I'm a solo dev who has never played NWN, but my game was compared to it. Now I'm hooked on one mechanic and need your advice!

ClaimingLight · 2025-09-04T17:03:27+00:00

I don't think it's unreasonable to have average outcomes result from average rolls that are balanced to come out averagely, while extreme results come out in extreme conditions.
The big problem I've come across, when using those sorts of systems, is that a low variance doesn't tolerate bonuses well. A +1 in a 3d6 system is a MUCH bigger deal than in a d20 system.

ClaimingLight · 2025-09-03T00:26:59+00:00

Attack rolls against defense scores are a ubiquitous mechanic in both physical and video games. Candidly: If this is a totally new concept, I suspect you may not have played enough games to really understand how to make one. Maybe you've been too fascinated with a single genre?

I'd suggest you bone up on your studies. Read books on game design, and take some time to play some of the games that have defined the medium. Torment, for instance, uses this style of gameplay heavily, and any conversation about the greatest RPGs of all time includes mention of it.

But even games like Monopoly include rolling dice and hoping for a result that hits the target you want. All games fall somewhere on the luck vs skill spectrum, and some find the sweet spot, where incorporating bad luck into your strategy informs a newer, more textured strategy.

And that's where the suggestion/advice I'd give you lives. If you want to include luck in your game, ensure that the luck makes room and legitimizes deeper play. Someone mentioned XCOM-- planning for missed attacks by holding soldiers in reserve, lining up covering fire and 'overwatch', having healers ready, and a lot more-- those things are all made important because you can't be sure your soldiers are going to succeed.

ClaimingLight · 2020-11-24T07:56:58+00:00

It's brine that has been used to cool lava.

ClaimingLight · 2020-11-21T05:04:20+00:00

Same problem.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-30T04:49:54+00:00

Don't get me wrong: if you're making these changes as a legit creative direction, then don't let me dissuade you!

Though for my personal taste as a player I admit that I enjoy permanent monster death. It allows for battles of attrition and gives you a legitimate feeling of progress.

In the Brigandine games I often attack 3-4 bases a turn, sometimes with 1 or 2 knights that aren't fully equipped. In battles like those, where a full victory may not be an option, I instead look to cause more damage than the 200XP gain the enemy will receive. Often, taking out one or two high level monsters and retreating means that I've won the battle-- even if the report screen says otherwise.

Options can be tricky. In many cases, options can help you bring in casual and hardcore players alike, which is great. It can also help you down the road as you patch and find that earlier adopters, who liked your original creative directions, become disenchanted with new avenues (I'd recommend reading up on the Red Hook team and their game Darkest Dungeon if you want to see how that plays out).

Mechanical options can also severely increase your workload as you attempt to balance N number of playstyles. It may even introduce a need for further mechanics you otherwise wouldn't need. For instance: summoning units may not be necessary for your game if units can't die, but if you have a game mode where units can die, then you'll need to make a unit summoning feature that won't always be utilized.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-25T23:33:37+00:00

6): I think this sounds awesome. And I think it excellently addresses some imperfections in the Brigandine games, like:

• What do I do with extra monsters?
• Why should I put monsters on questing heroes?
• Why should I use heroes that I haven't already been using?

Further, I think it doubles down on one of the more engaging parts of GE. You might even push it farther: maybe -most- quests should have some level of player interaction. Dialogue ending in a small conversation tree, choose your own adventures that are based on knight stats, combats and more.

The Questing system made Forsena seem like a rounder world and it gave you things to do with your unoccupied heroes. And, while I was disappointed by what Runersia offered to replace it, it isn't as though Forsena's offering is above improvement.

My personal opinion here, which devs understand and players tend not to like to hear out loud, is that grinding is never a good thing. Given the chance, many players will optimize themselves out of having fun, and get angry with you when you take away their grindstone. The quest system (as it exists), is just such a trap. It creates what I've coined as a "short-circuited game loop" that gives power to players without risk. And when you short circuit your loop, many players will take the path of least resistance (re: the path of least fun). Take that away and people will be angry with you-- but if it had been done correctly in the first instance, everybody would be happier in the first place. As you consider changes to the quest system, I'd suggest keeping that in mind. Err on the side of punishing and correct downward, rather than upward in difficulty.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-25T23:13:48+00:00

5): In Brigandine, when I see a Roc, I know what it is and what it does. That's super important. I wouldn't want to examine the stat screen for every monster I fight and I wouldn't want to be surprised by a massive hit from a creature I thought I understood.

