At the moment, I feel like I've been dropped in the middle of a vast desert without a map. That's essentially the experience of trying to make a game for a particular genre without prior experience in that area, and without guidance. The reason why games, music, movies, art, etc. have been classified with different genres is because they share many features. They're different, of course, but they do have similar attributes. Romanic comedies tend to have romance and comedy. Heavy metal music usually includes guitars with distortion. I was only looking for a bit of guidance finding the general features that compose an RPG.

Genres are ways for consumers to classify media, so they can more easily find similar media they might like ("You liked X? You might also like Y."). They aren't blueprints for designers to create the media. No new genres could ever be created if games are created from genres instead of vice-versa, and even more games would be identical clones of each other with just different artwork, if designers treated genres as blueprints instead of categories.

The earlier stages of designing a game are difficult, at least for me. I have loads of ideas, but then getting those ideas filtered down, discarding the ideas that don't fit, and figuring out what gaps exist in the design that need to be filled can be difficult.

You shouldn't limit yourself to "what is an RPG", especially since RPGs are all over the map with a huge amount of variation.

Take for example "turn based" vs "real time" - it's not one or the other, it's a spectrum with many games in between:

Or take something as simple as leveling up. There are probably a dozen different ways to handle it. Experience is a common one, but some games have multiple forms of experience. Fable for example, has four types - three categorical experiences and one general experience, and you spend the experience like currency on leveling up individual skills. Paper Mario has it that every time you level up, you choose one of three upgrades (health, mana, or equipment slots). Quest 64 lets you level up normally, and each level up gives you a skill point but you can also find instant skill points hidden across the world - and Quest 64 stat points improve only through usage of that stat (i.e. you get more health the more you get beaten up). King's Field skills can only be found by finding hidden skill points in the world.

It's great to look at other games for ideas, but less beneficial to look at other games as the "mould" your game needs to fit into.

At the moment, I feel like I've been dropped in the middle of a vast desert without a map. That's essentially the experience of trying to make a game for a particular genre without prior experience in that area, and without guidance. The reason why games, music, movies, art, etc. have been classified with different genres is because they share many features. They're different, of course, but they do have similar attributes. Romanic comedies tend to have romance and comedy. Heavy metal music usually includes guitars with distortion. I was only looking for a bit of guidance finding the general features that compose an RPG.

Genres are ways for consumers to classify media, so they can more easily find similar media they might like ("You liked X? You might also like Y."). They aren't blueprints for designers to create the media. No new genres could ever be created if games are created from genres instead of vice-versa, and even more games would be identical clones of each other with just different artwork, if designers treated genres as blueprints instead of categories.

The earlier stages of designing a game are difficult, at least for me. I have loads of ideas, but then getting those ideas filtered down, discarding the ideas that don't fit, and figuring out what gaps exist in the design that need to be filled can be difficult.

You shouldn't limit yourself to "what is an RPG", especially since RPGs are all over the map with a huge amount of variation.

Take for example "turn based" vs "real time" - it's not one or the other, it's a spectrum with many games in between:

Or take something as simple as leveling up. There are probably a dozen different ways to handle it. Experience is a common one, but some games have multiple forms of experience. Fable for example, has four types - three categorical experiences and one general experience, and you spend the experience like currency on leveling up individual skills. Paper Mario has it that every time you level up, you choose one of three upgrades (health, mana, or equipment slots). Quest 64 lets you level up normally, and each level up gives you a skill point but you can also find instant skill points hidden across the world - and Quest 64 stat points improve only through usage of that stat (i.e. you get more health the more you get beaten up). King's Field skills can only be found by finding hidden skill points in the world.

It's great to look at other games for ideas, but less beneficial to look at other games as the "mould" your game needs to fit into.

When did I ever say that I am going to do nothing more than what I find in other games? I said that I wanted to make a standard RPG. If I wanted to make a standard platformer, I'd need to know that jumping is an important game mechanic in that genre. If I said ARPG, then I'd need to know that the combat should probably be real-time. That's what I meant. In all seriousness, in the main post I mentioned that "I want to try something different in this game". I am not going to make a Mario clone out of this project. I just want to know what kinds of swords you'd like to see, if my battle system looks ok, if you'd like to change any element of my story, if you have suggestions for crafting, if you read my acting section and have any comments there (my entire game design was based on this), and anything else you'd like to add. Please.

