I've started making my own roleplaying game as my first c++ / allegro game. I've gotten pretty far imo.. I have made a map/layer2 editor that saves into txt files, and the game system has an ok self-made collision detection, AI enemies etc..

Right now, I'm looking for game ideas and concepts, not specific programming help, so bear with me

I haven't decided whether the game should have a main plot or story you follow (FF series) or if it's more individual quest-driven (Daggerfall, Morrowind) with more freedom. By that I mean you can get missions from specific people in the game, and can complete them as you wish with maximal freedom.

Item interaction I'm not sure I know how to code as well as I'd like, so I'll probably limit the types of weapons and armor. ATM the hero has only an attack power and defence power, that depend on the weapon and armor he is wearing at the time. How else could this be done? Should he have some kind of inventory? If so, what kind?

My battles are arranged sort of Zelda-style. No random battles like in the FF's. The hero's hits all land, no missing. Should this be altered? On what would hitting and missing depend? Enemies currently have a min/max damage for each, eg -5 and 7. If the randomized value between -5 and 7 is bigger than 0, it's a hit. E.g. a value 3 would be a hit worth 3 damage. From the base damage, the hero's defence power is substracted, so with a 2 defence power, only 1HP damage will be suffered. Enemies have no such thing atm, but should they?

What do you think of magic, should it be done? If so, how? Learning spells that require mana, scrolls/potions?

Thanks a lot for any ideas/comments/suggestions
Hazul

-- i've attached a screenshot too

As for enemies: I think they should be described with the same stats as player`s characters.
Reasons:
- easier balancing: enemy with the same equipment and stats as player will have 50% chance to win (assuming good AI)
- NPC inventory: if it`s not done at early stage it`s hard to do it later
- enemy can change into player team member without need of recalculating stats (and the other way: member becoming an enemy)
- simpler battle system in case you`d like to go MP or have enemy vs enemy battles: just one attack case (char vs char) instead of three (char vs enemy, enemy vs enemy, char vs char)

This is really up to you. I think either way you go, you should decide early on so then you can base the rest of the game off of this decision. This is a big thing to decide and it will affect how your game will operate, feel, be to program, etc. I think this one decision will change a lot of how your game works after you've build the main engine, which you seem to have done. This is one of those questions we can't really help you with. That's something you have to decide on your own because, in fact, it is your game. What were you originally intending to do? I would say go with that unless you have more substantial reasons for picking one style over the other. Maybe that wasn't even a question and you were just stating you don't know which way the game is going to go, but that's ok if I answered anyways, right?:P

Again, this is really up to you whether you want the user to be able to wield more than just armor and a sword. One fun aspect of a good RPG is being able to actually equip your player through any kind of interactive GUI. Sometimes more equipment peices is better, because they allow for more of a "custom" feel to your player; as you get to do all the equipping and use the peices you enjoy to use and think work the best. I think having an inventory would be a really good idea, but that would include more work; like figuring out how many items the player can hold at a time; whether armor/weapons count towards that total number of items. You may also decide that each item the player may have will weigh a certain amount, and the player cannot carry more than their "max weight capacity." This question is very closely tied with your next comment, as your battle system may effect how you want to be able to equip the player.

As was already mentioned, keep the player/enemies the same. If the player's attacks always hit, the enemies attacks should always hit as well (unless there is some kind of "blocking" mechanism the player could use: pressing a key to pull out a sheild, etc).

I would say hitting and missing should depend on some factors. To me, I believe in your situation, if the enemy hits the player for < 0; that would be considered a 0 Damage hit, since the players armor rating and the damage value of the enemy cancel eachother out. This is really up to speculation and however you want to read it, though. For hitting and missing I would generally think of some kind of stat attribute like Agility, and this stat would determine how probably the cause of dodging and attack would be. For your type of battle system, however, I don't think there should be any missing allowed at all. I think a better idea is to allow the player to wield a shield or some other blocking device which can block the enemie's hits. I think this is more suitable for a real-time combat system where you have to physically walk up to the enemy and be close enough to hit them. If you're not then they miss, right? Same goes for the enemies. If they are close enough and the player physically sees their weapon hit him, it should take damage (even 0, if armor cancels it out). If you really like the idea of hitting/missing, then of course it can be implemented. I think no missing is more suited to a Zelda style combat system, though. Instead of the enemy just missing, the player has to make them miss by moving out of the way, which fits nicer into this style of battling.

This is a tough one. Do you want to put magic into your game? Will it fit effectively into the atmosphere and storyline? It seems like your game looks like it is a fantasy-style game where magic wouldn't have a problem fitting into the overall gameplay. It could be that you're just using those kind of fantasy-feeling graphics and the game may completely change. Also, how effective would being able to use magic be in the game? Will there be enemies that only take damage from magic (or physical)? Will magic casting be effective, or just annoying; so much that the player won't even use it? I, personally, think magic is always fun to have in a game because it gives you a break from repeatedly tapping the attack button on every single enemy you encounter. I think magic would be very useful in a situation where you sneak up on an enemy and just blast it with magic before you engage in melee combat.