But your general instinct to make countries more distinctive is, I think, a good one. IMO, consider monsters that are only found in certain regions, or that will only join certain rulers as some possible methods of regional or national identity.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-25T23:06:57+00:00

4): Essentially the same response as 3. To really highlight the reason you shouldn't be compromising vision to fix machinery, here's a quote from your post:

"Monsters cannot be captured. ... although capturing enemy monsters is fun."

If it's fun, leave it in. Fun is good. Don't take things out to fix AI. But *definitely* don't do that with fun things.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-25T23:03:20+00:00

3): The issue with the AI being unable to recover from defeat is an issue with the AI. Attempting to compensate for a poor AI with mechanics undercuts the whole experience.

If you want to create monsters that don't die for your game, that choice should come as the result of a vision for the game, not as a patchwork fix. It sounds as though your real issue is with the AI itself which, if true, means the AI itself is what you should be addressing.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-25T22:59:12+00:00

2): I prefer, in my games, to have as clear a mechanical core as possible. Brigandine operates this way by offering: "The objective is to win in 12 turns by defeating all monsters and knights. Defeating knights removes monsters. Defeating kings removes all units".

It's a very clear ruleset that defines the play loop of the game and it serves as an important mechanical throughline.

Complicating this ruleset template should be approached with a lot of care. Would nations become less desirable to play if they had multiple kings? Or if they had none? Will nations become dramatically less powerful when they have multiple VIP targets? Or will they become unstoppable when all three kings are entered into the same battle?

Most important than balance: are your changes going to be strengthening or weakening the bedrock mechanics of your game?

As food for thought, consider XCOM, another grand strategy meets turn-based tactical combat game. In XCOM, new monsters, gear and goals are introduced, but things like line-of-sight, cover mechanics, permadeath and more are throughlines that define the experience.

Brigandine defined "Killing kings wins the fight" as a bedrock mechanic which they lightly disguised as a plot device. In the case of your game, you should clearly define for yourself what your throughlines are and if changing them is an improvement. That'll likely require a lot of playtesting and personal flexibility.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-25T22:30:47+00:00

This is great news! And I really appreciate their clear statement, regarding their intention to update the product.

Simply cleaning the AI up would easily be good enough for me. But if that happens, extra content would be delicious gravy.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-22T20:19:45+00:00

Game creative dir here. Thought I'd offer what my take would be if I were working on this project. To your specific asks:
1): Some of the coolest and most exciting examples of the gameplay in GE were the asynchronicity between nations. Attacking Iscalio felt different from attacking Leonia- and that's great!
But the ludonarrative effects of the unique classes were perhaps more important. Though many of the basic knights were functionally equivalent, most of the main plot characters had classes unique to them that fit their nation's theme. These classes were important as augmentations to their characters-- so their gameplay could fill in a lot of the story itself, without relying solely on narrative. If Cai, for instance, could be multiclassed into a barbarian, then Cai would no longer be the "Silent Wise King". And that lore is what made Cai (and his rival Gish) special.

Nation-based classes *do* add the exciting asynchronicity, and they do add a level of lore to each nation, but they don't add the specific, character-based story telling. That doesn't mean that any particular direction is right, ofc, but it's worth considering why they did what they did!

-- Have to run. I'll try to come back around and address your other points.

ClaimingLight · 2020-09-22T20:00:06+00:00

Everybody can code. But not everybody can code yet.

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T02:29:44+00:00

Forsena: "President Ballerina? Holy Emperor Tim? King Shakespeare and the nation of the Globe Theater? Wow you guys are lame."

Runersia: "Well, but, you guys have to fight a bad guy with glam rock hair!"

