Explaining States to Players

[GutshotStr8]

I'm working on my first game. I know that many things about it will be ham-handed, but I'm trying to keep that to a minimum.

One thing I'm struggling with is that there are several states in my game that can be inflicted on players whose implications are not necessarily intuitive. For example, there is Poison, which damages a player every turn and will not go away on its own. Venom does the same but will go away after a few turns even if you don't use an Antidote or anything. Pestilence damages every turn and reduces ATK and DEF. Fear reduces ATK but increases DEF. Etc.

When a spell or ability inflicts a state on an actor, there is a notification that, for example, Pestilence has been inflicted. I'm struggling with how to convey to the player what this means, though. The player will realize that the character is taking damage every turn, but not necessarily that her ATK is slightly lower than it was.

It seems like many players don't like pop-ups and tutorials that just convey this kind of information at the beginning of the game (I know I don't), and this would still require the player to remember the differences between these states in the future.

I guess I'm just asking whether anyone has any creative ideas for conveying this important information to players when a state is inflicted?

 

[Heretic86]

Personally, I'd use an NPC to teach about various types of States, as they become relevant to gameplay.  One issue is not so much that it runs as a Tutorial, but a problem with the default message system itself.  Many of the tutorials I use get very long winded, but the player can literally walk away at any time and end the conversation instead of forcing button mashing to skip all the text.

 

[Phantasm Rising]

I'm pretty new here too, but I think I've found a relatively descent way conveying what a status does. Instead of the pop up saying "so-and-so has been afflicted with _____" I have it describe what is happening. Let's use Pestilence for example: instead of "so-and-so has been afflicted with Pestilence", I would have it say "so-and-so feels weaker". Poison is pretty self-explanatory but another example would be, for venom, "so-and-so feels woozy". These are just some ideas.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I agree with using NPCs that explain things. Like how it's done in Pokemon where you have a "school" at an early town which teaches about the basics of status effects.

 

[Tai_MT]

Personally, I try to make states as intuitive as possible.  Let me take my 3 immobilizer states as an example.  Stun, Paralyze, Sleep.  Okay, they all do the same thing, keep the target from doing any actions.  What's the difference?  Stun lasts until the target takes damage.  It's easily figured out when players realize that hitting an enemy that is stunned immediately frees it from the state.  Paralyze can only be cured through Skills, Items, or waiting 10 turns and players will figure that out before encountering it because items to cure the state and skills to cure the state will show up before it makes an appearance (which have in their descriptions that they cure Paralyze).  Sleep has a 25% chance of waking the target after taking damage.  Largely, the player figures these out on their own or through in-game information in item descriptions and skill descriptions and such.

Okay, so let's get to something more complicated for me.  I have two "damage over time" states.  Poison (which comes in several flavors of severity) has affliction text that matches its severity and lasts until the player uses an Antidote (or a skill that cures it).  Burn, on the other hand, while it comes in several flavors, isn't that clear what it does.  Many of its damage rates fall in line with the Poison ones, but it also reduces Defense.  So, how did I go about explaining that to the player?  Simple.  I let the player start out with the ability to cause Burns, but not Poison, and let the player figure out about the loss of defense through the normal flow of combat.  However, if for some reason, the player never figures it out, I have a couple NPCs scattered around that say things like, "Man, you throw fire?  Must be hard to defend yourself while you're burning to death!" and other things that count as hints and clues.

I try to use as much flavor text as possible to arm the player with knowledge instead of trying to outright drop exposition on them for the sake of training them.  Concepts seem to be easier to understand and more immersive if they're presented as "subtle hints from NPCs" than if you were outright told, "Hey, Burn drops the target's defense by 25% as well as drains x% of health each turn".  It's easier to say, "I think it would be hard to concentrate on defending yourself if you were burning alive" instead.

Keep in mind, I'm not even getting into other circumstances of the game that aren't states that NPCs and such explain to the player (like most metal armors conduct spells quite well...  Or blunt weaponry is insanely effective against enemies that use some form of armored plating... especially if the blunt weaponry is made of dense materials like Silver and Lead).

