Looking For Feedback On My "Story Mode" Setting

[Uzuki]

In my game, Princess in a Bind, there are two modes that you will be able to pick from at the start of the game:

Story Mode: Applies a buff that makes battles easier, certain enemy skills and mechanics won't be used to make battles faster and easier, Save anywhere not just in certain areas, Shops have reduced pricing, quests that involve collecting will either have a lower collection amount or will be resolved in another solution, more items will be given as rewards and finding chests, allowing a "Two tries and you skip" mechanic so that if the player is having a difficult time with puzzles, bosses and certain objections they can have the option to skip that section. These options can be toggled on/off and allows players with little time to play and enjoy the story at their own pace and difficulty.

Normal mode: The way the game is intended to be played and is balanced as such. Does not have the same options as Story Mode.

I was wondering if I should keep these modes separate or just make the Story Mode options just plain options that the player can pick and choice by default. As we know it's a single player game so these options will not get in the way of anyone's enjoyment of the game, but the player who can pick and choose what they actually want. They are there to make the game more accessible to a more casual audience who don't want to or can't deal with the small hang ups of JRPG that the hardcore audience enjoys. This would also help during certain sections when the player doesn't feel like beating a particular boss or is having trouble with a certain puzzle. So what are your opinions on this? Keep them separate for the players who don't want to be tempted by these options and want a "pure" experience or just put it all in the options menu and let the player choose.

 

[Aesica]

If you're asking for a choice between "choose the difficulty in the beginning then lock it" vs "change the difficulty any time in the options menu" then, well that's tricky. I know the change-anytime option is growing in popularity, but personally I think it's a bit lazy and encourages lame gameplay manipulation. For example, you said your options alter shop prices and loot quantities. My response to this as a player would be to set the game to story mode every time I go shopping or go to open a chest. If combat turns out to be boring, I'd probably also use story mode just to avoid fights, but that shouldn't justify leaving unpleasant or unfun fights in the game (not saying yours are, as I obviously haven't played it).

So yeah, I'd either trim the exploitable aspects of story mode that make it actually better than normal mode, or make it a fixed choice upon starting a new game. The exploitable aspects are: shop prices, collection quest rates/alternate resolutions, extra loot rewards, and bypassing fights.

 

[OnslaughtSupply]

Why would you need more chests and loot drops if the shop prices are reduced and enemy encounters are easier? What's the incentive for playing in normal other than better balanced battles? I think you made easy too easy. I would consider taking some of the bonuses out for easy mode or a greater reward for players in normal mode, like additional endings, characters, skills, equipment, something that would entice the player to play the game as intended.

 

[Kes]

I have my equivalent of Story mode (it's one of 4 options) as a fixed choice at the beginning of the game. The main effect of this mode is to reduce all enemy stats (not just HP and ATK) by 50%. I do not adjust shop prices or loot drops, but do adjust upward the rate at which TP is gained. Prices and loot are kept the same because the fights are already significantly easier, so the player doesn't need cheaper healing items etc. as they will be using far fewer. Nor do they need more gold for the same reason. The benefits of more TP are obvious.

I did consider whether to make the difficulty choice changeable in my current project, as I do before every new game, but decided to keep it as fixed. It just didn't make sense to me as a developer or player to manipulate the game play with a changeable feature. It would also make trying to balance accurately across all 4 modes somewhat nonsensical.

EDIT
If you really want to have something available, but not necessarily used, you could do what Ara Fell does. If the player chooses Story mode the only thing that changes is that each character is given a Story Mode skill which deals maximum damage (don't know if that's 999 or 9999 in RM2k3) to all enemies, so effectively ending the battle on the first move. The player can then use it or not as they wish.

 

[Eschaton]

I'm noticing a rise in RPGs in which there is a separate story mode which doesn't have combat at all. It seems like it would be boring to me, but I remember plenty of instances in which dying many, many times have ruined the pacing and narrative value of what was supposed to be a climactic moment.

Easy mode might not need to be a separate mode or game entirely. Many RPGs control their difficulty with a variable factored into the damage formulas. A variable that represents difficulty could also be factored into events, as well. If I was going to include a difficulty level that would reduce gameplay's impact, I'd make it to where there are no regular encounters and the player only has to fight really easy bosses. I don't know if there are plugins that affect random encounter rates, but if all encounters are triggered by events on the map, events can be structured such that they don't trigger battles if the variable is a certain number. "If easy mode, then no battle."

