Alora Fane

I've spent another week working on this side project thing (which I still haven't decided on a title for), which has got me thinking a lot about what aspects of turn-based battles are actually fun and which are just going through the motions!

I've actually been feeling relatively okay mentally this week, gasp. Since I'd got some inertia going with this side project which it was easier to keep up than it was to switch to something else I probably should be doing instead (CBC port, Atonal Dreams), I worked on this... even though it's not as if anyone's begging me to get to the end with it and it might just turn into another Sindrel Song at best.

(Also, I really need to decide on a title! Frayth has been growing on me, but... still not sure. Belief Battles sounds too basic!)

Anyway! Here's another gameplay video, shorter than the one about a month ago, showing some changes to how skills are executed in battles:

The Confidence up notification word thing should be a different colour.

Even though it's only a couple of minutes, my own attention wanders while trying to watch through that, though while actually playing the thing that's not the case. A shame how poorly just watching gameplay captures the experience of being the one actually pressing the buttons.

The main thing I wanted to show with this was the silly, attack-like way that skills or quips or whatever are executed. It's something I've been wanting to do in some project for years - I've written about it in this blog before, somewhere, though I can't find the old post - so it's satisfying to finally see it realised. I personally find it hilariously absurd - still makes me chuckle seeing someone 'Flirt' as if it's some kind of physically damaging assault or whatever - but no doubt mileage will vary.

Over the past couple of weeks, I designed some new character types, so I worked on implementing those this week. What I found was that some of the structural stuff I had for things like skills and levelling up were annoying to work with, so I revised them slightly.

Previously, characters started with maybe two or three skills, but could learn more via a grid of level up bonuses ('boons') unique to that character type (the player character's is shown there). There wasn't any particular number of skills each could learn - like how there's no consistency in the size of Pokemon movepools - and you could equip and unequip skills into slots. Boons could be locked with a minimum level, but I had to enter the numbers manually, so again they wouldn't be consistent across character types. The point was to make each character type unique, with the potential to take it in a direction that suited your play style.

...Which I found tedious to plan and unnecessarily complicated, honestly. So I revised it so that each character now has exactly six skills - which are still unlocked in the same way, you just can't equip or unequip them - and the boon grid requires you to finish one row before moving onto the next.

And I think this is enough. I want this project to be fairly quick and straightforward to make and to play, to make its mark without overstaying its welcome. The whole reason I'm making it is as a side project to get side ideas out there and practise promotion etc.

It's got me thinking though about what I - or anyone else - would actually want from these kinds of battles. The original main influences for my games were Final Fantasy and Pokemon, and the combat in (casual playthroughs of) those typically just involved me using either an Attack command over and over or switching to a Pokemon with a super effective move, which was extremely basic and straightforward, but... enjoyable for me anyway?

I know some people play Pokemon battles competitively where there's way more going on, and comparing to old games isn't the best because they've come a long way since then, but... what exactly do you want from these kinds of battles, if you like them at all?

Would you prefer something where you have to plan strategically and whittle down foes' HP with carefully-chosen skills to eke out a well-earned victory?

Or would you rather use the same couple of reliable actions to mow down hordes of enemies before they can even take a turn?

It's interesting how in these types of games, you have access to a bunch of different methods to tackle battles, but - for me at least - most of them go unused because they're often things like status effects, which average enemies go down too quickly to require and bosses are immune to.

I was also inspired by D&D-based games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights in the beginning, which have more elaborate classes and combat styles, but... I suppose I saw different classes more in terms of aesthetics than actual combat roles, or something? That is, I was sort of blind to or uninterested in concepts like 'DPS' or 'Tank', and it's only in recent years I've even realised they're a thing?

In MARDEK, for example, each of the characters has a different 'class', and to some degree the differences are functional (eg Elwyen's very different combat style), though mostly I just think I came up with damaging skills that were aesthetically flavoured to fit what I thought was the feel of a character's class with no regard for whether they worked as a coherent team of 'combat units'?

...Or something like that. I'm struggling to put into words. I suppose it's because the actual pure 'game' aspect of games has never been what's drawn me to them; I still don't even know how to play chess, and even if I were to learn I can't imagine I'd be good at it. I'm far more interested in the aesthetics and immersion, what with being an ~arty~ person with a dreary reality I'm inclined to seek escape from.

