Making a Darkest Dungeon inspired RPG with more in depth mechanics

[levgre]

There is a reason why darkest dungeon is popular, it doesn't flood you with needlessly complicated mechanics.

1. There are many successful RPGs with much more complex mechanics than DD. I am aiming somewhere in the middle of the spectrum for complexity weight.

2. You can basically say any mechanic is needless, may as well play a point and click game like Diablo if that's your mindset. Generally in the lense of game design, needless depends on if the mechanic is fun, adds depth/variety to the game, and/or improves the experience emotionally like through added immersion or sentiment. You could have a game with 1000 mechanics that are all "needed", or a game with 10 mechanics where 6 of them are needless.

3. I'd say Darkest Dungeon was popular not for its mechanical attributes, but it's atmosphere/presentation. If you kept mostly same mechanics but made it a light-hearted mobile RPG, I don't think it would have distinguished itself from the flood of other RPGs out there that largely follow traditional JRPG mechanics.

 

[levgre]

So been designing how characters will be hired, and started on the UI for it.

Each character randomly has 3 bonuses right now, either to a combat stat or a base related skill (Medical, training, and spying are the only 3 of those atm).


Combat stat bonuses (Strength, Agility, Technique, Block, and Dodge) increase the hiring cost more than base related skills do. And as the player's success essentially revolves around combat, combat stats are much more important.

But you may not need extra strong fighters for all members of each party, so having a balance of lower cost base-oriented characters will be worth the risk of having weaker characters in combat.

Also all characters gain combat stats as they level up, eventually overshadowing these starting bonuses. And while all stat increases lead to a higher wages for characters, the initial bonus combat stats are at a premium cost. So in the long run, the base-oriented characters can become great fighters (if not the best fighters) at an efficient cost.

Right now the plan is the hire cost will be applied every turn (weekly/monthly), so whenever the character goes on a mission or takes up a job at the base. Or the hire cost could be more upfront, like twice the amount of the each turn cost.

Also, There will be a "Hiring Modifier:" This goes up when characters die, increasing the cost of future hires, and goes down when the player gets more loot from missions etc. Basically simulating the risk/reward the characters consider before being hired by the player's warband.

I'll probably be adding unique traits that also have values added to the cost (or subtracted from the cost, for negative traits). The costs of these will have to be fine tuned a lot over time, so for example some aren't overly cheap for their benefit.

The goal is to make every hirable character close to or completely balanced, as opposed to some being "meh" options of last resort, or being bargains that the player always wants to pick up.

 

[levgre]

For characters working in the base I've decided to go maybe a more unintuitive route, but one i think will be more fun and allow the player to better focus more on the variety of campaign aspects I have planned.

Each character that doesn't fight in a mission for the week, will contribute all their skill points for the player to spend on base tasks for the week.

I.e. Two characters each have 2 spying and 2 medicine. They will give the player 4 spying and 4 medicine "points" to work with. It might cost 1 to gather gossip, 2 to recruit an agent in a city, etc.

This eliminates a lot of min-maxing issues, like needing 1 more medicine but only having a level 4 spy that could do it. Characters will not have to be shuffled between buildings/ work groups. The player only has to decide whether the character will be doing combat that week, or staying and working at base (or there may be other non-combat options where they don't work, like traveling).

 

[levgre]

So for designing the campaign map at first I started with a bunch of specific landmarks/locations like in an Elder Scrolls map. I changed to a region based interface though, which I think I like more. The currently selected region is the green one (selection atm just makes it darker than normal).

Now locations are just in a regional list. Some are unique, like capital and shrine (maybe they will be shown on the map for flavor). Capital is basically a boss level dungeon, shrine is a weakly defended, high wealth location but raiding it would result in back lash.

Village, Town, and City are not unique and represent interwoven networks of locations. Attacking villages could make wealth move away from them to towns/cities, attacking towns could result in more defense to them, etc. And for certain tasks, like spying, it will apply to the whole network, like finding villages with exposed defenses or more wealth.