 

[Uzuki]

If you're asking for a choice between "choose the difficulty in the beginning then lock it" vs "change the difficulty any time in the options menu" then, well that's tricky. I know the change-anytime option is growing in popularity, but personally I think it's a bit lazy and encourages lame gameplay manipulation. For example, you said your options alter shop prices and loot quantities. My response to this as a player would be to set the game to story mode every time I go shopping or go to open a chest. If combat turns out to be boring, I'd probably also use story mode just to avoid fights, but that shouldn't justify leaving unpleasant or unfun fights in the game (not saying yours are, as I obviously haven't played it).

So yeah, I'd either trim the exploitable aspects of story mode that make it actually better than normal mode, or make it a fixed choice upon starting a new game. The exploitable aspects are: shop prices, collection quest rates/alternate resolutions, extra loot rewards, and bypassing fights.

Why would you need more chests and loot drops if the shop prices are reduced and enemy encounters are easier? What's the incentive for playing in normal other than better balanced battles? I think you made easy too easy. I would consider taking some of the bonuses out for easy mode or a greater reward for players in normal mode, like additional endings, characters, skills, equipment, something that would entice the player to play the game as intended.

The reason why Story mode has a lot of stuff that throws off the balance of the game is because it's meant for people who want to just breeze through the game to experience the story and characters or just want a power trip on their first time through the game. Normal mode would be there for players who want to play the game normally without the temptations of the exploit options beings being there. It's a single player game so I personally don't feel like having these options available are too big of an issue, because if you use them that's your choice and it can only either enhance the gameplay or you ruin it for yourself by choice if you mess with those options.

 

[VioletSpark]

Just in terms of how it would feel experiencing the game, I think Story and Normal should be separate modes.

For me, the flow would be marred by occasionally being tempted to 'cheat.'
Plus, once you've 'cheated' you've upset the game balance anyway, even if you switch back to Normal.

 

[Wavelength]

Tough call here. In a perfect world, if all players were Homo Economicus and player psychology could be easily manipulated, it would make sense to have these options be available at all times to all players - they could simply set it to what would be the most fun for them at any given time.

In practice, though, I for one find that when a really easy, pain-free and penalty-free "out" is given to me (like skipping a puzzle I can't figure out immediately, or lowering the number of drops I need to complete a quest, or adding lots of cash to my wallet), it makes the thing I was trying to do in the first place (and might have enjoyed otherwise) feel absolutely pointless. After all, why go through the "work" (puzzle-solving, hunting, grinding) when I could just grab the reward (progression, drops, cash)? I might go through the work anyway, but now it will feel stupid rather than rewarding.

For this reason, I feel better as a player when the choice is presented to me at the beginning of the game (or, better yet, a little ways into the game once I understand how it works), and then is inaccessible forever after that.

Don't forget that there are also ways to allow the player to dynamically "choose" their difficulty in subtle ways that feel rewarding. For example, giving players a "grade" after battle based on things like how quickly they completed the battle or their proximity to enemies within the battle can encourage risky (more difficult) tactics, and you can reward the player with mostly-aesthetic prizes for high grades (such as new costumes or items that are rare but not necessarily more powerful than common items) so that you don't create too much of a rich-get-richer cycle. I don't think their examples are that great, but this Extra Credits video explains the concept pretty well.

 

[Aoi Ninami]

Another thing I've seen done (Celeste, I think?) is that "easy mode" can be turned on at any time if you're finding normal too hard, but you can't turn it off, so you can't abuse skipping in and out of easy mode.

As for the original question, I would make it a binary choice between easy and normal (and maybe also have a "hard" difficulty if you like), rather than picking and choosing the individual aspects. At the start of the game, the player doesn't know how hard it's going to be, so they have no basis on which to make the choice, and eight different options all relating to game difficulty could be a bit overwhelming. (Though save-anywhere or not could be its own option; some players will prefer save-anywhere for reasons having nothing to do with difficulty, if they will only be able to play the game in short bursts.)

I would also say: decide whether it's a true "story mode" (no difficulty whatever) or a Touhou-like "easy mode" (you're still playing the game but it's easier), and name and balance it accordingly. If you present it to the player as an "easy mode", then it will appeal to players who are looking for less of a challenge but still want to have fun playing the game.

 

[bgillisp]

One thing you could try is letting the player select how many of the easy options they want. In other words, let them decide which of the following options they want (and all is an option):

1: More treasure
2: Cheaper shops
3: Easier battles
4: Less battles

That way they can choose what experience they want at the start of the game.