Were I to make MARDEK now, I might give more thought to skillsets and stat distributions, how they could work to support the team and everything (Deugan would explicitly be a tank, for example). I've been trying to do that with this game.

The first thought I had was that I should assign each character type a combat role like DPS or Tank, and design their skills around that. I did a bit of research about what the essential RPG classes are, and found a lot of disagreement and discussion... but settled on these three (I don't want to overcomplicate things):

Persuader - Tries to inflict 'damage'
Defender - Supports the team, heals, attracts attention to self
Manipulator - Works with status conditions

Typically there'd be a distinction made between healer and tank, but I didn't feel it made much sense with the mechanics of this game so they're roughly combined.

I don't know whether these classes would be made explicit in the game, or whether I'll just use them to guide my design of the characters' skills. That's all they determine anyway (currently, at least). Since each character has exactly six skills, those I'm considering to be 'Persuaders' might have three or four that are pure 'damage' and two status/cheer skills (the latter being skills that trigger while the character is 'in the crowd'), Defenders might have mostly healing/buff skills, and manipulators might have mostly debuffs. And since there are six character types per area, I've been trying to balance the distribution of roles (not exactly two of each per area, but I've at least been avoiding things like making all character types for an area Persuaders or whatever).

I suppose I'm only really mentioning all this because it might be the first time I've really given much thought to these aspects of game design, and that's odd? Or maybe I have thought about this in the past but I just can't remember; my memory is quite poor these days.

I've been playing a lot of Tears of the Kingdom again, and that game is all about giving you many ways to solve any given problem, which might be partly why I've been wondering about all this. The comparison between the limitations of that game and mine is quite a severe one!

But oh well. I also find it frustrating how some games try to do and be everything, honestly. As much as I love TotK, already I'm getting to the point where I'd rather be done with it - though I'm not even close - so I can move on with my life. There's just too much to do, and I don't have enough time.

So one of the big aims of this project will be to have something that doesn't ask for too much of your time to achieve 100% completion... though I suppose that's been the plan for ages so I've probably said that before!

Also, I've still not heard back regarding counselling. Ugh. Maybe I'll need to reach out to them - or someone else - again?

10 COMMENTS

PierceWickstorm29~1Y

In my experience, fighting enemies tend to get old after a while, which is why I've always enjoyed boss battles when they bring a lot of new things to the battle. I personally liked the way you did a lot of the moves in Mardek. Gave the characters and villains a personality even in battle.

I also really enjoyed the demo. Although I will admit, I was fooled at first. I'm so used to seeing players on the right side, I didn't realize the one you play as is on the left. Got a good chuckle out of me.

Everyone will always have different preferences on classes, and that's what makes them so good. There's always something fascinating to latch on to. I, personally, have always loved the blue mage. Being able to use enemy abilities against other enemies always intrigued me. It's why I want the main character in my game to be one.

Speaking of which, I'm finally getting progress started on my game. I've decided that I'm going to try to move past my trauma from the Mardek continuation project, and work on my own projects. Every time I would start, I'd be stopped by the power they held over me. But I won't let it control me any longer. I will create a spiritual successor to Mardek, something that I can be proud of. And honestly, it was you that helped me get past it.

Reading your blog the last few days has made me realize that you're still out there going forward after all you've been through. I won't let myself stop like I used to. And for that, I thank you.

Maybe when you are able to, I can tell you about what I want to make. I know you don't make games like Mardek anymore, but I do hope it would be something you'd enjoy.

And when you feel bad, just know that there is someone out there who you've greatly inspired and one who always has your back.

I also really enjoyed the demo. Although I will admit, I was fooled at first. I'm so used to seeing players on the right side, I didn't realize the one you play as is on the left. Got a good chuckle out of me.

Everyone will always have different preferences on classes, and that's what makes them so good. There's always something fascinating to latch on to. I, personally, have always loved the blue mage. Being able to use enemy abilities against other enemies always intrigued me. It's why I want the main character in my game to be one.

Speaking of which, I'm finally getting progress started on my game. I've decided that I'm going to try to move past my trauma from the Mardek continuation project, and work on my own projects. Every time I would start, I'd be stopped by the power they held over me. But I won't let it control me any longer. I will create a spiritual successor to Mardek, something that I can be proud of. And honestly, it was you that helped me get past it.

Reading your blog the last few days has made me realize that you're still out there going forward after all you've been through. I won't let myself stop like I used to. And for that, I thank you.

