Promoting the use of all playable charactes

As I was designing the playable characters for my game, I realized something. In many games, I fall into the habit of playing with the exact same characters for basically the whole game. Here are some examples:


Chrono Trigger: first available triple tech


Crono


Frog


Robo 


FF3/6:


Sabin


Edgar


Terra


Umaro/Gogo


Mass Effect:


Garrus


Wrex


So the question I have is, how do we as game makers encourage players to use all of the characters? I have a few ideas but I'd love to hear from you!


Ideas:


-Players not in party still get exp


-Storyline forcing the player to take specific characters


-each character has a specific ability that could be beneficial in different dungeons


-introduce characters early to allow a connection with their story

I play the same characters for the following reasons :::


- I like the design.


- They are stronger than other characters.


- I get stuck with the same mandatory characters at the start of the game for so long, I just stick with them to the end of the game.


- If there's too many characters, I just stick with whoever I got near start of the game.


- If other Characters not in the party don't level up with the Party, I don't use them.


- If all Characters are clones of each other, at least as far as battle system is concerned, I stick with the characters whose story/designs I like best.

So what are some strategies to prevent that? 


I totally agree with all your points. 

one way is to have specific points of the game dedicated to specific charecters only, that way the player gets a feel for how they work


also, make them unique and not clones of each other. small cast would be better for this. also, dont have the player stuck with the same charecters at the start of the game for too long


the second paragraph was divined from the first repliers post

The strategies might depend on when, why and how often the player is supposed to change the party.


If we are talking about the battle system here and you ideally want the player to do every battle with an optimized party then one thing you could try would be to let them choose the battle members at the start of each battle instead of making them pause the game to change the party formation in the menu each time (especially when they have no chance to know what they are going to fight yet).


If you want the player to rotate through the entire party you could also give bonuses to the non-fighting part of your party (as for example partially healing them during each fight).


If maintaining equipment, traits, etc. and learning the uses of the rarer used characters means additional effort for the player, that effort should pay off somehow. If the player can just ignore that additional effort and stick with a core party, many may be tempted to do.


I'd agree that each member should have some kind of an identity, otherwise the member selection would be quite pointless.

I apologize in advanced for the wall of text....


- On Character design, don't design characters that have rather ridiculous look designs compared to an otherwise pretty normal looking cast.


Its not that no one should take risks, its that if your game has a theme, you should probably stick to it and not take unnecessary risks. More important than anything is that you game has a theme. While I'm sure some people see the appeal of playing as a pokemon, a masked wrestler, and a talking cat in the same party, I would rather play a game where all the characters are either pokemon, or all masked wrestlers, or all talking cats, not everything thrown into the same game (unless the masked wrestler and talking cat also happen to also be pokemon!)


- On Character Strength, (and this comes down to balancing more than anything), all characters should have the same potential for damage...period. It doesn't help if you have a character who is the only one who can equip the ultimate badass sword of badass-itude, and there is no equivalent for other characters to equip. It doesn't help if a healer or tank character exists but is never required. And it most definitely doesn't help to have a thief type character that is ridiculously fast and agile, but hits like a wet noodle in a game where they can only attack as often as slower characters. I will avoid all three of those options unless its mandatory at some point in the game.


- On Mandatory Characters, It also doesn't help if there is a character that is mandatory through the whole game. That cuts your choices for your party by 20-33% depending on party size. If your main character absolutely has to be there, have him there during the events and such, but not necessarily be required to play.


For other characters, I'd rather not be stuck with the same three for twenty hours, only to get six more thrown in front of me that I have absolutely no reason to ever consider. A good way to avoid this is to give access to all characters within the first 5 hours or so, so the option to switch lingers for the entire game. That, or just make three or four characters. It will give you more time to design them, and make them more enjoyable than spreading that out to ten more characters.


If you must have more characters, its fine to have points in the story that requires mandatory use of them. we'll be forced to use them and learn their battle mechanics, and decide for ourselves if we like them or not. If you do this for the entire game though, some people might not like it because we'll never get to build the party we want to build.


Another idea is to not forget every character exists. Final Fantasy VII will occasionally throw a stronger weapon at you that pretty much forces your curiosity into using that other character for a short time if you've been ignoring them for awhile.


