<Untitled IAQ Project>: War Never Ends (voting over, but discussion to continue)

[Dark Holy Elf]

##VOTE: NAY

Seems an unneeded complication to position-based gameplay. Also don't really like the nonsense of active party dead = game over, and the way around this (BoF4 or MK's bringing in the party) seem particularly unsuited to the gameplay.

I won't shed too many tears if this passes, but if it does, I really don't want it to be a core part of the system such that you're switching every battle. As a backup option of "oh shit I brought the wrong person, so I'm willing to make a sacrifice (turns, whatever) to remedy this" I am fine with it.

[074]

::Your favor has gone down significantly::

##VOTE: NAY

Fine with keeping a 'support' slot, though.

[Taishyr]

##VOTE: YEA

Though see NEB for why I won't be downcast if it fails to pass! Really, NEB, if we weren't mirroring each other here we'd be on the same side.

So clearly you're in the wrong. *crosses arms all srsbsnslike which I can't pull without looking stupid*

[DjinnAndTonic]

By our proposed example, Character switching already has the penalty of 'having to move to one of the switch points'.

All that does is create an arbitrary penalty for switching in melee fighters, but not ranged fighters. Bad idea.

(EDIT: For Cmdr, movement penalty upon switching has the same problem.)

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ranged fighters are already at a bit of an innate disadvantage since we were leaning towards most movement being full-field. This means that a Ranged fighter's attacks are only particularly useful for hitting targets behind obstacles/other enemies and that defending ranged PCs is more difficult than in your standard SRPG. Giving them a bit more use when they switch in might be a nice bonus for them. Additionally, your idea of CTB partial turn delay is pretty good.

Also chiming in that in a 19-hex grid, move stats of 1-3 seems most appropriate. Heavy armoured characters and some inathletic-looking mage types move 1, more balanced characters move 2, and maybe one or two freaks move 3? Pending individual balance for each character of course. Could work.

How many PCs would be stackable in one hex? I feel like 3 is my kneejerk. Also, I support that the player can determine a starting formation of the PCs on a few of the hexes (maybe a corner hex and the three adjacent to it). It always seemed a bit random from a realism standpoint that in WA4/5 PCs would spawn in hexes which are often a bad setup for the player. Though the variety it provided did make for more engaging fights...

The reason that the proposed movement system was 4 range was due to the idea that movement doesn't need to be a main focus. If we put too much focus on movement, then we end up with what is essentially an SRPG. Instead, with nearly-full move range for most characters, we have something more akin to the G3 system, where Yes, There Is Movement/Positioning, but the main focus is on the speed manipulation and which skills to use, similar to a TB system. I strongly feel we should continue in this direction unless we decide to go for a full SRPG.

Similarly, I don't feel we need a limit on how many PCs can be stacked in a single Hex. Hex-sharing is an idea promoted mostly to avoid movement clusterfuck issues. I can't see a compelling reason to limit it since you'll still end up with situations where a player will encounter frustration with trying to move PCs around. Not good. A starting position feature is interesting, though.

Perhaps 'you got initiative' battles would allow a player to choose starting position, and 'surprised!' battles would be randomized?


Character Switching: YEEAAAH!!~!

[Cmdr_King]

Previously I could have gone either way, but I like the idea of having it as a dimension to play with in conjunction with the support system (not that anyone's technically agreed to this, but here's hopin').

##VOTE: YEA

[Dark Holy Elf]

Ranged fighters are already at a bit of an innate disadvantage since we were leaning towards most movement being full-field.

Why? Full-field movement is pointless, you can do so little with positioning there, it's just a matter of avoiding AoEs I guess at that point. I am really strongly against full-field movement.

And yes, the -point- of movement is the limited pseudo-SRPG aspects. Things like being able to hide frailer blasters in the back and so on. (The enemies will do the same and this is an advantage, of, say, archers/gunners.)

On limits of PCs in hexes, it's an animation/space flavour thing as much as anything. It's a consideration to be made (WA4, for instance, although it does allow all four PCs in a hex, has a limit of enemies in a hex based on their size). Basically, how big do you picture a hex being? The size in my mind is putting 3 as a practical limit. Also I think 3 is pretty flexible for allowing situations like one frail PC + one tank PC guarding him, with an extra one slot for freedom of movement. This isn't really a big deal but I wouldn't just suggest "everyone" being a default. Would you allow 8 enemies in a hex, for instance?

