Is it just me, but is the combat in nearly every RPG boringly monotonous? It's the principal component of the gameplay of the majority of RPGs, but the tactics over nearly every fight can be summarised as 'slash, slash, slash, slash, healing spell, slash, slash, slash', except for a tough boss fight against an ice demon, for example. Then the fight would go 'fireball, fireball, healing spell, fireball, fireball, resurrection, fireball, fireball'. The western-style PC RPGs are a bit better in incorporating more advanced tactics, but not by much. I mean, in a good console RPG the story is fantastic, the settings are lush and beautiful, the characters are complex and well realised, the music is powerfully dramatic, and the writing is superb. However invariably most of the game is spend in those tedious battles. Firstly, I was wondering why the battles are the way they are in the majority of RPGs. Is it a well loved tradition, or am I alone in hating the execution of the combat in these games? Secondly, I was thinking which of these approaches would be best to remedy the situation. Do you think the games would be better if we: - improve the combat: incorporate elements of action games or tactical games to make the combat either more exciting or more intelligent (or preferably both) or - remove the combat: use other gameplay elements instead. Have more puzzles, put in more dialog choices, maybe incorporate the elements of the sadly nearly defunct graphical adventure game genre Any thoughts on this?

I believe the reason why combat is seen as nothing more than Slash Slash Slash Heal is because strategy is not as easy as it looks. In non-action rpgs, strategy becomes mechanical. However, why would anyone want to use an attack that wasn't their strongest? If you were a powerful Level 80 wizard, would you use magic missile against a dragon? What can be assumed is that you will use your most effective attack 99% of the time. What can be done to stop this? Well, using the same thing over and over again could weaken it's effect. You could force people to not use the same attack twice in a row, but they might not like that much. Well, let's see about action-rpgs. This is where combat -could- be different. I say could because most games lack the controls to provide a style of play that encompasses common sense. I recently played Champions of Norrath:RTA and it was an action-rpg. What it degraded to, however, was slash/heal. They had a blocking system, but any enemy worth blocking from would likely knock you down and then proceed to hit you. Ranged attacks are usually unbalanced in games as well. In both RTA and PSO, ranged attacks were the best style to play, for ease. I think the problem lies in enemy AI, but moreso in DI or Developer Intelligence. They know that if they make a challenging game, they could lose an audience. If an enemy tending to snipe from afar, move quickly, and heal often as PCs do, it might not be fun for the general population (even though the thought of battling another party sounds interesting). Nope, rpgs will likely tend to just add HPs, MPs, ATP, and DFP as you progress and hope you don't notice. Specific exclusions excluded, of course.

In short, what would you suggest changing combat to? I don't want to spend 90% of my time talking to some guy about his problems in an RPG or solving puzzles other people don't seemingly have to solve and are ridiculous for even existing.

I think alot of it comes from deciding how much of the game is based on the character and how much is based on the player.

The players domain is to think/act for thier character. But the execution
of actions is the domain of the character.

It doesn't have to be that way. Its just the tradtion for RPGs.

If you inject any kind of twitch controls into combat then the game no longer
is focused soley on the characters abilites and more on the players abilites.

There are games that lean that way. I think Morrowind neglects the traditional 'to hit' calculations and lets the player aim thier attacks. If the player aims correctly then they hit, its not based on character stats.

Many Realtime RPGs (especially MMORPGS) ignore any kind of traditional 'initiative' calculations. The player that pushes the attack button the first is the first to attack.

And of course many of these have 'combo' moves. Where the player must be quick after thier character executes a particular move in order to chain a combo.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you are correct in that most RPG have a pretty stale combat system. They can usually be boiled down to Fuel Management(HP, Mana, etc..) and Time Management schemes. And it is also very common for MMORPGs to add in some sort of Agro Management (which typically has nothing to do with PvP).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You option of simply removing combat doesn't really address the problem of 'improving' combat in RPGs. You'd be simply making a non combat RPG.

The tough part is how would you 'improve' on the current mainstream systems (fuel and agro management) without getting too heavy into twitch gaming.

The Addition of twitch gaming starts to transfrom the game from RPG into Action Adventure.

And then Again you aren't really confronting the goal of 'improving' RPG combat. You are making an Action Adventure game, possibly with RPG elements.

IMO combat is a defining element of the RPG genre. If you took the combat out of an RPG, it wouldn't be an RPG, it would either be an adventure game or a strategy/sim depending on what other gameplay elements it had.