Regions will also have global traits that the player can plan decisions around, such as unit focuses (some better with spears, other with axes), enemy/ally regions, economic and cultural characteristics, etc.

There will probably be at least 2x as any locations, like mines, other raider/mercenary camps, ports, etc. There will probably be 6-10 regions at minimum, just keeping it smaller scope while I work out the systems.

 

[levgre]

So I've been thinking about ways I may end up spicing combat in the long run. Here are two ideas I'm keeping in mind.

1st idea- Option of multiple parties attacking a location. I've really liked this when it's come up in JPRGs, and makes your lower tier characters much more important.

How I currently imagine, is it'd split up defending enemies across the parties.

I.e. two parties of 6 characters attacking, 30 defenders, so 15 defenders per party. One party would fight and eliminate all 15 of their defenders, before switching to the other party. If either party is eliminated, the leftover defenders will fight the other party.

In the case of unequal sized attacking parties, like say 6 and 3, then defenders would be split more like 20-10. This could be a huge risk because the smaller party will be outnumbered, but could work as a desperation tactic, or if the smaller group is strong characters against a weak enemy.

The max number of attacking parties would probably be 4, and this may be restricted (and sometimes be necessary) for attacks on large locations, like castles or cities.

As attacking characters don't provide any production like characters remaining at base, and each attacker take a portion of loot, the player could still be encouraged to use just 1 party when possible.



2nd idea - choosing time of day to attack

The player could choose to attack at dawn, day, dusk, or night.

Night could make dodges/blocks weaker (harder to see an incoming weapon), range attacks weaker, and also lower the starting/max stamina of the player characters since they missed sleep.

Dawn and dusk would be pretty balanced times of attacks, not sure how I'd differentiate them yet.

Day would be the toughest time to attack, but typically result in larger rewards, like money (more merchants/traders and such about to rob) and boost to reputation (for being bold/visible).

Another big reason I'm considering time of day options is because I'd like to have a place for long range weapons like bows. My thought is has been they'd be off screen enemies shooting at the player's party, basically like long range artillery/airstrikes in lots of strategy games. However that is hard to balance while keeping them realistically deadly, forcing the player to either always use characters with heavier shields/armor, or lots ranged characters in the party to outmatch/suppress long range enemies.

However, attacks at night could greatly reduce the accuracy of bowmen, thus always giving the player an 'out', even against locations with very large ranged contingents.

 

[levgre]

So I've mechanically connected the player's base to the campaign world to the mission, which then have the different battles in a mission connected. The Core game loop basically.

This means soon I'll be able to focus on content... building up rather than sideways. And hopefully get a bit of a mini demo going soon.

Some things that more immediately need attention than others -

Refining UI/characters/animations, all of it.
Balancing Combat (how long should battles take, how many enemy attacks to hurt a player character, etc.)
Adding more skills to make combat more dynamic.
Adding some basic enemy AI strategies as opposed to randomly attacking/counterattacking any character who is in range.
Maybe add some unobtrusive music/sound affects for immersion.
Refining the "Enemy Pool" at various locations, figuring out how much i want manually select the enemies or how much I want to randomly generate the enemy pools.

So yeah, lots of stuff to do but since its getting more into the content/player inexpert of the game, it is more interesting and fun for me.

 

[Nathaniel3W]

Cool. When are we going to see it in action?

 

[levgre]

oops type inexpert = experience, was half asleep

Cool. When are we going to see it in action?

I think within a month or two for at least a basic demo. My main stumbling block atm probably is thinking of combat skills I want, but can just throw in standard fare and work from there.

 

[levgre]

I'e made some pretty big changes to the combat system that so far I feel are a step in the right direction, while not really changing the gameplay I had intended. I also went back to having equippable weapons, I am not sure if I will have switchable armor/shield (thus right now a class that uses a shield would just be choosing between 1 hand weapons).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYlGr2oY3jfCzSys_Y4MTa8VaseE7wcQ_TR-JD-eexE/edit?usp=sharing

It is less stat heavy now in a good way, and more reliant on symbols which should be easy for the player to read.

