Single Character RPG - Thoughts & Ideas?

[Milennin]

Single characters in a turn-based setting like the combat system used in RPG Maker - can it work without boring the player or feeling very limited? And if so, what needs to be done to create an experience that is on par with games that utilise a party of 2 or more playable characters? When designing such a game, what are things to look out for, things to avoid, or things you feel that should be included to make the combat system feel engaging?

 

[bgillisp]

Personally, I don't think it can work in turn based mode. But I say that as I've played no game that has implemented a turn based battle system for a party of one that I've liked. I think you'll need an ABS or something similar for it to feel fun at all myself.

 

[kovak]

Maybe if you allow the player to have actions as if you're playing a card game it may work.

 

[Silenity]

Turn based? Probably hard to make it interesting. I dabbled with the idea but you need to have a lot of customization for a single player jrpg.


like kovak suggested it could work with like a card game type thing or something like KHCoM. 


Otherwise ABS or LMBS could work too.


or skip combat and it could be VN style.

 

[LuLingqi1]

Maybe alternating characters, but never in a party together would work. Otherwise, if it's turnbased, I feel the character would need to be able to summon things, or have multiple class switches that can be done in battle.

 

[Crabs]

For a single-character party it should help making your battle system more interesting.


https://atelierrgss.wordpress.com/rmv-chain-commands/

 

[GatsRoller]

 Im actually working on a 1 character game, my idea is to strand away from ATB JRPG's, and focus on survival and scavenging elements on a dungeon crawler. So 1 versus 1 hard to approach turned battles will be featured, and  very similarly as in Zelda games as an example, for most enemies you might have to quest first for some skill or item to be able to beat them, and in some cases you also need to know when and how to use this in order to do so.


 So for most enemies, even if you already have a way of defeating them, you might still have to carefully plan your way to get rid of them, every single time, of course for many reasons some monsters will be relatively easier to wipe than others, thus giving less experience and bonuses etc.


I would say the best example of 1 vrs 1 enganing battles is Pokémon, so if many of you have played stadium, or online battles for this game, you can notice how the status, accuracy, and element system combine in such balanced way battles are annoying yet they have some high addicting factor as there is a logic behind victory. The thing is that you might have to test, plan, and ask for feedback many times before you have reached a greatly balanced battle system.


This is just my way to innovate on the horror genre, with a bit of survival and strategical aproach to battles

 

[AcetheSuperVillain]

I would be seriously turned off by an RPG with only one character.  Having lots of fun characters (and probably shipping them) is one of the main thing I like about RPGs.  


But there are novel ways around it.  Pokemon is sort of a one-character game.  You only play as "the kid", and only one pokemon comes out at a time.  Rogue-likes and dungeon crawlers generally have one character at a time, but a lot of characters to choose from.  Action RPGs have one character at a time by necessity.  I feel like VS Fighting games share a similar character-driven fun with RPGs, and those are one character at a time.  


I feel like another way you could keep it interesting is with interesting NPCs.  The only game I can think of as an example is Atelier Iris 1.  The shop owners are very talkative and involved in the story.  I could also imagine a game that's something like a dating sim, where you go on adventures alone and come back to the city to hang out with people.  


---


As far as working mechanically, there have been a lot of 1v1 RPG and other games out there, so there's plenty of examples to take in.  I mean, if you think about the overall strategy, it doesn't really matter that you've got 3 people wailing on 3 monsters or 1 person wailing on 1 monster.  A lot of RPGs don't use team combat to its full potential anyways.  Like I said, Pokemon, Rogue-likes, Dungeon Crawlers, are all 1 character-at-a-time.  You could also borrow some mechanics or philosophies from other types of video games.  If I chose my favorites, VS fighting, Racing or Scrolling shooters.  


I would recommend that you do skills that do multiple things at once, since you don't have multiple characters to help you out.  So like instead of having a spell that cures poison and a spell that heals HP, you could have a spell that heals some HP and removes poison, a spell that heals a lot of hp, and a spell that cures poison and makes a barrier against poison.  This would help give your players the feeling that you're giving them something to make up for not having other characters.  


Blending in VS Fighting mechanics would be interesting.  When people ask me why I like VSF games or what VSF games are like, I say that it's like a game of chess where you have a fraction of a second for each move.  I think you could slow down VSF mechanics to RPG speed and still have a strategically interesting game.  A lot of VSF has to do with timing.  If you use a slow attack that does more damage and stun time, your opponent is more likely to dodge it or block it, or even attack you before your attack connects.  But if you do quick attacks that are more likely to hit, the enemy might take a little damage but recover quickly and hit you with something better, or just block the quick attack anyways.  Yanfly has the CTB and ATB systems which allow you to use more timing options than the default.  Most fighting games also have some form of Rock Paper Scissors, like Strike beats Grab, Grab beats Guard, Guard beats Strike, or High beats Mid beats Low beats High.  These work in fighting games because you might see the attack coming and react, or because you get a feel for what the individual opponent likes to do.  In completely turn based games, with completely even random odds, there's no point to doing Rock Paper Scissors mechanics.  


