Are RPG players antagonistic toward combat types based on misunderstandings?

[Alkarl]

First we must define what an rpg is.

I don't know if we'll ever make a concrete, collective decision on that particular topic, but I'll share how I think about it:

An rpg is any game where the player takes control of any number of preset or player-created characters.
These characters then have actual attributes abstracted numerically by what we refer to as stats, ability scores, and skills.
In the event that any of these abstractions become replaced by player skill, append the appropriate prefix and move it down (or conversely, for popamoles, up) the metaphorical mountain.

Obviously there are few games that abstract strategy, and at that point the medium would hardly be interactive at all.

In RTwP games, the abstractions being removed are initiative/speed rolls, therefore, move it down the mountain.

Take something at its purest, simplest form, say.. Chess. Now start removing and replacing elements and all of a sudden you have a game which looks very much like chess, but now plays nothing like it. Is it still Chess?

Personally, I'm fine with most RTwP and action systems, they offer something new, and are more accessible on a Sunday afternoon. But when I crave a real rpg experience, what I really want is some good old turn based combat.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

AI is nowhere near that level. I don't mean in terms of having a character make those 'good' and 'bad' choices. I mean in terms of being able to do so with consistency and to communicate it to the player in a way that makes it feel like the choices of a character, instead of the AI system fucking up.

Really? Because I'm sort of getting this experience in the NWN module I'm playing. Zarala the Bard does some pretty ingenious things. A group of Sturges will ambush us and before you know it they are all sleeping peacefully on the ground. Other enemies she hasn't tried to put to sleep as far as I know. Then we fought Spectral enemies who were very tough and she seemed to have been reserving her expensive Wand of Lightning for that occasion. She also occasionally hits a group with a nice knockdown spell (forget the name of it) or a Burning Hands, and yes, occasionally nips me in the path of attack, but that actually makes sense according to the story (you'll see if you play Swordflight.) But in general, she has done several things that have made me smile out of surprise and cleverness, and that is what I'm getting at with the systems I'm describing. They add surprise to the game.

I think the AI level is likely there. You'd just have to program the enemy weaknesses/strengths and tie it to the skills I mentioned for the companions. Then make the "knowledge" or "lore" rolls dice-roll based. That would be a start. It doesn't have to be incredible AI, but even the basic stuff in the NWN I'm playing is a good start, IMO. If your companion passes the "initiative roll" for knowledge of the enemy you're fighting (more obscure or harder enemies would have higher checks), then your companion would generally fight against it to exploit their weaknesses. If your Bard shouts, "What in blazes is *that* thing?!" before the battle, then you know you may be in for a more random battle and will have to figure it out more on your own.

While I like NWN a lot I think having all the enemies' weaknesses and strengths plainly laid out in each fight is a missed opportunity as well. Should tie that to the Lore skill or some other skill. Not sure if the original game is like that but the Swordflight module is.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Personally, I'm fine with most RTwP and action systems, they offer something new, and are more accessible on a Sunday afternoon. But when I crave a real rpg experience, what I really want is some good old turn based combat.

I love turn-based, too, but RTWP to me just gives a different (and very fun) experience. I don't think it's inferior, and even if the systems I described remove control, I don't think Total Control is necessarily the win state for a combat system. If that were the case then RNG wouldn't be used or dice-rolls wouldn't be used at all and the game would be deterministic like Telepath Tactics or something.

I think a little unpredictability and loss of control can be healthy in an RPG. For every RPG out there? No. But for some? Sure.

 

[Alkarl]

Fluent; I understand what you're saying, and yes, perhaps my analogy was a bit too harsh. My intended point is that anything other than the original source guidelines can only be derivative, though derivation does not equate to a bad time.

That being said, I'd hate to encounter a horde of beholders in a RTwP system. Mostly because the conflict would either stutter from lack of resources or (most likely, given sufficient resources) the devs would turn what should be a challenging enemy/encounter into a laughable garbage mob.

RTwP can, and has been proven to work very well, but there are limitations to its design you wont find in a turn-based expression.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Limitations or not, does it really matter if the end result is a challenging and fun system? It's a matter of taste, not an objective thing. To someone who hates the slow pace of turn-based combat, it isn't the best system to them, as much as we would disagree.