Cmdr: Elaborate on that?

[DjinnAndTonic]

Ranged fighters are already at a bit of an innate disadvantage since we were leaning towards most movement being full-field.

Why? Full-field movement is pointless, you can do so little with positioning there, it's just a matter of avoiding AoEs I guess at that point. I am really strongly against full-field movement.

That's what it's like in G3. That seemed to be the direction we were all hoping for when the topic started - G3-style gameplay, but more refined. And note that 4 move on a double-ring hex grid is only travelling along the diameter. With obstacles and enemies in the way, PCs still can't move -everywhere-, it just takes the emphasis off the 'limited by movement!' aspect.

And yes, the -point- of movement is the limited pseudo-SRPG aspects. Things like being able to hide frailer blasters in the back and so on. (The enemies will do the same and this is an advantage, of, say, archers/gunners.)

It's not really a 'pseudo' SRPG, then, is it? Seriously, we can make an SRPG, I'm cool with that. But I don't think the battlefield system we proposed so far makes for a great SRPG, and I think we're better off sticking closer to TB-type systems where the emphasis is on strategic skill choice. It also translates better in IAQ form. Having movement as a limiting feature means that the player ends up spending turns where they are just positioning themselves, and that's time-consuming and boring when we're talking about a system with random encounters and exploration. It works in SRPGs because every encounter is scripted.

On limits of PCs in hexes, it's an animation/space flavour thing as much as anything. It's a consideration to be made (WA4, for instance, although it does allow all four PCs in a hex, has a limit of enemies in a hex based on their size). Basically, how big do you picture a hex being? The size in my mind is putting 3 as a practical limit. Also I think 3 is pretty flexible for allowing situations like one frail PC + one tank PC guarding him, with an extra one slot for freedom of movement. This isn't really a big deal but I wouldn't just suggest "everyone" being a default. Would you allow 8 enemies in a hex, for instance?

We could set a limit on hexes if it turns out that it's a good balancing mechanism for whatever other features we want to implement. As it stands, it just doesn't seem like a compelling limitation to add. It just sounds like adding frustration for the sake of adding frustration. As a limitation on the enemies... that doesn't sound bad, but really it would depend on what we want the particular encounter to be like for a given enemy.

Cmdr: Elaborate on that?

The support character idea was discussed in chat, and I posted that in this topic. Here it is again, specifically the part on Support PCs:

[2010-01-16 14:27:31] <CmdrKing> Well, okay.  We're talking four person parties?  Suppose one group has two mages.  The leader of that group, as a part of the whole synergy, has a skill which causes MP regen.  Maybe 5% per turn during battle, with a 15% end of battle one.  So, this party can spam magic all day.
[2010-01-16 14:28:11] <CmdrKing> Meanwhile, another party with just one mage instead gets post-battle HP regen, so they have to conserve better, but it matters less because the rest of the party does other things so they don't rely on it.
[2010-01-16 14:28:31] <Nyamagomi> CK: Interesting.  "Leader bonus" for PCs?
[2010-01-16 14:28:55] <CmdrKing> Perhaps.  It's not necessarily something about being the leader (although it could be) but something about the character.
[2010-01-16 14:29:10] <Cecilia> Not a fan of leader bonuses.
[2010-01-16 14:29:20] <Cecilia> Puts too much emphasis on one person.
[2010-01-16 14:29:25] <Nyamagomi> Right, no leader bonuses
[2010-01-16 14:29:26] <Djinn> Could also work with the idea that PCs in "Reserve" could act like S3 support characters (10% HP restore after battle, 10% casting speed increase, etc.)
[2010-01-16 14:29:42] <CmdrKing> That might be a better way to implement it, yeah. Adds another whole dynamic.
[2010-01-16 14:30:07] <Djinn> Gives Character switching a little more use too! You may want to switch a PC OUT of battle before it ends to get the passive bonus?
[2010-01-16 14:33:03] <CmdrKing> Right.  If we use this system, it wouldn't necessarily be only post-battle effects either.  For example... a healer might have minor HP regen as a support character, but have the only revival and MT healing spells in the party.  So, do I want regen for light wounds, or do I need a dedicated healer now?  That sort of thing.
[2010-01-16 14:33:28] <Djinn> Oooh, I like that idea, CK.
[2010-01-16 14:34:48] <CmdrKing> And of course, could do other things as well.  If we're having dedicated item-users, then obviously things like improved drops might be in order.

