Support NeoGAF

Durante · Dec 14, 2015

Battle systems in RPGs have always been a hotly debated topic. You have the "I only play command-based JRPGs" group, the "strategic turn-based isometric or death" group, the "everything but action is archaic" group and so on and so forth.

While I don't expect all of them (or even any of them really) to agree, I've thought a lot about what makes RPG battle systems tick, and why I find some of them continuously intriguing and others not so much. What it boils down to is - I believe - state space. An RPG battle system ideally needs to have a state space that is as large as or larger than the number of turns you will take throughout the game. However, I've always had some trouble explaining what this means clearly and succinctly.

I now think the answer are gambits. Not as a system, but as a tool for quickly evaluating how interesting a battle system is.

Think of a simple "programming language", like gambits. You have a number of if/else branches and statements for each character, based on properties of the ongoing battle, which decide their actions. Our metric for the state space is then the complexity (e.g. concretely the number of branches) of the "program" you need to complete 95% of the battles in a game successfully.

This unifies many points that I've experienced while trying to think of why one battle system is more continuously engaging than another, and captures their effect on the size of our battle state space:

Obviously, meaningful positioning will greatly increase the number of situations our program needs to take into account.
Environmental effects add an entirely spearate axis to the state space yet again.
As will effects which are situational and/or specific to some enemy type.
If the game has meaningful resource management (like a dungeon crawler) then we need to take our resource levels into account, otherwise not.
More distinct types of enemies with different attack patterns help, but they only increase our metric linearly (unlike e.g. positioning).

Battles in traditional command-based JRPG systems without any additional gimmicks, no meaningful positioning or environmental effects and no meaningful resource management are incredibly easy to automate, which is one reason they are getting progressively more scarce.

patapuf · Dec 14, 2015

I kind of agree, if i can automate the battlesystem with a handful of gambits it's probably not super interesting.

Either because the system has not enough depth or because the encounter design is not good enough.

I do think there's a bit of an issue of difficulty though. Very few games require you to play optimally to beat them (and that's okay). RPG rarely have selectable difficulty, especially turn based ones. Even though smartly designed difficulty settings would solve a lot of problems these kind of games can have imo.

FFX-2 for example, has quite a bit of depth in it's systems. But if you set gambits to "attack" outside of bosses you beat the game easily.

Knurek · Dec 14, 2015

Durante said:
Battles in traditional command-based JRPG systems without any additional gimmicks, no meaningful positioning or environmental effects and no meaningful resource management are incredibly easy to automate, which is one reason they are getting progressively more scarce.

I hate games that tend to drown the player in a sea of trash mobs, that require only pressing the たたかうbutton over and over again.
So, most of jRPGs.
Why do devs think something like that is good design?

Durante · Dec 14, 2015

patapuf said:
I kind of agree, if i can automate the battlesystem with a handful of gambits it's probably not super interesting.

Either because the system has not enough depth or because the encounter design is not good enough.

Yes. It can also be that the system simple doesn't allow for varied encounter design. If the only thing making each encounter unique is the type and number of enemies then there's nothing that can be done once you run out of unique enemies.

patapuf said:
I do think there's a bit of an issue of difficulty though. Very few games require you to play optimally to beat them (and that's okay). RPG rarely have selectable difficulty, especially turn based ones. Even though smartly designed difficulty settings would solve a lot of problems these kind of games can have imo.

FFX-2 for example, has quite a bit of depth in it's systems. But if you set gambits to "attack" outside of bosses you beat the game easily.

This is true. The issue of difficulty is orthogonal to the issue of the inherent depth of the battle system. But if a game is too easy, there's no incentive to explore that depth (except to make it more interesting to play I guess).

BluWacky · Dec 14, 2015

Knurek said:
I hate games that tend to drown the player in a sea of trash mobs, that require only pressing the たたかうbutton over and over again.
So, most of jRPGs.
Why do devs think something like that is good design?

By making regular encounters almost meaningless, it makes the boss encounters more significant when you have to change your strategy. In games with limited MP/TP/whatever, it encourages you to save useful techniques until they really matter as well.