I just happen to be in favor of RPGs having different systems and not being clones of each other. If I want turn-based I play ToEE, Elminage Gothic, Lords of Xulima or Divinity: Original Sin. If I want RTWP I play the (much fewer in number) RPGs that have it. I do wish more RPGs had RTWP combat, though. There are a million XCom clones but only a few RPGs now that offer RTWP.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

... only a few RPGs now that offer RTWP.

And good fucking riddance at that. RTwP is a monstrosity which should be exterminated.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Spoken like a true Codexian. Because variety = bad!

 

[Black Angel]

Spoken like a true Codexian. Because variety = bad!

Because variety = good. Yeah, right.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

It increases immersun for me.

While 'increasing immersion' is a legitimate complaint in some casez, it is often used to excuse completely asinine gameplay features.

Absolutely. If the game wants to have the best combat mechanics etc - full party control is a must(see JA2 or ToEE). Not for an immersive RPG experience though, at least imo.

 

[Longshanks]

Erm no, the misunderstanding is not of the systems. The most prevalent misunderstanding, and the OP makes it too, is to focus on the combat itself and not on its fitness for an RPG. Everyone here enjoys different combat systems in different games, they're just not all suitable for an RPG. Stats have to be the primary consideration for RPG combat. We can talk about hypothetical alternatives, but in reality you don't have a strong RPG without strongly stat-based combat or other play to replace it. Objectively, turn-based combat then is the most fit for purpose and fully real-time combat least fit. The degree will vary depending on implementation, but if the combat is real-time you are weakening your game as an RPG. The separation of actions for the character and decisions for the player is the clearest and most workable we have. Start messing with that by making the success of actions dependent on the player and you no longer have a clear separation between character and player and less of the game governed by character stats - ie. less of an RPG. Never seen a game where player skill is added to combat actions but offset by strengthening character stat effects elsewhere. This is where the bias against it comes from, not some idea that it can't be good.

 

[Iznaliu]

One major issue for me is that there are so many variables that compose an RPG combat system:

• Amount of micromanagement
• Availability of healing
• Single-character/party-based and party size
• Relative number of enemies compared to friendlies
• Presence of NPC allies
• Importance of positioning (including existence of aggro/engagement mechanic)
• Power of buffs/debuffs (in general and relative to damage-dealing)
• Availability of buffs/debuffs (in general and relative to damage-dealing)
• Resource renewal speed
• General difficulty of combat
• Enemy/player symmetry
• Ranged vs. melee combat
• Class differences
• Combat goals
• Presence of random encounters/surprise encounters
• Presence of respawns
• Presence of combatants entering the fray midway through combat
• Existence/power of summoning
• Existence of resource management
• Levelling curve (relevance of level in combat
• Relevance of stats in combat
• Relevance of skills/abilities in combat
• Relative power of AoE/multi-target attacks versus single-target attacks
• Prevalence of consumables
• Power of consumables

,and of them the only one that gets any mention is the timekeeping mechanism

 

[J1M]

RTwP is fundamentally bad because its core feature (pause) is a cheat code that breaks game balance and reduces enjoyment.

The optimal outcome in such a system is obtained by pausing every second of every fight. Only the autist does this because it is not enjoyable.

The game must be balanced so that the non-pauser can complete it.

Therefore, anyone engaging with the core feature is receiving an intentionally undertuned experience. Enjoyment is simply a function of how willing you are to trade gameplay for an ego stroke.

TLDR: RTwP is a wisdom(maturity) check. The only way to fix it is to make pausing a limited resource, which is the definition of turn-based.

 

[Iznaliu]

The optimal outcome in such a system is obtained by pausing every second of every fight

In many RTwP systems, this isn't an optimal move as disrupting actions comes with penalties. You could also make the same argument about save files.

The only way to fix it is to make pausing a limited resource, which is the definition of turn-based

The difference between turn-based and RTwP plays out quite differently from that in practice.