As for whether or not to allow switching, what I've seen games on Steam do is if you lower the difficulty once for any reason, acheivements are disabled for the rest of the game. Now, that only works for those players who care about acheivements, but it still puts a penalty for changing the difficulty into the game.

 

[Milennin]

Not really a fan of RPG Maker games with a "story mode", because to me it shows the developer isn't confident (or in other cases, too lazy) in properly balancing their battle encounters, and then use their story mode option as a way to shove aside constructive criticism. "I know certain mini-boss is meant to be strong, but I found him manageable in the 2 whole test battles I've done. If you don't like it, just go play on story mode; that's what it's for." If you suspect players are rather going to be playing for your story instead of the gameplay (which they shouldn't, if you're giving them a game to play, even if that game is an RPG), you're going to be better off writing a book or visual novel.

But anyway, just go with the classic easy-mode option at the start of the game, if you want to give people an easy playthrough.

 

[bgillisp]

I dunno about that. I find player experiences differ heavily and what one person wants another hates. For example, look up the opinions on the Alien Hunters DLC mod for Xcom2. Some love it for making the campaign hard, and some hate it as they feel those hunters cheat. So opinions will be divided.

On another note, have you also considered adding options to make the game harder as well? Like maybe you could add the option to play the game with no treasure chests? Or no stores at all? Or 2x cost? Just something for the player who wants a challenge to consider. I actually thought about doing something like that in my game where anyone who found the game too easy could check extra challenges. Want more pressure? Turn on a time limit to complete the game before the bad guy wins and we all lose. Want to have to explore more and/or survive with what you find only? Turn on no shops. So on and so forth.

 

[Uzuki]

Another thing I've seen done (Celeste, I think?) is that "easy mode" can be turned on at any time if you're finding normal too hard, but you can't turn it off, so you can't abuse skipping in and out of easy mode.

As for the original question, I would make it a binary choice between easy and normal (and maybe also have a "hard" difficulty if you like), rather than picking and choosing the individual aspects. At the start of the game, the player doesn't know how hard it's going to be, so they have no basis on which to make the choice, and eight different options all relating to game difficulty could be a bit overwhelming. (Though save-anywhere or not could be its own option; some players will prefer save-anywhere for reasons having nothing to do with difficulty, if they will only be able to play the game in short bursts.)

I would also say: decide whether it's a true "story mode" (no difficulty whatever) or a Touhou-like "easy mode" (you're still playing the game but it's easier), and name and balance it accordingly. If you present it to the player as an "easy mode", then it will appeal to players who are looking for less of a challenge but still want to have fun playing the game.

The switching and locking the difficulty is something that I've been keeping in mind if I go with keeping the modes separate. As for why I went with "Story Mode" rather then Easy mode is because people don't like the term easy, especially when it comes to games. There's also an option to turn the encounter rate on/off in either mode and because you can earn exp from quests and mini-games, you the only battles you could theoretically do would be boss encounters.

One thing you could try is letting the player select how many of the easy options they want. In other words, let them decide which of the following options they want (and all is an option):

1: More treasure
2: Cheaper shops
3: Easier battles
4: Less battles

That way they can choose what experience they want at the start of the game.

As for whether or not to allow switching, what I've seen games on Steam do is if you lower the difficulty once for any reason, acheivements are disabled for the rest of the game. Now, that only works for those players who care about acheivements, but it still puts a penalty for changing the difficulty into the game.

I will keep that making some of the options available before starting the game in mind. That's a good way of striking the balance of letting the player choose what they want.

Not really a fan of RPG Maker games with a "story mode", because to me it shows the developer isn't confident (or in other cases, too lazy) in properly balancing their battle encounters, and then use their story mode option as a way to shove aside constructive criticism. "I know certain mini-boss is meant to be strong, but I found him manageable in the 2 whole test battles I've done. If you don't like it, just go play on story mode; that's what it's for." If you suspect players are rather going to be playing for your story instead of the gameplay (which they shouldn't, if you're giving them a game to play, even if that game is an RPG), you're going to be better off writing a book or visual novel.

But anyway, just go with the classic easy-mode option at the start of the game, if you want to give people an easy playthrough.

Well that's a bit unfair to assume devs are doing it to just be lazy. Most RPGs are narrative or character driven stories and some people play them mainly for that. If people don't want to deal with some of the complexity or difficulty of the gameplay, but still want to experience your story, especially if they're willing to spend money on it, why gatekeep them from it? That's not to excuse criticism for the people who do use that as an shortcut, but to automatically assume that an option that probably isn't for you is bad is a bit ehhh.