I would just find a way to explain it in game without it sounding too much like exposition dropping.  If you drop exposition, it breaks immersion pretty badly.

 

[kerbonklin]

Another way to handle it is to give a short description message to the player (usually mid-battle) for the first time it gets onto one of your characters. First time you ever get poisoned, show a pop-up saying what it does, and then never show it ever again. From there you can add that poison message to either an NPC for future reference or some kind of dictionary/library/almanac in the game if you desire.

 

[StarkinGyra]

I like message idea. When a character is first effected it shows up only once.

The idea of an NPC is one you see in a lot of games. I do not like having to mash buttons to get past stuff I already know. Walking away to end that type of conversation would be a nice benefit.

 

[Milennin]

I use a guide that the player can open at any time and look up the effects of every condition in the game. So they can look up the condition icon they want to know about and read what exactly it does.

 

[Eschaton]

I think states should be simple enough to be self-explanatory.

The worst example of a state in a JRPG I ever saw was Final Fantasy IX's "Troubled."  The icon was a sweat-drop emoji and the effect was "all party members take damage when the afflicted takes damage."

I had to look it up in GameFAQs.

Don't do that ****.  Keep it stupid simple. KISS.

 

[Tarsus]

I agree with Eschaton, if the player can't figure out what it does by the icon or name then you are being too complex.

If you must have non standard States then the best way of doing it would be to have a fixed battle with a very short speech event explaining the state after the enemy inflicts you with it. So for example, to introduce poison, you have a battle with a spider and as its very first attack have it inflict poison on someone, then have a message pop up saying, "you are poisoned, you will continue to take damage until you can heal it".

If you can't explain it with a single sentence, or better yet a single word or icon then you should consider making the state simpler. The last thing thing I want to be doing mid battle is looking up what a state does or scrolling through a bunch of items to find the correct thing to get rid of it.

 

[Lunarea]

I think the best way to go about it is to introduce the states gradually. Players aren't bothered by tutorials as much as they're bothered by info dumps. So, if you introduce the states gradually, it goes over much better.

You can also vary how these elements are introduced:

- Learned through the boss fight where a character (or NPC, or the boss themselves) tells you a key piece of information. Things like "Watch out, that venom is tricky! Make sure you remove it right away." versus "Ignore the poison, they're just a distraction" is enough of a hint to guide the player without being too technical about it.

- Side quests where the main objective is to showcase the state. For example, an alchemist wants to test an antidote on you, so they have you drink a potion that causes a venom state since it has a permanent duration.

- Updating an in-game manual/guide as the player encounters new skills. If you update it over time (vs just once), you can remind the player that it exists and that there's useful info in there.

- Pop Quiz! Give the player a chance to earn a reward (item, title, new skill, etc) if they can answer questions about different skills and states. This one works especially well in settings that have a school or other academics.

Lastly, note that making tutorials optional is really a good idea. Some players will play through your game more than once, so having to sit through parts they already know gets tiring.

 

[starcrescendo]

I always like giving the payer a "battle book". Then, if you see an icon come up or a strange status affecting you, you can reference the book for help. Or, if you don't care you can just ignore it. But I think a lot of people read the book to begin with. At least I do

 

[OM3GA-Z3RO]

Best way is to have books in a library and they will explain what sate does what or like what the previous people said: NPC's.

Another method is to have a Key item that you can open that will guide you and tell you what state does what ec.

 

[GutshotStr8]

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. Philosophically, I'm aligned with Tarsus/Eschaton: I'd like states to be as self-explanatory as possible, so that players don't have to memorize that info or look it up somewhere. When there is info that's at all tricky, I'd like the in-game information (state animation/name/icon) to at least serve as a reminder. I don't think the states I listed in my OP are particularly complicated, so I guess it's just my own limitations as a designer that's causing me to struggle with how to make this info immediately apparent to the player.