I suspect it also has something to do with gating character progress (as opposed to narrative progress). In games where you learn new abilities by gaining experience points you need trash mobs to provide those points, otherwise you'd do virtually nothing between bosses.

Chrono Cross mitigates this somewhat by gating virtually all meaningful character progression behind bosses; however, random battles still give you items and are necessary for harvesting more interesting elements.

Nikodemos · Dec 14, 2015

Durante said:
Battles in traditional command-based JRPG systems without any additional gimmicks, no meaningful positioning or environmental effects and no meaningful resource management are incredibly easy to automate, which is one reason they are getting progressively more scarce.

At the other end you have something like Jagged Alliance 2.

Disclaimer: I personally do not consider JA2 an RPG, but people coming from the Asian tradition classify it as an sRPG, due to the overarching story, character interactions, player avatar (the free IMP merc) and a certain amount of consequence-based actions.
End disclaimer.

JA2 combat features an immense amount of detail, all the way down to circadian rythms for the combatants (easy way to gain advantage over the soldiers is to wait until ~ 03:00 and assault the area with mercs possessing the Night Ops trait). Also the many various implements, weapon mods, equipment etc. which can definitely make a difference during combat.

Durante · Dec 14, 2015

Knurek said:
I hate games that tend to drown the player in a sea of trash mobs, that require only pressing the たたかうbutton over and over again.
So, most of jRPGs.
Why do devs think something like that is good design?

I don't think many do, at least 2015. Otherwise it wouldn't get progressively more scarce.

I mean, S-E apparently realized the futility of that when they developed FF12 and mitigated the issue with gambits (which were really quite innovative at the time in the sub-genre, it's too bad that the idea wasn't really developed much further).

davidbloop · Dec 14, 2015

Entering this thread makes me feel like a dumb dumb

Brakke · Dec 14, 2015

Loved Divinity Original Sin for this reason. The whole materials / elements system was great. Oil causes falls and is flamable and burns smoky, water conducts electricity and freezes but confers resistance to fire, dousing flames creates steam clouds, etc etc. Compared to, say, Dragon Age Origins where all of your "combos" were pretty direct (hit frozen enemies with that stone fist spell every time), Divinity usually makes you think one or two steps down the chain: "is it worth putting that fire out when they have a lightning mage?". Positioning mattered a lot in that game for the general line-of-sight and agro-drawing reasons, but also because there were a bunch of environmental things going on that were good in some cases but bad in others.

Dragon Age barely had a decision tree at all in combat: auto-attack unless a combo presents itself, in which case you always the opportunity. Divinity I rarely defaulted back to auto-attack because I usually felt there was some other state transition I could make happen that would matter.

Arulan · Dec 14, 2015

Interesting explanation. I think it also highlights one of the strongest points of turn-based battle systems, in that, many of these complexities aren't localized to the present turn, but have to be extended further. You have to anticipate your opponents actions, who are also augmented by these complexities. And there is a finality to your actions, and an immediate consequence.

Yoshi · Dec 14, 2015

How do you measure it in RPGs that have the option of grinding? In principle I agree with you, but in RPGs with the option of grinding even complex battle systems can be trivialised by making the program grind like crazy.

In Pokémon, for instance, I think you could in principle complete the whole game by just picking one Pokémon and always choose Attack and the first attack available, provided you change Tackle to an attack that no Pokémon you need to fight is immune to. I think no Pokémon is immune to Fire, Water or Leaf attacks so this should work out. Maybe you need another state to use a top potion whenever hp go below a certain threshold. At the very least, the 95% threshold will be reached with this simple state description:
Is HP < 50%?
Yes: Use Top Potion
No: Attack with first attack available

For the record: I think enabling grinding in strategic RPGs should not happen.

Also, how do you deal with battle systems like the Mario & Luigi ones, where action commands are significant?

kagamin · Dec 14, 2015

Being able to account for a large amount of possible enemy moves in advance is just great, I know this, even though I play a super brain dead team in Etrian Odyssey IV sometimes

POISON SPAM POISON SPAM POISON SPAM

.