SumRndmDde has a bunch of Timed Attack plugins that I think could make a 1 character game worth playing.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ls2e3nKSVQ&t=248s

 

[xanax48]

Witcher 3 is a single player RPG. While not turn based this does prove that narrative wise it's possible. You need a very detailed world with NPCs that have lots of dialogue for the player to interact with. Small monologues or moments that tell the player what the character may be thinking to fill the void on an adventure. While there are other ways to go this wouldn't be a bad one.

 

[Crabs]

Witcher 3 is a single player RPG. While not turn based this does prove that narrative wise it's possible. You need a very detailed world with NPCs that have lots of dialogue for the player to interact with. Small monologues or moments that tell the player what the character may be thinking to fill the void on an adventure. While there are other ways to go this wouldn't be a bad one.

Western RPG developers tend to focus in only one character.

 

[Kes]

@Crabs Please do not quote whole posts just to indicate who you are answering.  It makes the page slow to load and slow to scroll down, especially for those accessing this on their phones.  If you want to make it clear who you are replying to, simply use the @username convention as I have done in this post.


Thanks.

 

[Quill Quickcard]

It can definitely be done, and done well. But there needs to be variety in what the player can do, and how they do it.


My first instinct is to use summoning or conjuring powers to create temporary allies for use in battle. That immediately opens up massive possibilities for skill options.


Lacking that, combat should have many options that the player can follow in order to succeed. Alternate forms, transformations, and morphing is another way of achieving this goal. It could be physical transformation, like with lycanthropy, magical girls, or the like, or a mere change in stance or focus that alters your current skill options. That instantly opens a number of options.


One potential idea is to have a group of characters in the party in terms of story, but focus exclusively on the experience of one character within that party, like it was a first person experience. This would be much more involved in creating, and would require a degree of scripting encounters, but it would be an interesting experience.

 

[Basileus]

I think your main issue is going to be Narrative vs. Gameplay vs. Combat.


With a party of one, you will probably want to focus heavily on the player character for your narrative. A strong character-driven narrative can greatly enhance a single character game, especially if the reason (s)he is traveling alone is part of it. But there is another good option...centered the character driven narrative away from your player character. I'm serious on this. A game like Final Fantasy really wants to get into the heads of the player's party and focus all narrative and character development on them. But without party members to interact with, the player has to instead interact with their environment. Dragon Quest tends to have narratives that stay out of the player's head and instead focuses on the NPCs they encounter. Rather than have the player character go through an angsty character arc like FF games, DQ games have lots of good "arcs" where the player arrives in a new town with its own story that the player gets involved in, having them meet relevant NPCs, solving the town's problem and developing the major characters of the arc's plot, then setting out for new adventures after the town's issues are fixed. So less like a novel and more like a long-running Saturday morning anime. This establishes the player character's personality while also giving them a colorful cast of characters to work with, and the player can see the shift in the NPCs from when they arrived and when they left so they can feel a sense of accomplishment.


Gameplay could end up being a simplistic area depending on what kind of RPG you want to make. With multiple party members, there are options to involve their unique skill sets to solve puzzles and clear paths. With only one character, you kind of have to make him/her a Jack of All Trades by default. However, having only 1 player character does not mean you cannot have non-combat NPCs following you for quests. It's pretty easy to make an Event NPC that pops up for cutscenes, even in dungeons. So you can use temporary companions like this to solve puzzles by sitting on switches and stuff. This helps the player feel a little less lonely on the road and in dungeons (unless loneliness is what you want them to be feeling) while keeping only a single character in combat.


So...combat. Kind of important for RPGs. Many RPGs use multiple party members to cover important combat roles like Healer / Nuker / Tank / DPS and such. With one character, he has to have a bit of everything. But you can also choose not to do that. Summoning allies or changing stances to fill different roles is just making a multiplayer game and forcing a single character into it. With clever use of States, it is possible to make skills that "combo" with each other by having one skill that applies a State to the player for 1-2 turns and another skill that triggers an extra skill effect when the player has that State through calling a Common Event. This lets the player have all of the little things like minor heals, status recovery, self buffs, and enemy debuffs and status effects just through the creative and tactical use of his own skills without the need for allies or completely changing his skillset all the time. I would just recommend balancing items and resource costs based on their only being one character responsible for doing literally everything.


EDIT: For combat, I meant instead of mastering everything the player could splash extra effects to make up for not having dedicated skills for those things and probably using items for the rest.


Ideally you would want all 3 of these aspects to be top-notch. But you can make a good game even with just 2 of them - just make sure that whichever one you feel is lacking is made up for by de-emphasizing your weak point and emphasizing your 2 strong points.

 

[rue669]

I find this thread so interesting given that I had been planning on making a game with one character only. 


And then I thought... well that makes sense for an action RPG--which so many western RPGs are like these days--but not so much for a turn-based classic RPG style game. 


So I added another character to the mix, like a pet. Spice it up a bit! 


Shocked that the results were so indifferent. I thought more people would say no and want more than one. 

