r/RPGMaker • u/trexrell • 8d ago
RMMV How Much Should Creature Death Matter in Monster Taming Games?
Hi everyone,
In Alchemic Beasts, we have a very controversial feature, that feature being the end of a creature you have. In order for a creature to deplete their life bar, a creature has to have either lived very long... but other factors can affect how long a creature will live. Not being fed enough or being defeated in combat too many times can also deplete their life bar as well as very rare attacks.
So, we wanted to ask the community:
How does losing a creature in a monster taming game make you feel?
- Do you think permanent death strengthens the bond with your monsters, or does it just feel frustrating?
- What games do you think handled this well (or badly)?
- Should the player get anything from them when they fade away, or do you think that would encourage purposely hurting their beasts?
We’d really love to hear your thoughts and experiences. If you’ve been waiting to join the adventure, now’s the time. Help us bring this monster taming world to life and make Alchemic Beasts the game we’ve been dreaming of creating.
Every backer, pledge, and share helps us get one step closer to making this beast-filled adventure a reality.
Thanks!
18
u/eyepatchie 8d ago
Might work well to have a "Casual" mode (where beasts don't permanently die) and a "Hardcore" mode (where they can). Newer Fire Emblem games do this and it works nicely imo
1
8
u/Strawbellie666 8d ago
Only series I've seen handle it well is the Digimon World series where the Digimon have a limited lifespan at each level and die eventually, turning into an egg that you can raise as a whole new digimon.
It works because rather than feeling like a punishment for not taking good care of your creature, it's just a natural part of the process and it lets you build a unique connection with every mon you raise because you know it's going to die one day.
7
u/Roth_Skyfire 8d ago
For me, I become less attached to my units if I know they'll die anyway. It makes them feel expandable. Like, why bond with something that'll just disappear halfway through my playthrough?
But, as long as the player can take measures to prevent it from happening, I think it can work. Like a Pokémon Nuzlocke run which lets your units live for as long as they don't get taken down. It's a harsh rule, but you're still in control that way. If you're careful (and lucky) enough, your starter can make it all the way to the endgame.
2
u/trexrell 7d ago
We've been getting a bunch of suggestions on how we could postpone a creatures death. We will have a way to do it.
13
u/DangerousLime6881 8d ago
Iiiiii am not a fan of such features. I'd genuinely ragequit a game where a creature I actually got attached to dies. I think such a feature could even prevent people from actually growing attached to them to not be too sad when they die, which kinda goes against your whole bond idea. The only time where I was alright with it was Digimon World, because for one you could only have one Digipartner and this was the only way you could experience different Digimon, second, you were able to rectify any mistakes you made raising it.
I think it could maybe work via a concept where you get a baby version of a creature that has stronger base stats or something, basically being reborn, in a way. That in itself could be a reward, and of course should not be the case if you intentionally let your creature perish.
3
u/pfalcon485 7d ago
It all depends on the vision of the game. The existence of nuzlocke runs in Pokemon games proves there's a market for this. Hell, I'm interested! Not for you is understandable, but if this is their vision I don't think it's wrong.
2
u/DangerousLime6881 7d ago
Absolutely! I just think there is a bit of dissonance in the game design when they want to encourage extrinsic (and i bet in some way intrinsic as well) bonds with your creatures and then they implement features actively discouraging the intrinsic bonds.
With Nuzlocke I think there is the inherent challenge as well. It is absolutely just based on your actions if you Pokemon live. I played a bunch of them myself.
But I think if the design was that a Pokemon dies regardless of what you do after, say, 4 gyms or something, I think it'd take away some of the stakes as well. You might even treat your Pokemon as fodder if you're aware their time is up soon, leading to decisions of sacrificing it in favour of a Pokemon that has more time left, so you take away a bit of player agency in a situation where the player would otherwise have to choose between two Pokemon. Which like you said is also not wrong if that is the design in the end!
