No Magic/Spells?

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I would just like to hear your opinion about a game that:


- Employs a tactical battle system


- No Magic


So basically, the only commands will be


- Move (and set facing)


- Attack


- Items (both offensive and curative)


There will also be events lying around the battlefield that can be triggered...

 

[EFizzle]

Well will you aim for a more SAO (Sword Art Online) kind of battle system? Because just having the Attack command and items will seem a slight bit boring.I feel if the tactics are intuitive enough, the game would still be fun, Fire Emblem didn't REALLY have magic, just ranged attacks that had different formulas than the rest, and it is one of my favorite games of all time. So maybe adding a bit of variety to the attack command, through weapons or something, would make the tactics more enjoyable. If all your units had the exact same range, and the only difference was their stats... that would seem really boring to me.

 

[Kyutaru]

I've played Chess before.  It's kind of like that.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

@Yonma - If I go with it, there would probably be weapons with longer ranges and such... SAO is still kind of Active Battle, so no not like that... Plus there would also be usable items that can be used to "attack"... Plus there would also be the effect of the terrain like there will be some usable events lying around the battlefield...


@Kyutaru - more like battle chess

 

[Kyutaru]

Tactical combat, no magic, terrain features, and the only options are move/attack/gear.

You're essentially describing most tabletop war games, my favorite of which is BattleTech.  It's also identical to the old Heroes of Might and Magic games, minus the whole "no magic" thing.

I'm fairly certain there is an enormous market for this sort of game along with terrible attempts at creating video game versions, such as MechWarrior Tactics and the Lords of War and Money.

If someone ever made a Warhammer 40k video game that actually played like the tabletop game, I'd sell whatever body parts were unnecessary to fund it.

 

[Andar]

The problem with that idea is the implementation: you won't be able to make a game long-term interesting when placing this limits.


(OK, there is a small chance of pulling that off - but I don't think anyone using limited resources has a good chance)


If we ignore all ingame and story-based stuff, there is exactly one reason in the game mechanics why all such games go the route of adding skills (however you call them) to the battlers: to keep the battles interesting and challenging to the player by giving the need to find new uses or combination of skills to fight.


Whenever a new enemy/boss appears, the player has to start looking for a method to win - with different skills and/or elements and similiar effects.


If your game doesn't have skills and only a limited number of options, the player will learn the best fighting tactics sooner - and can keep using them the entire game. To make the battles still interesting instead of a simple button mash, you would have to improve the enemy AI to increase the challenge.


And that is where the impossibility comes in: No one has ever managed to program a good AI, even in chess programs they mostly work with human-created move libraries and throw a lot of processing power into it to check the possible outcomes.


You might be able to keep battles like this interesting if you keep altering the battlefields and the events on them, but that requires a lot of planning and predefining the enemy move AI.


It's simply a fact that many games use changing skills and properties of enemies in order to hide that the enemy AI is usually extremely bad, and if you remove those options from the game you either have to replace them with a different diversion from the AI, improve the AI or have a game that will be no challenge after the first few battles.

 

[Zoltor]

Damn you Andar, beat me to it lol

To OP: Anyway, basically what he said.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

well, one thing is for sure, each battle will as much as possible be unique... at least maybe for each possible troop...


It's not like I'll do it the next proj or something though, I'm just looking for input... since for most Tactical Battle games I played, I only use skills a few times...


though the first thing that made me post this is that "what if the game doesn't have states?", then it lead to, "what if we remove Magic all along?"


PS: Skills might still appear (a few at most), what's sure is that there is no Magic/Spell...

 

[Zoltor]

well, one thing is for sure, each battle will as much as possible be unique... at least maybe for each possible troop

It's not like I'll do it the next proj or something though, I'm just looking for input... since for most Tactical Battle games I played, I only use skills a few times...

PS: Skills might still appear, what's sure is that there is no Magic/Spell...

Oh ok, in otherwords you don't want any fantasy feel to it, you want it to feel realistically believable.

Well yea ofcourse that's ok, change the title spells to skills(or use the TP system, whichever you want), and the MP tag to SP, and you're good to go.