[Excal]

##Nay

It really doesn't confer any benefits, and it really does sound like it'll just be a wasted mechanic with the current setup.

Also, Djinn, I'm kinda confuse.  I mean, G3 has a bare minimum of skills that work towards turn manipulation, and your post is the first one where it's even mentioned.  On the other hand, if you don't want movement to count for anything, then why even have a hex system in the first place?  Why introduce the idea of positioning if you don't want to use the main feature such a system provides.

Even then, you seem to be majorly underselling the difficulty of reaching melee on all enemies at will with a setup like this.  Even with 4 move, using positioning, custom hex arrangements, and passive skills that make movement harder in surrounding hexes, can make it easy to set up fights where it's easy to have hexes that PCs cannot reach.

I'd also point out that with only two rings, it'll be hard to make this too SRPG like.  There's just not enough space to play with.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Also, Djinn, I'm kinda confuse.  I mean, G3 has a bare minimum of skills that work towards turn manipulation, and your post is the first one where it's even mentioned.

I would disagree, pretty much -all- of G3's abilities are balanced around the idea of IP suppression. There's a bare minimum number of moves that specifically -cancel- an enemy's turn, but every character has access to them in slightly different form. Also... apart from IP/Cancelling... what else is the G3 system even known for? I'm confused how you missed this.

 On the other hand, if you don't want movement to count for anything, then why even have a hex system in the first place?  Why introduce the idea of positioning if you don't want to use the main feature such a system provides.

Even then, you seem to be majorly underselling the difficulty of reaching melee on all enemies at will with a setup like this.  Even with 4 move, using positioning, custom hex arrangements, and passive skills that make movement harder in surrounding hexes, can make it easy to set up fights where it's easy to have hexes that PCs cannot reach.

You're contradicting yourself? I never said I don't want movement to count for anything, I simply don't want it to be the main focus. In G3, you can't move literally -everywhere- on the field in one turn, but you can move to most places. This turns G3's system into a skill-choice- and speed-based system, with some positioning elements for AoE attacks and whether a character can attack more than one enemy in a turn and such. But most of the time, the player isn't focused on movement. Contrast to an SRPG, where you are basically playing chess, but with stats.

Sure, we can describe chess in an IAQ, but I think a skill-choice- and speed-based system will facilitate how easily we can describe the level of strategy we're putting into our game design.

Also, that second paragraph is a good example of why I think Move 4 will work better than Move 1-3. All of those additional items you listed means that characters -won't- always be able to go just anywhere and sometimes movement -will- be important. Just like G3. >.>;;

I'd also point out that with only two rings, it'll be hard to make this too SRPG like.  There's just not enough space to play with.

Agreed. So I don't think we should make it into an SRPG as is. If we want to go the SRPG route (and personally, I'm thinking it would make a great secondary battle mode like Suikoden's war battles battles), then we should start with something new and separate from what we have now.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

## VOTE: NAY

As far as I've been reading the log, and how the whole party interactions would pan out, character switching seems more like something that would end up lost in the shuffle of an already dense mechanics system. In a position-based gameplay system, this feels even more cumbersome. Character switching is neat in a vaccum, but it either needs to fit within the system elegantly or to be the heart and soul of the gameplay system. Otherwise, it's a pointless at best and inelegant at worst novelty, and the core mechanics don't lend to it well as I see it.

[DjinnAndTonic]

As far as I've been reading the log, and how the whole party interactions would pan out, character switching seems more like something that would end up lost in the shuffle of an already dense mechanics system. In a position-based gameplay system, this feels even more cumbersome. Character switching is neat in a vaccum, but it either needs to fit within the system elegantly or to be the heart and soul of the gameplay system. Otherwise, it's a pointless at best and inelegant at worst novelty, and the core mechanics don't lend to it well as I see it.

Well, the character-switching isn't meant to be a major feature. At least, I don't see it this way. It's more of a safeguard against not being able to use the character you want in a particular battle. And there's always the potential there for making certain characters particularly useful if the player decides to employ this mechanic frequently. Additionally, if we have a support character system, then switching characters -out- of battle for their particular support bonuses might be desirable to do in-battle. It's another layer we can play with to integrate character variety.