Maybe when you are able to, I can tell you about what I want to make. I know you don't make games like Mardek anymore, but I do hope it would be something you'd enjoy.

And when you feel bad, just know that there is someone out there who you've greatly inspired and one who always has your back.

IloveMardek7~1Y

"Would you prefer something where you have to plan strategically and whittle down foes' HP with carefully-chosen skills to eke out a well-earned victory?"

"Or would you rather use the same couple of reliable actions to mow down hordes of enemies before they can even take a turn?"

This is a bit of a tricky question.
A game like pokemon was designed for casual play, I don’t think Gamefreak intended for pokemon to be a competitive game, yet it kind of just happened over time.
Games like Super Smash brothers, and pokemon are games that weren’t really meant to be played competitively, but became more competitive as it gained more popularity.
If games get more popular, then theres a chance it also gains a competitive scene. Games like Counter Strike, and Team Fortress 2 initially started off as casual games, but slowly developed a e-sports scene over time.
But forcing a game to be competitive isn’t a good thing, Heroes of the storm from blizzard tried hard to transition from a casual game to a competitive e-sports by throwing a lot of money for tournaments, but it never paid off.
If you’re going for a casual game, there is still a chance for it to become somewhat competitive if the game becomes popular.
in my personal opinion, I personally think starting off casual is a safe choice to appeal to a more broader audience, and looking how things play out.

For example, a game called “Sonny” (which is a turn based flash game) can be played casually. The class system of sonny 1 was a bit flawed because classes were mostly just differences in stats, but in sonny 2 you can choose out of 3 unique classes with unique class skills Biological where you can choose between a tanky fighter or speedy assassin with high DPS, Psychological where you can choose between strong DPS over time, or a build that empowers you and your allies. And lastly Hydraulic, which has a lot of build diversity.

In sonny 2, you can choose to brute force everything, trying to grind enemies when you can’t get past a boss, but there are unique achievements if you choose to beat bosses without grinding for exp. Encouraging players to switch their builds up, for example, switching to a speedy assassins with high DPS when the enemy deals strong Damage Over Time attacks.

This basically means that, while the game can be played casually, the game does offer challenges to beat the game with different challenges.

"Would you prefer something where you have to plan strategically and whittle down foes' HP with carefully-chosen skills to eke out a well-earned victory?"

"Or would you rather use the same couple of reliable actions to mow down hordes of enemies before they can even take a turn?"

This is a bit of a tricky question.
A game like pokemon was designed for casual play, I don’t think Gamefreak intended for pokemon to be a competitive game, yet it kind of just happened over time. 
Games like Super Smash brothers, and pokemon are games that weren’t really meant to be played competitively, but became more competitive as it gained more popularity. 
If games get more popular, then theres a chance it also gains a competitive scene. Games like Counter Strike, and Team Fortress 2 initially started off as casual games, but slowly developed a e-sports scene over time. 
But forcing a game to be competitive isn’t a good thing, Heroes of the storm from blizzard tried hard to transition from a casual game to a competitive e-sports by throwing a lot of money for tournaments, but it never paid off.
If you’re going for a casual game, there is still a chance for it to become somewhat competitive if the game becomes popular.
in my personal opinion, I personally think starting off casual is a safe choice to appeal to a more broader audience, and looking how things play out.

For example, a game called “Sonny” (which is a turn based flash game) can be played casually. The class system of sonny 1 was a bit flawed because classes were mostly just differences in stats, but in sonny 2 you can choose out of 3 unique  classes with unique class skills Biological where you can choose between a tanky fighter or speedy assassin with high DPS, Psychological where you can choose between strong DPS over time, or a build that empowers you and your allies. And lastly Hydraulic, which has a lot of build diversity.

In sonny 2, you can choose to brute force everything, trying to grind enemies when you can’t get past a boss, but there are unique achievements if you choose to beat bosses without grinding for exp. Encouraging players to switch their builds up, for example, switching to a speedy assassins with high DPS when the enemy deals strong Damage Over Time attacks.

This basically means that, while the game can be played casually, the game does offer challenges to beat the game with different challenges.

Tobias 1115~1Y

Thanks for commenting!

I hadn't even considered the competitive side since I'm not interested in playing games that way or watching others play games that way, and I definitely wouldn't be targeting that audience (though I'll be amazed if the game becomes even slightly popular).