If I wanted to make a clone of FF or Dragon Quest, I could do so without wasting anyone's time posting here and asking questions. I wouldn't be lost or confused because those games would be my "blueprints". Period. Pac-Man made. However, I'm making a game that is about using strategic gambits to win a worldwide competition. That would require role-playing. But it was only after researching swords, fencing, natural elements, and even judo (yes, I was going to make the game about a judo tournament before this), when I said to myself, "Why not make this an RPG? I'm finally at a point where that's possible." Then I started thinking about RPG mechanics, what sorts of things other games have done, and what I can do differently. How can I answer the latter without being aware of the former?

If there is a game like this already (verbatim), then I will cease and desist. It's not like you're playing an RPG where you're a male warrior who has to save a princess [and the world] for the hundredth time. That would a clone of a lot of things already out there, not to mention cliche. My intention was never to do such a thing. If you interpreted my feedback request as such, I'm sorry.

Edit: Judo actually sounds like a better idea now.

When did I ever say that I am going to do nothing more than what I find in other games?

All sorts of people are making games and posting design questions here, with a wide range of skills and experience, so I have to try to figure out what they mean and where they're at from a few sets of paragraphs and, based off of that estimation, whether any of my limited knowledge would be useful to them. If I accidentally mis-interpreted your mindset or goals, I definitely meant no offense and was not trying to belittle you.

In particular, I wasn't accusing you of making a clone, or of lacking imagination, I was just warning of two potential pitfalls that it looked like you might be walking into:

Potential Pitfall A: If I set out to make a game in a specific genre, I don't want to accidentally box myself into the genre so tightly that I can't innovate within it or cross-pollinate from other genres - I don't want to accidentally give myself genre tunnel-vision.

Potential Pitfall B: If I want to make a game, and I see other games doing X and Y, I need to be aware that what worked for one game given the entirety of that game's designs and features may not work as well for my game unless I'm also thinking about how it works with the rest of my game's design. That is to say, features don't exist in a vacuum independent of each other.

If you already know that, great! I'd rather have shared it with you already knowing it, then for me not to share it when you weren't aware of it (and hey, maybe someone else will read this thread and benefit from it). Plus, I need to remind myself of this pretty frequently even when I already 'know it'.

I probably fixated too much on the graph and the question "Does that sum up RPG mechanics I should add to my game?".
My answer to that one question is 'no', in the sense that it doesn't 'sum up RPG mechanics', being very un-comprehensive (in that I mean it's not, "complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something."), and also 'no' in the sense that (someone, anyone) shouldn't "add to [their] game" purely because it's an RPG, which is what I thought you were asking (possibly incorrectly).

My point about 'turn based' vs 'real-time' was just an example of the chart's incompleteness; not a suggestion for your game. Same with what I meant about the different forms of skill leveling in games - not intended as a suggestion for your design, but intended as commentary on the chart itself.

Then I started thinking about RPG mechanics, what sorts of things other games have done, and what I can do differently. How can I answer the latter without being aware of the former?

Certainly, and that definitely makes sense! I just completely misinterpreted your question, thinking you were asking what we thought you should add, mechanic-wise, to your game. Asking for details about what other games have done makes perfect sense, and is a completely different question entirely!

Thankfully, in my previous post I did provide some details about what other games do. Maybe it'll be useful to you, maybe not.

If there is a game like this already (verbatim), then I will cease and desist.

I wasn't I trying to discourage you from making a game; merely give advice in how to approach the design.

It's not like you're playing an RPG where you're a male warrior who has to save a princess [and the world] for the hundredth time. That would a clone of a lot of things already out there, not to mention cliche.