And the only argument I've heard against it is "It doesn't make sense if I get a game over when 4 out of 6 of my characters die!" ... Seriously, flavor argument over good game design?

Also, this might not even be an issue considering we were discussing not even -having- Game Overs in our IAQ... you could use the reserve characters as some sort of plot point for 'oh, don't worry, we'll reset time for you real quick with our Time Mage jobskills and now you can try again! Aren't you lucky?" Or whatever plot BS we come up with.

[Excal]

But the thing is, Djinn, when you start getting to hexes, you start getting closer to WA than Grandia, because you do have the fixed placement.  You do have the full control over how you get places.  Not to mention, sure, you do have the IP damage and cancel strikes, but they also don't give you that much control.  Generally, it's hope the turn order is such that you can actually deny things turns, and hope that when they're charging or prepping that it's time such that you can actually cancel stuff.  Not usually a given in G3 outside of limited SP pools.  And even then, there's not much in the way of insuring it.  As for actually manipulating your own turns, there's really only the Defend command.  Compare this with FFT, where you can not only see how fast the enemies are, but you get active control over how fast your own people are, and you have more options to change speed with the way the Wait command works, let alone Haste/Slow.

Or, to put this very plainly.  In G3, you cannot control movement.  Therefore, the system does not emphasize it.  In Wild ARMs 4/5, you can control movement.  It is also very central to the system, and several features are designed specifically around the movement options.

With the Hexes and the controlled movement, this system is now closer to WA 4/5 than to Grandia 3.  This means that movement, by necessity, is now a major feature because this is what the system does well, and throwing that away is to weaken the system.

As for your SRPG point.  Would you call WA 4/5 an SRPG?  This may be closer to one than those two, but with this limit, it won't be much closer to one.

EDIT:

Djinn, I'm pretty sure that implementing everything and the kitchen sink because you can is actually bad design.  The goal is to find the core idea that you want to do, and implement what you need to make it work and not toss in a bunch of extraneous features just because.  I mean...  you want to design characters around what you are calling 'not meant to be a major feature'.

So yeah, calling it good game design is a bit of a stretch, because from where I'm sitting, it seems to be bad game design in this case.

[DjinnAndTonic]

I am not claiming to be an expert on good game design. I know what I like, but that's besides the point.

I'm not saying that character switching is innately good game design.

I -am- saying that the only argument presented against it was flavor-based, and voting against something based on flavor is not good game design.


And, to this very plainly. In G3, you can control movement.

The game controls movement when target something, but 90% of the time, the character just charges directly towards the target, which is what you would have done anyway. Personally, I wouldn't mind implementing some kind of automatic path-finding in our system either. I see the grid system as just a better-mapped version of G3's battlefield, which was free-range, and the player could tell PCs exactly where to go with the Defend command. I feel like this could work in our system, where hexes just make the field more map-able. But, Tal has convinced me that it's better to give players control.

As for IP and Cancelling... All G3 PCs can use the "Cancel" Attack command. It's not as instantaneous as the SP moves with Cancel, but it's relatively fast and only requires the PC to move into range to use it. I'm honestly not sure how you got through G3 without learning how to abuse this.

WA4/5 - Mini SRPGs. It's notable that I hated fighting randoms in these games and avoided it at all cost. Because multiple SRPG random encounters is a punishment. Boss fights and PC growth/design were what made these games fun. Also, platforming. The game implemented a lot of different playstyles and features and they tended to work well together.

[Cmdr_King]

If a given gameplay mechanic is not a focus of the system, it's poor design?  That seems like a sillily absolute statement.  But actually, let's suppose it's an overall good guideline.  So, at that point, we ask ourselves, what is the focus of our system?  I would contend, based on the underlying theme to these discussions, what we're really focussed on is Character Uniqueness.  Our first design mandate is adopting those systems which allow for greater character uniqueness, give us more quirks to play with, and otherwise enhance the feeling that each character does something different and is interesting in their own right.  While certain things, like the use of CTB, are from a simple preference for the system, that's why we're adding things like mild SRPG elements, quibbling about item use, and the like; we want the game to, first and foremost, showcase a strong cast.  For the DL, it's that, discovering the quirks and uses of each character, as much as the innate system (because, of course, every basic gameplay mechanic has been done well and been done poorly.  It's the ones with good characters/ability systems to play with that stand out, broadly speaking) that makes games fun.

