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 ListsRAMSHACKIN'S PROFILE
Close
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Writing gameplay mechanics into the narrative
author=Red_Nova
Ramshackin, since you're asking this question in the first place, I'm guessing story is pretty important to your game?
Yep, you guessed right. Story is important to the game, though it never takes itself too seriously. I'm sure I could come up with some explanation. This particular dungeon happens to be filled with talking statues carved by a lonely sculptor who heard if he made a statue from the stone in this cave, it would talk back. And all the statues you meet end up being total lying schemers. I'm sure there's some magic stone mischief explanation hiding in there, but I feel it would bother me as the developer since the explanation has no impact on the story.
Ha, maybe the real issue is I'm too caught up being a perfectionist and am trying to feel out how much imperfection people will accept in a game?
author=Kalin
I'd focus on what differences exist between the characters. For example, you could have an inscription saying that red tiles are death to men and blue tiles are fatal to women. Or the characters could notice differences in the tiles, like white tiles are so slippery that only heavy people can walk on them while black tiles are pressure plates that trigger traps if heavy people walk on them.
I really like this. One character is a thief and the other a priest. I might actually rework the dungeon so the puzzles focus on the differences and similarities between the characters. I could move the black/white tile puzzles somewhere that they actually fit into the dungeon's narrative. Or save it for another game ;)
author=LockeZ
I don't think it's necessary to fully explain everything. Nobody wants to hear your characters describe why it is that they can only carry exactly 12 items no matter how much those items weigh or how big they are, or why they can't wear more than two accessories at once. Nobody is questioning why the damage done by Energy Wave is increased by wielding a stronger glove, or why sleeping at an inn doesn't cause the story to progress without you. There are certain things that players will just accept as being abstractions for the sake of gameplay.
There's a rule of writing that says: don't try to answer a question that nobody is asking.
This is some solid advice. In a dialog heavy genre like an RPG, cutting unnecessary explanations is a gift to players. There's already a novel worth of text in each game.
Screenshot Survival 20XX
The problem with stairs is they only go up a half tile in height, so you need two stair tiles for every one wall tile if you want the heights to make sense.
I could shift the stairs up and extend the border. Something like:
I could shift the stairs up and extend the border. Something like:
Writing gameplay mechanics into the narrative
I have a dungeon where two party members get stuck and work together to get out. The puzzle mechanics involve the floor being split into black and white tiles. One character can only walk on the black tiles, while the white tiles act as walls, and reverse for the other character. The problem is there is no narrative reason for why they can't walk freely.
So how do you deal with gameplay mechanics that don't make sense from a story perspective?
One option is keeping them separate. The characters never mention or discuss the elaborate puzzles they are working their way through. Dialog is used for character building and advancing the plot, not for discussing why the party has to collect 4 planks to assemble a bridge over the river instead of swimming across.
The other option is to work the gameplay into the story. But I feel this is difficult to do without sounding like a cop-out. Oh hey, this is that one magic temple where your birth date determines what color tiles you can step on.
Maybe you just never have gameplay mechanics that don't fit the overall narrative?
So how do you deal with gameplay mechanics that don't make sense from a story perspective?
One option is keeping them separate. The characters never mention or discuss the elaborate puzzles they are working their way through. Dialog is used for character building and advancing the plot, not for discussing why the party has to collect 4 planks to assemble a bridge over the river instead of swimming across.
The other option is to work the gameplay into the story. But I feel this is difficult to do without sounding like a cop-out. Oh hey, this is that one magic temple where your birth date determines what color tiles you can step on.
Maybe you just never have gameplay mechanics that don't fit the overall narrative?
Screenshot Survival 20XX
Screenshot Survival 20XX
How do you differentiate your characters?
I'm loving the examples in this thread. Especially the detailed ones by LockeZ and Craze. I'm greedy and demand more.
Here's a shot at some general guidelines:
Different resources
In terms of what characters spend to act, and how they obtain that resource. Looking at LockeZ's example, his ninjas spend shadows to act and gain them by evading, while a thief must actively steal to gain their spendable resource. They are more than just different names for MP.
Different forms a damage
And I don't mean fire vs ice damage. Think about damage styles that are different on a mechanical level. Direct single target damage, weaker damage to all foes, indirect damage through poison or by reducing enemy defense so allies do more.