My goal is to start testing soon-ish (week or two) so I can star getting feedback on what people like, don't like, or would like to see added.

 

[levgre]

So I found some new placeholder art that has no copyright concerns. It doesn't match my wanted styles, but it's a step up from characters constrained to little boxes. If I stick with these guys for longer I might mess up their proportions to fit the desired final style, of abnormally large heads and small legs like in Darkest Dungeon and many traditional RPGs.

I made the UI "taskbar" on each character smaller, alongside actually reducing HP from 8 to 6, there was nothing important about 8 although I suppose a smaller range of weapon damage (1-6 instead of 1-8 for a heavy damage weapon) will make hits more deadly on average. Which I don't mind.

I got the "engaged target" circles glowing, as well as the blue diamond for the active character. Still looking for a more elegant way to indicate who is in range, besides the yellow triangles.

Next steps will be improving the UI Taskbar at the bottom, refining the morale system, and continuing work on the core combat design (skills, traits, statuses, etc.) that will most define the gameplay.

 

[levgre]

Lots of changes since last update that I won't get into quite yet. Been working on UI and combat design as pretty much always. I got 4 decently different character class concepts implemented. The biggest thing I have left before I start testing with some players is setting up a mock mission. I have a lot of the code done for that already, but still have to refine it.

 

[levgre]

Here is how Hit Point damage and wounds work.

Each hit inflicts a wound that does the following permanent (until end of the mission) stat damage.

-2 strength or -2 agility per HP damage
-1 agility or -1 strength per HP damage
-1 technique per HP damage.

The higher wound amount for strength or agility right now is 50-50 odds, representing upper body hits (more str loss) vs lower body hits (more agi loss). I might further differentiate hitbody locations such as limbs/heads later on, but I've decided to start simple.

Each hit also inflicts blood loss that is increasingly severe the larger the hit is.

1 dmg hit = 1 blood loss per turn.
2 dmg hit = 3 blood loss per turn. (1 + 2)
3 dmg hit = 6 blood loss per turn. (1 + 2 + 3)
4 dmg hit = 10 blood loss per turn (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)
5 dmg hit = 15 blood loss per turn (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)


This represents that a single larger blow generally carves/impacts deeper into the body, where larger blood vessels/organs will be ruptured. So 5 separate 1 damage hits would only be 5 blood loss, which while significant is much less than 15.

I might add a bit of variance to this, like +/-20% for the bloodloss total, plus certain attack skills,if successful, could add additional bleeding.

Blood loss reduces a characters stamina and max stamina by that amount every turn. Typical max stamina ranges are 60-80 (right now 60 for all low-tier enemies, 70 for all allies). So 15 blood loss would put a pretty short limit on how long a character can be in action,something like 3 - 5 rounds. Although keep in mind they might not be too much of a danger anyways since they'd have -20 to stats from wounds (like -10 agi, -5 str, -5 tech).

Stamina penalties occur when a character drops to increments of at or below 50...so at 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, and 0. Right now the penalty at each step is -2 agility, -1 strength, -1 tech. Defenses are falling more than offense in this pattern, so tired competitors will be more likely to hit each other and end the fight quicker.

I had been considering blood loss creating new HP wounds over time, however then I'd need fractional wound counters which is something I'd prefer to avoid. By just having blood loss damage stamina, I am not adding any new types of calculations for the player.


So, through this damage system, even the smallest hit of 1 damage can be quite detrimental, and the 2-4 damage can be a death sentence under many circumstances.

However player characters are generally pretty good at avoiding damage. During attack rolls (technique vs block or dodge), the max damage a successful attack can do is reduced by how large a margin they hit by. a margin of 10 or more means no damage reduction. So for an attack roll witth 5 to spare, the max damage would be -50% (say 1-6 to 1-3).

