Different ways to deal with losing a battle / alternatives to the Game Over screen.

[Venima 3]

This is something that isn't just in debate in RPG Maker, but in games everywhere: what to do when the player fails? (loses a battle, triggers a death scene, etc.)

 

The following are 6 examples I know of for dealing with player failure, and the pros and cons with each method, where I have encountered it, etc..

1. Game Over screen. Lets get this one out of the way, this is simply telling the player he failed, and relying on him to continue the game from a previous save (if saves are even a thing). Most games use this method, it came from the dawn of computer games, and the concept that the board/world resets once the player's last life is spent; like Pacman for example (although Pacman doesn't have save points). For a game like Pacman, it would make no sense not to reset the board; but for a game like super meat boy, they really wouldn't get away with a game over screen, because it would show up way too often. There are also games that use this method to give the player adrenaline, and a feeling of heroism for succeeding. Some rage games offer this, unbeknown to many who play them, since you have to be pretty damn good at the game to get so far into it that you start sweating. However, this is a tricky one to get right, since players don't want it to happen that often.
    
2. Undesirable plot effect. So sometimes, when the player makes a mistake (usually in dialog), what happens is someone else dies / is captured, and the plot takes a turn for the worse. This is an excellent way to give value to a player's actions, especially if done in moderation; for example, losing a villager for each battle you lose in defending them. Unfortunately, unless it's designed to be hard to do well, a lot of players may completely miss these twists, which means they may not get the full experience of the game. This method requires careful balancing, and can only be used in certain circumstances. I've seen this occur in games like Baldur's Gate, Pillars of Eternity, even Dragon Ball Z where you gradually lose allies as you lose battles. This method really adds to the immersive experience of the game when done right, and makes you feel like the characters are real and vulnerable.
    
3. Losing all/some equipment/items/skills. A classic MMO, Runescape had this concept when going out in the 'wilderness', where PvP was enabled. You'd lose all but 3 items, which meant you had to take care in what to bring with you there. While this might seem a harsh way to punish a player, there are several reasons for having it. If you want the player to have to trade-off between selling equipment and stockpiling it this is a good method, or if you want equipment to come and go, and ensure any overpowered items don't stick around for long, this is also a good method. Although, one must be careful not to make the player unable to progress because they lost items they were dependant on. Another game, Titan Quest used a similar method that the player lost experience each time they died; this also suffered from the problem of the player being unable to progress; once they started down the road of losing, they continued down that road. Perhaps a better system would be for only certain (special) items to be lost on defeat.
    
4. Restart from checkpoint. Another large portion of games use this method, platformers in particular, such as super meat boy. This method is designed for games in which you die a lot, and have to practice and perfect your technique in order to progress. These games can be both very satisfying and really infuriating, and that is simply the payoff for these types of games. If a game with this method were to be easy, the player could lose interest because it doesn't matter whether they do well or not. Other features then need to be added to keep the player interested in doing well, like a performance meter or gold/silver/bronze medal. A great example of a game not too hard that uses this method is One Finger Death Punch (a stick figure fighting game).
    
5. Ironman/Permadeath. The most punishing method for a game: when you fail you lose everything, your saves are deleted and you have to start from the very beginning again. One could argue that pacman comes under this category, except in pacman you don't lose anything when you fail (except levels). The idea behind this is again to give the player an adrenaline rush, and also to make a payoff between which equipment/allies are cute, and which are useful; for example, players might be convinced that having a priest around is crucial, whereas before it didn't matter so much. There are good reasons to include this in a game, but it probably should be optional.
    
6. Losing a small portion of stats. Probably one of the most well known games for adopting this method is the Elder Scrolls series. When you end up in jail and do time, you lose some of your stats. In other words, your character weakens slightly. This is probably the most immersive way to explain loss, without it being so harsh as to make it game over. A method I am quite interested in along these lines, is to lose a tiny bit of max hp when you lose a battle (except in cases where someone's trying to assassinate you). This method also suggests that most battles are about knocking opponents out rather than killing them, which is more humane. 

 

I may well have missed some points on this list (I've exhausted myself a little in writing it ), so that's where you guys come in. All input is welcome!

Footnote: For your game, you can get away with using all of these methods at once, so treat each failure as a separate case, and see which method makes the most sense given the circumstances; but do consider making it clear to the player what the losses are when they change, they won't appreciate a game-over when they were expecting a slap on the wrist . 

[devonm0 37]

In the case of my game, whenever a battle is lost, any battle, the following message is displayed.  "You've collapsed from your injuries."  Mind you, this is after the battle sequence has been aborted.  After that, you will see one of two messages, depending on the battle situation, and in most cases, random numbers.  Out in the field, there is a 1 in 3 chance of getting the message "...and no one ever found you."  This results in a game over screen.  The rest of the time,you'll get a message about being rescued, and you'll wake up in the last inn that you spoke to the keeper of.  In dungeon floors near the surface, the chance is half and half, and in deeper dungeon levels, the chances of getting a game over or not are reversed.  If you lose to a boss, however, there's no hope of not seeing a game over.  Also, the ratios that I mentioned are voided if a specific circumstance is in play.  Specifically, my game allows you to overstay at an inn, to the point of owing a debt.  If this happens, you cannot stay at any inn for any reason until the debt is repayed.  It's something I came up with to give daredevil players one more option to test themselves; forcing a no inn run by accumulating and not paying off debt.  If this happens, because you cannot stay at an inn no matter what, the keeper will not even admit you if you're wounded, so it will be as though you were never found.

[Venima 3]

In the case of my game, whenever a battle is lost... (it's right there ^ if you want to read it)

 

Interesting idea. I never considered chance-based death because I've not seen any effective (non-frustrating) applications of it; but then if it's applied in a game where it's unlikely to lose at all (when played properly), then I can see it working. 

I guess this is a combination between game over and continue from checkpoint, with an element of chance attached. When I have the energy again I'll add a section onto the list involving chance mechanics

Edited April 30, 2015 by Venima

[+ TBWCS 953]

I like the ideas. I encountered 4 of them when I was playing games in the Genesis, Playstation and PC. For me, these are great alternatives when you're bored with the undying Game Over screen.