Enemies with randomized actions, or reactionary actions, exemplify this.

I love Etrian Odyssey manages to keep a very traditional system and still manages to remain difficult in field encounters.

Dark_castle · Dec 14, 2015

All you said is valid. But as developers try to "evolve" their combat system to be more and more "complex" by adding various sorts of gimmick, I sometimes find myself enjoy going back to the more the straight forward, basic standard turn-based or action. Like a breath of fresh air.

For example, I played through DQIX not too long ago. Very classic and safe turn-based battle system, but so much more enjoyable than combat in FFXIII or Xenoblade.

Silver-tongued · Dec 14, 2015

Dark_castle said:
All you said is valid. But as developers try to "evolve" their combat system to be more and more "complex" by adding various sorts of gimmick, I sometimes find myself enjoy going back to the more the straight forward, basic standard turn-based or action. Like a breath of fresh air.

For example, I played through DQIX not too long ago. Very classic and safe turn-based battle system, but so much more enjoyable than combat in FFXIII or Xenoblade.

Neither of those games are turn-based (Xenoblade is basically a single-player MMO and FFXIII plays like a rhythm game with all the paradigm switching). This is a topic about turn-based battle systems.

Vincent Grayson · Dec 14, 2015

BluWacky said:
By making regular encounters almost meaningless, it makes the boss encounters more significant when you have to change your strategy. In games with limited MP/TP/whatever, it encourages you to save useful techniques until they really matter as well.

I suspect it also has something to do with gating character progress (as opposed to narrative progress). In games where you learn new abilities by gaining experience points you need trash mobs to provide those points, otherwise you'd do virtually nothing between bosses.

Chrono Cross mitigates this somewhat by gating virtually all meaningful character progression behind bosses; however, random battles still give you items and are necessary for harvesting more interesting elements.

I think the bolded is part of the problem. You don't *need* that to be the progression method, but it's obviously pretty much the standard one developers use.

I'd really like to see one of two things happen: an RPG where each fight is important and meaningful, and as such, not a regular (say, 100+ times in a playthrough) occurrence. In this hypothetical system, I'd say you gate character progress such that there is a significant increase in ability (or awarding of new ones) after each of these major battles. The advantage of a system like this is that you (the developer) know exactly how powerful the characters are when it comes time for conflict, and can design encounters around the expected level of power.

The other, more controversial option (which I'd still like to see) would be to make combat require progressively more proficient use of character abilities out of the player themselves, but have all abilities be available from moment one. I like to think of this as being akin to a game like Shadow of the Colossus. You gain grip and life meter over time, but otherwise, you can do everything the character will ever be able to do from the very beginning. Instead of getting new abilities (like most action-adventure games), you're required to use the abilities you have in new and different ways. I know a lot of people don't like the idea of an RPG that doesn't involve a distinct and consistent progression mechanic, but I don't know that I subscribe to the idea that mechanical progression is fundamental to RPGs.

Durante · Dec 14, 2015

I forgot one essential thing in the OP. To make a successful turn-based RPG battle system, you not only have to maximize the (interesting) state space, you have to do so while still make its navigation fast and painless. There will be a large number of battles in the average RPG, so you don't have the "luxury" of a strategy game where it's no problem for a single battle to take half an hour or more.

Silver-tongued said:
Neither of those games are turn-based (Xenoblade is basically a single-player MMO and FFXIII plays like a rhythm game with all the paradigm switching). This is a topic about turn-based battle systems.

Yeah, I don't think any of these thoughts are directly applicable to action-based systems.

(they do work to some extent for RtwP)

kagamin · Dec 14, 2015

Opinions on KOTOR's turn based battle system? I like it a lot, but I've never really had any deep thoughts on it.

Yoshi · Dec 14, 2015

Dark_castle said:
Xenoblade.

