a non-combat boss challenge?

[jonthefox]

what do you guys think of the idea of a boss that you have to "fight" but not by the system of combat that the rest of the game uses - but rather some kind of event or puzzle.

I got thinking about this because there was a particular dungeon with a boss that I didn't want the party to actually "fight" - I was just going to make a cut scene that shows the party defeating him. But then I thought, wait, this is an RPG, maybe this is an opportunity for some kind of non-combat challenge that would take the place of a traditional "boss fight."

So I guess my questions are:

1) Do you think this has the potential to be cool and fulfilling gameplay, or would it feel out of place in a game that otherwise has a pretty traditional jrpg structure.

2) Has anyone ever done or seen this done effectively before in a jrpg? The closest thing I can think of are the "large army battles" in sui koden games, but those to me are just kind of like game events/puzzles rather than "boss battles."

 

[M.I.A.]

I support this idea.
It would all depend on how you pull it off. I've seen it done differently in a couple games.

A few examples:
- A boss you have to heal to completion in order to defeat (still somewhat combat oriented)
- A NPC/Boss who quizzes you about previous things in the game/math challenge.. asks a question, timer starts, must answer correctly or take a "Strike". 3 Strikes and you Game Over/Return to the map.
- A boss who summons pets on map.. the pets become combat battles, but you never actually fight the boss. Beating all his pets, he loses.
- A "pong" time minigame as the boss battle..

You just have to get creative with it and have fun!!
Hope this has been helpful.
-MIA

 

[Wavelength]

Yeah, I think this kind of thing tends to be liked - the concern about feeling too different from the rest of the action is valid, but generally players won't mind so long as the difference doesn't feel frustrating. If it's a skill the players may not have (e.g. a Tetris-like minigame or a Sudoku-like puzzle), and you are blocking the player's progression until they complete it, that's the kind of situation that will feel frustrating to a lot of players.

The clearest example that comes to my mind of this kind of "alternate" challenge where you'd expect boss fights is Undertale - among others, the sequences for Alphys and Papyrus were composed mostly of puzzles to complete, minigames to play, and dialogue trees to navigate. They added a lot of depth to the characters and they were generally fun to play through (especially this brilliant bit - more comedy than puzzle). I haven't played any of the recent Mario RPG/Paper Mario games, but based on the earlier ones I would have to imagine they have a lot of non-combat bosses/antagonists.

Also worth noting is Tales of Symphonia, which didn't have any non-combat activities for bosses, but did have several important villains/antagonists that were clearly not battle-worthy, and your party simply kills them or forces their surrender by cornering them in cutscenes. It never felt unnatural, or like too much of a missed opportunity.

Besides this, don't forget about the ability to introduce puzzles or other mechanics directly through your battles! Special one-battle-only actions/items, or unique mechanics added through troop eventing, can go a long way toward completely warping the battle logic, without "feeling" too different from what the player is comfortable with!

 

[Titris Thrawns]

1) Definite potential. Breaking out of the 'jrpg' formula is an easy way to help elevate your game in uniqueness.

2)Kudos to Suikoden! Other than the large army battles, The one-on-one 'army leader' fights were an interesting rock/paper/scissors boss battle/mini-game. The boss would usually lead with a emote or 'tell' message and the player would choose Reckless attack, regular attack and guard? (It's been awhile, but I believe that's the gist of it).

*Snaps fingers and scuffs feet* Wavelength beat me to it, but Undertale was the first example that popped into my head! I bought it because it marketed itself as a game that you could 'not kill' a single monster in it.

Besides this, don't forget about the ability to introduce puzzles or other mechanics directly through your battles! Special one-battle-only actions/items, or unique mechanics added through troop eventing, can go a long way toward completely warping the battle logic, without "feeling" too different from what the player is comfortable with!

To add to this, you could allow the player to find the 5(Or whatever number) MacGuffins in the events/dungeon leading up to a boss that allow them to bypass or 'event cut scene win' the boss. Similar to the riddle/quiz M.I.A. idea, the player could puzzle out where to put the 5 MacGuffins to beat the boss or opt for the traditional slugging match.

Game mechanics aside, I also support the idea of a straight cut-scene victory if it assists in character development. In Mass Effect 1, if you had a certain squad member with you, a normal spare/kill scenario choice for the player is taken away, as the squad member makes the decision for you. So as long as it feeds into other game mechanics and/or the narrative, go for it!

 

[Basileus]

Not exactly a JRPG, but Deus Ex: Human Revolution comes to mind. Several "bosses" are actually non-combat encounters focused on the dialogue system where you had to engage in long, heavy debates/negotiations in order to get what you want. And since there were multiple outcomes it was perfectly possible to "fail" in the sense that you didn't get the best outcome because you didn't do enough research on the person you were arguing with. These actually felt pretty intense because the dialogue was very serious and actually involved you taking a stance on some of the major issues the game focused on and defending that stance. The voice-acting helped a lot, but getting the player invested in some aspect of your game's world can still make just the dialogue memorable. Not all problems can be solved through violence, especially with people that are technically on your side, so giving the player a chance to score a non-combat victory over a complete jerk can be immensely satisfying.

And I also second @Wavelength nomination of Tales of Symphonia. Sweet, sweet catharsis does not need a battle. Many great villains are non-combat villains, so having their demise be in a cutscene is perfectly acceptable. Adding a dialogue "battle" to score a moral victory beforehand is just icing on the cake.

For more of that, I highly recommend Tales of Vesperia. The game presents two monstrous, sociopathic jerks and makes them virtually untouchable since you can't ever fight them and they are top-ranking nobles so they can basically re-write the law to make sure they can never be punished for their sick crimes. One of the main character conflicts in the game is between the hero Yuri and his best friend Flynn, as Flynn thinks that proper justice can only be done through the system and Yuri thinks it doesn't matter and that vigilante justice is fine as long as the villains are dealt with. After dealing with the villains' shenanigans multiple times and watching them get away without so much as a slap on the wrist - even after the party actually caught them and turned them in to the knights! - Yuri straight up murders each of them in cutscenes. Both scenes are unbelievably satisfying to watch and the game makes it clear that killing them both was murder even for a good cause and leaves it ambiguous whether it was the right thing to do. A "proper" boss fight was never needed to deal with those two and the story benefits far more for the tense and heavy drama than it would have from a cheesy gimmick boss fight.

 

[GoodSelf]

Temple Run anyone?