 

[adrix89]

RTwP is fundamentally bad because its core feature (pause) is a cheat code that breaks game balance and reduces enjoyment.

Not really. RTwP is just a simultaneous resolution system. You can have as much depth as a simultaneous turn based systems.

The optimal outcome in such a system is obtained by pausing every second of every fight. Only the autist does this because it is not enjoyable.

Not really. You can pause when the situation changes and its time to make decisions instead of every second.
The problem is that the game needs to have depth so that you actually have to make decisions not let it run on auto mode.

Continuous time can be considered as a series of small turns. Some tactical depth must be contained in that range of time.

A full realtime game can have tactical depth, then so can RTwP can have tactical depth.

 

[Trashos]

The optimal outcome in such a system is obtained by pausing every second of every fight

In many RTwP systems, this isn't an optimal move as disrupting actions comes with penalties. You could also make the same argument about save files.

I think you missed the point. Noone said that every time that you pause you have to adjust your tactics. But in order to optimize your tactics, you have to pause to judge the situation!

The optimal outcome in such a system is obtained by pausing every second of every fight. Only the autist does this because it is not enjoyable.

Not really. You can pause when the situation changes and its time to make decisions instead of every second.
The problem is that the game needs to have depth so that you actually have to make decisions not let it run on auto mode.

Continuous time can be considered as a series of small turns. Some tactical depth must be contained in that range of time.

A full realtime game can have tactical depth, then so can RTwP can have tactical depth.

How do you know when is it time to make decisions in a 6 vs 6 situation, for example? You have to pause!

Come on now, guys, I like my RTwP too, but what J1m said is fundamentally true. RTwP does not support accurate tactical optimization, unless you pause every nanosecond. And because developers don't want the players to pause every nanosecond, they design fights where tactical accuracy is not required. It can still be fun (see BG2), but chess could not have been a RTwP game and be taken seriously.


EDIT: Now that I think about it, the only tactical phase that required serious accuracy in BG2 was the prebuffing, and PoE got rid of it.

 

[Iznaliu]

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the only tactical phase that required serious accuracy in BG2 was the prebuffing, and PoE got rid of it.

I don't think prebuffing requires much accuracy in the IE games.

 

[JarlFrank]

I like the combat in Gothic 2.

I also like the combat in ToEE.

I like combat when it's done competently and dislike it when it's shit.

Most of the Codex thinks like that too, even the turn based elitists tend to enjoy a well-made action RPG, the key word being well-made.

 

[Trashos]

I don't think prebuffing requires much accuracy in the IE games.

Several situations do. In BG2 for example, you don't go to demons & dragons (or to Rayic Gethras) without Resist Fear. Or to mind flayers without prebuffed intelligence. Or to liches without a prebuff against Imprisonment. Etc.

 

[Sigourn]

Definitely agree with you. And with a small experiment, I can even prove it:

- Given the existence of only Dark Souls type of combat, and Final Fantasy type of combat, which one would you rather play?

It's also why I think the whole "turn based rocks" is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Final Fantasy, and JRPGs in general, suck balls because of their turn-based nature. They don't require any critical thinking as opposed to Final Fantasy Tactics. Done wrong, turn-based combat is as shitty as action combat like Skyrim's. And I would say Skyrim has combat that is actually fun as opposed to Final Fantasy (main series).

I see this post has gotten quite a few ratings recently. Looking back at it months later, I don't know what I was exactly trying to prove. I suppose the message behind it is "no type of combat automatically guarantees the combat will be good". And yeah, it's true: if we go by the Codex opinion, I should think Final Fantasy IX has majestic turn-based combat over Dark Souls' popamole action RPG button mashing. But it is simply not true: the Final Fantasy series has repetive, boring combat that doesn't reward the player in any way or form. Dark Souls by comparison has amazing combat mechanics, which a lot more room for tactics and experimentation than, say, Fallout's.

Now, saying I prefer Dark Souls to FFIX when it comes to combat doesn't mean everyone else will. But it doesn't take a genius either to realize that all types of combat have their role models and their black sheep.