Xenoblade Chronicles X has a rather simple battle system. As soon as you are a bit stronger than your enemy, you can just start the battle, do something else and wait until the fight is over. I have done this numerous times. XCX is basically brain-dead if you don't happen to stumble on an enemy that's just the right level that you can barely win it by giving sensible commands to your allies and using your skills right. Other than those instances, enemies are either so simple you can just leave the GamePad lying around, or so strong they kill you right away anyway.

Skelter · Dec 14, 2015

Do you have a 3DS, Durante? If so, have you tried Shin Megami Tensei IV?

afreaknamedpete · Dec 14, 2015

Brakke said:
Snip

I think Divinity is a really great example with an extremely intricate element system that tries to make each battle feel hand crafted. But even for the good RPGs there's always the human desire to automate and simplify that sometimes sabotages fun. Even in Divinity I gravitated towards cheesy stuff like TK with containers or bread and butter elemental spells. Or near the ends of most WRPGs where you're god on earth and combat isn't "fun" anymore since complex encounters are brute forced. You can even see this in the kings of RPG complexity in the old rougelike games where 95% of battles are won with simple algorithm like thinking.

I try to remember the RPG battle systems I enjoy the most and I would argue that truly great RPGs are balanced in such a way that you have to adapt to the game's situation rather than vice versa. To give examples in alot of complex RPGs like Pillars if Eternity or DA with tons of customization there's alot of emphasis on making your "build" and rolling through the game. Divinity even has this. Granted there's hard and easy fights for each build, but you are essentially fighting the same way, since the game accomodates playstyles. If you lose you win by doing the same thing more efficiently or spending more finite resources. On the flip side I look at SMT games and find I don't really enjoy the "buff and spam" aspect of the system when I'm winning but I'm very interested when I lose and have to reorganize my entire party. You are forced to reorganize your team, and you can approach it again with a wildly different composition and see your own thinking win the day when a previously hard battle goes down easily. I think that's much more engaging than beating hard bosses by using more limited use items, grinding, or reloading. Maybe it's not traditionally thought of as a game with good Battle mechanics but I'm a big fan of some of the more recent Atelier game's battles. There is a system where you can always encoynter grossly outlevelled monsters in each zone so there's always some wall to overcome. And fights when you inevitably lose can often be won by fiddling with the crafting system, essentially forcing player adaptation and problem solving to beat it.

I suppose my point is that it's really hard to make 90% of game battles interesting even for mechanically complex titles, since it's practically human nature to simplify. But at least personally a great RPG system is one that is hard enough to provide challenging encounters, and possessed of a way to change your playstyle enough that you feel like you are making adaptations that matter.

d00d3n · Dec 14, 2015

Would you consider the visual presentation of turn based RPG battles to be "in the gambit space", or is it only about gameplay rules?

A classic RPG like KOTOR was stuffed with repetitive encounters in gameplay terms, but it was kind of nice to see epic lightsaber battles in varied surroundings. Several of the mainline Final Fantasy games had a lot of repetitive encounters, but is it completely pointless to fight reskinned trash mobs?

Vincent Grayson · Dec 14, 2015

Yoshi said:
Xenoblade Chronicles X has a rather simple battle system. As soon as you are a bit stronger than your enemy, you can just start the battle, do something else and wait until the fight is over. I have done this numerous times. XCX is basically brain-dead if you don't happen to stumble on an enemy that's just the right level that you can barely win it by giving sensible commands to your allies and using your skills right. Other than those instances, enemies are either so simple you can just leave the GamePad lying around, or so strong they kill you right away anyway.

If you want to argue that it's not challenging, I'll give you that (for the most part), but the battle system is not simple by any stretch of the imagination. I'd say if anything, it's one of the most complex combat systems I've seen in a JRPG in a long time.

Mephala · Dec 14, 2015

Is balance, encounter rate, duration/pace of encounters part of the system? These are the most common issues I have with most RPG games.

Yoshi · Dec 14, 2015

BluWacky said:
I suspect it also has something to do with gating character progress (as opposed to narrative progress). In games where you learn new abilities by gaining experience points you need trash mobs to provide those points, otherwise you'd do virtually nothing between bosses.