I'm not really thinking of it as 'casual' either, though maybe that's closer to what I'm going for? I tend to play games maybe more seriously than a completely casual player, but way less seriously than competitive players, so I'll be guided by that since I want to make something I can enjoy.

Mostly I just want something that's fun for a satisfying but short while without being overly mindless or tedious.

Also, I know about Sonny since it was heavily compared to MARDEK back in the ancient days. Last I heard, they did a remake or continuation on Steam and people hated it, or something? I wonder if they did any more with it.

Maniafig222~1Y

Sonny had a reboot in 2017, releasing first on mobile and then on PC too. The reception was definitely more mixed, but I wouldn't outright say it was hated.

Definitely a lot of people were just salty that things were different, they wanted more of the same and better, and got a sidegrade instead.

I thought it was a worthwhile reboot myself, and enjoyed it a lot.

As far as I know the developer Krin hasn't really done anything since then.

IloveMardek7~1Y

"Also, I know about Sonny since it was heavily compared to MARDEK back in the ancient days. Last I heard, they did a remake or continuation on Steam and people hated it, or something? I wonder if they did any more with it."

The issue with the steam version of sonny is that it steered away from the original games.

Combat in sonny 1 and 2 felt smooth and nice, your characters would dash to the enemy and strike them down, making sounds and stuff, or blast them down, which felt really satisfiying.

in the steam version, all the sprites are always standing still, like, they are just JPG- images running to strike, it kinda just feels weird and clunky which feels like a downgrade of the previous games.

Progression in sonny 1 and 2 felt great, like, you started hitting harder which felt nice, but as you gave your character new weapons and armor, it showed it off as you fought new enemies. you start of as a guy with a pipe, blunt forcing people, to a terrifying monster with cool gear.

voice acting, especially in sonny 2, gave the game a lot of life. when sonny meets Ronald, and they talk about the prison, it felt overal great how they talked about the prison, the way the voices were played out, it just felt good. and when facing off against captain hunt, you had a brief moment of anxiety fighting off against him, genuine fear that got you pumped up against the boss fight. and baron brixus, his personality, his voice lines, the way he delivers them feels cocky in a way that isn't annoying.
in the steam version, there is little to no voice acting whatsoever.

the AI of the first 2 games felt good, sonny 1 had some issues here and there, but in the second game it felt good being able to give your teammates commands on what to do, if you were low, you could command them to heal you, but in the steam version of sonny, team AI feels really unreliable, either getting healed when you are at full HP, or not getting healed at all.

as a standalone game... it's kind of average, but as a succesor to the first 2 games, it feels like a dissapointment, because they took away what made sonny so unique.

The issue with the steam version of sonny is that it  steered away from the original games.

Combat in sonny 1 and 2 felt smooth and nice, your characters would dash to the enemy and strike them down, making sounds and stuff, or blast them down, which felt really satisfiying.

in the steam version, all the sprites are always standing still, like, they are just JPG- images running to strike, it kinda just feels weird and clunky which feels like a downgrade of the previous games.

Progression in sonny 1 and 2 felt great, like, you started hitting harder which felt nice, but as you gave your character new weapons and armor, it showed it off as you fought new enemies. you start of as a guy with a pipe, blunt forcing people, to a terrifying monster with cool gear.

voice acting, especially in sonny 2, gave the game a lot of life. when sonny meets Ronald, and they talk about the prison, it felt overal great how they talked about the prison, the way the voices were played out, it just felt good. and when facing off against captain hunt, you had a brief moment of anxiety fighting off against him, genuine fear that got you pumped up against the boss fight. and baron brixus, his personality, his voice lines, the way he delivers them feels cocky in a way that isn't annoying.
in the steam version, there is little to no voice acting whatsoever.

the AI of the first 2 games felt good, sonny 1 had some issues here and there, but in the second game it felt good being able to give your teammates commands on what to do, if you were low, you could command them to heal you, but in the steam version of sonny, team AI feels really unreliable, either getting healed when you are at full HP, or not getting healed at all.

as a standalone game... it's kind of average, but as a succesor to the first 2 games, it feels like a dissapointment, because they took away what made sonny so unique.

Aberrsary4~1Y

Honestly, I feel like turned based combat has severely fallen out of fashion lately. The concept of a turn based battle was born out of necessity; initially in the realm of tabletop games where turns are an inherent requirement of the platform, as to take turns out of a tabletop combat game is to make it... Well, ACTUAL combat, I suppose. When game designers began making video games, many of them turned to tabletop games for inspiration, with many early PC games basically being D&D ports.

