I, for one, am getting tired of the whole Level-Up cliche of most all RPG games. Kill - Gain experience - Level - Increased stats. It seems like someone would have developed a better technique to improve your character. I think I have a solution for this... Instead of gaining experience every time you kill something, you become more dangerous -- increasing your "Danger Level" (DL). Your DL will reflect basically how dangerous you are, in aspects of being able to kill. The higher the DL a monster has, the harder he is to kill, so if you kill him, your DL goes up a bit (instead of experience). As for improving your character physically: The more you use a weapon, the better you''ll get at using it. So, the more you use a knife or something, the more efficient you''ll be at it over time -- being able to swing it faster, hit more often, and do more damage. Same goes for a gun, the higher your efficiency is for the gun, the farther you''d be able to shoot, and your accuracy will be determined on how high your efficiency level is for the gun. I''m a big fan of turn based games also, but that too gets a little old. So, how about instead of taking turns, each player gets a time interval in which he can complete actions (move, shoot, reload, run, head, etc.). The player''s turns will be selected at random, and when it''s your turn, a timer will start and countdown to zero. When it reaches zero, your turn is over and the next player gets to go. Anyone follow me? Now, for those that comprehend what I just said, would you be interested in playing an isometric, 2D game based on these concepts of gameplay, in a grungy type of suburban world?

Have you ever played Grandia? I think it has an excellent system, it does pretty much what you wanted except for the danger level part. The more you use your sword the better you get at it, same goes with magic. And if you learn enough in multiple areas you can learn to use diffrent skills together. Like fire and ice magic or sword and fire.

Actually, I think a fair amount of games are like this. Though really it''s just a more complex way of getting experience points.

¬_¬

I still like the way it was implimented back with the original Legend of Zelda. You found hearts that raised you life, as well as stronger weapons, sheilds and items as you progressed through the game. Access to areas with stronger equipment was limited until you recovered certain items you could use to get there, usually by clearing a dungeon. There was no real leveling up in the game, just a lot of fun puzzles.

to be honest I don´t like the idea much:

First, the Danger Level system is nothing but an experience system with another name, so you´re not really changing anything there.
Second, the "learning by doing" thing is a good starting point, but many things can go wrong there. For instance, how do physical stats interact with each other. What other skills will practising with a butter knife give you?
Have a look at Dungeon Siege, it´s about the most boring example of the "learning by doing" approach.

The semi-turnbased system you mentioned doesn´t really make sense, first of all roleplayers aren´t usually the twitch players, so a time limit would probably cause unwarranted stress. The random turns are just another hindrance, the turn placement should be determined by the characters stats (otherwise you can call it a delayed-action game).

How about making the players enter their moves simultaneously (i.e. each makes his turn, without time constraints) and then act out all the taken turns at once? Your characters speed and reflexes will come into account there - if you´re fast you´ll act before the other does and gain an advantage, if you´re too slow he might not even be there anymore. Of course that would require some ai effort to deal with unforeseen events (such as dodging an unexpected blow, jumping out of harms way etc).

I forgot to say that the Danger Level would be on a percentage scale, not raw numbers. 0% = Least dangerous, while 200% = Most dangerous, with it being very hard to reach 200%. Sorry.

Hase: So you mean that reflexes won''t matter in my time interval idea? Of course it will. If you give the player 3 seconds to do whatever, he''d really have to move quick to complete a lot of actions within 3 seconds. It''s not random combat, all players will get their turn, then it will go back to the first person, and through in the same order unless a player is dead.

Hope that clears a few things up.

You really should take a look at Grandia (on the ps1 and saturn I believe, you have a wait for a meter to fill up before you can attack and that fill up faster or slower depending on your speed and the equipment you are using, once your bar is full there are a number of things you can do, you have quick attacks that don''t really do much damage but can interupt your enemies spells or attacks causing it to fail. Physical attacks along with raising your weapon skill will raise your physical attributes same with magic with mental atributes. This has the most enjoyable combat system of any rpg I have played.

[OPINION]

I''m still in agreement with Hase. Random turns throws a players elimates about 2/3s of strategy. Pre-combat is basically 2/3s of having a gamplan: knowing what your going to do and getting ready to do what your goint to do. With random turns you can''t plan what your going to do because you have no idea when your going to get a chance to do it.

If you make it so that at the beginning of battle it throws out random turn numbers to people and they go in that order until someone dies, interupting the turn order, then your still leaving things up in the air.

Action gamers and RPG gamers are usually two different categories. RPG gamers usually enjoy letting their characters hack away at an enemy unless it poses a real threat and then they develop a plan. They usually aren''t ready to start basing everything on instinct and losing most sense of rythm.

This isn''t a very good idea if your aiming for a hardcore RPG but if your looking for a Diablo with more on the RPG side, sounds like an okay idea I wouldn''t be attracted to.

Danger level, as you corrected it is just a dynamic level system. You gain experience and get stronger just like those games you claim to hate. But instead of representing it as a real number you show a pie graph or a scale up to a certain percentage. Also, I think "and it being hard to reach 200%" is a bit self-explanitory. Why diliberetly make a game easy to become all powerful. Not saying this idea is bad really, just saying it''s practically the same thing your flaming.

Try to avoid random occurances if your looking for something that RPGers can sit down and enjoy right out of the box.

About the physical character development. How does your personal experience effective the range of a gun? Last time I check a gun will shoot the same distance practically everytime. Only thing that probably improves is your accuracy at greater distances. I think gun efficiency would include the speed at which you can reload, the accuracy you have and at what distance, and finally your ability to do the job using the least amount of ammo possible. Of course some of these may not apply.

Take heed to what the guy said (forgot the name and too lazy to scroll) about Dungeon Siege''s execution of that usage = level idea. I pretty much said screw magic because it was too annoying to level up. It was basically Diablo 3.

[/OPINION]