So, as such, a mechanic which enables the player to have as great of access to all their characters as can be allowed without outright breaking the system or otherwise being utterly awkward is, I think, desirable.  That, in theory, we could apply systems that give out of battle characters different traits and offer another platform for character quirks is a wonderful bonus, of course.

I'm overstating a bit for effect, but still.  I think I'm closer to right than wrong here.

[Dark Holy Elf]

First off, I just want to say that until something is discussed seriously in the topic I don't think it deserves much consideration. Obviously referring to the support idea here. It's cool that there was some chat discussion but it can't really be responded to now by those who weren't there, so if you want to take any ideas OUT of that discussion, put them forward here so they can be debated!

Second of all I've been 90% distracted from the switching debate, it's all about movement range, baby!

That's what it's like in G3. That seemed to be the direction we were all hoping for when the topic started - G3-style gameplay, but more refined. And note that 4 move on a double-ring hex grid is only travelling along the diameter. With obstacles and enemies in the way, PCs still can't move -everywhere-, it just takes the emphasis off the 'limited by movement!' aspect.

G3 doesn't let you move nearly everywhere. It -does- have a lot of infinite range stuff (it errs on the side of having too much IMO), but if you want to melee an enemy across the field, you just -can't- (barring warp movement), and if you want to melee one halfway across the field, you can (maybe, depends on MOV) but it takes a notable amount of time to get there. Since our movement is presumably going to be instantaneous, we lack even that balancer.

4 move leaves almost nothing that can't be reached. Let's say there's an enemy in one corner, and my melee attacker, in the opposite corner, wants to reach him. Even if there's an enemy or obstacle directly in between them, he can take four steps, go around the obstacle, and reach the enemy and attack. It would literally take 3 different enemies/obstacles standing in a row together to prevent my melee attacker, who is as far away as possible, from reaching the enemy. If my melee attacker isn't in the opposite corner, but one hex beside it (also on the back wall), then even this defence isn't possible short of entirely surrounding either the attacker or the target. I suggest you draw out a 19-hex grid so you can appreciate how small it actually is, 4 move is basically unlimited in all but very rare situations.

Finally, why wouldn't you have characters with varying Move stats in this system? (Note that I'm not opposed to some freak with 4 move.) Awesome way to vary characters. (Also, Grandia 3 did it, since you're fond of bringing it up. <_<)

It's not really a 'pseudo' SRPG, then, is it?

With only 19 hexes? Note that the average XF map probably has over 10 times that. The smallest FFT maps I can think of have around 100 panels. etc. This is very much a psuedo-SRPG, not a full SRPG. It has a tiny map, but allows multiple people in each panel to make up for it. It has few obstacles. The emphasis is not at all on terrain (I don't think we've even discussed terrain bonuses/penalties, something every SRPG has!). The game isn't about the map, the way a SRPG is. But it does steal some SRPG ideas because they're a cool way to reflect things like attack ranges, protecting PCs (without relying on an inelegant back row), etc.

Having movement as a limiting feature means that the player ends up spending turns where they are just positioning themselves

Not really. With 2 move you can almost always reach someone, just not everyone. With 1 move... well, I'm fine if 1 move is only for the notably immobile, but even then... you'll start them in the front so they're 1 move away from being able to attack any other enemy in the inner ring, and even if that's not an option, depending on thow he PC is balanced and plays she may be able to do something with that positioning turn, like buff her attack, or provoke an enemy from long range, or use her backup long range magic/crossbow/etc. I think we're really missing out on a lot of interesting character design by getting rid of limited movement, if these examples aren't making clear. ^_^

Well, the character-switching isn't meant to be a major feature.

Honestly if ~3 yea voters give me the assurance that, indeed, we will reserve switching for "oh shit, I brought the wrong party / support for this" and it carries a non-trivial cost to use (at least half a turn or something equivalent) then I am pretty much fine with it and will change my vote.


EDIT: Ninja posts. Will digest later, one thing to add now!

WA4/5 - Mini SRPGs. It's notable that I hated fighting randoms in these games and avoided it at all cost.

There is a great gap in our values and we will duel to the death at dawn.

