RPG battles: Limited encounters vs high encounter rate Options

[vvalkingman]

Most would agree that somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, or "the sweet spot", is where you'd want to be with encounters. Ranging from one to Dragon Quest 8, I'd like to put together a game that is a 1. Why? Because I feel encounters should be more meaningful, strategic, and require preparation/research. A more realistic take. The gist is that the game features a modern setting and a battle between wizards/witches. They have names, personalities, back story, and a specific element/elemental they draw their power from....even the "fodder"/bodyguards/etc. There are other gameplay elements at play which add to the fights themselves, making it harder or easier. With this much into a battle, I can't just reward you with a set xp amount, cash, and maybe an item if you're lucky....can I?

See, I'm thinking that if I reward the player MORE per battle then it'll offset the need for "grinding" which is what a high encounter rate pushes the player to do whether they want to or not.

Ex. Here's Steve. I burnt Steve to a crisp because he was in my way and wouldn't get out of it. Steve was obviously getting paid ALOT because he fought to the death for some aristocrat. Steve isn't going to respawn because he's DEAD.

Idea #1: Instead of rewarding the player with experience only for killing everyone they encounter, I reward them through using magic in any way or through decisions made in the story. This way the players that don't want to kill EVERYONE can still progress. This would turn each battle that you have with other wizards/witches into mini-boss battles, testing your skills, and rewarding accordingly.

Idea #2: Reward the player for killing at 120% XP of what they would get for just letting them go when given the option(because we are mortal and will run when we are sure we will die if we don't....most of the time anyway.) You would think that this would make players want to let their enemies go so they can farm them. To prevent this, the next time they face the enemy they will be "ready" for them and playing to their weaknesses. Also letting people live or not effects the story for better or worse. You might have let Steve go but him and some of the other guys you gave a beating to decide to team up and come after you.

I could just combine both ideas, but it order to do something so detailed....and interesting(imo), one would have to have only a few encounters. Is it worth it? Thoughts on this sort of thing? Have I peaked anyone's interest? Or does it sound too overly complicated?

[Resource Dragon]

It definitely sounds interesting. It would take a little effort to setup, but it is definitely original.

I'd support it.

[UmbrotheUmbreon]

That's pretty badass. I had to reread a few times to understand but with the examples that seems pretty cool. Idea #2 would definitely be unique I say go for it

[vvalkingman]

Thanks for the support!! I'm writing out the script now for a demo to get a feel for what I'm getting into...which is actually a pretty daunting task with all the gameplay & storyline ideas I brainstormed. I guess I was just looking to see if I was wasting my time. I could come up with this overly complicated design concept, work really hard to get it out, and find that it's not fun or interesting at all....I guess that's the kind of roulette we all play as designers/developers. Thanks again for the input. When I have something more concrete I'll post up on the dev forum.

[LockeZ]

Hmm. I like the idea of making battles against the same enemy harder after you've beaten them once. Usually the opposite thing happens: the first time you beat the enemy you are figuring out a strategy, but the next time you encounter the same enemy you already know what it does and how to counter it and what its weaknesses are so you dispatch it with ease. This would help prevent that, as long as you're careful not to make it possible for the player to make all the enemies so hard he can't win any more.

If the player lets the enemy run 35 times, does it get stronger each time? Or only the first? If it gets stronger each time then balancing the enemy growth will be much more difficult, you'll have to make sure the player can always flee and defeat something else even if they can't survive against the current foe. On the other hand if it only gets stronger the first time then you're just delaying the easy farming by a single battle, you're not preventing it.

It sounds like there's not a lot of incentive to actually kill the enemies. Maybe that fits fine with what you want. But if you want it to be a legit choice, then killing the enemy should provide a much more powerful reward, like 500% XP and a new piece of equipment. Because 120% XP is nowhere near high enough to offset the cost of infinite lost potential XP. I think enemies only dropping equipment and money if you kill them would make sense. And if that's the only way to get money, and healing costs money, then you will actually have a really nice anti-grind system in place.