That's not a necessity. You could make every enemy unique, thus controlling the progression and then fill the world with other content rather than trash mobs, like puzzles (see: Lufia 2, Mario & Luigi series) instead.

More Fun To Compute · Dec 14, 2015

One way to think about RPG combat is to think about how it is different to other types of gameplay.

RPG combat can be designed like a puzzle. Many Japanese tactical RPG levels are actually designed more like puzzles than anything else. Move pieces to these positions in turn 1, then to other positions in turn 2, you have solved the puzzle. Likewise systems that rely a lot on hard and soft counters are designed like puzzles. To beat this boss you need to use fire vulnerability spells then use a flaming sword. Or whatever.

But what makes an RPG different to a normal puzzle is largely preparation and general strategy. You create party builds that are prepared for whatever danger you might expect in your adventure. To do this you have to research how the game works and plan out a strategy in advance. It relies on developing a general strategy for the campaign that you then apply to specific tactical encounters differently.

If the game just has one character with very little customisation and uses puzzle design then it's just a puzzle game. Desktop Dungeons is pretty much just a puzzle game with a role playing game theme.

One other main thing that separates a puzzle game from an RPG is randomness or depth of simulation. Randomness from procedural generation is just as good for a pure puzzle game as for an RPG but randomness applied to outcomes of actions isn't. But if you rely too much on random outcomes then you are probably creating something like a solitaire card game. Randomness must be tied to simulation. There must be some sort of mathematical model driving the outcome that isn't really simple just, like, a sword does 10 damage and a human always has 20 health.

IvorB · Dec 14, 2015

Yes, I agree with this and, unless I am misunderstanding, I think it applies to all types of games and not just RPGs. The more different types of situations the game presents to you in an encounter and the more options you have for dealing with them increases its strategic complexity and, thus, gameplay depth. This is why I feel that 3D fighters have far more depth and complexity than 2D ones.

hydrophilic attack · Dec 14, 2015

Excellent OP. I'd also like to add that even if there's a huge state space, the challenge needs to be tuned so that you can't easily get away with utilising oily a small number of states. It doesn't matter if you have countless commands at your disposal, if you can still win easily with a simple

If HP < 30% --> HEAL
Else --> Physical attack

gambit, ignoring 95% of the commands available.

I'd actually argue that in some cases a smaller state space can be better, if the game forces you to use a very large percentage of the options available to succeed. This is how a relatively simple game like Half-minute Hero can still be entertaining. You need a pretty firm grip of the simple mechanics in order to be successful in completing the levels under the sometimes pretty challenging target times.

10k · Dec 14, 2015

I loved the tactics settings of Dragon Age 1 and 2. Didn't like how it was basically stripped for DA: I. I'm waiting for FFXII HD to try out this gambit system. But as I get older I'm starting to like more interactivity with my battle systems. Less command selecting and more Xenosaga, Mario and Luigi, and Legend of Dragoon.

Also, the more ways I can defeat my enemies or the more ways I can lose, the better. I don't like repetitive battles. It's killing my drive to finish Tales of Zestiria.

mclem · Dec 14, 2015

I've actually been thinking of things along similar lines, but with an approach a bit more leaning towards the RTS philosophy, whether you could make a game around writing an AI to play an RTS; your own influence once the strategy is outlined being minimal, but having to write ways to solve the new problems each new mission brings.

One day I might actually put together the prototype that keeps bouncing around my head!

zelas · Dec 14, 2015

And this is why Resonance of Fate has the best battle system for a jrpg.

Johndoey · Dec 14, 2015

While it doesn't fix the underlying issue of filler mobs does more direct interaction like the Mario & Luigi series help mitigate some of the frustration with that type of design? For the more traditional party line RPGs.

Annubis · Dec 14, 2015

Ar Tonelico 2 managed to keep you engaged with the timing element.
I mean, getting a perfect meant not taking damage at all; you can't say no to that.

Valkyrie Profile also used a small timing element and that also worked to make it more fun (that and some trash mob fights in that game can be brutally hard)

McNum · Dec 14, 2015

I think we're missing something with the Attack if HP <40%, else Heal gambit thing. Even if that is the solution to most trash mob encounters, it does not mean those encounters are worthless, as this only describes one side of the battlefield.