Games weren't designed with turn based combat because it's a naturally engaging form of gameplay, it was because it was the easiest way to program a game with limited resources. Processing power, clunky inputs and refresh rates don't really matter when you're playing the functional equivalent of an Excel spreadsheet.

I think there was a time where the natural evolution of turned based RPGs was to add MORE to them. More characters, more mechanics, more spells, more abilities , more story, more everything. I think this is where the trope of impenetrable JRPGs that last hundreds of hours comes from. I think we hit peak JRPG around the late 2000s.

After that, I feel like the trend actually moved to mechanically strip turn based RPGs. Many began to include "Auto Battle" systems, which would literally run combat for you. Many began to remove or streamline extended mechanics, trim down skill trees and cut out unnecessary characters. And this is all if the game couldn't pivot away from turn based combat completely, typically slipping into the "real time combat" type of RPG, where turns are eliminated entirely.

In the modern era, I believe Persona 5 to be the golden standard for turn based combat. The combat itself is exceptionally simple, and very fast. The game rewards you for understanding the mechanics well by giving you the ability to use them to end combat faster, as well as giving you a leg up on the tougher boss battles. However, if you're not interested in engaging the mechanics, the game really isn't very difficult, and you can probably brute force your way through.

People don't really play Person 5 for the mechanical depth though (That's what Shin Megami Tensei is for lmao), they play it for the vibes. The game oozes with style, excellent music, and an interesting world and cast of characters. The game does a great job of balancing the in-combat and out-of-combat sections of game, and makes the two sections inform eachother, such that neither grow old. It's pretty remarkable.

So, really, my feeling is that the modern trend in turn based games is... to deemphasize the turn based aspect of it all together, tbh. The genre has always been a means of telling a story where other means of gameplay were untenable, so the focus today it to do the best job at telling a good story.

Grant all this that I am a boring adult without much time for video games. I've dropped off of RPGs pretty much entirely aside from Pokemon and Persona. As well, this is only my *perception* of video games and gaming trends. Looking under the "Turn-Based Combat" tag on Steam, there are many games of the genre that are thriving, and r/JRPG is full of people looking for new turn-based games to play. It's definitely a niche that exists and that people are interested in, but I think RPG gamers are looking for novelty and interesting stories. We've all looked for elemental crystals of killed evil wizards or whatever, turn based RPGs are basically books, and I think we're ready for different stories, I think Frayth (or Belief Battles) could fit the modern RPG niche pretty well

Games weren't designed with turn based combat because it's a naturally engaging form of gameplay, it was because it was the easiest way to program a game with limited resources. Processing power, clunky inputs and refresh rates don't really matter when you're playing the functional equivalent of an Excel spreadsheet.

I think there was a time where the natural evolution of turned based RPGs was to add MORE to them. More characters, more mechanics, more spells, more abilities , more story, more everything. I think this is where the trope of impenetrable JRPGs that last hundreds of hours comes from. I think we hit peak JRPG around the late 2000s.

After that, I feel like the trend actually moved to mechanically strip turn based RPGs. Many began to include "Auto Battle" systems, which would literally run combat for you. Many began to remove or streamline extended mechanics, trim down skill trees and cut out unnecessary characters. And this is all if the game couldn't pivot away from turn based combat completely, typically slipping into the "real time combat" type of RPG, where turns are eliminated entirely.

In the modern era, I believe Persona 5 to be the golden standard for turn based combat. The combat itself is exceptionally simple, and very fast. The game rewards you for understanding the mechanics well by giving you the ability to use them to end combat faster, as well as giving you a leg up on the tougher boss battles. However, if you're not interested in engaging the mechanics, the game really isn't very difficult, and you can probably brute force your way through.

People don't really play Person 5 for the mechanical depth though (That's what Shin Megami Tensei is for lmao), they play it for the vibes. The game oozes with style, excellent music, and an interesting world and cast of characters. The game does a great job of balancing the in-combat and out-of-combat sections of game, and makes the two sections inform eachother, such that neither grow old. It's pretty remarkable.

So, really, my feeling is that the modern trend in turn based games is... to deemphasize the turn based aspect of it all together, tbh. The genre has always been a means of telling a story where other means of gameplay were untenable, so the focus today it to do the best job at telling a good story.