[Taishyr]

NEB: Yeah, that's pretty much the exact thing I'd want the switch mechanic to be used for, given our current idea spread. This being said Iunno if others view it the same way.

[Excal]

It's more if something has no point and is there only to be there, adding a useless bit of complexity to a system, then yes, it's bad design.  I'm not really convinced by any of the arguments that characters swapping is of any use, or that it will remain a minor system if it remains in the system.  And will instead be a small cancer drawing attention away from other aspects.

As for the G3 stuff, I'll take this out of this topic with you since it's becoming more of a tangent and a distraction from the conversation at hand.

[DjinnAndTonic]

First off, I just want to say that until something is discussed seriously in the topic I don't think it deserves much consideration. Obviously referring to the support idea here. It's cool that there was some chat discussion but it can't really be responded to now by those who weren't there, so if you want to take any ideas OUT of that discussion, put them forward here so they can be debated!

Well, I -did- post the entirety of the chat in this topic just for the purpose. I even organized all the random ideas into sections to easily follow one train of thought at a time...

Second of all I've been 90% distracted from the switching debate, it's all about movement range, baby! ... WORDS/EXAMPLES

Hmm... Yeah, okay. I see your point. Your example is a good illustration of just how amazing Move 4 is. I would concede to Move 2 being average, with our faster people being Move 3 (and our freak Move 4-er). We should even have a Move 0 person, who must be thrown around the battlefield like a Disgaea character! (Or they are simply heavy on the GT/range feature).

Well, the character-switching isn't meant to be a major feature.

Honestly if ~3 yea voters give me the assurance that, indeed, we will reserve switching for "oh shit, I brought the wrong party / support for this" and it carries a non-trivial cost to use (at least half a turn or something equivalent) then I am pretty much fine with it and will change my vote.

You have my assurance, at least. The only thing I'm even considering as an addendum to this function is that perhaps one or two PCs have some abilities that take advantage of switching.

WA4/5 - Mini SRPGs. It's notable that I hated fighting randoms in these games and avoided it at all cost.

There is a great gap in our values and we will duel to the death at dawn.

Time to D-D-D-D-DUUUEL!!!~!

[Excal]

CK, your comments deserve a fuller answer than the brief one I gave earlier.

The core of this, as I see it, cannot just be character diversity.  I mean, sure, that's an end goal, and something laudable.  But, the goal is not only to have a cast that is diverse, but also to have one that all feel like they are part of the same system.  To not have each one feel like they are part of a gimmicky disjointed system where there is no synergy.

If everything springs from the same point, radiating outward from a central spoke, then it will encourage synergies in the design by nature.  And as this discussion now is the foundation, this is the proper time to argue for such a foundation.

The current design philosophy being espoused by many, it feels, is the opposite of that.  That we should have as many things as possible, without looking at how they fit together, and then using those to make a diverse cast on the assumption that it can all be made to work together at a later date. 


So, here is my vision of how things should be.  A Hex based double ring, 1-3 movement.  ST/HT/GT/MT targetting.  No in battle items, with them used automatically when battle ends.  And, the core concept around which the system's unique features will resolve, will be how powers are used.

Everything will fall into three groups.

Blasters - Those with MP, it does not replenish naturally, and it lasts as long as it lasts.
Back Loaded - Those who start with no MP, but naturally Regen it.  Naturally good in long battles, but poor in short ones.
Front Loaded - Characters with cooldown on their moves.  Very good in short battles, but tend to have issues in longer ones.

If you have 4 characters of each type, that gets you 12 characters.  5 leads to 15.  That's more than enough to have variation, and different ways of handling these powers.

For example, talking with Andy led to two different types of Back Loaded character.  One whose stats increase based on what percentage of their MP bar is full.  But still has their special attacks run off of MP.  While mine was a weakish support character, who had the rare ability to transfer their MP to others, letting them act as a battery to the Blasters at the cost of a subpar PC.

I think that this is the path that will lead to the better, stronger, synergised PC cast.  Where you not only have notable individuals, but you have teams.

[Cmdr_King]

Hum.  Ah, the support system discussion was lumped in with Item discussion.  Probably why it was easy to miss, although at least I didn't just imagine it being posted >.>  
In bouncing around ideas to replace item usage after battle (ie, touching on the greater resource management idea)...

