How fair is too fair?

[Manofdusk]

By this, I mean... is it boring if you know, with certainty, that all of the foes you will face will always have the same skills you do?

Spoiler

I had a concept with my main game regarding this. Essentially every enemy will always have a class and subclass (just like the players). They'll have access to the same skills the players have and, if they have any that the players don't have, those unique skills can be learned (either by crafting a piece of equipment or stealing it using the Spellthief class)

They'll always appear in groups of 1-4 (the player party size) unless its an ambush (whereupon it will be 4-8).

Such things will give a player who has never even seen a monster before an intuitive feel for what the monsters can do just by observing other clues. It'll also let the player see certain combinations of skills (that they can use) being used as combos against them. However, I'm concerned that such things might get stale if you can always guess what you will be fighting by observing the clues.

This might be exacerbated by the fact that the game, as I've planned it, has no boss battles (only rare "mini" bosses).

That said, I'm considering giving one of the monsters (the slime) a "Fusion" ability, allowing them to merge with an enemy to give them a big buff. Slimes are essentially the larval form of elemental monsters (stagnant elemental energy + life force = slime which then evolves into the other elemental forms) so it would make sense... but the players wouldn't be able to gain access to this ability.

Would having every other ability in the game be learnable save for this one make players question it? My intention for including it was for it not only to make for an engaging fight but also for the sake of world building (the fusion ability, when done between 2 slimes, will cause a new monster type to emerge, showing the player how the elemental enemies are born).

Note: What I have planned above is just an example here. In general:

If the enemies follow the exact same rules as the players (and the players can intuit which "classes" will be presented to them), will it get stale?

What about with bosses/pseudo bosses?

If you have 1 to a small handful of un-learnable skills in a game where almost every other skill is learnable, does that break suspension of disbelief? (I consider suspension of disbelief to be broken when the player questions the game's internal logic)

 

[Wavelength]

In my opinion in most well-designed skill systems there are going to be skills that it makes sense for the player (but not enemies) to have from a gameplay perspective, and also skills that it makes sense for enemies (but not the player) to have. For example, a skill that awards extra gold for finishing enemies would be fairly useless for monsters, while a skill that replaces the selected target with a random target (from the enemy troop) will only be effective against your party since monsters already pick their targets basically at random.

Your "fusion" skill is another good example - this works really well on specific monsters, but trying to use the same mechanic on your party would be the game design equivalent of a wild goose chase. Simply give the skill to the Slimes, and don't worry about the fact that it won't be available to the player. If almost all of the skills in your game are available to the player, then designate the Monster-only skills with a special icon and put the word [Monster] in the skill name (if it's displayed) to make it crystal-clear to the player that they shouldn't try to get it.

 

[Warpmind]

Having a few abilities restricted to monsters for fairly obvious reasons (the Fusion skill you mentioned for slimes, a Flight ability restricted to winged creatures and so on) can still be deemed fair, even if the player will never attain those abilities.
In comparison, the most fair game series like that, where monsters can't do anything the player can't do, would be Dark Souls, and that... might not be entirely suited for an RPG Maker game.

For reference, I suggest you look at D&D 3rd Edition, 3.5 or Pathfinder, to look at the monster-only feats and abilities; plenty of good stuff there that makes excellent examples of "This is cool to put on a monster the party must fight once, but it would be utterly broken by letting the PCs gain that ability".

 

[Diretooth]

You can have specific skills for players and specific skills for enemies and still have an even playing field. Maybe the slimes that can fuse have a crippling weakness to ice/cold damage, or maybe lightning damages flying creatures more than grounded creatures.

 

[Poryg]

The point of having all skills and the same rules must be justifiable.
I am now making a game that has the same rules for everyone. Not necessarily all the same skills, but same rules.
Having all the same skills might not be a bad idea. Doom and Destiny presented it quite nicely. However, there is one huge problem with that.
This problem is game balance. Basically, with same skills there are same formulas and it makes it therefore way harder to balance properly.
But if you manage to balance it well, then feel free to use the same skills for humans and enemies.