Grant all this that I am a boring adult without much time for video games. I've dropped off of RPGs pretty much entirely aside from Pokemon and Persona. As well, this is only my *perception* of video games and gaming trends. Looking under the "Turn-Based Combat" tag on Steam, there are many games of the genre that are thriving, and r/JRPG is full of people looking for new turn-based games to play. It's definitely a niche that exists and that people are interested in, but I think RPG gamers are looking for novelty and interesting stories. We've all looked for elemental crystals of killed evil wizards or whatever, turn based RPGs are basically books, and I think we're ready for different stories, I think Frayth (or Belief Battles) could fit the modern RPG niche pretty well

Tobias 1115~1Y

Thanks for your comment! Some interesting points and observations.

I've come across the idea of turn-based battles being an outdated and clunky workaround born of technical limitations before, and it brings to mind the history of video games. Weren't the first fairly twitchy things like Asteroids or similar, essentially shooting things quickly?

Though I suppose you were talking about RPGs in particular, and it is odd that those are so intertwined with turn-based combat. Though I suppose taking a different mechanical approach gave things like the original Legend of Zelda?

It seems to me that the turn-based approach just targets a different preference, in the same way that ping-pong isn't exactly a modernised improvement of chess, or something like that. They engage entirely different parts of the body and mind. And I don't see why RPGs have to be more actiony in the same way I'd find it odd if chess tried to be more dynamic (not that I even know how to play chess).

Personally I like having time to think and plan rather than having to rely on reaction speed, so deliberate turn-based battles are way more appealing to me than real-time combat, and I feel disappointed when previously turn-based RPG series go in that direction because it seems more modern and like it's what everyone wants.

I really appreciate that Pokemon's stuck with the same mechanics forever, for example, but couldn't get into the mobile gacha game (Pokemon Masters, I think?) even though I would have liked to, because it made its combat real-time.

I'm getting older myself and rarely even play modern games, so I suppose my target audience will be people who are interested in a silly take on something familiar from their past which won't ask for too much of their time. Something like that.

Also, I've never played the Persona games, unfortunately, but a lot of people speak highly of them so I wish I had! Seems too late to start now, though, both in terms of how far along the numbered series seems to be (though I started with FFVII...), and how I'm getting older and it's more and more difficult to get into entirely-new-to-me games.

...Hmm, thinking about this a bit more, I think what I like most about turn-based RPGs is that you control your entire party, whereas in my (admittedly limited) experience, action-based combat forces you to control just one person while your allies do stuff in the background, so you barely see or form connections with them. That's what put me off Pokemon Masters; you had a party of three trainer-Pokemon pairs, but could only control one... or something, I forget the details.

Oh, and I also find it interesting how RPG fans (myself included) would list 'story' at the top of things they look for, when so many RPGs' stories are so nonsensical and shallow. I suppose it's more immersion, being a part of a world or series of events, that's appealing, and that's what I care most about myself so I'll definitely be aiming to appeal to that mindset.

Thanks for your comment! Some interesting points and observations.

I've come across the idea of turn-based battles being an outdated and clunky workaround born of technical limitations before, and it brings to mind the history of video games. Weren't the first fairly twitchy things like Asteroids or similar, essentially shooting things quickly?

Though I suppose you were talking about RPGs in particular, and it is odd that those are so intertwined with turn-based combat. Though I suppose taking a different mechanical approach gave things like the original Legend of Zelda?

It seems to me that the turn-based approach just targets a different preference, in the same way that ping-pong isn't exactly a modernised improvement of chess, or something like that. They engage entirely different parts of the body and mind. And I don't see why RPGs /have to/ be more actiony in the same way I'd find it odd if chess tried to be more dynamic (not that I even know how to play chess).

Personally I like having time to think and plan rather than having to rely on reaction speed, so deliberate turn-based battles are way more appealing to me than real-time combat, and I feel disappointed when previously turn-based RPG series go in that direction because it seems more modern and like it's what everyone wants.

I really appreciate that Pokemon's stuck with the same mechanics forever, for example, but couldn't get into the mobile gacha game (Pokemon Masters, I think?) even though I would have liked to, because it made its combat real-time.

I'm getting older myself and rarely even play modern games, so I suppose my target audience will be people who are interested in a silly take on something familiar from their past which won't ask for too much of their time. Something like that.

Also, I've never played the Persona games, unfortunately, but a lot of people speak highly of them so I wish I had! Seems too late to start now, though, both in terms of how far along the numbered series seems to be (though I started with FFVII...), and how I'm getting older and it's more and more difficult to get into entirely-new-to-me games.