Lunarea, I'm flattered that you are considering the possibility of people playing through my game multiple times, but I'm not holding my breath on that one ;-)

 

[Wavelength]

I disagree with most of the responses here, except for most of what Lunarea and StarCrescendo suggested.  I believe having an NPC to explain states is actually one of the worst possible ways to convey timely battle information to the player - the player has no way to access the NPC during battle and will likely have to do a lot of backtracking if they're halfway through the game and forget what a certain status does.  As long as you make each icon clearly different from all others, an external manual actually comes in quite handy for this kind of thing (so you can check it during battle), and it's always a nice thing to have an in-game guide available on the menu screen as well.

However, I think the best way to keep the player informed is to have a status window that can be accessed during battle itself.  That way, the player can easily find any information they need to without being harrassed with information they already know.  As a bonus, this allows the player to see an infinite number of statuses on a single battler, in case a lot are stacked up on them at once.  I made a basic status window back when I was tinkering with XP:

For my upcoming VX Ace game I've commissioned some scripting help to make a much better status window than this: pictures/icons along with descriptions, a clearer way to tell whose statuses are being shown, and the ability to examine enemies as well as allies.  My particular game has about 50 different status effects (most of them specific to a single battle, a single enemy, or a small set of skills), so it's particularly important for me to provide this kind of instantly-accessible clarity, but I really think all games could use something like this.

I also disagree with a lot of the "keep your status effects simple" talk in this topic.  Yes, it's true that there's no reason to go with states that are needlessly complex, obscure, or only very slightly different from one another.  But trying to stick to the "standbys" like Poison and Paralysis that everyone will understand at first glance is also a really good way to rob your battle system of nuance and strategic fun.  If you get creative with different effects, spells, and boss gimmicks, your game will offer a much richer experience - and states are a superb way to implement this.

 

[Bearsmith]

I agree that a book or compendium isn't a great idea. I too am using a status screen. it's represented through unused skills in a battle command group named "states". Whenever a state gets applied the player learns the unusable skill that a description explains the state, and unlearns it when the state expires or is removed.

Definitely a jury rigged solution. A simple scripted window would be a lot better, but it's not too difficult to do either way.

 

[Wavelength]

I agree that a book or compendium isn't a great idea. I too am using a status screen. it's represented through unused skills in a battle command group named "states". Whenever a state gets applied the player learns the unusable skill that a description explains the state, and unlearns it when the state expires or is removed.

Definitely a jury rigged solution. A simple scripted window would be a lot better, but it's not too difficult to do either way.

That's a very smart (if time-consuming) way to do it without scripting!

 

[whitesphere]

I would stay away mostly from unusual States.  Most classic RPGers know the following states:

- Sleep (no movement until attacked)

- Poison (lowered HP until cured)

- Paralyzed (no movement for several turns)

- Sealed (can't cast spells)

- Confused (may attack any enemy or player at random)

- Death (obvious)

- Petrify (can't move or gain XP until removed)

I do use really odd States is if a player-used Skill inflicts them, because the Skill then explains what the state does.  And, of course, it's fine to have a boss character use very odd States, particularly if it's the Final Boss.  After all, the Lord of the Dark certainly knows how to do a few things your typical Minions of Evil don't, and the player would never have seen before.

 

[Beamlight]

I think the best way to go about it is to introduce the states gradually. Players aren't bothered by tutorials as much as they're bothered by info dumps. So, if you introduce the states gradually, it goes over much better.

You can also vary how these elements are introduced:

- Learned through the boss fight where a character (or NPC, or the boss themselves) tells you a key piece of information. Things like "Watch out, that venom is tricky! Make sure you remove it right away." versus "Ignore the poison, they're just a distraction" is enough of a hint to guide the player without being too technical about it.

- Side quests where the main objective is to showcase the state. For example, an alchemist wants to test an antidote on you, so they have you drink a potion that causes a venom state since it has a permanent duration.

- Updating an in-game manual/guide as the player encounters new skills. If you update it over time (vs just once), you can remind the player that it exists and that there's useful info in there.

- Pop Quiz! Give the player a chance to earn a reward (item, title, new skill, etc) if they can answer questions about different skills and states. This one works especially well in settings that have a school or other academics.

Lastly, note that making tutorials optional is really a good idea. Some players will play through your game more than once, so having to sit through parts they already know gets tiring.