It's not unfair to say that the boss fights are the highlights of many turn based RPGs, but the normal battles, even if they're dead-simple to win, can be used to showcase concepts and abilities in a safe environment before the boss gets to show what it can really do. So, if the boss is a poison user and can poison the entire party, then the normal encounters should include snakes and scorpions and such to introduce the player to poison, and their loot drops of other monsters in the area should include Antidotes, or similar.

Leading to a silent tutorial of "Poison drains HP. Antidotes cure poison. Show that you've learned this by defeating this boss." When the player has defeated the boss, you can now be confident that you can use poison attacks from now on and the player will know what to do.

King Tubby · Dec 14, 2015

I would definitely add something like the stakes of each decision to the list of bullet points in the OP. A lot of what you describe is what works to make the tactics in XCOM (which I consider essentially a strategy/tactical RPG) so engaging, but something that cannot be ignored is just how much weight each decision seems to have, with permadeath and high levels of damage. It adds a lot more tension to each scenario.

Drinkel · Dec 14, 2015

Do you have any recommendations for games that do this very well? I've been struggling to find an RPG with a combat system that felt interesting. Coming from a mostly Strategy-gaming background, they have a tendency to feel quite limited and static in the amount of meaningful decisions needed.

Violet_0 · Dec 14, 2015

so, variables? Anything that helps make battle #57 feel different from battle #56 and requires a different approach? That probably applies to any game with combat, not just TB RPGs specifically

Shai-Tan · Dec 14, 2015

I think that's why I've much prefered SRPG lately and the western equivalents (like Divinity). One alternative for combat which has become popular recently is combining elements of collectable card games (CCG) with SRPG. The most important element of that is random drawing of abilities via cards so not every ability is available at all times which makes encounters more interesting. Up until this point, however it's mostly relegated to games that are light on story such as Card Hunter or Duelyst. The other limitation is it only works well for turn based or maybe it's possible and no one has done it well yet (Hand of Fate). Real time has always had ability cooldowns but they aren't quite as interesting a constraint for how combat unfolds. Anyway, what is nice about having a random basket of abilities in "hand" is you will sometimes get a ridiculously good sequence but other times will need to be defensive due to the low quality abilities drawn. I find it a lot more engaging than using the best ability for the weakness of the current enemy and have the randomness solely be dice rolls for damage/resistance/whatever.

That said, most SRPG battles unfold the same way every time - the fun is in the trial and error of figuring out a good strategy against overwhelming odds. I think random abilities is potentially a way to have some of that tension without turning it into a long drawn out battle that strips away options through attrition (might work better for trash encounters in games that are more of an RPG than a strategy game)

Boogiepop · Dec 14, 2015

As has been kind of mentioned, difficulty of encounters is incredibly important as well in how things come across to the player. Like, Pokemon is honestly probably the most in depth combat system as far as RPGs go, since it's built up to such a crazy degree over time (hence why it can support the super involved competitive scene). However, the campaigns are so braindead easy that I'd imagine a lot of people would take issue with the above statement.

balohna · Dec 14, 2015

Yoshi said:
Xenoblade Chronicles X has a rather simple battle system. As soon as you are a bit stronger than your enemy, you can just start the battle, do something else and wait until the fight is over. I have done this numerous times. XCX is basically brain-dead if you don't happen to stumble on an enemy that's just the right level that you can barely win it by giving sensible commands to your allies and using your skills right. Other than those instances, enemies are either so simple you can just leave the GamePad lying around, or so strong they kill you right away anyway.

I find myself using strategy on weaker enemies just to end the battles quicker. In most games I'd just have every character attack so I can save all my MP for hard encounters. In XCX, the TP is only used for some abilities and you regain it pretty liberally. I do hold back on TP-based Arts on weaker opponents, but I don't rule them out.

