Making your game general

ITT we discuss how to collaboratively design our games.

I'm currently experimenting with perk system which replaces classes:
essentially you select 2 perks from a huge list that give bonuses to your preferred stats/abilities, and you can change/respec to any other perk while playing to adjust the style.
Does it sound good? Classless systems are way easier to balance.

>>2
sounds like guild wars 1 and its dual-classing system

I've been getting on and off into game development for some time. I'm now contracted in a low-budget (but not truly indie as we have a publisher) project, but it's not really a game design position so I'm not sure if it's relevant to this thread (but I can elaborate more on how I work if anyone's interested) - I'm doing more writing and narrative design, with a focus on lore/backstory.

as for my own hobby/non-commercial projects in which I do game design, I'm interested in a more systemic/statistical approach to interactive fiction, as opposed to (but in practice: in addition to) explicitly choice-based branching. I have two such projects (one is really just a slightly unusual parser-based text adventure, the other is a turn-based city builder with CYOA/VN story sequences between the turns), and both use placing things on the map as a mechanic that determines the outcome of some of the actions in the game.

>>2
you should look into the first two Fallout games, and a more complex extension of this system in Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. those have really cool free-form classless character building which still allows for drastically different builds, although I wouldn't exactly call any of those games 'balanced'.

Levelling is retarded, in my haskell rpg I will allow for stats to only be adjusted via items and perks.

>>6
is there a design reason for that or is it just about muh pure functionality?

>>5
Build diversity is easy, since there is only one "class".
There idea i suppose to test is giving N points to invest in skills at start, so level 1 char can have thousands of builds.
Basically the whole (levelup to gain skills) is skipped and levels only add basic stat points. Skills are scaled by character level though so e.g.
level 6 fireball damage is multiplied by factor proportional to character current level.

>>6
Leveling adds a sense of progression to the player.
It segments game areas by difficulty(required levels) and restricts end-game stuff to high-level chars.

>>9
those are all well and good, but I think that 'progression systems' (including item-based progressions ala >>6) are treated too much as something that's necessary for every game. I'd say they're often detrimental in non-RPG non-open world games. see for example Bayonetta: you just shouldn't need to buy moves/combos, it's just busywork so you sink more hours into the game.

check my'm am dubs

There alternatives to character levels:
1,Skill-use leveling, all skills are available as level 1 and rise in levels by continued use(N*1.1^L per level) uses. Its intuitive but very tiresome to gain levels vs character leveling.
2.Upgrades from consumables: character stats are boosted by consuming some stuff that permanently alters stuff.
3.Skill upgrades from items:like reading a book in Diablo1 boost a skill by one level.
4.Skill-use gated experience: basically you're leveling up a skill instead of character(expirience goes to skill exp). Doesn't work well with non-attack skills or utility skills.
5.Time-gated item-level expirience: like in EVE online, your equipment gains levels by just existing/being alive/being equipped. Most boring and least interactive option.
6.Consumable-Experience: expirience(gain) exists but levels don't, just all skills consume gained expirience points, like mana for spells. Hard to balance for lower levels(it needs a boost for beginners)
7.Skill-use component upgrades: like #1, but instead of adding levels to a skill, you upgrade a level of component of a skill, like adding +1 range/+5 damage/+1 speed to fireball(i.e. upgrading stat components of skills by skill-level-points). Far more build diversity overall than any other option.
8.Consumable skill component upgrades:same as #7 but you need to find magic reagents to upgrade your skill components.
9.Charging skills: skills upgrade their stats by charging(continous usage) and lose with idle time. It can be combined with other systems.
Basically character levels can be replaced, if skills/stats are upgraded somehow by player.

Any ideas on how to escape homelessness to make my'm game?

>>12
hello, FrozenAnus! have you thought of doing the opposite of progression system: a regression system in which your're are character starts of powerful but is gradually weakened, and needs to deal with more difficult situations (or maybe even the same ones, the regression itself would ramp up the difficulty) while his skills diminish?

>>14
No. A player needs progression and psychological rewards for continued gameplay - removing perks and reducing stats would make one disappointed.
However there are similar ideas on smaller scale of "temporary power", like charge of Invisibility(invisible for N seconds) that could be added to items(N charges of level K Invisibility). Or for more realistic items: Item decay(items stats are reduced by usage).

Also, how do you determine this is my post?

>>15
your're are writing style is actually very recognizeable, I don't know why but I always know it's you. same with Nikita, although he is way more obvious because he always complains about Russia. I'd say posts about occultism and tulpas are similarly uniquely yours, but you don't always bring those up the way our pet bydlo brings up Russia.

as for removing perks making the player disappointed - that might be the point, although I guess the game should be appropriately short (so that the disappointment doesn't overpower you and make you stop playing, and also so that it's harder to make the game unwinnable by fucking around until you don't have enough power to finish it). but imagine a short horror game in which the player is cursed or infected and will certainly die/transform/disappear in some time - like the ending of the first season of the Walking Dead game, but backed by mechanics instead of just lame cutscene shit. this could make a powerful, frightening experience

>>16
The average RPG player doesn't seek such expirience, is this some kind of "visual novel/cinematic RPG" expirience ?
Also, a gameplay system of RPG is inherently biased to favor power-seeking players who want betters stats and loot. To force them into a horror story will be counter-productive as they'll play to fight the story(retain power/items/skills) and will be disappointed that the plot forces their weakness automagically, instead of being fairly defeated.

>>17
no, I'm not talking about RPGs at all. I'm imagining it more as a system for a survival horror type game, as a more interesting alternative to simple resource scarcity that used to be common in those games.

>>16
If you reframe it as potentially winnable puzzle, to force players to seek a cure and make it really hard to win(but possible), it would have potential as a Horror RPG. Making it unwinnable is bad design like Mario Maker troll levels are often loaded with traps and unfair obstacles/dead-ends, with only one way to solve them(often required viewing the level in editor).