- On Character Diversity, Some people like a million characters, others like only four. There's dozens of threads here on that very topic. The reason why I stick with who I got near the start of the game is as much game play as it is character design. I stick with what was familiar because I don't particularly want to have to learn how a new character works in battle after I've been playing with what works for me for so long. If there's 100+ characters or something, I will also stick to that original choice instead of spending hours finding a better combination. Other people might get tired of the same characters quickly, and take whatever is new. Others don't.


One thing you should be focused on, instead of creating a giant cast of diverse characters, is getting as good of a design as you can with as few characters as possible. You should also make each character as different as possible, so they aren't clones of each other...


- On Characters that are mechanically clones of Each other... Lots of games have characters that all act the same way in battle. Look at Bravely Default. Every character has access to every class, and all have the same general stats and abilities. This works because there are only four characters). Now Look at Final Fantasy VII or XII (or X near the end of the game). With few exceptions that force the use of certain characters, all characters are literally mechanical clones of each other in battle. Now if you are the typical Min/Maxer, you are going to look at character stats, see who can hit the hardest and see who can take the most damage, then use them regardless of anything else. If you lean more towards the design crowd, you're going to look at the character, and stick with whoever is most appealing to you as far as design or personality goes. since they all are the same in battle anyways, who cares?


the best way to fix this is to either have a smaller cast of characters, or work to make each character unique and appealing in battle. But don't forget my second point on character strength.


- On Characters not in the Party, make sure you don't forget about them. Force the game to make them the same level as the party AT ALL TIMES. Just like before, don't forget they exist, and give the players gear every little while that requires a certain character. It puts their interest squarely on them, and normally encourages them to use them for at least a little while.


The only way to ensure that every character is used is to have as many characters as your party has. Every player has preferences, many that I did not talk about here. If you are worried about spending a lot of time designing a character that might not be used, you might need to rethink that character's design.

There's another trick I can think of to motivate the player to swap around his parties a bit...
The XCOM: Enemy Unknown mod The Long War introduced soldier fatigue; a soldier who's been on a mission is fatigued and needs a few days' rest. A fatigued soldier who is sent on a mission becomes wounded, and needs a LOT more rest.
Something similar should be possible to set up in RPG Maker, too - a system by which party members simply get tired after being at the front for a while.

Granted, this won't work as well if there's an irreplaceable main character who, by consequence, either ignores fatigue and soldiers on through everything, or goes through every minute of the game after the first two fights with combat injuries, exhaustion and attrition that would bring Superman to his knees over time...


But, some sort of Rest/Fatigue system to incentivize party circulation should be feasible.

This x1000000% I hate when games do this. (Recently I was watching Rach play Xenoblade Chronicles X and out of a party of four, THREE were mandatory members for plot missions. That's three party slots forced and only one left to choice? That's ridiculous. A lot of characters went unused)


Anyway, I skimmed this chat fast and didn't see mention of the two games that actually made me use all of my party members, which I am a person VERY guilty of favouretism. FF10 and Mana Khemia. Both games had something in common and that's switching in battle. Though both games handled it for different reasons.


FF10 had enemy types that were weak to certain characters (flying enemies that dodged slower characters, armoured enemies that needed the heavy hitter, things that would take single digits from physical characters but melt against magic, etc). That's the only thing I even remember about that game. I thought it was a neat mechanic that made me shuffle through the characters. (though I hear it was broken late game. I never got that far to know.) A lot of games TRY that with enemy weaknesses and such not, but I've never felt many games actually captured it in a way that made it feel like it really mattered.


Mana Khemia on the other hand, you didn't HAVE to switch, but oh the benefits of doing so! Attack and defense bonuses and specials and junk. Switching was a lot of fun and really beneficial to the battle. Because of that, I put the effort into making sure the party were all decent (I still played favourites hoho) since they were all going to see battle.


I think finding a battle mechanic that can make using all of the characters fun, engaging, or strategic, but not FORCING the player to do so is a strong key. A game that limits who I can use makes me angry, but if it suggests I use everyone for good reasons and doesn't force it on me? Amazing.

I agree heavily with everything @Chrispy said.