When a character has no defense left up to meet an attack, then the max damage range is not reduced at all (1-6 would have a chance of instant kill, with characters 6 HP).

Armor is the other saving grace here, each level of armor(1-3) above the piercing level of the weapon, reduces the damage result by 33%, rounded down. So a hit with 5 margin, with a 1-6 damage sword (pierce 1) against armor 2(chain Mail), the max roll would first change to 1 in 3, and then become 0-2 after reduction.

Right now I do think I'll have a minimal amount of battlefield medicine, that could reduce bleeding by say 2-3 total. That doesn't make much of a dent in 15 blood loss per turn. However there may be some more severe and time consuming operations to attempt to save their lives (until they have to fight the infections, at least)

 

[levgre]

i made a discord server for this project, where also anything (most things) can also be discussed. Including game design, this/your game projects, favorite/upcoming games, or any sort of random thing, casual or intellectual. It's also likely where I'll dole out test builds.

https://discord.gg/tzhHA6Z


I've been working on some enemy-based mechanics. Firstly, now whenever a PC "engages" an enemy, you can see what that enemy plans to do. Whether they will attack, defend, rest, or move. There will also non-engaging skills that reveal enemy plans, and some may be very effective at doing this, like revealing the plans of all enemies in the front row. Possible expansions of this is, showing 2 step plans for enemies if they move then do another action, and showing plans of various special attacks or commands that I decide enemies should have.

In the lower left corner is the UI for essentially the enemy "team". It shows incoming enemies at "distance 1" and "distance 2". Distance 1 enemies can enter the fight next round, while Distance 2 could move to Distance 1.

However, that they don't always move into battle just because they can. Sometimes they will feel safer staying at distance 1 or that the current battlers are beyond help, and wait for you to come to them. Other times they will wait for a big enough group to join, or other times rush in one by one.

This is where the enemy group traits come into play... Ferocity, Discipline, Teamwork and Training.

Ferocity is the aggression level of enemies. High ferocity means they will attack with no second thought, similar to how AI enemies often work in games. High ferocity enemies can be quite dangerous when they outnumber the player, but the higher predictability of their behavior can also be used against them.

Discipline is the self-control and fear management of the enemies. They will less likely run away, and less likely hunker down on defense when wounded or when allies die.

Teamwork is not so much an emotional trait, but just how well the enemies coordinate their attacks/defenses against the player characters. Lots of RPG games would basically have a 0 teamwork value, often by design because intelligent foes with higher stats and group sizes could otherwise be brutally difficult. However focus fire/cooperative defense is a feature of some RPG games.

Training is more just a substitute for general difficulty. Higher training means the enemies will have on average higher technique, strength, agility, stamina.

Note, the enemies at distance 1 and 2 will not always be visible to the player. In a castle "stage" with small corridors, you won't be able to see the enemies around the corner (although may know their approximate number based on footsteps/shadows/etc., so just a number range of enemies would be listed) . Wide open spaces like villages or farms would have visibility up to distance 2. If I stick with the plan to have night raids, this could effect the distance of enemy visibility.

 

[levgre]

Still plenty of jankiness to fix and mechanics to add, but getting closer to where I'm "producing" a game than just getting a prototype ready. Adding animations and sound and music isn't hard, although soon I may have to start to pony up some of my funds to get better placeholders to use.

Here's a video of gameplay I made tonight showing some of the UI and effects I've been working on. I've added some combat sounds to use but have not enabled them yet. I'll continue to refine production alongside desinging the combat scenarios for player testing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NUzihiREtI&feature=youtu.be

sorry about the mice infestation, I don't know what what causes that in OBS.

 

[levgre]

Working on a demo right now, implemented drag and drop tonight and will polish it off tomorrow. Then Demo done maybe a few days after that. I'm doing a limited release first, to some friends or if anyone here is especially interested I could PM it.