...Hmm, thinking about this a bit more, I think what I like most about turn-based RPGs is that you control your entire party, whereas in my (admittedly limited) experience, action-based combat forces you to control just one person while your allies do stuff in the background, so you barely see or form connections with them. That's what put me off Pokemon Masters; you had a party of three trainer-Pokemon pairs, but could only control one... or something, I forget the details.

Oh, and I also find it interesting how RPG fans (myself included) would list 'story' at the top of things they look for, when so many RPGs' stories are so nonsensical and shallow. I suppose it's more /immersion/, being a part of a world or series of events, that's appealing, and that's what I care most about myself so I'll definitely be aiming to appeal to that mindset.

IloveMardek7~1Y

"action-based combat forces you to control just one person while your allies do stuff in the background, so you barely see or form connections with them. That's what put me off Pokemon Masters; you had a party of three trainer-Pokemon pairs, but could only control one... or something, I forget the details."

Some action games do kind of get around it.
In genshin impact, you can have a party with up to 4 characters, allowing you to switch to other members by pressing number keys (1-4)
each character is unique and different, with different backgrounds, weapons, and powers.

you can choose to have 1 primary character, where the other 3 characters are mainly there to give you offensive and defensive buffs, but you can also opt for a more aggresive team, where you quickly juggle between characters, to counterstrike damage, to quickly freeze enemies up and then to ignite them again.

in strike force heroes 3, you get to make your own team, and everytime you die with your current character, you either have to wait 5 seconds to respawn, or can choose to "pilot" an teammember that is currently alive.

Some action games do kind of get around it. 
In genshin impact, you can have a party with up to 4 characters, allowing you to switch to other members by pressing number keys (1-4) 
each character is unique and different, with different backgrounds, weapons, and powers.

you can choose to have 1 primary character, where the other 3 characters are mainly there to give you offensive and defensive buffs, but you can also opt for a more aggresive team, where you quickly juggle between characters, to counterstrike damage, to quickly freeze enemies up and then to ignite them again.

in strike force heroes 3, you get to make your own team, and everytime you die with your current character, you either have to wait 5 seconds to respawn, or can choose to "pilot" an teammember that is currently alive.

Maniafig222~1Y

I'm glad to hear you've been doing alright!

I did really like Sindrel Song for what it's worth, when is the last time you played that game?

I still think Belief Battles works just fine, it's a simple name but it's also descriptive and evocative. Frayth sounds too ethereal and abstract for such a silly game.

I find that when every attack is written like THIS, the quips start to feel too SIMILAR, because everybody talks the SAME, which takes away from their INDIVIDUALITY. I like the idea of having attack quips, but this implementation makes every character and every quip just blend together. They're meant to be exaggerated archetypes, they shouldn't all talk the same, their quip bubbles should reflect that.

Keeping things simple is a good idea, the goal is to get a game done quickly, so it's best to not make things too idiosyncratic.

I feel like all of your projects of this sort since Taming Dreams have worked because of their relative strategy, rather than just sheer brute force. You have reined that in over time, making things more accessible, but if the whole game could be done by just spamming influence abilities then there might as well Defenders or Manipulators.

It's interesting to me that you mention MARDEK, I recently finished (and really enjoyed!) one of those MARDEK fanmods and they did a great job of using the assets and system you had created to make a cast of characters that feel both aesthetically and mechanically distinct during combat. It may not have been your focus, but the foundations are there.

The three groups look like a sensible way to classify characters. There is some overlap between the support of Defender and the interruption of Manipulator, but they're distinct enough and should cover most roles.

I think you did put some thought into these roles for your previous games. Like in Taming Dreams there had to be excitement lifters and reducers for the party to work, or Divine/Atonal Dreams with Deugan/Nytsky and Savitr being tanks.

I have had games that go on for too long, or feel like they just try to do too much and be too open.

I hope you'll receive word regarding counselling soon!

I'm glad to hear you've been doing alright!

I did really like Sindrel Song for what it's worth, when is the last time you played that game?

I still think Belief Battles works just fine, it's a simple name but it's also descriptive and evocative. Frayth sounds too ethereal and abstract for such a silly game.