>>19
I'm imagining it less as a puzzle of finding a cure and more as a puzzle of achieving your're are goal before you die. the idea is that your're are character is dommed, but his quest isn't. think of the failure condition as a simple failure and a victory condition as a heroic sacrifice

>>20
Quest-centric horror adventure? That would be a hard sell for interactive medium like games(its not a drama film), survival of player is psychologically important(after all its called Survival Horror). A side character dying instead of player or last-minute salvation would be far better looking.

>>21
can't say I agree. imagine a simple narrative like this: bad guys make zombie virus and your're are one of the test subjects. they want to infect the water supply and kill everyone (dunno why, it's just an example). stopping them is a fairly strong motivation, and so is killing them in revenge - even if you will still die in process. so the failure state is: there is a zombie apocalypse and those responsible for it get away, and the victory state is: the world is saved and the bad guys are dead. protagonist dying fits within the horror tradition of not having clear-cut good endings, but the player has still accomplished something. like I did when getting those dubs

>>22
It look noble&heroic only on film. In video games, dying and failing all the time is flustrating, not noble or heroic.
Player wouldn't give a rats ass about quest design and storyline after dying for the 40th time in a row and listening to all the plot on repeat for hours. The "ramp up the difficulty" mechanic would make 99% of players give up and uninstall.

Also, designers that think cutscenes enrich a videogame, need to be locked in a cellar for a week watching the same cutscenes on repeat(just like most player have to do with each new playthrough).

The dark souls difficulty is artificial, it arises only by the fact that you have to repeat the same route over and over with respawning enemies.

The algorithm for perfect game design.
1.Write a prototype.
2.Play it until you notice a flaw.
3.Fix it.
4.Repeat 2&3 until you can't find a flaw.
5.Add a feature.
6.Goto 2.

>>23
but ramping up the difficulty is a classic game design choices for e.g. action games. this is just a different way of doing that: instead of making the enemies stronger or the levels more challenging, it makes the protagonist weaker

>>26
this is just the old 'zero defects methodology' though, only applied to game design instead of software engineering. spoiler alert: while some people swear by it, it has its flaws and it doesn't always lead to perfection in either design or programming

>>27
This isn't a viable "different way" its completely opaque and unpredictable difficulty along with dependence on hidden information.

>>29
no it isn't? the weakening of protagonist can be as transparent as levelling up (maybe you can even get an unskippable 'level down' screen in which you choose what powers to weaken/remove). this doesn't have to be hidden mechanic, it can be the point: a logical evolution of a timer that kills you when it runs out in the old game (that is, it's a timer that is gradual instead of binary in its effects)

The worst thing in game design is level scaling, what is the point of trying to level up if you end up with no reward? You are just at the same state as if you did not level up.

>>31
agreed. it's one of those things that ruin the RPG genre: building a character becomes less about acquiring strategic or tactical advantage and more about WOAH COOL SHIT happening when you use your're are attack

There are two ways of adding difficulty:
A. Invisible trap located in random location in a Room.
B. Invisible trap located in random location in a Room, but it adds small holes in the floor where the trap is located.
Players can't adapt to A, but with B the player will eventually learn to stay away from holes in the floor = avoiding the trap.
A is unfair game design because it denies the player opportunity to adjust to gameworld. Designers that add type A content that can't be adjusted to are adding "opaque difficulty".

Adding a invisible time-switch that does bad thing X to player when he reaches specific time(or enters a room) is type A design.

>>33
you keep assuming it would be invisible even if I repeatedly tell you that it wouldn't. both the triggers of your're are weakening and its exact effect can be knowable to (or even partially controllable by) the player. it wouldn't be avoidable - the same way entering a more difficult level when going further wouldn't be avoidable - but it would be predictable and the player would certainly be able to adapt to that.

>>34
>he player would certainly be able to adapt to that
Its like "invisible trap with holes in the floor" but you can't stop walking over it, so its technically Type A while providing some useless information that can't change the outcome of unavoidable stepping into a trap.
Its essentially robbing the player of agency. Its doesn't matter if you sugarcoat the situation - the player is forced to "walk the plank" anyway, despite knowing the sharks(trap) waiting down below.

>>31
Level scaling is balance band-aid to discourage munchkins min-maxing their stats/skills.

>>35
by that logic, any sort of game design other than pure sandbox is denyig the player's agency

>>37
Thats actually why sandbox games are popular. The replay-ability of a game is directly proportional to variety of its sandboxy elements and degrees of freedom. Each fixed, static gameplay elements with zero variety is a minus for player's agency and enjoyment.
Linear, fixed anti-sandbox designs with "One True Way to Win" are suited for puzzle games, not a Roleplaying experience or simulation of a world/scenario.

>>37
Trying to shoehorn "art elements" and film-like "expirience" into a video game is a recipe for failure. Its non-essential element that can ruin gameplay. Like rewriting a game mechanic around a cutscene.

>>38

Linear, fixed anti-sandbox designs with "One True Way to Win" are suited for puzzle games, not a Roleplaying experience or simulation of a world/scenario.

agreed, but who said that this is supposed to be an RPG or simulation? it's supposed to be a survival horror, which is generally a rather linear genre.
>>39

Trying to shoehorn "art elements" and film-like "expirience" into a video game is a recipe for failure. Its non-essential element that can ruin gameplay. Like rewriting a game mechanic around a cutscene.

depends on the genre, really. 'cinematic experience' as one true design goal is bullshit, but it did give us some interesting game series - things like Shenmue or Metal Gear Solid. the idea that everything should be like that is bullshit (give me a shmup over a movie-like game any day) but there's place for games like that too