[vvalkingman]

The way I was going to do it was make it so that the after the first time you beat them they will then play to your weaknesses(you're a fire element user). Subsequent battles where you beat them and let them run will add to a variable for that specific character. The character upon return will have their stats upgraded and in some instances they may learn a new spell or upgraded version of an old one. If you lose to them, they will not get stronger. So they only get stronger as "they see the need". And the 120% isn't a set number, I'll probably raise it once I test everything out. Lots of work ahead lol might start a recruitment/project development thread shortly, of course that'll be after I nail everything down for the demo. Thanks everyone for the input

[userjosh704]

I'm not posting to discourage, but this doesn't sound like a game I'd play because I like the typical RPG formula; although I don't like Random Encounters mostly because they just feel like interruptions form exploring or getting around. Your idea sounds like a tactics game, which I have enjoyed but sometimes the fights feeeel soooo sloooow. In fact, I prefer to play Final Fantasy Tactics with just Ramza, and FFTA was too slow to finish.

[vvalkingman]

I'm not posting to discourage, but this doesn't sound like a game I'd play because I like the typical RPG formula; although I don't like Random Encounters mostly because they just feel like interruptions form exploring or getting around. Your idea sounds like a tactics game, which I have enjoyed but sometimes the fights feeeel soooo sloooow. In fact, I prefer to play Final Fantasy Tactics with just Ramza, and FFTA was too slow to finish.

The idea is to mix tactical elements with the standard battle system. You set things up for your fights before you fight. Instead of fighting rats, slimes, etc which have no real point other than feeding the player small amounts of xp and gold, I reduce the number of encounters and have more meaningful fights where you will have to pull out an arsenal of spells for different situations. Like a real duel between mages. These enemies have names, brief backstories, personalities, etc and all that influences how they fight and how you should fight them. You are given meaningful choices like deciding to let them go after you win or to kill them which could impact the story either way. It's not like a classic rpg with puzzles, hordes of enemies, and the need for grinding to get the iron sword so you can grind slightly stronger monsters to get the steel sword. You have one goal, find and kill the witch who killed your family and deal with whoever gets in your way or holds information about her from you however you see fit. The game itself is short but will have replay value.

Honestly, it's just an idea that I want to see through and see if it's fun/interesting. I've never played a game like that where decisions actually matter and the game treats you like an adult for the most part. At least that's what I'm shooting for. It might not even be fun, lol of course then I'd scrap it or change it up somehow later down the line but I won't know until I build it and see. Honestly though, if you feel that encounters are interruptions then maybe you should check it out. Think of it as taking out the interruptions and making it so you only have to fight people that matter without having to grind...just use your head and the spells you already have at your disposal.

[userjosh704]

Actually, I think this'll work if there's a lot of focus on roleplay and how will the dungeon crawling phases of the game work?

[vvalkingman]

Actually, I think this'll work if there's a lot of focus on roleplay and how will the dungeon crawling phases of the game work?

You have three phases:
1. Finding information in the city/following leads/stocking up on supplies
2. Assaulting defenses/mages
3. Defending yourself from an assault(usually spurred on from actions in 2.)

This is a modern setting, so you aren't breaking into castles or caves. You are breaking into normal houses. These houses will probably have seals, traps, barriers, etc which is part of the tactics I was talking about earlier. You can find a way to break them/disable them or you can try powering through which "might" work depending on who you are dealing with. Some may give up and tell you what you want to know if you power through vs going through things using your head. Though you could always force them to tell you what you want to know with the mana you saved not powering through.

Roleplaying is key. I want you to feel like a powerful witch on a hunt for revenge. You can be intelligent and ruthless. You can rage about if you'd like. Or you could take a more neutral path. Either way it all leads to the witch who killed your family and she needs to pay for that. There are consequences to every action though. You could make the game harder for yourself by having everyone hate you because you are a murdering crazy woman. Depends on if you want a body count or not. The game sounds complicated but it really isn't. Just tons of conditional branches and variables, haha.