I would add that, if you want all characters to be used, the entire future party lineup should be introduced early on.  And those characters should be developed the whole game, not start after they join the party.


If you do not do this, I will probably not use the new characters at all unless they are mandatory.  This is due to the fact that I have more emotional attachment to the characters that had the most screen time (read: most developed) and the late joining characters tend to have very little character development.


Also, this is one of the reasons that, in Pokemon, people value the starter Pokemon so much (you spend the most time with them and they want a design that they like).  I mean, people are more curious about the new starters in Sun and Moon then the legionaries or the games features themselves (by alot).

I think some of the ideas brought up here are good ways to encourage the player to switch up their battle team.  To suggest a few other ways:

• Have a "well-rested" system like World of Warcraft where, for example, a character that has rested for at least 3 battles will get a bonus to their stats in the next 5-7 battles.  This is somewhat similar to Warpmind's mention of soldier fatigue in XCOM, but it's presented as a bonus rather than a penalty or mandate, and I think for a mechanic like this it's very important to frame it in a positive light.
  
• Have some finite resource that is important (albeit not totally mandatory) for battle - MP or even HP can be used as long as all characters want it and it is hard to restore without leaving a dungeon (etc.).  This creates an implicit advantage for using lots of different characters, since it's like having multiple tanks of gas instead of one.  Obviously, if using this method, it's best to also have EXP gains for your party members that aren't in the combat.
  
• Make enemy encounters very varied, so that some characters are far better at defeating certain enemies than others, and include a mechanic that allows players to easily switch party members in and out during combat.
  
• If you're making a game that is structured in days (Persona 3/4, Recettear, Azure Dreams) or in "rounds" that you willingly choose to take on (Mario Golf GBC, Banjo-Kazooie) rather than a directly linear set of events, you can have some characters be unavailable during different regularly-scheduled days or "rounds".  This means the player can either wait for another day, or go with the characters that are available that day.  I've never seen a game really do this, so I don't know how well-liked it would be, but it's something I plan to try out in a future game.
  
• You could use the nuclear strategy and have a mechanic that randomizes your battle party at the start of each battle!  In the right game this could be not only a very effective way to force the use of all characters, but also a very interesting game mechanic because it promotes improvisation - you may never have the same party twice.  Of course, you need to build the whole battle system around this mechanic, because a bad implementation (like dropping this mechanic into a FF7-style system not designed around it) will be horribly frustrating for the player.\
  

So with all that being said about how to encourage or force the use of all playable characters, I think we're really remiss to not talk about why we need to encourage using all the playable characters.  Sure, there's an argument to be made about putting lots of hard work into playable characters that the player won't get to see if they stick to a single battle party, and there's also the possibility that one of the newer characters has a style that they would like if they only got to try that character out.  But on the other hand, I find that as a player there are a few characters that I like, either because of their combat style or their personality or both, and I feel like it's the most viscerally and emotionally satisfying for me when it's *those* characters working together to decimate enemies.  I might take the other characters into a few battles to make sure I'm not "missing anything", but usually I find that I'm not missing anything!  If I - as the player - want to develop a single "main battle party" and stick with them for the whole game, can you - as the designer - honestly say that my experience with your game will be worse off for it?  If so, why?

I like the games Makio pointed out for this, both games offer advantages for utilizing the whole party. It's not forced per-se but it becomes an extension of the combat possibilities. Wavelength offers some great points to.


I don't think its necessarily wrong to let the player play with the characters they want to throughout the game. Certain characters are bound to stick with a player more than others and many players enjoy playing and winning with their favorite characters. I think the thing often is that you want the player to have the possibility to beat a boss or a set of enemies with most party combinations but how easy of a time they have doing it will depend on the specific combinations they use.


One thing I'm doing on a game now is that one character isn't the strongest magically or physically in normal encounters but he gains an extra purpose in boss encounters, he can seal off the bosses strongest attacks by applying a state that only he can inflict. It gives him an extra utility and purpose that only he can fulfill and makes the encounters easier by not having to deal with the bosses strongest attack as often. The player can choose to not use this character but they will have a harder time and have to rely more on other things to get by for boss encounters.


Another thing is that you can give each character an elemental association and have areas where your fire element character has advantages over the enemies through type or through resistances. Another character might be weak in that area and might not be the best pick. Of course the player can still get by through a more difficult time with that character though.