I wasn't even thinking of story/plot when talking about the game design. In my personal (and novicely!) view of game design, I view story, artwork, level design, music, etc... as game content and, while influencing each other, less integrated with the gameplay features - which, based on your questions, I thought was what you meant by "mechanics". While content and mechanics definitely interact, I find it beneficial to remember both that they need to cohesively fit together as a whole but also that they are separate and disconnected components. I probably lean too far to the second half of that myself.

I didn't bother with much more than a glance at the rest of your design (which I didn't responding to), partly because other people were already responding to it, partly because I was only interested in responding to a particular part of your post, but mostly because I agree with Orymus that "You're jumping to the specifics much too quickly.". Either you're focusing too much on details that don't matter at this step of the design process (in my opinion) or, if you're beyond that step of the design process, you're posting too much content-related details (also in my opinion) that aren't relevant to the game-mechanic question I thought you were asking.

Apparently I'm completely off-base, but hopefully you can eek some value out of my posts anyway!
Best of luck on your project; sorry I couldn't provide the help you were looking for.

In particular, I wasn't accusing you of making a clone, or of lacking imagination, I was just warning of two potential pitfalls that it looked like you might be walking into:
Potential Pitfall A: If I set out to make a game in a specific genre, I don't want to accidentally box myself into the genre so tightly that I can't innovate within it or cross-pollinate from other genres - I don't want to accidentally give myself genre tunnel-vision.

Potential Pitfall B: If I want to make a game, and I see other games doing X and Y, I need to be aware that what worked for one game given the entirety of that game's designs and features may not work as well for my game unless I'm also thinking about how it works with the rest of my game's design. That is to say, features don't exist in a vacuum independent of each other.

Ok, I understand. Thanks for sharing that with me. I noticed that I was starting to get a bit too caught up in stat management, even though it's not exactly a necessary part of the game with respect to the story. So I'll keep an eye on that in the future, for sure.

I didn't bother with much more than a glance at the rest of your design (which I didn't responding to), partly because other people were already responding to it, partly because I was only interested in responding to a particular part of your post, but mostly because I agree with Orymus that "You're jumping to the specifics much too quickly.". Either you're focusing too much on details that don't matter at this step of the design process (in my opinion) or, if you're beyond that step of the design process, you're posting too much content-related details (also in my opinion) that aren't relevant to the game-mechanic question I thought you were asking.

Right, right. I need to work on phrasing my questions so I can stop confusing myself and others who read them. Or maybe I just wasn't sure what my question was at first. In any case, it's my own fault. Sorry about that. I'm really beginning to feel the pressure of time constraints right now, and as a result I end up sprinting at full speed rather than starting at a modest jog. What can I do? Haha...

Apparently I'm completely off-base, but hopefully you can eek some value out of my posts anyway!
Best of luck on your project; sorry I couldn't provide the help you were looking for.

Completely the opposite. I need to rethink many aspects of this project, and your posts have inspired some deep thought. Thanks a bunch for bothering to help a novice like me. I'll do my best.

What about the worldwide competition itself? is it a form of ritualized war, a very important sport (like ancient Olympics), something that important characters do but isn't really important itself (like the martial arts tournaments in Dragonball), a "gamification" of a real quest to fetch actually important objects, or something else? One way or the other, it has to matter, or it won't be the equal of more commonplace character-growth or save-the-world heroic plots.

Those are good questions. I actually answered these under the story section of my original post (I'll summarize it here, but it's better explained there). It's an Olympic-style game that's held annually to demonstrate the strategic abilities of the seven nations. Also, it serves a sort of diplomatic purpose to maintain good relations with the other countries. The purpose that drives the contestants is to represent their home nations well in the competition. I'll have to give each main character a unique goal as I continue development.

What are "strategic gambits"? Start from elementary player moves, and find ways to build clever plans out of them.

I mentioned this in the main post as well (under Acting). Here is the link I referenced [gambits]. I thought those were pretty cool when I first read them. I recommend giving it a quick read-through to understand why I thought it would make for a great role-playing game. I just need to figure out how to tie them into gameplay. If you have any suggestions after reading that index, I'm interested in hearing (er, reading) your thoughts on this.

How do you envision elementary player moves? What I mean is, are you referring to the overworld map movement or srpg battles?