 

[Iznaliu]

Several situations do. In BG2 for example, you don't go to demons & dragons (or to Rayic Gethras) without Resist Fear. Or to mind flayers without prebuffed intelligence. Or to liches without a prebuff against Imprisonment. Etc.

I misunderstood what you meant by "accuracy", then.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

I like the combat in Gothic 2.

I also like the combat in ToEE.

I like combat when it's done competently and dislike it when it's shit.

Most of the Codex thinks like that too, even the turn based elitists tend to enjoy a well-made action RPG, the key word being well-made.

There we go.

 

[Kutulu]

Vagrant Story.

Every single other RTwP game I've played I've hated with a passion (e.g many Bioware games, yet all Bioware games have shit gameplay in general). But Vagrant Story was fun.

It's funny how the best RPG ever made is not only made by the Japs, but it also manages to turn RTwP into something good.

All hail our vagrant overlord!

Why does the faggot have antlers?

 

[Tavernking]

One major issue for me is that there are so many variables that compose an RPG combat system:

• Amount of micromanagement
• Availability of healing
• Single-character/party-based and party size
• Relative number of enemies compared to friendlies
• Presence of NPC allies
• Importance of positioning (including existence of aggro/engagement mechanic)
• Power of buffs/debuffs (in general and relative to damage-dealing)
• Availability of buffs/debuffs (in general and relative to damage-dealing)
• Resource renewal speed
• General difficulty of combat
• Enemy/player symmetry
• Ranged vs. melee combat
• Class differences
• Combat goals
• Presence of random encounters/surprise encounters
• Presence of respawns
• Presence of combatants entering the fray midway through combat
• Existence/power of summoning
• Existence of resource management
• Levelling curve (relevance of level in combat
• Relevance of stats in combat
• Relevance of skills/abilities in combat
• Relative power of AoE/multi-target attacks versus single-target attacks
• Prevalence of consumables
• Power of consumables

,and of them the only one that gets any mention is the timekeeping mechanism

Rate my game's combat system:

• No micromanagement
• No healing
• 8-player party size
• Presence of NPC allies
• No importance of positioning (no attacks of opportunity, or disengagement penalties)
• Presence of buffs/debuffs
• Buffs/debuffs are rare or available to only high level characters
• A lucky shot from a level 1 archer can instant-kill any level 99 heavily armored knight
• AI always targets the nearest foe without concern for tactics
• Random encounters/surprise encounters
• No respawns: forced Iron-man mode (ie Perma-death)
• Unsure about combatants entering the fray midway through combat
• No Existence/power of summoning
• No Existence of resource management
• Levelling curve (relevance of level in combat) is not that great, a highly trained knight will have great difficulty fighting 3 peasants at once
• Relevance of stats in combat is not that great, a highly trained knight will have great difficulty fighting 3 peasants at once
• Relevance of skills/abilities in combat is not that great, a highly trained knight will have great difficulty fighting 3 peasants at once
• There are zero AoE/multi-target attacks, only single-target attacks
• No consumables

 

[JarlFrank]

Shit.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

• No micromanagement
• No healing
• 8-player party size
• Presence of NPC allies
• No importance of positioning (no attacks of opportunity, or disengagement penalties)
• Presence of buffs/debuffs
• Buffs/debuffs are rare or available to only high level characters
• A lucky shot from a level 1 archer can instant-kill any level 99 heavily armored knight
• AI always targets the nearest foe without concern for tactics
• Random encounters/surprise encounters
• No respawns: forced Iron-man mode (ie Perma-death)
• Unsure about combatants entering the fray midway through combat
• No Existence/power of summoning
• No Existence of resource management
• Levelling curve (relevance of level in combat) is not that great, a highly trained knight will have great difficulty fighting 3 peasants at once
• Relevance of stats in combat is not that great, a highly trained knight will have great difficulty fighting 3 peasants at once
• Relevance of skills/abilities in combat is not that great, a highly trained knight will have great difficulty fighting 3 peasants at once
• There are zero AoE/multi-target attacks, only single-target attacks
• No consumables

Sounds like more of a grand-battle kinda system, not so much a ye-olde-party-based-combat system.