I find that when every attack is written like THIS, the quips start to feel too SIMILAR, because everybody talks the SAME, which takes away from their INDIVIDUALITY. I like the idea of having attack quips, but this implementation makes every character and every quip just blend together. They're meant to be exaggerated archetypes, they shouldn't all talk the same, their quip bubbles should reflect that.

Keeping things simple is a good idea, the goal is to get a game done quickly, so it's best to not make things too idiosyncratic.

I feel like all of your projects of this sort since Taming Dreams have worked because of their relative strategy, rather than just sheer brute force. You have reined that in over time, making things more accessible, but if the whole game could be done by just spamming influence abilities then there might as well Defenders or Manipulators.

It's interesting to me that you mention MARDEK, I recently finished (and really enjoyed!) one of those MARDEK fanmods and they did a great job of using the assets and system you had created to make a cast of characters that feel both aesthetically and mechanically distinct during combat. It may not have been your focus, but the foundations are there.

The three groups look like a sensible way to classify characters. There is some overlap between the support of Defender and the interruption of Manipulator, but they're distinct enough and should cover most roles.

I think you did put some thought into these roles for your previous games. Like in Taming Dreams there had to be excitement lifters and reducers for the party to work, or Divine/Atonal Dreams with Deugan/Nytsky and Savitr being tanks.

I have had games that go on for too long, or feel like they just try to do too much and be too open.

I hope you'll receive word regarding counselling soon!

Tobias 1115~1Y

Thanks for your comment!

I've been meaning to replay Sindrel Song again! It's been a while, and I think I meant to write a blog post at the time, or did write one but never posted it? Maybe I should do that sooner rather than later, actually...

Belief Battles bothers me because I suppose I've always disliked very straightforward titles? Like back in the Flash days when there'd be sites with names like 'FunGames.com', or I'll see indie games with names like Fantasy Quest or whatever. It always feels like a cheap knockoff, or something with little thought put into it? Though I also get what you mean about Frayth... which is why I've still yet to decide!

(But why does 'Belief Battles' register as that kind of title to me, but 'Divine Dreams' doesn't? I don't know!)

The way that skills work currently is that each character has six in their arsenal, though for each of them they also have six associated phrases. So multiple archetypes might have the same skill (eg Flirt), but different sayings/quips for that skill which match their unique voice. They'd still stress the last WORD, but I actually like that from a creative challenge standpoint in the exact same way I liked Sindrel Song's limited number of notes. It's much easier to create things with limitations, at least for me, so writing silly, short phrases that end with a STRESS has been fun and fairly easy for me compared to something less constrained.

I suppose it'll require playtesting by others to find the right balance between challenging battles and accessibility, though it's always annoying how subjective that is. I'm aiming for a Pokemon-like difficulty, I suppose. I'm already at the point where I could potentially run a test, but I keep getting distracted fiddling with things... like I did with Atonal Dreams, and probably past projects too.

I also hope that I'll hear from counselling soon!! And that I've not just been forgotten about...

Thanks for your comment!

I've been meaning to replay Sindrel Song again! It's been a while, and I think I meant to write a blog post at the time, or /did/ write one but never posted it? Maybe I should do that sooner rather than later, actually...

Belief Battles bothers me because I suppose I've always disliked very straightforward titles? Like back in the Flash days when there'd be sites with names like 'FunGames.com', or I'll see indie games with names like Fantasy Quest or whatever. It always feels like a cheap knockoff, or something with little thought put into it? Though I also get what you mean about Frayth... which is why I've still yet to decide!

(But why does 'Belief Battles' register as that kind of title to me, but 'Divine Dreams' doesn't? I don't know!)

The way that skills work currently is that each character has six in their arsenal, though for each of them they also have six associated phrases. So multiple archetypes might have the same skill (eg Flirt), but different sayings/quips for that skill which match their unique voice. They'd still stress the last WORD, but I actually like that from a creative challenge standpoint in the exact same way I liked Sindrel Song's limited number of notes. It's much easier to create things with limitations, at least for me, so writing silly, short phrases that end with a STRESS has been fun and fairly easy for me compared to something less constrained.

I suppose it'll require playtesting by others to find the right balance between challenging battles and accessibility, though it's always annoying how subjective that is. I'm aiming for a Pokemon-like difficulty, I suppose. I'm already at the point where I could potentially run a test, but I keep getting distracted fiddling with things... like I did with Atonal Dreams, and probably past projects too.

I also hope that I'll hear from counselling soon!! And that I've not just been forgotten about...