 

[Frozen_Phoenix]

I've made two games with a one hero party. One thing I like is that it make the protagonist feel more badass because he is soloing everything, unlike in a traditional rpg where it is usually a team of four. Also boss battles are more "fair", you can make it 1x1 instead of the usual and "unfair" 4x1, you can make your character boast something to the villain after he beats them, something like: "I, alone, destroyed you and your ****ty army HAHAHAHA!".


Gameplay wise, it might be better to have more characters as the amount of variety, combinations, patterns etc increases dramatically. But, with a short game and decent mechanics you can make it great, the game has to be short, else the player will get bored with the hero unless you alternate heroes. You can even to something like a hybrid: four separate heroes with one chapter each for their saga, then they join forces in a team.


Plot wise, as I said before, it makes the character more badass as he is solving the problems alone. Also you have only one character, so you can give him way more depth. You don't have companions to contrast personalities, but you can do that using dialogues with npcs, usually the villains.

 

[Doktor_Q]

Other than versatility of the one character, I'd say the biggest issue is action economy and targets. If the player is outnumbered, then you're facing 2+ enemy actions for every one of yours, and that's not really very fun. It also tends to make support- type abilities really, really bad.


Here's a few thoughts on getting around this, without actually adding more battlers to the party:


1. Shift the economy of actions. Either give the player more actions per turn, or limit the frequency enemies can act with. You can do this with an ATB system, making the enemies skip turns at a fixed rate, or giving the player since kind of chain input.


2. Making the battles into puzzles. Rather than a traditional test of statistical might, make the fights require specific thought, action, and planning to clear. Maybe it's about knowing how frequently you need to use your perfect guard, or setting up to reach peak damage bonus at the same time the enemy's weakpoint is exposed. This requires a lot more effort put into each battle, substantially more dynamic enemies (that is, they change state visibly and frequently), and runs the risk of any puzzle: becoming a tedious and transparent case of trial-and-error that the player memorizes as a rote. Trying to make encounters both puzzle-like AND varied without being arbitrary is sort of your holy grail, with similar consequences for choosing wrong.


3. Adding active battle components such as action commands or timed hits, or going another way and adding positional / area systems. With active defenses, you can put a lot of your variety into the enemies and their attacks- this was Undertale's strategy, for example.


None of those solutions are really mutually exclusive, but you'll have to find your own blend.


Another thought, now that I'm done writing that, is resource management- in party games you have to consider the HP, MP, TP, status, buffs, etc of your entire team, but with only one character that's really simple. It's probably worth giving the player a few more types of resources to worry about, if they're alone.

 

[bustedradio]

Since another person as already pointed out Pokemon, might I also suggest Persona 3 and 4?


Yes, in both games you usually have a party, however it is possible to go at it alone after the first couple dungeons in the game. It makes for a great challenge and the reason why is because you can change you MC's stats and abilities on the fly. To put it simply, the MC has the power to summon demons. Each demon has different stats and abilities and these carry over to the MC. Some are good with offensive magic, healing, attack, buffing, tanking, or a mixture. They also have different weaknesses and strengths. So at the beginning of your turn, you have the ability to switch to a different demon and then take action. The only thing that says fixed is the MC's HP and MP. This really adds a nice layer to strategy to turn based combat and forces you to think carefully because more often than not, you're up again multiple enemies that can take you out if you don't knock them out or kill a couple them first.

 

[Harosata]

Well, I sampled some single-player RPG Maker games using the default Turn Based system...Some like to start with 3-4 enemies and no attack-all skill making battles a bit lengthy.  Some like to use paralysis in...creative ways, but leaves little means for the player to remove that, either occupying the player to heal in time for the next stun or to die on the next hit.  Yeah, Single-Player RPGs can be annoying or boring, but I suppose there's a subtle charm if you want to worry about one HP bar and death rather than a party with phoenix downs and white mage overload.


Anyway, I suppose the issue is that some of us are used to attacking multiple times through parties and so are not used to having just one simple command per turn.  Perhaps skills that attack multiple times in some form might help alleviate that need.


At one time, I had considered two single player RPGs.  In one of them, it was actually a party with the rest being pages of a magic tome (for additional spells).  In the other, it would be a single player as a single target, but the party outside the battle would automatically cast skills as well.  Eventually, I just decided to use a Shared HP script so that I have the thrill of managing one HP bar while still able to give out multiple commands.


---


There was one RPG Maker Game that, even though it had a party, its use of status effects and attacks on the main character meant that if the MC isn't healed from time to time or kill, the rest of the party will lose.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

TBH, if you can make it fun it's all good.

 

[Doktor_Q]

One thing that makes P3 and P4 particularly good for single player attempts is the One More mechanic- managing your elements and personas can give you a huge leg up on action count, but it's a strategic effect rather than an automatic one.


For anyone not familiar with Persona's One More, hitting an enemy with their elemental weakness (or a critical hit from a normal attack) knocks them down, and gives the attacker another turn immediately. You can't get another turn off the same enemy while they're still down, and if you use an AoE to knock everyone down at once, you still only get one extra turn. For the sake of the Shin Megami Tensai's usual sense of balance, players also have elemental weaknesses, and being hit with them gives the enemies One More.