<CmdrKing> Well, okay.  We're talking four person parties?  Suppose one group has two mages.  The leader of that group, as a part of the whole synergy, has a skill which causes MP regen.  Maybe 5% per turn during battle, with a 15% end of battle one.  So, this party can spam magic all day.
CmdrKing> Meanwhile, another party with just one mage instead gets post-battle HP regen, so they have to conserve better, but it matters less because the rest of the party does other things so they don't rely on it.

<Nyamagomi> CK: Interesting.  "Leader bonus" for PCs?
 <CmdrKing> Perhaps.  It's not necessarily something about being the leader (although it could be) but something about the character.

However...

<Cecilia> Not a fan of leader bonuses.
<Cecilia> Puts too much emphasis on one person.
<Nyamagomi> Right, no leader bonuses
Djinn> Could also work with the idea that PCs in "Reserve" could act like S3 support characters (10% HP restore after battle, 10% casting speed increase, etc.)

Which lead to...

<CmdrKing> That might be a better way to implement it, yeah. Adds another whole dynamic.
<Djinn> Gives Character switching a little more use too! You may want to switch a PC OUT of battle before it ends to get the passive bonus?
<CmdrKing> Right.  If we use this system, it wouldn't necessarily be only post-battle effects either.  For example... a healer might have minor HP regen as a support character, but have the only revival and MT healing spells in the party.  So, do I want regen for light wounds, or do I need a dedicated healer now?  That sort of thing.
 <Djinn> Oooh, I like that idea, CK.
<CmdrKing> And of course, could do other things as well.  If we're having dedicated item-users, then obviously things like improved drops might be in order.

Basically, it just occured to me that something akin to Suikoden III's support slot could be adapted to another character dimension in this system.  Dovetailing it with character swapping from there seemed like a natural extention; if you did things right, it makes deciding which characters are out of battle a distinct consideration, giving you two directions you might want to swap from.  And, of course, since we're looking at 15-20 characters, having more dimensions to work with is cool by default.  I just happen to really like this one in particular, since it's something you don't see very often at all.  Even in Suikoden III, it wasn't really utilized as much as it could have been, since of course you just shoved one of the two or three best support characters in there.  By integrating it with the battle system, I think you could do a lot more with it.

[Cmdr_King]

I don't mean to say that Character Uniqueness should or shouldn't be the driving design mandate, nor that it's a good or bad idea.  Simply that, in reading this topic, that seems to be the collective will of the DL.  And to be sure, there's been some overboard ideas on that front (eg. having characters with ARPG controls, Blitz-like mechanics, timed hits but only for a portion of the cast) but, given the nature of this topic, just throwing ideas out, and taking the elements that seem agreeable, is the entire point, so I'm not going to fault people for things that are a bit silly on the face of it.

I think, though, that you might be too hung up on the strategic elements of the game.  I mean, what it sounds like is... you basically intend to have 3 types of attackers, who differ only in their specific elements and perhaps support spells between members of each type, and focusing on when people deal damage as the primary design of the entire game.  within the rest of the system as described, that seems terribly boring.  I mean, yes, when you have 15 characters versus an army, that sort of consideration adds a lot of tactical value.  In a more traditional rpg, it means... very little.  Oh, it's the boss, time to pull out the MP regen.  Whoopdy-doo.

I mean, elegance of design is great and all, but I really think you stripped the whole thing down too much there.

[Excal]

This is also part of why I'm also against free range character swapping.  And why I see things as being 12 PCs tied up in three shifting four PC teams over most of the game.  This is the kind of thing I'm finding superbly interesting, and the conversation has been mostly focussing on aspects which I've generally found to be actively detrimental or not noticable in RPGs with one notable exception that was designed specifically around that element.

[Cmdr_King]

But that's even worse.  Hurray, half the party is useless for randoms, half is useless two rounds into the boss fight.

[Sir Donald 3.2]

New to discussion and probably won't be around this much, but figured I'd throw in my 2(,000) gil:

Item Limits AND Character Changing:  Use the Dragon Quest Rule:  Restock and Rearrange at a base, whether fixed or mobile (i.e. the Wagon/Ship/Airship).  