I've said a lot so I'll give you some time if you'd like to reply to anything I've said before I write a novel, here. I think most of these thing are really up to your decision. This is something you're going to have to spend a lot of time on: developing the actual framework of your game and how all of the rules, and that stuff is going to work. If you like magic, and it makes sense in your game: put it in if you have time. [edit]Designing[/edit] is the hardest part.

Good luck.
(I love threads like these. I wish there were more);D

Assigning mimimal caster level to a spell is good idea IMHO. It also helps balancing the game (low level PC can`t get most destructive spells).

And for spell casting cost: mana is the best way IMHO. You could also implement colorful mana system with more types of mana (eg. element-based, etc). A spell can also require more than one type of mana.

I also think that player should have a main quest in the game as well as large number of side quests. The main quest of course don`t have to be known at the beginning and could be a bit randomized or depending on player behavior (eg. completed side quests). I just like to have something big to do, not just solving side quest (which of course I like very much). I think that to become a hero (which most RPGs are about) you should do something really great.

This way it should be more fun. I haven`t said that main quest have to be single mission.

Saving world/somebody or helping others is IMHO part of being a hero. He can be an usual guy at start doing his usual work but sooner or later he`d want to do something else, something important and become a hero in some way.

Don't be afraid to overpower your magic a bit. I've seen games where just plain whacking things with a sword is just as effective as casting a fireball, or games where physical attacks are superior to magic (*cough*FF VIII*cough*).

This should make it so that the fighter types would have an easier time in the beginning (beginning players would probaly choose a fighter character) but as the player gets a feel for the game and he fights more complex creatures, he'll have a harder time than a wizard would in some situations.

As for how the character gains magic: It's up to you.

Balance is important. Don't make the game too easy. Don't make the game too hard. If I had to step over the boundary line a bit, then I would go to the more difficult side.

As for the storyline. Let the player do what quests he wants. Lots of RPG storylines have the feel that you're already the hero, but usually committing a heroic act should make the player the hero more than just being the main character.

Stats. Your game is a bit on the Zelda side, so don't go with too many stats. Str., Con., Int., and Luck are probably the ones necessary.

Str is the base stat of your strength (without weapons)
Con is the base stat of your defense (without armor)
Int is the base stat of your magic power (without added effects of a magic spell, say a fireball might have +23 power)
Luck helps determine how often items drop when you kill an enemy and such.

Okay, I stole those stats from Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, but they should work.

I don't like this attitude to skills, because then I end up staying for a quarter of an hour just casting magic and sleeping to recover mana.
I'd rather base it all on exps.

Korval brings up an interesting point but one that can be avoided with careful game design

Think about it. Should you ever need spell x if you haven't practiced with it? I would say no... if you're in an ice cavern, fighting ice monsters and you pick up fire while you're there don't you think that a good gamer will put it to use almost immediately? Along those same lines... you could have one of your other characters suggest to a magic user that just picked up fire to start melting monsters.

My point is... if you design your game properly, all elements will be cohesive such that the game becomes a well orchestrated RPG. The Wind Waker was a great example of this. You would pick up a new ability, be given the opportunity to practice it a bunch, then you'd need it for the bad guy at the end. It always seemed to work out flawlessly and by the end of the game you had all these cool moves.

Just my 2c.

X-G: If that occur's, it'd probably be the player's fault. They should know not to focus on one element entirely like that. If they don't, then your illustration is an excellent method of teaching them that valuable lesson.

As Joe said, it's about game design too. You can work around that. One way could be to have requirements for different levels. So, for example, once you get your fire spell up to level 20, you'll need to get a Fire Gem to bring it any higher. Of course, you'll get the Fire Gem from the fire cavern. In the mean time, might as well level up ice, seeing as you just got the Icicle from the Ice Cavern which allows you to bring your ice spell up past 20.

I think you're missing the point... the point is that the ultimate design of the RPG has to carefully equate the balance of power and introduce those elements when appropriate as well as diminishing the returns of those results when necessary. It's all about how well you craft your areas, game flow and elements to make a well-rounded world for the player to explore.

If the focus of the game is boring level-up activities someone will play it. Why do you think we have Dragon Warrior 8 on the horizon? If that's not what your designing for then you're just going to have to dig into the details quite a bit more to flesh out the potential exploits for power balance. We are talking game design here and one of the most prevelant pitfalls of independant RPG's is the lack of cohesion among the elements in the RPG's world.

[edit: MAN YOU GUYS POST FAST! ]

Why is he supposed to level up other spells? They pose a significant disadvantage to the player, and he has no way of knowing if he's going to have to use them later or not.

Either he ends up gimped, i.e. with only one spell that doesn't work against something further on, or annoyed because he spent time leveling every spell to a mediocre level without getting any use out of most of them.

23: He can, but that's extremely boring. See Korval's post above.

Missing the point. The ice spells get leveled up in the fire dungeon. You could even set it up so the ice spells are only accessible shortly before said dungeon. So by the later levels, every spell has at least some oomph. Takes some smart design, but it can be done.

You can also sell one-time elemental attack items in the shops (a few games do something like that) in case you need them. So anyone neglecting certian spells will learn quickly not to, and they'll stil have options beyond spending an extra four hours leveling.

I'm not sold entirely on the idea of individually leveling spells, mind you. Just saying it can work.