 

[gstv87]

By this, I mean... is it boring if you know, with certainty, that all of the foes you will face will always have the same skills you do?

if I have (say, by D&D standards) a level 8 "Rain of Fire" in a Sorcerer, and I know that I'm facing a Sorcerer of similar level,...... that wouldn't be boring..... that'd be terrifiying.
like, when you're experienced, and know what to expect, you expect the worse.
if you see an enemy that has a similar mastery to you,.... you'd do the impossible to prevent them from using that mastery against you.
that would be the polar opposite of boring.
I'd call it "boring" when you reach the point of having to face an enemy that is as powerful as you, without any other alternative than either not having anything else to do afterwards (as in, you alone become the top one), or losing, and calling it a game over.

you can *guess* what the enemy's skills are, but, it only becomes boring if you're facing an enemy that is of a lesser level than yours, because you know their ability is not a threat to you.

 

[kirbwarrior]

Quest 64 did this and I find it to be one of it's strengths. Since all enemies use abilities you have, and you already have to learn how those abilities work, it lets the player feel like they are learning and outsmarting the enemy.

I prefer the idea that enemies and PCs are built upon the same system; Skyrim, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Fire Emblem (to an extent) have basically similar stats between enemy and ally. In specifically FFT, the only time enemies are given skills you don't have access to was to make it obvious they have an unfair advantage against you, which was necessary for single bosses.

If your enemies are mimicing the pcs in stats, why not skills? Plus, then the player could see an enemy use a skill and think "I can get that?! Awesome!". Enemies can get skills like Steal and annoy the player with it. In Four Heroes of Light, one of the classes is based around fusions and the concept is awesome (the result was a little lackluster, it wasn't often beneficial to fuse allies unless you knew what you were doing).

*SPOILERS* In Chrono Trigger, there's a powerful being named Magus that's keeps getting played up through the story. Halfway through the game, you finally fight him and see him unleash all these cool spells on you. Later on, he joins the party and he has all those spells! I would honestly love to be able to get abilities like Iron Orb on my own characters.

Mind, it's not necessary. The game doesn't need it. I like the idea. Often the reason for enemy-only skills is because it's fine to give enemies unfair skills but not the player (FFT assassins have instead death 100% chance no cost no speed ability. You don't get assassins). But there is one well known rpg series where you have access to the enemy skills; Pokemon.

 

[Diretooth]

Some games have different degrees of fairness. Some games, like I Wanna Be The Guy, are highly unfair, which is the entire point, to frustrate players to an extent that makes it hilarious.
Some games, like Castlevania: Circle of the Moon, are difficult, but becoming a good, competent player can feel more rewarding than solving a relatively simple puzzle. A game doesn't actually have to be fair, and I repeat for emphasis, a game doesn't actually have to be fair. The reward for playing a more difficult game as to be sufficiently large. In Chrono Trigger, soloing the final boss during NG+ gives you access to the developer's room, where you get messages from the developers. While the risk can be great, you can also just NG+ yourself to the highest stats possible and beat the final boss without too much trouble.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

The thing you have to keep in mind is that what enemies do and what PCs do aren't equivalent. PCs are running an endurance race. They have to fight battle after battle (unless your game is designed around them not, FFT for instance, which someone mentioned above, is not built around endurance, each battle is self contained, but strategy RPGs are a bit different).

An ability that uses all remaining MP you have and then does damage based on the percent of MP expended to all enemies would be kind of fair on a player character, they are sacrificing a HUGE amount of resources by getting rid of their MP. On the flip side, an enemy with this skill would be devastating, as they are generally never around for more than a few rounds.

So you might want to keep this in mind when doing designs.

 

[Wavelength]

The thing you have to keep in mind is that what enemies do and what PCs do aren't equivalent. PCs are running an endurance race. They have to fight battle after battle (unless your game is designed around them not, FFT for instance, which someone mentioned above, is not built around endurance, each battle is self contained, but strategy RPGs are a bit different).

An ability that uses all remaining MP you have and then does damage based on the percent of MP expended to all enemies would be kind of fair on a player character, they are sacrificing a HUGE amount of resources by getting rid of their MP. On the flip side, an enemy with this skill would be devastating, as they are generally never around for more than a few rounds.

So you might want to keep this in mind when doing designs.

This is a really good point, in general! Even when the characters and enemies are playing by the same "rules", their goal and their overall needs are not the same, and that's super-important to remember when trying to design a fun game rather than a frustrating one.

