might find a couple others if necessary.
Fundamental RPGology
Shoobinator>
So no problem for what you're suggesting. Also I would love it if there could be no MP for a variety of reasons commented upon, but I won't make it into a casus belli. If there are other things than HP that need to be communicated via numbers and that's really the most elegant solution, I won't target you too much in my anti-gauge crusade.
calunio> Yeah I've had that a lot. The funny thing is, my goal is actually the exact opposite. I'm trying to urge people to make battle systems I couldn't imagine - which means anything really goes except the same thing that RPGs have been doing again and again for decades - while keeping or extending the underlying principles that have attracted us in said RPGs. And that is much harder.
Aegix> The prettiness of the implementation won't be a factor in the judging (apart to some extent in the Clarity score if it really prevents the player from understanding the system) so don't lose too much sleep over it. If the player has some easy way to know what those actions are (e.g. a readme with explanations), I won't mind it much.
Concerning the enemies, here's my scale of values:
full AI (i.e. giving the enemies a way to choose actions because they are optimal) > minimal AI with randomization (some actions are more probable in some cases) > completely set patterns > completely random actions
I am willing to accept a measure of randomness in enemy behavior as a cop out from real AI, because AI is hard.
So no problem for what you're suggesting. Also I would love it if there could be no MP for a variety of reasons commented upon, but I won't make it into a casus belli. If there are other things than HP that need to be communicated via numbers and that's really the most elegant solution, I won't target you too much in my anti-gauge crusade.
calunio> Yeah I've had that a lot. The funny thing is, my goal is actually the exact opposite. I'm trying to urge people to make battle systems I couldn't imagine - which means anything really goes except the same thing that RPGs have been doing again and again for decades - while keeping or extending the underlying principles that have attracted us in said RPGs. And that is much harder.
Aegix> The prettiness of the implementation won't be a factor in the judging (apart to some extent in the Clarity score if it really prevents the player from understanding the system) so don't lose too much sleep over it. If the player has some easy way to know what those actions are (e.g. a readme with explanations), I won't mind it much.
Fundamental RPGology
turkeyDawg> Well I am bordering on pedantry, but (pseudo-)RNGs are just sufficiently complex systems in any case ;)
Randomness in setting up the battle as you suggest is not at all against the rules indeed. It can even be a way to test your basic design choices: if your system is interesting in random set-ups, then it is interesting because of its rules themselves and not just because you have carefully crafted one encounter.
CashmereCat> Oh ok, then please accept all my apologies for being suspicious and self-centered! I really thought you were making a caricature of me (because I could recognize more than a bit of myself I guess ;) ), which came kinda out of the blue. Now I really look like a jerk, oh well.
PS: If you are a parody of me, well then you're probably my evil twin from an alternate universe. Do you have a goatee?
PPS: Actually, from the way it turned out, it's more likely that I am the evil twin.
PPPS: I just realized. I have a goatee.
Randomness in setting up the battle as you suggest is not at all against the rules indeed. It can even be a way to test your basic design choices: if your system is interesting in random set-ups, then it is interesting because of its rules themselves and not just because you have carefully crafted one encounter.
CashmereCat> Oh ok, then please accept all my apologies for being suspicious and self-centered! I really thought you were making a caricature of me (because I could recognize more than a bit of myself I guess ;) ), which came kinda out of the blue. Now I really look like a jerk, oh well.
PS: If you are a parody of me, well then you're probably my evil twin from an alternate universe. Do you have a goatee?
PPS: Actually, from the way it turned out, it's more likely that I am the evil twin.
PPPS: I just realized. I have a goatee.
Fundamental RPGology
Aegix> Sorry about your midterm, you can tell your teachers you were taking part in a worldwide scientific experiment :P
As I said, healing is not really discouraged, but it would do very well to rethink it somewhat so that the damage doesn't simply vanish (but is for instance delayed, or converted into something else, or sent back against the attacker, or whatever you can come up with). The tug-of-war/attrition game has been done a lot (basically in every RPG for the past 30 years) so I'm not sure there's a lot to add on that front. But listen to your heart and all that. I'd love to see what you'll come up with in terms of skill unlocking, that sounds right on spot!
Thiamor> Well I don't want to press that point much more or I will be accused of being a MP-hater (cue tasteful joke about Guy Fawkes or tasteless joke about manasplaining). I'm interested in solutions that are less one-dimensional than "enough MP/not enough MP" to decide skill unlocking, so I've set up that arbitrary rule about having only HP as a gauge (which doesn't prevent using HP as MP as well); still, you can do your thing and I guess We Three Judges have different enough opinions that you won't be facing an unforgiving bias ;)
Merlandese> Can't we all!
As I said, healing is not really discouraged, but it would do very well to rethink it somewhat so that the damage doesn't simply vanish (but is for instance delayed, or converted into something else, or sent back against the attacker, or whatever you can come up with). The tug-of-war/attrition game has been done a lot (basically in every RPG for the past 30 years) so I'm not sure there's a lot to add on that front. But listen to your heart and all that. I'd love to see what you'll come up with in terms of skill unlocking, that sounds right on spot!