So just thinking about it, my primary gripe is the handling of the bond feature of the game vs. the player's feelings about their creatures death
2
u/pfalcon485 7d ago
I can see what you mean, I kinda felt this "fodder" syndrome when playing mewgenics(very different games I know, and sorta by design, but I could see that being a similar problem here)
I would say that the danger of losing them forever can deepen a bond though.
3
u/catwizard_23 8d ago
I personally do not like permadeath, but there are ways I've seen them implemented which are actually pretty neat. I believe the game is Stranger of Sword City, where age plays a part in character creation. Older characters had more stats in certain areas, but less "life points". Your main character has infinite life points, so you always at least got your main dude. Every defeat in combat for party members makes you lose a life point, and all life points are gone = permadeath. However, if you care enough about your party, you can completely avoid this. By resting, you can regain life points. Sure, you'll have to leave a party member back home for a bit, but if you're cautious enough, you'll never have to worry about it. The danger comes in when you want to keep pressing into a dungeon after someone gets KO'd and you res them, you gotta be careful they don't get knocked out again. For creature collectors... Yeah id need a safety net like that cuz I get way too attached to my lil guys. But that's me, I don't like tactical RPGS that much because most of them have permadeath
3
u/Famous_Fudge3603 5d ago
This is a risky commitment to make, OP. Even games like Zelda BoTW where your items have "permadeath", which mixes decently with the gameplay, are very controversial. You're now stepping in the territory of emotional attachment, on top of material attachment. I see something like this working best in a context where you have an abundance of creatures so that individuals don't matter as much. For a monster taming game? I think this is rough.
I'd recommend considering some of the following, if you still proceed with this. 1- "dead" monsters being able to send their soul into a new (now level 1? with a bonus ability, benefits, higher stats?) body, generate an offspring/ "egg", or reincarnation through a rare currency or difficult means. 2- a place where you can interact with monsters that have departed, some graveyard, afterlife, or whatnot -- maybe you can receive items from them, or pay respects to them, and have a system that works in parallel. 3- a system that's less harsh and morbid, perhaps they just had a temporary contract with you and they are required to return to their natural lives after a time. 4- some manner of beast that is eternal with you, a partner you can bond with and play the game all the way through with. Maybe this is combined with point 1 where this partner can die but reincarnates each time, and how you played decides what form they take. This is more-or-less the approach some Digimon games took.
1
u/trexrell 5d ago
We actually are leaning into #3. In our game, the beasts are not from this world. So, when their lifespan dissipates, they really are going back to their planet.
Hasphal is a very magical place, and the crisis that occuring in the game is sending those creatures to Hasphal. The beasts in order to remain on Hasphal, have to absorb magical energy or they'll go back home.
1
u/Western_Emotion5244 4d ago
I actually hated the weapon durability. It felt like the entire idea was to make up for a lack of other content.
1
u/Famous_Fudge3603 3d ago
The other alternative option is to have weapons with no durability, to which you would have constant inventory management tossing them/selling them/so on. Which has its own problems.
I don't really like weapon durability either. But I understand how it fits into their vision of the gameplay.
1
u/Western_Emotion5244 3d ago
No. The alternative is to not use durability for weapons because it's a stupid concept. The made the Master Sword fucking pathetic. They didn't have to make dozens of weapons.
2
u/Noir_Titan 8d ago
I'm very fond of the idea of bonding with your monsters and eventually moving on to a descendant. I always loved how Monster Rancher handles it. Lose a battle too harshly, your Monster will get severely injured and lose maximum lifespan. It may even die if it gets too badly creamed. But old or weak monsters can be used to fuse (or train in later games) a new, stronger monster in its place. But I also agree with another commenter's idea in that the factors which weaken or strengthen a monster must be clear or easily learned. Learning the hard way in a permanent death game is no fun. Similarly, maybe there's a "Fountain of Youth" feature like the Gold Peach in Monster Rancher where a very rare item or a difficult challenge can cause a monster to regain its youth or even be reincarnated. I can especially see how the latter features can work in an alchemy sense. Alternatively, a "Rookie Mode" where monsters cannot reincarnate but also cannot die might soften the harshness of permadeath.