Choosing the right answers in a dialogue tree is a puzzle, not role-playing. Indeed, Building a fairly arbitrary party of contestants, as opposed to being given some specific plot-ingrained characters, makes the characters generic and faceless.

Do you mean that I should assign a party rather than let the player build one? If so, I'd like to do it in a way that still feels like the player is building a party and discovering these [plot-relevant] contestants. For example, if there is a maximum of 5 party members to a team, then I'll add a plot-relevant character from the first four nations the player visits (there are seven in all). The remaining three plot-relevant characters would get an alternate story script. Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors has a flavor of this in allowing the player to choose a path and adjusting the story accordingly. I'm not sure if it would work here. Does that make sense?

Look at game mechanics from the point of view of the competition. For example, do you have combat (presumably not at all lethal) against the other contestants, which are the PC party's equals, or combat (presumably unequal and lethal) against a variety of enemies and guardians? Very different combat rules are needed in each case.

Right. I explain a bit about the combat system under Turn-Based battles in my original post. It's non-lethal, and the battle actually ends when the opponents HP reaches 20%. I was thinking that it would be against the party's equals (if you mean other contestants) if the player chose to use combat in the combat/stealth/diplomacy gameplay model.

You didn't really answer any of my questions. If you're not going to explain to me why I'm doing something wrong, then how am I supposed to correct the behavior? Please don't raise an issue if you're not going to offer a means of ameliorating it, or at least explain your point of view so that I can better understand it.

Didn't I?

What do you think? Thanks for reading this post.

Your original question...

You're jumping to the specifics much too quickly.
Before delving in the sort of weapons the player can purchase, you should know more about your setting (and more than just "each nation corresponds to an element" a ton of games do that, but they do it differently).
Before any of this, you should know how the game should look and feel, and what brands it apart from other games. Why it should be fun.

I like to start every major project by listing "tenets", or simple one-liners of what we'll do and what we won't do such as this:

- The world is split in 7 elements:
Each area hint subtly at its core element (through colored tones, etc.)
Each area has a few very specific landmarks that make the tie to the element much less subtle (lava cave in the fire domain, etc.)

I also like to think that RPGs, in general, are better designed top-down: define the feeling you seek to attain, and then determine what features lead you to it (which may very well be counter-intuitive to most designers).

How you split experience for classes seems like it could fall out of hands from a balancing standpoint very quickly.
I'm assuming this would be a multiplayer environment (based on your above graph) given as how WoW can only truly be a relevant reference if you intend for this to be multiplayer. Even as a single player experience however, balance could be an issue as it would effectively diminish the value of certain classes.
I would advise taking a look at Pillars of Eternity to determine how to balance different classes. They've made a good job at making generally mundane classes more appealing (the "Chanter" which is essentially a balanced Bard, the "Cipher" which is essentially a spellcaster from Dark Sun, etc. Anything except the much too powerful cleric!)

Best of luck!

My original reply.

(Bold = actual answers to your question above)

You didn't really answer any of my questions. If you're not going to explain to me why I'm doing something wrong, then how am I supposed to correct the behavior? Please don't raise an issue if you're not going to offer a means of ameliorating it, or at least explain your point of view so that I can better understand it.

Didn't I?

I had to read through all the posts to find where I said this. I wasn't referring to your first post (the one you quoted). I was referring to your second post.

When I posted that, it was after I replied to you the first time. At that point, I offhandedly asked for your suggestions of features you find fun or entertaining, and directly asked how the game mechanic would be an issue. When you responded, you didn't comment on the first. For the latter, you said "Trust me, you'll figure it out ..." That's the post I was talking about. I should have quoted it to avoid confusion.

I hope this clears things up. Your first post did address my original questions. I wasn't disputing that at all.

I did not imply that I knew what would be wrong with this balancing, just that you would figure it out as you go. In essence, trying to balance this early is impossible. There's a theoretical foundation to game balancing, but it needs to stand the test of actual playtesting.

I wouldn't focus too much on numbers for now, they get in the way of what you're trying to convey.