Great points all. I recall that system in FF10 as well. I've never played FF8. 


One thing that I though of if you did use the in battle changing of characters. You would have to justify why you are taking so many people into each dungeon or on each quest. In FF10, it fit into the story as everyone was on a journey together. It may not always work within each story line.  


This Final Fantasy talk made me remember FF6, when you had to have multiple parties to finish a dungeon. This would make you use most characters AND force creativity in designing teams. 

The Mana Khemia games, as well as Atelier Escha & Logy and Atelier Shallie do a very good job at making use of your entire team.


The games allow you to bring 6 members into battle: 3 in the front and 3 in the back.  You can swap in the reserve characters at almost any time, and I don't mean just when it's someone's turn.  A reserve character can instantly swap places with someone in the front by following up an attack or stepping in to defend someone.  You can even unleash some devastating attacks by chaining together all 3 reserve characters when following up an attack.

As a thought... A system where the party is reassembled each combat, with priority based on a combination of who is best suited for the encounter, and who is rested (did not participate in the last combat). Essentially, the party is automatically reshuffled by an event running at the start of round 0, perhaps with the option of tagging in other (potentially fatigued) characters during the fight.

It would deprive the player of some choice initially, and it would need to grant XP to all the characters outside the active party, but it might be just the thing for a game with a humongous cast...

I like the idea of your post, but I think that it kind of misses the point.  I'm not trying to rag on you here, I just want to go over some things with you.


As a player, I like to play with who I like to play with.  I don't like being forced into specific characters for specific story reasons, or specific gameplay reasons.  I think most players feel this way.  What if you were forced to play characters you didn't like?  You wouldn't like the section of the game where you were forced to.


But, here, I'll cite my specific examples, because I've played all of those games as well.


Chrono Trigger:


Crono (he's literally the strongest thing in the game with a 90% critical chance... plus, he's the player avatar... not bringing him with feels weird)


Marle (literally the best healer in the game, and if you use her Aura Whirl with Crono, you'll never need another item again, plus, I like her, especially since a good chunk of the game revolves around her lineage)


Ayla (sue me, I bring her along just because I like amazon type women.  Plus, she's amazing on the Blackbird.  And her double tech with Crono where she flings him into the air and he hits all enemies on screen is massively useful all through the game)


Final Fantasy 3/6


Locke (I like thief characters, and this one is kind of who I insert myself into, because I do tend to act a lot like him.  I identified with him as a kid and I loved getting free items from badguys, so he's always in my party)


Cyan (I just love his Swordtech.  Plus, he is kind of an interesting character and has a fun dynamic with some of the other characters)


Celes (Sorry, I just prefer Celes over Terra because she's not only more complex, but she's less of a whiny crybaby, and she's Locke's love interest.  I like their dynamic, so they travel together)


Setzer (I just love his attitude and his weapons.  If this guy isn't in my party, I usually bring Mog or Gau.  I like their gimmicks, so they come along).


Mass Effect


Tali (I find her the most interesting of the original cast and was sad I couldn't date her first game)


Ashley (I likewise found her more interesting than most of the original cast and did end up dating her.  A warrior chick that can be talked out of her xenophobia and who will recite poetry at me?  Sorry, she's got the biggest character arc in the first game, no other character even COMES CLOSE).


Now, let me give you another example...


Final Fantasy X.  That game forces you to use certain characters all the time, or frequently.  I hate Wakka.  Still have to use him for flying enemies.  I hate Lulu... still have to have her to kill elementals.  I like Auron as a character, but hate him in combat, but... still have to use him unless I want to break out the worthless Kimahri.  So, my party ends up consisting of Tidus, Yuna, and Rikku most of the time, if I get any say in it.  I detest having to swap these characters out for other ones, just because the game demands I do so.


I understand why a game dev would want me to use all of their characters, but for the same token, if you've designed the game right... I can use whomever I want and still make progress.  I don't want to feel like I have to use characters I don't like or don't care about.  As a player, I just want to use characters I like, for whatever reason I like them.  I can still engage in the stories of the characters I don't care about in most games, so long as I've recruited them at some point...  or brought them along... if the game dev lets me.  But, if I have to bring them along for something specific... I find it just turns into a chore.