In the Demo, the player will be able to build their party of 6 out of any combination of the 4 character classes (or maybe 5 different classes by demo release) .

barbarian - well rounded front line fighter. Wearing level 2 (chain armor) for a balance of mobility, endurance, and protection. High Strength and Agility (and decent Technique) lets him punish weak enemies through strong hits or debuffs.
knight - heavily armored, more technical dueler. Can usually dominate one or two enemies at a time very well, although lacking in debuffs/buffs.
Soldier - veteran formation battle fighter with spear, well rounded as far as stats, focusing enemies, defending allies,inflicting debuffs, adding buffs. A bit lower defensive capability, has level 2 armor but not much agility for dodge.
Officer - commands the other characters, gives group buffs. Has good mobility, and good offense with rapier although his lower stats and light armor make him a less effective straight up fighter.

The last one I want to add before demo is a ranged type (throwing daggers maybe). They would basically have range to hit any enemy on the screen, with melee/defensive drawbacks.

 

[levgre]

Delaying getting into the initial player testing a bit more to work on some pretty big formation/movement changes first.

Now the player has 3 rows of characters, this is actually what I had initially had in my design document, but 2 rows was easier for me to work with while I was coding different systems.

The main benefit of 3 rows is I am freer to have enemies come from both sides while still giving the player have a "safe row" for tired/wounded characters, or certain ranged/support characters (although one of my design goals is to avoid traditional squishy/tank parties and have all characters be at least competent in melee). Also, having a 2x3 formation allows narrow passageways where characters have to fight in lines of 2, which I wanted as well.

The primary design 'question' right now, is what happens the player is only using a 2 rows, in which case the enemies would close in. if the player were to expand to 3 rows again, the enemies would have to be pushed back. The options I've thought of:

1. let the player recreate the middle row whenever they want, and the enemies just move to accommodate that
2. let the player recreate the middle row only between battles
3. give the enemy group a stance setting like "aggressive" or "defensive". When they are aggressive the player could not expand their rank because the enemies are "pressing in" to the player party, but the player can expand their rank when the enemies are defensive. This could be based on enemy types, enemy morale, and/or related to events like enemies being killed and some character skills.

For now I will probably stick to option 1.

Beyond that I drag and drop interface for picking characters and their formation in pre-mission setup, started adding some combat sound effects, and some other UI stuff.

 

[The_Sloth_Sleeps]

Delaying getting into the initial player testing a bit more to work on some pretty big formation/movement changes first.

Now the player has 3 rows of characters, this is actually what I had initially had in my design document, but 2 rows was easier for me to work with while I was coding different systems.

The main benefit of 3 rows is I am freer to have enemies come from both sides while still giving the player have a "safe row" for tired/wounded characters, or certain ranged/support characters (although one of my design goals is to avoid traditional squishy/tank parties and have all characters be at least competent in melee). Also, having a 2x3 formation allows narrow passageways where characters have to fight in lines of 2, which I wanted as well.

The primary design 'question' right now, is what happens the player is only using a 2 rows, in which case the enemies would close in. if the player were to expand to 3 rows again, the enemies would have to be pushed back. The options I've thought of:

1. let the player recreate the middle row whenever they want, and the enemies just move to accommodate that
2. let the player recreate the middle row only between battles
3. give the enemy group a stance setting like "aggressive" or "defensive". When they are aggressive the player could not expand their rank because the enemies are "pressing in" to the player party, but the player can expand their rank when the enemies are defensive. This could be based on enemy types, enemy morale, and/or related to events like enemies being killed and some character skills.

For now I will probably stick to option 1.

Beyond that I drag and drop interface for picking characters and their formation in pre-mission setup, started adding some combat sound effects, and some other UI stuff.

I'm interested. But the links/discord have expired.

 

[Egosphere]

90% of Darkest Dungeon's appeal was the art style. It has to match it, at the very least, to even be competitive.

 

[luj1]

What is this prosperised engine?