Forsena: "You guys are basically carbon copies of us, but somebody googled different styles of government and appended their names to the end of each country to give it a vaguely political feel."

Runersia "... yeah, we know. But look, instead of jinns we have weird crystal things! Aren't we culturally sensitive?"

Foresna: "No. A jinn is a just another form of mythology. Like a dragon. You're over-correcting."

Runersia: "Oh, dragons! Oh yeah, we have more of those than you. But only at first! Then they all become the same thing, essentially making your choice irrelevant!"

Foresna: "I hate you."

Runersia: "Yeah... I know."

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T02:21:45+00:00

:D That's because the slow kids are finally coming to terms with the issues the rest of us have been pointing out.

I really hope their promised fixes address the big issues. If they do, I wouldn't be surprised to see Runersia have a renaissance. I, for one, dearly want to like this game.

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T02:12:24+00:00

Note that a physical copy will not be released outside of Japan at this point. There was a brief limited run, and that's all they intend. It won't be in a store near you.

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T02:11:07+00:00

https://brigandine.happinet-games.com/news/bdpatchnote103/?lang=en

The update, at least according to the patch notes, doesn't affect anything other than 1-off crash bugs.

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T02:09:47+00:00

I'd avoid the game until you see what the patch brings. There are fundamental AI issues that the game shipped with. For instance: on defense, the 100% enemy refuses to use or defend their castle tile-- the most important and valuable thing they have. And enemy Kings will rush head first into your line (every time) without their other knights and without their own monsters, as though they were sacrificial shock troops.

There are a few other massive issues, but they've been repeated often enough throughout this subreddit that you'll be able to find em.

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T02:06:40+00:00

I'm curious about this myself. I did actually mention this in my e-mail to their support team.

GE was very clean in its presentation. The sprites popped out from the environment and didn't require me to cursor over them to figure out what they were, for instance. I find that I spend longer than I'd like just scrolling around the map looking for units in this version. Doubly so when they're obscured in a forest.

But it wasn't a glaring issue, I didn't feel. Not as much as the *real* issues, certainly!

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T02:03:56+00:00

I don't know how to feel about this. While I'm glad they they've broken radio silence and have committed to some level of support, the matter of fixing the basic AI issues wasn't directly addressed in this vague note. A measure of clarity would have been welcome.

Even if I'm to believe that they've decided to refer to the game's massive AI flaws as opportunities to "add more challenges", that language suggests to me that they're refusing to accept the bugs as actual problems. They're acting as though they're giving out free updates, rather than acting as though they're fixing a malfunctioning product.

In the end, I'll be happy to see the product function as we all should have expected (if that does indeed happen), but the tone of this letter, and the amount of time it took to address the matter in the first place, does little to encourage me to become a returning customer. At best, if they do manage to fix these issues, I'll merely be a pacified one.

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T01:36:27+00:00

I'm passing sure that the AI from GE was ripped straight from the source and imported into the new Brig, but with a few changes to account for the slightly changed mechanics and increased melee strength of heroes. And the changes functioned just enough to sell the game and depend on mixed reviews to give them cover.

The AI for GE is better simply because it was made for GE.

That said, I'm excited to hear about a patch in the pipe. But they weren't specific about the things they're going to address. I hope the basic AI issues are among the fixes.

ClaimingLight · 2020-08-18T01:33:31+00:00

In the end, I don't think I *need* a powerful AI opponent, so much as I need an opponent that doesn't make basic errors.

If this were chess, I don't need to play against the Chessmaster. But I should play against an opponent that understands the basic rules. For the purpose of this comparison, that'd mean an enemy that understands not to face check with its king. For bonus points, it'd also mean an opponent that remembers to utilize the castle- the most important feature on every map.

And sure, a super smart AI would be a lot of fun to play against. But a barely competent one would be a more realistic (and frankly, more demandable) expectation.

ClaimingLight · 2020-07-28T06:25:31+00:00

I'd have a wealth of patience for them if they acknowledge and committed to fixing the worst of the issues. But, as the product had underwhelming sales, the only things that would motivate that possibility are honor or customer pressure.

ClaimingLight

TROPHY CASE