I dunno about that. I find player experiences differ heavily and what one person wants another hates. For example, look up the opinions on the Alien Hunters DLC mod for Xcom2. Some love it for making the campaign hard, and some hate it as they feel those hunters cheat. So opinions will be divided.

On another note, have you also considered adding options to make the game harder as well? Like maybe you could add the option to play the game with no treasure chests? Or no stores at all? Or 2x cost? Just something for the player who wants a challenge to consider. I actually thought about doing something like that in my game where anyone who found the game too easy could check extra challenges. Want more pressure? Turn on a time limit to complete the game before the bad guy wins and we all lose. Want to have to explore more and/or survive with what you find only? Turn on no shops. So on and so forth.

There will be little things in the game that the player can chose to give themselves an extra challenges for better rewards, but there won't be an exclusive hard mode. Mainly because it would take too much time to balance .

 

[Milennin]

Well that's a bit unfair to assume devs are doing it to just be lazy. Most RPGs are narrative or character driven stories and some people play them mainly for that. If people don't want to deal with some of the complexity or difficulty of the gameplay, but still want to experience your story, especially if they're willing to spend money on it, why gatekeep them from it? That's not to excuse criticism for the people who do use that as an shortcut, but to automatically assume that an option that probably isn't for you is bad is a bit ehhh.

Okay, but if your game is decently and fairly balanced, difficulty shouldn't be much of an issue to the people playing your game in that case. Even much less so in a turn-based game where players are given as much time as needed to make decisions. I don't recall ever playing an RPG Maker game that was difficult because it required thinking (by that I don't mean having to mind-read the developer hiding away important information from me) instead of grinding or RNG'ing my way through a challenge.

Gatekeeping has always been a thing in games, that's why games are satisfying to play, especially the more challenging ones. Because it makes you want to do your best to get to the next part, and when you make it, it feels good because you overcame the obstacles the game presented you with. Enjoying a story for just the story is what people do when they watch a movie or read a book (or a visual novel).

Making a game difficult enough that you fear a portion of your players might not overcome it, but then also giving the option to make it so easy that anyone can skip over every challenge whenever they please is like having your cake and eat it too. But like I said in my first post, giving the option to play in easy mode at the start of the game would be the best solution if you really think your players are going to need it, in my opinion. Although if it were me, I'd still make the player actually beat the challenge instead of providing an auto-skip if they kept on failing.

 

[Aesica]

Well that's a bit unfair to assume devs are doing it to just be lazy. Most RPGs are narrative or character driven stories and some people play them mainly for that.

"Lazy" is the impression I get every time I see an RPG (RM-based or not) with a difficulty slider. To me, feels like the developer is saying, "I'm not going to bother really balancing out and fine tuning my battles properly, so I'll just give the player a difficulty slider to play with as they go through the game. The only RPG I've ever really seen use difficulty well is the Epic Battle Fantasy series, where "Epic" (the hardest difficulty) can be absolutely brutal. Since the main highlight of that series is its elaborate and somewhat-complex and challenging battle system, letting the player choose the difficulty they're comfortable with as they progress makes a bit more sense.

Personally, I greatly prefer the Mario approach to difficulty. In many of the later-generation Mario games, the main content itself isn't too hard, but there's little bits and pieces thrown in to make things more challenging if the player chooses to pursue them, such as a series of tricky jumps and enemy navigation required in order to pick up all of the special coins in a level. In RPG terms, this could mean side quests that are more difficult than the main quest, hidden bonus dungeons packed full of challenging foes and one or more optional superbosses, tricky puzzles needed to reach bonus loot, etc.

 

[Eschaton]

Maybe I wasn't contributing as much as I thought with my last comment, so I'll ask OP this: do your story mode changes make the file for your game a larger download? Consider methods that reduce the number of elements you need to test. A highly-variable set of algorithms to determine the player's effectiveness might be a better one-size-fits-all approach rather than a whole bunch of events that are triggered by story mode.

 

[Kes]

"Lazy" is the impression I get every time I see an RPG (RM-based or not) with a difficulty slider. To me, feels like the developer is saying, "I'm not going to bother really balancing out and fine tuning my battles properly, so I'll just give the player a difficulty slider to play with as they go through the game.

I had to think twice before I understood your point, which I think is directed to those games where the difficulty can be adjusted constantly throughout the game. Is that what you mean by a "difficulty slider"?

