DOOMED2DIE'S PROFILE

Well you don't really have to define what a method is and how it functions and stack calls and whatnot lol. I guess the methods part is fine but in terms of procedures, well... Skip over it now and just write basic code, and later it'll bite you in the ass you know? Of course, you could write 3 articles on algorithms so.... I guess it's your guide haha

And an issue that applies all too much more than a vague age group. I don't think that your age group generalization really applies at even a majority and that it's too vague. It's really my major issue with this article but I'm just harping on details.

This really wasn't bad at all; I liked a lot of it but there was 1 part that really caught me the wrong way:

If your audience is younger or kids; then making a CHANGE = Happiness. Your character will be happier or better off.
-You kill the drunk, and your wife/husband is extremely turned on by the violence and you have an incredible sex life for ever. (Hopefully this is not a kid's book.)

If your audience is teenage or young adult; then being RESOLUTE = Sadness. Your character will be unhappy or worse off by sticking to their guns.
-You run away from the drunk, and your wife/husband leaves you for the drunk. You're divorced, and a coward.

If your audience is old adult; then being RESOLUTE = Happiness. Your character will be happier and better off for sticking to your guns.
-You run away from the drunk, the wife/husband sees how psychotic the drunk is and runs away with you.

If your audience is old adult; then making a CHANGE = Sadness. Your character will be unhappy or worse off by changing their ways.
-You kill the drunk in turn and the wife/husband is afraid of your change and you are sent to jail for life.

Since when does the age of your audience justify a major generalization? There are older cynics out there (Being resolute in pacifism just gets you killed) and there are teenage romantics who think everything deserves a happy ending.

I think you should take a better consideration as to whom your audience is, not what their age is. What sort of people will identify well with your story? Teenagers? Adults? Sure, there might be that sort of category. But what about other things? Cynics? (Think House for example). Romantics? Guys? Girls? Not just their age.

@Versalia

author=Versalia
I feel like this article just repeats basic concepts from multiple other articles.

http://rpgmaker.net/articles/293/ A much more detailed list of battle roles, not only applicable to enemies but heroes as well;
http://rpgmaker.net/articles/4/ Brickroad's vastly more detailed study of the same topic;
http://rpgmaker.net/articles/27/ Kentona's study of the same topic;
http://rpgmaker.net/articles/177/ Craze's article on unique skillsets

etc

Part II is more the focus and I hope to expand upon it a little but the idea is simple: I'm not here to talk about skillsets as much as how they work in conjunction with each other

author=psy_wombats
Yeah, this'll get you a jRPG if you follow it but... Eh, doing stuff like the suggestions always seems so boring. Everyone's played games around these archetypes before. What makes a game shine is what it does that doesn't fall onto that list.

True, like I said, it's difficult to explain exactly what results in the synergy and I'll have to expand upon it but those archtypes are age old for a reason.

author=Crystalgate

author=doomed2die
A skillset is useful in battle when it has skills which complete 1 or more of the following criteria:

I) It deals a lot of damage
II) It deals inhibiting status infliction
III) It reduces the damage you take
IV) It increases the damage you deal
V) It reduces the damage you've taken (Heals)
VI) It gets rid of inhibiting status inflictions

This is usually not true. In most games I've played, II, III and IV are useless or limited to occasional situations. For example, most RPGs have a sleep spell, but in only a few of them is said sleep spell appealing to use.

Even RPG Maker games usually have offensive move, healing, curative spells, stat up, stat down, status effects and all that. That's the easy part. The hard part is to make anything that doesn't heal or deal direct damage appealing or even useful. This spills over to synergies as well. Many RPGs has exactly what you recommended, different party member with different skills that are supposed to work together. However, despite all that, offense and heal ends up being the only skills worth using.

Usually not true but like I said, in a well made game. Sure, you'll have these people, the goal is to make them worth it. At any rate, the hopes in this is that II, III, IV are all going to happen. I'm hoping to make a sleep spell worth it (for example, sleep the ogre so I can kill the bats first). In every case, there's an ultimate goal like I said.

It was more of an idealized situation. Part of the problem is you can't inflict status afflictions on anything worth inflicting them on. But hey, with so many talking about it, it's bound to change eventually.