As far as development/game mechanics goes, Magic/spells, and skills are the exact same thing, just with different names, so It's deffinitely alright to not have something called magic, but to still have skills.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Skills are still a "might" in this idea... I was looking for something to remove the need for skills... something like you need to learn when and where to attack, use items, use terrain to your advantage etc...

 

[Kyutaru]

Most of Fallout 1 and 2 can be played without skills... Shotguns function differently from Sniper Rifles, there's plenty of terrain to hamper you, you can buy and lob Grenades at the enemy, health packs keep your hitpoints up, and movement is vital to minimize casualties.  I think you can create a more than compelling game with no skills/magic/spells.  It's been done before.

Stats and Guns are all you need.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

There will be no guns either... This isn't a shooter idea... it's an idea for a traditional RPG tactical battle system...


anyway, if this persists, one major factor to think about is how to implement the need to strike at a right time at the right place to maximize positive effects and minimize negative impacts

 

[Kyutaru]

There will be no guns either... This isn't a shooter idea... it's an idea for a traditional RPG tactical battle system...

Fallout -is- a traditional RPG tactical battle system.  It's not a "shooter".  It's an isometric turn-based grid game where your only options are Move, Attack, and Items.  It's also one of the best RPGs of all time.  Even if you don't go with guns as the character weapons, you can simulate the battle strategy with close combat troops, long range troops, spreadfire troops, etc.  What kept Fallout's combat engaging was the fact that the weapons functioned in different ways and were optimal at different ranges.  You can say the same for Swords vs Bows.... one's noticeably better in melee.

If you're looking for something more of a "fantasy" game example, Fire Emblem functions similarly.  Troops + Moving around + Attacking.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I didn't say fallout is a shooter... I just basically said I don't put guns in a non-shooter game for personal reasons...


each weapon type will surely have it's own niche...

 

[AwesomeCool]

I would suggest making items like spells.  It would add a new layer of tactics if items where limited and acted like the games spells (do I save this item or use it now).

Also have weapons and such be effective against certain types of enemies (adds more strategy).

Hope this helps. 

 

[TheRiotInside]

I would suggest making items like spells.  It would add a new layer of tactics if items where limited and acted like the games spells (do I save this item or use it now).

This seems like a solid idea in theory, but I know that at least for me, I end up never using my good items for fear of "wasting" them, like the big bottle rockets in Earthbound.

 

[Zoltor]

This seems like a solid idea in theory, but I know that at least for me, I end up never using my good items for fear of "wasting" them, like the big bottle rockets in Earthbound.

I completely agree(all my rare/better items never get used in games I play that make expendible items like this, because I'm afraid I might "really" need to use such for a possible battle later on).

 

[Kyutaru]

One solution to item whoring is something like what Blood Bowl does with rerolls.  Just allow players to buy a set number of something that can be used that many times in battle, and it resets whenever you want.  So you can have five health potions that you're permitted to use for the ENTIRE dungeon, or you can have it replenish at every save point.  This way the player is encouraged to use it (or lose it) but is still constrained by its rarity.  If you create a system where you can slot items, you can even disallow rare stacking.  If there's only one slot on your Army Manager for an "Elite" item, the player must choose what badass ultimate one-charge item they want to bring with them.  Once the charge is gone, they need to hit a replenish point to get it back, but at least they don't lose it forever.  Giving players incentive to use the item is as simple as saying you're not gonna have it anymore in about five minutes (opportunity cost... replenish essentially creates a new one).

 

[mlogan]

My current project will have no magic in it.  It is a short project, and not at all battle-focused.  In fact, there will be very little battling.  It is an alchemy/crafting focused game.  Based on that though, there will be opportunity to make some "potions" (for lack of a better word) that will aid in battle.  So I guess, my thoughts are that yes, it can be done, but I can see how with a battle-intensive game, it could get tricky trying to balance everything and keep it interesting.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

@Awesome - as I said, each weapon will have it's own niche...


As for item hoarding, I do think you'd realize that you WILL NEED to use them... if not then you'll just make your life harder... using them or not using them will be part of your tactics