That being said...


I'd say the best way to get players to use all your characters would just be to include personal storylines that can only be activated and completed with them in your party.  Players who want the entire story behind everyone will bring characters along to see their stories.  Or, unique interaction points between characters so that a player would mix and match their party to see how everyone talks to each other (Dragon Age does this and so does Mass Effect in areas with their ambient dialogue... it tends to be worth mixing and matching party members for a little while, just to hear their banter to each other).  Both of these features are something I've included in my own game, but I did it purely for the storyline and character reasons... and not to get players to use everyone in my roster.  I just liked the mechanic and it's been fun to write it out.  But, honestly, the other games who used it before I saw it, used it to pretty great effect.  If nothing else, players mix and match characters for the ambient dialogue, to see what they might say to each other, or what they might talk about.


In all honesty, I'm just a fan of game design where the devs don't think of the players as "the enemy" or "an obstacle to overcome".  I know that as Devs, we have this idea of how we want a game to work and how it should be designed.  The players should just fall in line, play it the way we intend, and be amazingly happy that we designed it JUST THAT WAY.  But, that's not really how the world works.  We put all these things in place to get the players to play JUST THIS WAY and no other way, because it's how we imagine the optimal way to play is.  We try to limit level ups, stat gains, power gains, player movement, customization, optimization, healing items, currency, xp, weapons, armor, you-name-it.  We do all of this and forget that the games we tend to have the most fun with... are the games that let us do a great deal as a player.  We like the power fantasy, but we like to feel we earned that power... balance isn't that important to a player, it's how hard the player had to work to destroy the balance and become a demi-God that often matters.  We forget that as a player, invisible walls and limitations are annoying to us.  Why can't I jump off that cliff?  I know it will kill me, I don't care, I still want to do it.  Why can't I attack my own party members?  I know it's counter-productive and such, but I want to do it.  Why can't I pick how my character looks?  Why can't I be fat?  The list goes on and on.

That's just my opinion.  I think games could be more fun if devs stopped treating players as "the enemy" or "the obstacle to overcome in designing my game".  You are making a game to entertain the player, not impose your will upon them.  Whatever you do in your game, just ask, "is this fun?".  Get feedback on if it's fun or not.  Fun is what is important.

I'm not sure that "promoting" is the same as "forcing" nor do I believe trying to get the player to use all of the characters is treating the player as the enemy. 


However, I do think putting in some of the suggestions into already created games is not a formula for success. Taking this and adding it to a Chrono Trigger or FF game won't bear fruit, but creating a game around the idea that all characters are valid to the story and all characters have value in battle is key. 


Otherwise, just have as many characters as your battle system. 

@Tai_MT: What if party members gave different kinds of bonuses to the party so the player mixes and matches for different strategies for different enemies? Theres also the idea of a kind of inspire mechanic were if two party members are in a party together long enough theyll learn skills they couldnt get otherwise or maybe get stat bonuses on level ups they wouldnt have gotten otherwise

Chrono Trigger has been mentioned a few times, so I want to state what I found to be the biggest weakness of that game from the perspective of using all the characters: charm.


Bosses often had really good items to steal, and Ayla was the only character with a steal ability. Thus I felt that the game was punishing me for ever using a party configuration that excluded Ayla for a boss fight.


If you are going to have thief characters or abilities, I would recommend giving more than one character access to them. Alternatively, don't have some of the best gear in the game be stealable during boss fights.


This was particularly bad when you were forced to have Chrono as party leader, since you now only have one slot left and 5 characters to choose from. And if you want one of your characters to be a healer...

If you really want to encourage players to play as everyone without forcing them to play as everyone, let's pull a great example from a series you've already mentioned: Mass Effect 2.


In ME2, you can--Shepard aside--choose your perfect party and finish the game with them; however, there are optional sidequests that strengthen the party and work towards a better ending. These sidequests require certain characters to be in your party. It gives you a chance to break out of your comfort zone and try a new character, and it rewards you for doing so--but it is entirely up to the player whether they want to pursue that avenue or not.

what about adding a party member as part of a quest, that leaves after the quest is over?