So I'm doing things like thinking about my position and using the Soul Voice system on an enemy a few levels lower than my party. Could make a battle take 30 seconds instead of 2 minutes, which actually makes the game flow a lot nicer. It also makes each encounter more interesting, and I feel comfortable with the systems and my current Arts by the time I hit a tough encounter.

IvorB · Dec 14, 2015

Drinkel said:
Do you have any recommendations for games that do this very well? I've been struggling to find an RPG with a combat system that felt interesting. Coming from a mostly Strategy-gaming background, they have a tendency to feel quite limited and static in the amount of meaningful decisions needed.

Well for me personally the RPG game with the craziest amount of combat variables is Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn. It's based solidly on Dungeons and Dragons rules so it's really deep but also well thought out. Apparently that Divinity: Original Sin game is something similar so I want to check that out too.

Johndoey · Dec 14, 2015

Violet_0 said:
so, variables? Anything that helps make battle #57 feel different from battle #56 and requires a different approach? That probably applies to any game with combat, not just TB RPGs specifically

Maybe random modifiers like mutators in Unreal or something? Weather events and such.

Violet_0 · Dec 14, 2015

Shai-Tan said:
The other limitation is it only works well for turn based or maybe it's possible and no one has done it yet (real time has ability cooldowns which aren't quite as interesting a constraint for how combat unfolds).

D&D-type games kind of do this with the "can only be cast x times per day" abilities. It forces the player to hold back and use weaker spells/abilities for easier encounters and save the best ones for the tough fights, broadly speaking it's actually another form of resource management. The issue is that you mostly still use the same one or two strategies for most every fight, and balancing anything with resource management is always difficult (if you make it too easy for the player to "rest", the system becomes obsolete, but on the other hand you need to avoid no-win scenarios)

card battle mechanics are something I've been thinking about as well. The randomness of the card draw makes every match slightly different, deck building adds a deep layer of strategy and the card interactions can be quite complex

as for encounter design, RPGs can learn a thing or two from MMOs like WoW, where they constantly have to design new elaborate boss mechanics to keep things fresh

Johndoey said:
Maybe random modifiers like mutators in Unreal or something? Weather events and such.

sure, that's part of environmental hazards. For example, rain and fog reduces visibility, snow and wind hinders movement, lighting strikes deal damage to your character

TGO · Dec 14, 2015

I find it amazing no one mentions Persona or the soon to be released Persona 5.
They're turn based yet I don't hear any complaints.
I mrange people want action combat rather then turn based because they think turn based is just mashing the X button, but that's really what action RPGs are, turn based does require you to think why you are mashing the X.

Syril · Dec 14, 2015

Drinkel said:
Do you have any recommendations for games that do this very well? I've been struggling to find an RPG with a combat system that felt interesting. Coming from a mostly Strategy-gaming background, they have a tendency to feel quite limited and static in the amount of meaningful decisions needed.

My number 1 recommendation is Grandia because of the wild combination of positioning and timing elements that affect what the right decision might be at any given time.

Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door is a good one too because enemies have differing vulnerabilities and positions that affect what attacks are effective or possible against them, and whether you have Mario or his partner act first on your turn decides who's in the front and more vulnerable to certain enemy attacks.

The Technomancer · Dec 14, 2015

BluWacky said:
I suspect it also has something to do with gating character progress (as opposed to narrative progress). In games where you learn new abilities by gaining experience points you need trash mobs to provide those points, otherwise you'd do virtually nothing between bosses.

Its the "combat problem", and you see it across a lot of genres, not just RPGs.

Lomax · Dec 14, 2015

More Fun To Compute said:
One way to think about RPG combat is to think about how it is different to other types of gameplay.

RPG combat can be designed like a puzzle. Many Japanese tactical RPG levels are actually designed more like puzzles than anything else. Move pieces to these positions in turn 1, then to other positions in turn 2, you have solved the puzzle. Likewise systems that rely a lot on hard and soft counters are designed like puzzles. To beat this boss you need to use fire vulnerability spells then use a flaming sword. Or whatever.

