I love rpg games. My main interest is not in the battling but in the quests, seeing and exploring the world etc. I am starting a project and wanted to know how others felt about the battles. So how I have it planned out, you would have the opportunity to battle but it would not be required. For example the creature who lives in a cave is terrified of snakes and spiders and offers you something in exchange for eliminating them. So if you wanted the gold, special item or whatever is offered you would then go in and battle. If you had no desire to battle you could just skip that quest and move on. There would be no random encounters when walking on the map. You wouldn't even have to fight a final battle. There are two possible endings. One easier way which would involve the sacrifice of a well loved character. The second would be a longer drawn out ending where you had to gather certain key items and manipulate the final "Boss" into falling for the trap. I figure most people will do both Saving and completing the first way, then returning for the second ending. It's what I would do

There will be quite a few optional battles built in for those who enjoy it. Should also mention I do not plan on powering up my characters. My two main characters are a male and female, guided by a fairy. The female will have a bow and as the game progresses she can buy arrows made of different items to increase her damage dealt. They can also buy items to increase their defense. Same idea with the guy, just different weapon. The fairy will offer the only magic in the team.

I am about 3/4 of the way through writing my novel which the game is based on. While writing I couldn't help but think how great of a game it would be to play. Which is what led me here. That's why I thought of leaving out the battles. The book will not contain the random battles, it will be about the adventure they are on to solve the issue at hand. But if most would rather have the battles and the characters increasing, I can do that. Not like the book and game need to be the same. I figure most who read the book wont play the game and those who play the game wont care about reading the book.

So what do you all think? Would you still want to play a game where the fighting isn't required? Where the characters don't "power up"?

On the DS, there's a game called The World Ends With You. While the storyline did throw you into boss battles, the "random encounters" were completely optional. You basically hit this button, then a bunch of monster icons would appear on the screen. Occasionally you'd find aggressive ones that run straight towards you, but the non-aggressive ones you could just tap them to fight them. You were also largly in control of the difficulty of the battles too, with better drop rates rewarding you for making it harder.

I felt that it worked very well, and I feel that if your world and writing are immersive enough, the player shouldn't feel the need to be fighting. As long as the player is doing *something*, I don't think it needs to necessarily be about battles. But optional battles will obviously open it up to anyone who does want it. I say go for it. At the end of the day, if battles are optional, it's just a case of adding in more optional enemies if the bloodthirsty players are getting bored.

You could always take the western rpg route. In those games there is quite often other ways to resolve problems rather than battling. You can pick locks, intimidate people into solutions or simply explore to get different paths. There usually are forced battle though, but some like Planescape had a much heavier focus on talking and exploring. So, long story short, I would look at Planescape for inspiration of how well a game can work without a focus on battles and just make sure that not battling is as satisfying as battling.

Eiyu ~ Thank you for your opinion. Yes there will be a lot of other things going on. And your quests that include battles will not be "go kill a snake" . There will be a cave system with the battles taking place inside. Your main reward for completing the quest would be from clearing the caves out. You would also gain items from the individual battles, such as snake skin and fangs that could be sold . Only realistic items you could gain by slaying a snake, not a monetary amount.
I plan on setting up many different optional fighting areas, so if fighting was desired there would be many chances. The creatures you battle will also get harder as you progress requiring you to purchase better items. You are in a world where humans are not valued. They are foreigners in this fantasy land and are not welcomed by most. They are guarded by the fairy to keep the enemies from getting their hands on them. This enables you the chance to prove yourself to those who are hesitant to trust a human. The quest you do (battle or otherwise) help you to gain trust with the locals and you will only be able to complete the game if you have gained the favor of many cities. There would be enough other quests and things to accomplish that if you never wanted to fight anything you wouldn't have to.

Knot ~ Thank you for your advice. I will check out Planescape. I don't want to do a western theme or venture from the fantasy setting at this time. Perhaps for future projects (if I ever make another one). The story is written for this one, I know how it ends and I have the graphics needed. I have played several rpg xp/vx style games and really love them. I just get annoyed when I am trying to go from city to city and have many battles delaying me. In Aveyond I enjoyed the fact that I could dodge some of the battles. Others that just have random encounters can get more tedious.


I am fine with either adding in the battles or not. Both ways would work. I actually planned on doing the battles, that is just how I expect these types of games to be. It just dawned on me that if I didn't care so much for the battles maybe there were others who felt the same. I don't see the game losing any value by not having the forced battles. I want people to enjoy the game so thought I would ask here first.

There's a number of games that allow a sort of on/off switch to battles and allow players to determine how much battling they do.

The FF series has items that stop random encounters.

FF8 puts all enemies at your party's average level, so that boss fights aren't impossible if you haven't grinded.

The Way has an assortment of mini-games, as well as most difficult battles as side-quests. Leveling isn't necessary because losing in many scenarios is an option.

Battles are not necessary for a good RPG. I think making them optional is more often than not a good idea.

I pretty much just refuse to play RPGs with random battles any more. They only really serve to slow down progression and take you out of the story.

If there are no battles then it's not an RPG. It's just an adventure game.

I like RPGs, personally. That's why I make them.

However, if you have no interest in battles then I think it's safe to assume you're not going to make ones that will interest the player either. And if you are rubbish at making fun and interesting RPG battles, then don't make an RPG. Really, based on what you have said, my advice would be to make an adventure game that has no battles at all - no required ones, and also no optional ones. Just a pure adventure game, like one of those Lucasarts games. There's a free program called Adventure Game Studio that is specifically designed for creating that type of game.

Samechiel ~ That is exactly how I feel about them.

Titanhex ~ Thank you for your opinion!

LockeZ ~ Nothing in my game will be rubbish. I have been learning events, scripting, mapping and the xp program for over a year now. Practicing and making small games. I am now starting my dream project and really feel I can do it well with the xp program. If not, I wouldn't even release it. I would also make sure people understood there were no required battles (if I go that route), so people would not be disappointed when they started playing the game.
I did check out the program you suggested and downloaded it. I am still reading up on it. Not sure that I want to devote the time to learning a new program when I already understand how to use xp. I also checked out some of the games made with AGS and must say I didn't like the look of them at all. Could just be the couple I checked out. But I will read up on it some more and give it a shot. I do agree my game is more of an adventure game than a battle game. But I love the look of the xp games and with the custom graphics I have it looks great. I know I can use custom graphics with the AGS but they are all sized to fit with xp. I'd hate to have all of that work done over again and I don't think my artist would be very happy about starting over! Thank you for telling me about AGS, I didn't even know it existed. I doubt I will use it for this project, but considering I enjoy the adventure type game over a battle game, I very well may use it in the future.

I disagree with Lockez on this. Look at that game castlechasers. It has no battles in it what so ever, and was built using the RMXP engine, and yet it's probably one of the best on this site.

elliott20 I looked for the game you mentioned and couldn't find it anywhere.

With the responses so far I believe I will just go with the optional battles. I will make sure to mention no required battles in the games description so there are no surprises for players.

Thank you all once again for replying.