I have one game that completely subverts this concept, though! You are competing in a game show against other contestants in a gauntlet of minigames and battles, and in the final round you have to battle the other contestant who made it to the end of the gauntlet. The other contestant had to fight hard just like you did, so they will come into the final battle with depleted HP and MP totals (sometimes slightly depleted, sometimes very depleted).

This "depleted start" not only adds a touch of realism and fairness to the final battle for players who lost a lot fighting their way to the end, but it also creates variability in the possible starting positions you can find yourself in for the battle! It's not the kind of thing that every game needs, but I do wish that more games would experiment with it!

===

@kirbwarrior This is the second time I've been spoiled (admittedly for a classic RPG that I probably should have known everything about - but I didn't) by something where you typed the word *SPOILER* but my eyes had already scanned the sentence and seen the text that spoiled me.

Could you please kindly use the Spoiler tag instead? It's the little "flag" icon near the end of the markup buttons, if you're using the same interface that I am. (Alternatively, you can place the tags [SPO*ILER] and [/SP*OILER] around your text, without the *asterisks* of course.) Example:

Spoiler: Click here for Spoilers!

Darth Vader is Luke's fa!

Thank you very much!

 

[Manofdusk]

Well, in the game I'm making, there are 4 different types of enemies (Elementals, Mutants, Aberrants, and Machines).

All of them, get their power from the same source as the player... so it makes sense that the majority of skills that monsters have, players should have too. The exceptions being things innate to a creature's physiology (for example: the sting of a giant wasp).

However, I am doing item-based skills (Example: if you kill the wasp under the right circumstances, you could craft a dagger out of the stinger and get the sting ability). So even most of those are obtainable with a little bit of work. Aberrants are "boss" enemies (essentially rare mini-bosses). These have special skills that are essentially the "ultimate ability" of a particular class... so the player gets those too

The machines are a special enemy type and you can't get their skills (or get their weapons). The guy that helps you with advanced crafting refuses to do it for in game reasons. Other than that, though.... MOST enemy skills can be obtained either through class mastery, spellthief, or crafting.

I like Wavelength's idea about using icons to set up enemy skills. Each class has an associated icon (and one of 3 background colors (one for "active" one for "passive", and one for "equip-able"). When you see the skill, you can immediately discern which class it's from. "Blue Magic" skills are denoted by the spellthief icon. Then you'd have "Monster Skill" icons. If the background was "active" or "passive", you can't get it, but if the background is "equip-able" then you know you can obtain it.

I think that kind of clues the player in instead of leaving them with "Why not?"... which is the big thing I want to avoid.

 

[kirbwarrior]

This "depleted start" not only adds a touch of realism and fairness to the final battle for players who lost a lot fighting their way to the end, but it also creates variability in the possible starting positions you can find yourself in for the battle! It's not the kind of thing that every game needs, but I do wish that more games would experiment with it!

I like this idea, but it feels really easy to mess up in practice. Random encounters can do that easily to signify fatigue or infighting (bats and slimes probably fight for territory). A boss could have had fights with other would-be heroes. And I've seen this happen where the boss actually uses an elixir first turn because they were low on hp, forcing you to either try kill them in one turn or basically giving you a turn where you know the boss won't get in the way of you throwing on buffs. I just don't know how to plan for it properly to make it fun.

Spoiler: Final Fantasy 6 did this

There's a flying boss that actually keeps it's hp every time it runs from you, after three turns, and you are supposed to whittle it down each time you come across him. (He's the only boss I intentionally cheesed with Vanish/Doom)

@kirbwarrior This is the second time I've been spoiled (admittedly for a classic RPG that I probably should have known everything about - but I didn't) by something where you typed the word *SPOILER* but my eyes had already scanned the sentence and seen the text that spoiled me.

My bad. I'm still getting used to how these boards work and the spoiler system is different from what I'm used to. I used it above just in case

 

[fireflyege]

I think it is not fair at all. Each character is unique and so is each monster. To avoid that I even use state categories to make statuses based on each individual enemy. And of course the reason I want that status screen to be used once in a while still stands but that is not the point. Skills are half of the character and giving half of your character to the enemy would not be very wise.