Let me steal an example from my own game, Notes From Province. Two skills; the first attacks 4 times for 25% damage, while the second attacks once for 100% damage. In isolation, it's the same skill, but start adding some context and they behave very different. Picture an enemy who deals a retaliation attack every time they take damage or a defensive enemy who never takes more than 1 damage from an attack. If I stumble across a piece of equipment that grants a bonus on critical hits, I'm going to give it to the character with the 4x skill because he's much more likely to land a crit. Or what if you're up against LockeZ's ninja? Now the character with the 4x attack is a liability, because he's more likely to give the ninja evades + shadows.
Actually, writing that examples reminds of possibly the most important guideline,
Enemies that make the differences matter
Here's a shot at some general guidelines:
Different resources
In terms of what characters spend to act, and how they obtain that resource. Looking at LockeZ's example, his ninjas spend shadows to act and gain them by evading, while a thief must actively steal to gain their spendable resource. They are more than just different names for MP.
Different forms a damage
And I don't mean fire vs ice damage. Think about damage styles that are different on a mechanical level. Direct single target damage, weaker damage to all foes, indirect damage through poison or by reducing enemy defense so allies do more.
Let me steal an example from my own game, Notes From Province. Two skills; the first attacks 4 times for 25% damage, while the second attacks once for 100% damage. In isolation, it's the same skill, but start adding some context and they behave very different. Picture an enemy who deals a retaliation attack every time they take damage or a defensive enemy who never takes more than 1 damage from an attack. If I stumble across a piece of equipment that grants a bonus on critical hits, I'm going to give it to the character with the 4x skill because he's much more likely to land a crit. Or what if you're up against LockeZ's ninja? Now the character with the 4x attack is a liability, because he's more likely to give the ninja evades + shadows.
Actually, writing that examples reminds of possibly the most important guideline,
Enemies that make the differences matter
[RMMV] [RMVX ACE] Is there a good reason to jump from VX Ace to MV?
author=sicksinz
Is there any documentation somewhere that tells us more about the library for MV though, like Microsofts MSDN or Unity's scripting knowledgebase? I would probably be comfortable making the jump to MV if I knew exactly what I was looking to use.
Are you familiar with scripting in VX Ace? The MV code is setup in a nearly identical way.
[RMMV] [RMVX ACE] Is there a good reason to jump from VX Ace to MV?
Just want to clarify since you've mentioned it a few times - MV scripts are in Javascript, which similarities with Java end at the name.
If I make a new project, it'll be in MV. For me, the biggest reason is I like the scripting experience more. VX Ace has unaccessible code powering the engine, but MV gives access to everything. Though to most, I doubt that's a selling point. I'm just the crazy type that wants to mess with everything.
If I make a new project, it'll be in MV. For me, the biggest reason is I like the scripting experience more. VX Ace has unaccessible code powering the engine, but MV gives access to everything. Though to most, I doubt that's a selling point. I'm just the crazy type that wants to mess with everything.
Duel mechanics / Single character RPGs
There's a board/card game called BattleCON that might give you some inspiration. Essentially it's a 1v1 arcade fighter converted into a turned based tactics game.
One thing that's unique is each player gets a list of the other player's moves, and when you play your move, it goes into an openly visible cool down pile before it can be used again. This creates a situation where the core of the decision making is predicting what move your opponent is planning. His most powerful move just came off cool down, so obviously he'll use that, so I'll play my counter move. But wait, maybe he's expected that, so he's trying to trick me into putting my counter on cool down, then he'll strike.
Essentially each turn begins by playing for your opponent in your head to determine the optimal moves to defeat yourself, then trying to find a counter play in your currently active skillset.
One thing that's unique is each player gets a list of the other player's moves, and when you play your move, it goes into an openly visible cool down pile before it can be used again. This creates a situation where the core of the decision making is predicting what move your opponent is planning. His most powerful move just came off cool down, so obviously he'll use that, so I'll play my counter move. But wait, maybe he's expected that, so he's trying to trick me into putting my counter on cool down, then he'll strike.
Essentially each turn begins by playing for your opponent in your head to determine the optimal moves to defeat yourself, then trying to find a counter play in your currently active skillset.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