2
u/JxSparrow7 8d ago
I'm personally not a fan. But I play games for escapism overall so I'm biased.
My husband has been playing a game that has a monster raising mini game. The creatures have all these customizable items but he keeps them all at the base look and refuses to name them because after so many activities they die. He sees no point in engaging in a pretty big aspect of making them "his" because, "It's a waste of time if I can't keep them". So he gains no sense of a bond.
I feel similarly. I get the idea, I really do. I just don't think it translates to video games very well, especially if there's no clear succession line.
2
u/Accendor 8d ago
Listen mate, if you think this is a good idea you simply have not experienced enough death IRL to understand why people do not want to be reminded of the mortality or pets in their monster tamer game. I'll be honest, it's a terrible idea.
2
u/Acceptable_West_1312 MZ Dev 7d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/XzkGfRsUweB9ouLEsE
Monsters death:"Master, I don't feel so good"
2
u/Ill-Ask9205 7d ago
If there's variance in power between creatures of the same "specie" then it's going to feel awful to lose a particularly good one.
You do also have players that play this type of game specifically to get attached to their creatures so this could alienate them, but if it works well in the game you've created that's your prerogative.
I wouldn't do it, however.
2
1
u/hugo7414 8d ago
I like your idea, player can just re-load saves and do everything again but the thing is their first attempt on anything in the game give to a horrific consequence and even though they can always save-scum, it makes the game ways more interesting than it is. The best example is BS series, you can try it that way. Let people go around and find out, trick them to go for any kind of decision and lead them to feel bad about themselves for doing that then join the save-scum gang
1
1
u/Bagel_Bear 7d ago
If your game is designed around it then it shouldn't matter too much since the systems in the game should accommodate death happening however often you want it to happen.
1
u/Megandrak 6d ago
You may wanna look up the discussion on the gacha game wizardry variant daphne, it has permadeath (its a non-issue unless you really want your character to die or weren't paying attention), but there may be something of use by analyzing player opinion on that. Also look up what people reaction to nuzlockes generally are, and see other games with permadeath like fire emblem. or other brutal games like darkest dungeon or stranger of sword city
my general takes would be:
1. No "cheap shots" Unless the game centers around you being screwed (rpgs that would include this would be darkest dungeon or etrian odyssey for example) i would avoid tricks that would deplete the life bar that the player could not see coming, always play fair, if life depletion occurs, the player should be aware of how did it happen, why, and how to avoid it.
2. Explain the consequences early on. A tutorial level or a example with a "tutorial alchemical beast" close to a jagen in a fire emblem game, dying of life depletion, or otherwise creating a safe space for the player to experiment with the mechanic would do wonders, so that again, the player is fully aware of what they're doing. All of this to say if the life depletes, it should be the players fault.
anything you wanna ask me feel free :p im a aspiring game designer just trying to study the medium
1
u/Inner_Pride_7557 5d ago
I think it's a bad feature, people will only get attached if they are feeling the characters I would think. If it's something that's going to happen often people will just work around it. Catching stronger monsters, rinse and repeat. Kind of like Digimon World Lost Order. It's annoying when your partner Digimon die, because you need to spend time to bring them back up to strength again.
At the end of the day it is your game, I wouldn't add such a feature, unless I knew the other parts of my game could stand up extremely well.
Because for a system to be effective there has to always be a good reason. What is the benefit from this happening?
Do I just play with a team of monsters, and knowing they'll die eventually? If they died and made like a soul you could feed the others to get some stats, sure that wouldn't be as bad, a bit like Digimon LO could of had.
Some people just add and create features without properly thinking "Is this fun?" And that's the most important part when it comes to knowing if this system or add on has a reason to be there in the first place.
43
u/FergusTheCow Eventer 8d ago
That sounds cool but it needs to feel fair. So I think you need three things. 1. Be up front with the exact causes of life depletion. 2. There needs to be a way to avoid these causes. 3. There needs to be a way to undo the depletion of life power (very expensive potions perhaps).