But what makes an RPG different to a normal puzzle is largely preparation and general strategy. You create party builds that are prepared for whatever danger you might expect in your adventure. To do this you have to research how the game works and plan out a strategy in advance. It relies on developing a general strategy for the campaign that you then apply to specific tactical encounters differently.

If the game just has one character with very little customisation and uses puzzle design then it's just a puzzle game. Desktop Dungeons is pretty much just a puzzle game with a role playing game theme.

One other main thing that separates a puzzle game from an RPG is randomness or depth of simulation. Randomness from procedural generation is just as good for a pure puzzle game as for an RPG but randomness applied to outcomes of actions isn't. But if you rely too much on random outcomes then you are probably creating something like a solitaire card game. Randomness must be tied to simulation. There must be some sort of mathematical model driving the outcome that isn't really simple just, like, a sword does 10 damage and a human always has 20 health.

I think this is why games like Puzzle Quest work so well, it's easy to directly substitute puzzling for a combat mechanic. Most "stealth" games are just puzzle games as well, and since many RPGs try to give you stealth/thief as a viable gameplay option, it pushes them even farther in the puzzle direction. RPG combat design could be described in many ways as emergent puzzle solving, but as anyone who plays a lot of puzzles know, pre-designed and crafted puzzles are always much better than randomly generated ones (ie Hexcells Infinite).

Barrylocke · Dec 14, 2015

King Tubby said:
I would definitely add something like the stakes of each decision to the list of bullet points in the OP. A lot of what you describe is what works to make the tactics in XCOM (which I consider essentially a strategy/tactical RPG) so engaging, but something that cannot be ignored is just how much weight each decision seems to have, with permadeath and high levels of damage. It adds a lot more tension to each scenario.

More turns overall for the enemy than for you is another thing that can add tension. When you have less opportunities to act, the chances that you DO have become more meaningful. Trails in the Sky Second Chapter's Hard Mode is not perfect, but the extra tirns the enemies get due to a higher Speed stat is definitely the most interesting difference.

Shai-Tan · Dec 14, 2015

TGO said:
I find it amazing no one mentions Persona or the soon to be released Persona 5.
They're turn based yet I don't hear any complaints.
I mrange people want action combat rather then turn based because they think turn based is just mashing the X button, but that's really what action RPGs are, turn based does require you to think why you are mashing the X.

I've seen many people say they felt the dungeons outside of bosses were incredibly boring combared to the social link aspect. Every normal encounter is using the trump ability that instant kills the enemies. I certaintly didn't find running through the dungeons in P3 or P4 much fun.

I suppose one aspect that's missing from discussion is long term resource management. Persona kind of has it but it's much more present in games like Dragon Quest where you gradually run out of resources. It makes you not use all your best abilities every time but the problem is it still relegates one to using a different kind of efficiency and it can be frustrating to go through the world being economical all the time, saving for a rainy day that never happens.

The Technomancer · Dec 14, 2015

TGO said:
I find it amazing no one mentions Persona or the soon to be released Persona 5.
They're turn based yet I don't hear any complaints.
I mrange people want action combat rather then turn based because they think turn based is just mashing the X button, but that's really what action RPGs are, turn based does require you to think why you are mashing the X.

Not the vast majority of the time. Since its the topic du jour of the week Bravely Default, I love the combat system in BD for the most part but for a very good portion of that game you can just basically automate the trash battles. Even boss fights go through stretches where I can use one dominant strategy (for most of the game it was Godspeed Strike + Stay alive) to get through.

Greg_le_Casual · Dec 14, 2015

Annubis said:
Ar Tonelico 2 managed to keep you engaged with the timing element.
I mean, getting a perfect meant not taking damage at all; you can't say no to that.

Same with Shadow Hearts and the timing system for attacks. Was it the "Circle of Destiny"?
I remember that the rythm of button presses got more complicated for powerfull spells. And you could get bonus damage if you do it "blind". Fun!

Support NeoGAF

A simple way to evaluate turn based RPG battle systems

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt

Member

Junior Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.

Member

card-carrying scientician

Member

Member

Banned

card-carrying scientician

Member

Similar threads