You tried to escape...And failed! (Repeat 5 times and die). Or...How fair should running away be?

Discussion in 'Game Mechanics Design' started by RetroNutcase, Oct 29, 2015.

  1. jonthefox

    jonthefox Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    442
    Location:
    NYC
    @ Wavelength I think that is exactly it.  I personally think that encounters should be challenging, and dungeons dangerous, so I wouldn't want the ability to freely escape any battle without expending SOME kind of resource or penalty that is non-trivial.  if encounters in a game are just meant to be easy sources of exp and gold, then I could see why people would want to always be able to escape them whenever they want (because the monsters weren't a real threat to you in the first place, so why should the player have to waste time trying to end or avoid the encounter)...I just personally don't agree with / find that type of gameplay on the boring side.  
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
    Wavelength likes this.
  2. trevers18

    trevers18 #hippomaster Veteran

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Hippoland, U.S.A.
    First Language:
    English
    Perhaps I was unclear on this. When I say "skip," I do mean "keep them and let me use them when I want to," not, "remove them entirely because they're so boring." The mobs have their use, but if I have no reason to fight them or I just don't want to, I should be allowed to exercise that freedom unhindered. I just think it's kind of pretentious to prevent a player from running when the reason for running isn't specifically state-able, but maybe that's just me. I prefer non-traditional combat in RPGs so maybe I'm different from everyone else. I can never get interested in a game where it expects me to do a bunch of inconsequential battles to gain progress, regardless of the purpose they serve. The only game where I was okay with it was Undertale, because the battles were infrequent, the battling was optional, and the characters were actually creative enough that I didn't feel like they were unimportant (that entire game added weight to all the battles as well, so maybe that's the secret key).
     
  3. NichG

    NichG Villager Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    22
    First Language:
    English
    What I meant was, if the player can always choose to avoid an encounter, it makes more sense to me to have the player actually be the one to request an encounter, rather than to design the game around offering the player encounters at some rate and then having them accept or reject the event.

    If the player asks for a battle and receives one, then they can feel proactive about that exchange. If the game is constantly offering and the player gets into a mode where they reject the offer, then the feeling is going to be that the game is constantly bothering the player, interrupting whatever they actually wanted to do. If battles are dangerous and provide attrition, then that interruption can be justified in the form of gameplay challenge, but if you aren't going to do that then I find it hard to justify the design decision to have that kind of interruption. Instead, you could for example have a 'hunt for monsters' button/ability, that just immediately spawns an encounter based on that area.

    @Wavelength, yeah, I could personally go either way, but I think it helps to have a clear image of which way you're trying to go when designing it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
    Wavelength likes this.

Share This Page