Thiamor> Well I don't want to press that point much more or I will be accused of being a MP-hater (cue tasteful joke about Guy Fawkes or tasteless joke about manasplaining). I'm interested in solutions that are less one-dimensional than "enough MP/not enough MP" to decide skill unlocking, so I've set up that arbitrary rule about having only HP as a gauge (which doesn't prevent using HP as MP as well); still, you can do your thing and I guess We Three Judges have different enough opinions that you won't be facing an unforgiving bias ;)
Merlandese> Can't we all!
Have you learned English while developing games on RM?
Could be worse. In France it's considered as a matter of pride not to learn English. People mostly see it as a conspiracy by those evil British bastards who only want to invade Aquitaine and make everyone eat crumpets and burn Joan of Arc or something.
Fundamental RPGology
CashmereCat> Funny, until now I thought you were being facetious, if trollish. Now I'm slightly sad to see you're really just a troll, you could have been someone funny instead of obnoxious. I mean, that is an amusing portrait of me as CliffyB x Peter Molyneux x Phil Fish, but where the hell did all that angst come from.
Edit: It has occurred to me that there's a not-strictly-zero probability that that parody might not be utterly mean-spirited. If so, you may want to develop a sense of occasion and signalling, but I accept it in good will. If it is as mean-spirited as I assumed though, well I guess my previous words stand.
Just in case anyone else actually feels that distraught by the contest rules: the whole point of this contest is for other people to outsmart me and come up with things I'd never have imagined. Sure I'm a pompous jerk, but I'm pretty damn gracious about it.
Anyhow, wee I'm important enough to get caricatured. It's like I really made it into indie gaming.
Ilan> Elemental weaknesses are not forbidden. I tend to think that they've been done to death, and they too often devolve into "guess the right elemental weakness, use the fireball with the right color, and win". But once again, prove me wrong and I'll applaud with both hands ;)
facesforce and Merlandese> No randomness is one thing, but I've said nothing against hidden information. If you want to have the equivalent of "fog of war" or "face-down cards", some sort of missing information to enhance risk management, I have no problem at all with it as long as the player can reasonably understand what risks they are taking.
As for the memorization problem, the thing is, adding randomness wouldn't make these moves less optimal: they wouldn't work all the time, but they would still work more often than any other, so they should still be memorized - I think professional poker is a pretty sufficient example in this respect. That's why I have the feeling that randomness never really adds tactical depth - it can make things feel more exciting, or less strenuous, which are totally reasonable virtues for game design. But the best choices can be computed and memorized all the same. Only, they can fail for no reason, so you should also memorize the second, and third best.
facesforce> As for the beat idea, run with it ;)
Edit: It has occurred to me that there's a not-strictly-zero probability that that parody might not be utterly mean-spirited. If so, you may want to develop a sense of occasion and signalling, but I accept it in good will. If it is as mean-spirited as I assumed though, well I guess my previous words stand.
Just in case anyone else actually feels that distraught by the contest rules: the whole point of this contest is for other people to outsmart me and come up with things I'd never have imagined. Sure I'm a pompous jerk, but I'm pretty damn gracious about it.
Anyhow, wee I'm important enough to get caricatured. It's like I really made it into indie gaming.
Ilan> Elemental weaknesses are not forbidden. I tend to think that they've been done to death, and they too often devolve into "guess the right elemental weakness, use the fireball with the right color, and win". But once again, prove me wrong and I'll applaud with both hands ;)
facesforce and Merlandese> No randomness is one thing, but I've said nothing against hidden information. If you want to have the equivalent of "fog of war" or "face-down cards", some sort of missing information to enhance risk management, I have no problem at all with it as long as the player can reasonably understand what risks they are taking.
As for the memorization problem, the thing is, adding randomness wouldn't make these moves less optimal: they wouldn't work all the time, but they would still work more often than any other, so they should still be memorized - I think professional poker is a pretty sufficient example in this respect. That's why I have the feeling that randomness never really adds tactical depth - it can make things feel more exciting, or less strenuous, which are totally reasonable virtues for game design. But the best choices can be computed and memorized all the same. Only, they can fail for no reason, so you should also memorize the second, and third best.
facesforce> As for the beat idea, run with it ;)
Fundamental RPGology
author=MerlandeseHmm, hadn't thought of that. As far as I'm concerned, that would not be strictly forbidden, but not encouraged - it's too easy a cop out from trying to devise robust tactical mechanics, and it really rewards something completely different from what we're looking for here. Mostly you're not really betting, you're just being good or bad at pressing a button.
Would you consider skill--as in physical skill--a legitimate part of a strategy?
So unless it's not gimmicky, and used to tactical effect the likes of which I've never seen (and god knows I've played kilotons of rpgs incorporating some timed button mashing - or entirely based around it like Vagrant Story), it's likely to bear down a lot on the originality, elegance and possibly depth scores.
I don't really think that something more is needed to add risk - go and starcraft have no randomness and they're far from devoid of risky decisions.
Roses> Perhaps you should put that request in the Job forum as well for more visibility! (with the number of comments here, it will soon be buried and forgotten)
Fundamental RPGology
Glad to hear your system is coming along nicely!
As for the random numbers, please don't. The debate on randomness is complicated, but here I would like people to explore ways of making battles dynamic without resorting to it; of course you are free to add it afterward if you make a game out of your system, but not for the contest ;)
As for the random numbers, please don't. The debate on randomness is complicated, but here I would like people to explore ways of making battles dynamic without resorting to it; of course you are free to add it afterward if you make a game out of your system, but not for the contest ;)
Games - Tester
Games - Other