This is all very good information, Lunarea. The sidequest idea in particular i'm very fond of! It's a very good strategy to combat the possibility of throwing too many states at the player at once, which I've seen become a problem in some RM titles.

I would stay away mostly from unusual States...

This is something that I agree with and disagree with in some ways, whitesphere. I think that you are right, that if you throw too many odd states out there things will become cluttered. However, I also think states can provide a strong source of unique mechanics in fights, which i'm a proponent of. It does come down to intuition, which I think can be communicated in a number of ways:

• Grouping states together. Gutshot has the right idea with poison and venom being healed by an antidote. I don't think its that far of a stretch for players to jump between "venom" and "poison" as belonging to the same family, but for other groups of states color coding either within the icon or the text can allow a player to eyeball it. 
• Communicating within the state name. If any of you have played Master of the Wind, late in-game Artbane communicated some states with a [DOT] tag, for example ("DOT" referring to "damage over time", a popular shorthand in MMOs). This can allow your player to eyeball a state and get a general idea of its implications. You can even go a step further and run with [Light DOT] or [Heavy DOT], a short descriptor to communicate the threat of the state.

That being said, I think it all goes back to Luna's idea of introducing states gradually. If you throw a bunch of states at the player within a single dungeon, particularly if they're stronger than the average bear, its going to overwhelm them. Short and sweet abilities like a one turn "stun" or a quick "DOT" won't overload them, however.

Sorry, I think I provided a lot of ideas/concepts in a clustered ramble. I hope this provides you with some ideas, though!

 

[Wavelength]

I would stay away mostly from unusual States.  Most classic RPGers know the following states:

- Sleep (no movement until attacked)

- Poison (lowered HP until cured)

- Paralyzed (no movement for several turns)

- Sealed (can't cast spells)

- Confused (may attack any enemy or player at random)

- Death (obvious)

- Petrify (can't move or gain XP until removed)

I do use really odd States is if a player-used Skill inflicts them, because the Skill then explains what the state does.  And, of course, it's fine to have a boss character use very odd States, particularly if it's the Final Boss.  After all, the Lord of the Dark certainly knows how to do a few things your typical Minions of Evil don't, and the player would never have seen before.

I can understand and respect the wisdom of avoiding one-off States during your average "popcorn" battle, and I'm glad you conceded that player skills and important bosses should be using interesting and unique States (which tend to make battles more interesting).

But I want to nitpick the suggestion of using "classic RPG states" as the most common ones.  Think about these states and whether they present any kind of interesting decisions to the player:

• Sleep: Very interesting tradeoff between damage and disable when it's inflicted on an enemy, but less so when it's inflicted on a character and the AI is attacking randomly
• Poison: Interesting decision between trying to finish the battle quickly, trying to heal through it, or using the turn to cure the afflicted character
• Paralyzed: No interesting decisions to be made; the battler is disabled (and good as dead) and there's nothing that can be done about it except use the appropriate item
• Sealed / Silenced: Generally just means attackers keep attacking, and mages just hit Guard each turn
• Confused: Strategic decisions vary widely based on the situation, but in most games it just means hoping for a benevolent RNG
• Petrify: No interesting decisions to be made; the battler is disabled (and good as dead) and there's nothing that can be done about it except use the appropriate item

As you can see, less than half actually add anything interesting to the battle, and are really not worth the potential frustration they cause for the player.  I think in general "positive" statuses tend to make for a better experience, but even for negative statuses I think it's very important to make sure they add, rather than take away, from the player's set of interesting possibilities.

A few more interesting "negative" status effects that are clear enough to be used semi-regularly by enemies and would create a diverse set of strategic decisions:

• Magic Barbs: Casting magic damages the caster proportional to MP spent
• Mania: All defense/magic defense is lost and converted to additional TP gain each turn
• (type) Scope: Battler is extremely vulnerable to Critical Hits and opponents who Crit the battler get a bonus effect based on the type of Scope
• Resistance Break: Removes elemental resistances from a battler for a few turns
• Leech: Battler is forced to steal health from their allies each turn