The "Bag" would also be in the Wagon etc. and each character would have not just a limited inventory, (Tales does sound like a good example as certain items had multiples (up to 15) count as a single storage unit,) but also a limited carrying ability: Basically, while Strength could allow characters to carry heavier items, Body Build (which wouldn't change over the course of the game) would restrict space volume.  This would primarily impact Equipment, especially Weapons/Shields/Armor.  i.e. You can fold a Wizard's robe or even a suit of light Ring Mail (if you're strong enough) for pack storage.  But a Suit of Plate Armor is out of the question.

Then again, if we're going for more than a score of Party Members at a time, we should probably limit the "Mobile Base" to twice the party size and put the rest at the fixed HQ (or at least the Ship/Airship, depending on how large it is.  i.e. if we're using a FF-Style Airship, we can fit at least a dozen.  DQ-style Baloon/Carpet/Flying Bird?  Party size only.)

Character Switching:  I think it not only should take a turn, but the departing character is still subject to first-strike-type (i.e. Quick Attack) attacks and Long Ranged Attacks by foes with higher agility.  The switch still takes place in this case regardless of the departing character's status at the end of turn.

Note that the above is limited to the Field Deployment.  If you have 16 characters at a present time and room for only 8 in the Wagon, then in the overworld, you can only select from among those 8 (minus the 3-5 presently fighting).  In a dungeon that isn't wide enough for the wagon, switching is completely unavailable.

So, Character Switching to me would be dependent, but on the size of the deployable group.  Switching would always be an option if the deployable group > the party size.

I'm assuming here that battles are standard RPG Encounters (random or not) and not SRPG campaign types.  If the latter, then I think everyone that is "field deployable" should be sent out.

Actually, let me take that back.  If you intend on all 12 PCs being able to travel in the dungeon together, then all 12 PCs should be able to battle at the same time.  that is be on the battle field at the same time.  No "reserves".  No "staying in the wagon to guard the items/dead".  And if there are people dead, then the caretakers should be behind the lines keeping them stable while the strongmen who would normally be carrying them are fighting the monsters.  And if you come to a fork and want to explore multiple paths, you either communicate with HQ (and such communications can be jammable as a plot point) or you "split up, gang!"

Basically, I think that the number of people you intend on taking into the dungeon should govern the "main party size".  Or vice versa.


I like the "Game Over" = "Battle Retry from Start" bit.  If it's overruled, though, then if you have a party in reserve, then they should launch a rescue mission.  If the main party died in a Dungeon, but there's still someone in the Wagon, they can decide whether to go back to base to pick up reinforcements or just to go in with the Wagon unguarded.  (If the main party dies on the field, then the Wagon party subs in.  If that party dies but there are others at the main base, then field parties can be fielded.  etc.)


Unique Way of Gaining Abilities = Good.  Gives the characters an added depth.

Unique Way of using Abilities = Not so good.  People would complain about how character A has a limited set of charges but can cast spells every turn while  character B can only cast spells every third turn despite having basically an unlimited mana pool otherwise.

Acutally, I'd go with having set pools of various ability points per character (Mana for Magic, Battery for Technology, Ability for non-magic skills i.e. wind uppercut, etc.) that can go negative (though not so much as half of the current Maximum (i.e. Max MP)).  That is, the MP/AP can go below 0, but if it does, then the character automatically goes into a non-removable status where basically all statistics (including accuracy and evade, but not Max HP or Max MP/AP etc.) are reduced until such time as MP/AP regenerate to above the zero marker.  Spells/Skills can still be used in this state, but at very reduced effectiveness.  This would require a regeneration system, of course.  

(Also, if Technology uses a separate "Battery" from non-magic "Ability", then Tech can not be used when the tech skill would bring battery below 0, whether the battery can recharge or not.  Heck, for Battery, the recharge would be a 5:1 Existing Battery:Recharging Battery, i.e. for every 5 "Battery Points" you have at the end of your turn, you "recharge" 1.  Mana and Ability would be Wisdom/Vitality divided by probably 4.)


Finally: Aggression Meter:  Good call.  In fact, Have Multiple Meters:  One for Native Wildlife, one for invasive (i.e. non-native) wildlife, and one for sentients and their pets.  (Heck, you could make the Ambient vs Invasive difference a mini-plot point, i.e. villagers want the ravaging beasts dead but don't disturb the native animals on which their life depends.  And don't let those ravagers destroy the natives either.)  

[Excal]

There's a difference between useless and not suited to.