NEVERSILENT'S PROFILE

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.

I notify the others of what I've discovered. "Guys, did you see the floor tiles are slightly protruding? Also, look at that hole in the ceiling. Oh, and over there, an alcove with no torch in it. What do you think we have to do here?"


P.S.: The limits of my knowledge of English are beginning to show, I'm afraid. Can anyone explain to me what "protruding" is? I looked it up but I'm still not sure I understand what it means in this situation. Is the floor slowly moving upwards or something?

P.P.S.: seiromem, I believe you forgot to remove 5 MREppers from my inventory. We ate some back in the previous room, remember? Also, what the heck does that name even stand for?

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).

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 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?