But perhaps you meant any game with different modes which the player can pick? To balance across several difficulty modes is indeed a lot of extra work, but it would be unjust blithely to assume that it has not been done. I have regular players who automatically play on modes other than normal and give feedback on that experience. That feedback tells me that the difficulty they experience is appropriate for the mode they have chosen.

Okay, but if your game is decently and fairly balanced, difficulty shouldn't be much of an issue to the people playing your game in that case.

Not so. This will be highly variable and to assume that all players are identical is inaccurate. Variables include age, previous gaming experience, tactical/strategic ability, interest in battles vs interest in story (iirc you have little interest in story), how much of a challenge the individual player wants at that particular time, etc. etc. I do agree with you that the player should beat the challenge rather than auto-skip, which is why in my games it is 'Easy' and not 'Story', but what one person finds a challenge another may consider a breeze.

 

[Milennin]

Not so. This will be highly variable and to assume that all players are identical is inaccurate. Variables include age, previous gaming experience, tactical/strategic ability, interest in battles vs interest in story (iirc you have little interest in story), how much of a challenge the individual player wants at that particular time, etc. etc. I do agree with you that the player should beat the challenge rather than auto-skip, which is why in my games it is 'Easy' and not 'Story', but what one person finds a challenge another may consider a breeze.

Of course, that's why you aim for a certain kind of audience when making your game. By decently and fairly balanced, I mean that it is decently and fairly balanced around the group you aim to be played by. If you aim for kids, you're going to keep it simple, easy to understand and balance your game around that. If you aim for RPG veterans, you're going with more complexity to hold their interest. If you're aiming at an audience who's going to play for the story, naturally, you're going to make challenging gameplay take a back-seat, otherwise you're creating conflicting groups of interest. People who want their story will get frustrated by being gate-kept by challenging gameplay, while those who like challenging gameplay will have to sit through lots of story segments to get what they want.

If you know what kind of people will be playing and enjoying your game, difficulty should be much less of an issue, as long as you did a good job balancing it well. That is why I trust developers who know what kind of group of people they want to please much more than those who try to get a bit of every slice of the audience pie.

 

[Uzuki]

Maybe I wasn't contributing as much as I thought with my last comment, so I'll ask OP this: do your story mode changes make the file for your game a larger download? Consider methods that reduce the number of elements you need to test. A highly-variable set of algorithms to determine the player's effectiveness might be a better one-size-fits-all approach rather than a whole bunch of events that are triggered by story mode.

Sorry, I thought I added you in the other quotes when I mentioned that random encounter can be toggled on/off on either mode. To your current question, the narrative and story will fold out the exact same way so the only difference will be on a gameplay level.

Of course, that's why you aim for a certain kind of audience when making your game. By decently and fairly balanced, I mean that it is decently and fairly balanced around the group you aim to be played by. If you aim for kids, you're going to keep it simple, easy to understand and balance your game around that. If you aim for RPG veterans, you're going with more complexity to hold their interest. If you're aiming at an audience who's going to play for the story, naturally, you're going to make challenging gameplay take a back-seat, otherwise you're creating conflicting groups of interest. People who want their story will get frustrated by being gate-kept by challenging gameplay, while those who like challenging gameplay will have to sit through lots of story segments to get what they want.

If you know what kind of people will be playing and enjoying your game, difficulty should be much less of an issue, as long as you did a good job balancing it well. That is why I trust developers who know what kind of group of people they want to please much more than those who try to get a bit of every slice of the audience pie.

There's nothing wrong with aiming for a broader audience, it depends on the way you go about it, which is one of the reasons why I want to add options that would make the game more accessible to more people who have difficulty with these types of games or don't have the time to play rpgs like they used too and would still like to experience them like Kes said.

 

[Aesica]

I had to think twice before I understood your point, which I think is directed to those games where the difficulty can be adjusted constantly throughout the game. Is that what you mean by a "difficulty slider"?

Oh, sorry if that wasn't clear. Yeah, I mean those where you can adjust the difficulty at any point throughout the game without any consequences. Not only does it seem a bit lazy to me, but it feels like it has the potential to trivialize content that the developer otherwise intends to be challenging. Let's say you choose to play a game on "Hard." Everything's nice and challenging, but manageable until you make your way to the Deep Dark Spooky Bonus Dungeon Of Mad Loot And Certain Death, where enemies are (by intent) brutal. You can either keep trying on your selected difficulty (Hard) or you can...trivialize the challenge by cranking it down to "Easy."