I personally like sidescrolling action RPGs which reward the player's timing, dexterity, and strategy in real-time combat. I just have the most fun and the least boredom playing a game with this type of combat. The example I usually site is Golden Axe; Super Metroid and E.V.O. The Search For Eden are also good examples.

I live by the philosophy that you should endeavour to produce games in genres you hate; that way you improve them.

I hate the console RPG. For my RPG, I replaced traditional menu-driven RPG combat with a simplified tactical mode that is really more like Nethack than your average drone-grind game.

I added a few other features, like being able to switch weapons in combat (so you can go from shooting your opponent when far away to slashing them when close in) and terrain (some terrain blocks shots and line of sight). Running away is also more intuitive this way. I wish I had taken the time to improve the enemy AI (all it does is get in close and slash you like a bastard) and made the item interface a bit more intuitive (especially keys, but that's true for the entire game).

I don't follow why everyone feels that allowing human player abilities mix with game world character abilities is such a bad thing. Game world character attributes can easily complement human actions, and human decisions are puting the character's attributes into action. If it's okay to decide to attack, cast an ice spell, or throw a dagger, why is it not okay to decide if you should throw a left jab or do a run-jump spin kick? You're just giving the player more direct control. You're seperating your game that much more from a movie.

If you have to leave it turn based, then you need a ton of tactical decision making. Fallout, X-Com, Shining Force, etc.

Quote:

Original post by HAM I think Morrowind neglects the traditional 'to hit' calculations and lets the player aim thier attacks. If the player aims correctly then they hit, its not based on character stats.

Sadly, this isn't the case. I can't count the number of times I've missed enemies completely from two inches away.

Quote:

Original post by Jiia I don't follow why everyone feels that allowing human player abilities mix with game world character abilities is such a bad thing. Game world character attributes can easily complement human actions, and human decisions are puting the character's attributes into action. If it's okay to decide to attack, cast an ice spell, or throw a dagger, why is it not okay to decide if you should throw a left jab or do a run-jump spin kick? You're just giving the player more direct control. You're seperating your game that much more from a movie.

Well I don't think anyone said it was bad.

But the topic was specifically RPG combat. Genres are defined either by the games that created the genre or that are the king of the hill of that genre.

If you start moving away from the elements that the preceeding games have defined, then you are more than likely moving into a different genre.

RPGs traditionally allow the playing to decide WHAT actions to perfrom, and then the character performs them according to the characters abilities (stats) not the players abilities.

The player makes the desicions the character carries them out.

If the success of a character's actions are largely based on the player's button pushing skills, then the game is getting away from the RPG tradition.

How much away really is determined by how much a part of the game it is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the Tony Hawk Series has been adding more and more RPG elements.

The skaters abilities are greatly affected by the characters stats; but for the most part success is still governed by twitch controlling.

The tony hawk games has stats, a career mode, allows you to make your own character, lets you make decisions in the storyline, and places the character into a 'world.'

But no one would think of calling tony hawk an RPG. Mainly becuase it is focused on twitch gaming.

The tony hawk series pretty much started its own genre, but could easily fall into the more classic genres of action adventure or platformer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GTA:SA has alot of RPG elements. But no one would consider it an RPG. Why?
It has many features that alot of RPG fans really wish thier RPGs had (ie Complete open ended game play).

The primary reason is probably becuase player success is more based on player skill than character skill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you stray away from Genre norms then you are attempting to redifine a genre
which you will probably fail to do. More than likely the game would fall into a different genre, or at best, create its own genre.


EDIT: Now a pretty big exception to this would probably be Zelda. Definitely considered an RPG, but with many Arcade Action Features (primarily combat).

I think we should ask why it is that the games work they way they do. I think it was Chris Crawford in an article written ages ago who said that if you have a single linear resource to affect, you will have a linear strategy.

Most RPGs turn on HP. This resource can be raised and lowered. At one end is death, at the other is the ability to keep playing the game. Blows get traded back and forth, but they really can only produce two results: Hit and do damage, or miss / ineffectual damage. This makes for a healthbar race.

Games I think start getting more tactical when there are multiple resources to affect. The player doesn't have to see them, but the enemy needs to be able to always impact them.

For instance, take move speed. If there were moves / attacks that naturally altered this (not talking MP / spells, I mean normal combat so that it's throughout the whole game) then the game gains an extra dimension. But EVERY enemy has to have access to these moves, not just some, or it becomes a situationally specific challenge. You could do this with a bunch of different stats, maybe creating mass and momentum for moves, charges and knockback, winding effects from being hit too hard, becoming disarmed by being bowled over, etc.

---

I think, though, that there's gold to be mined from ripping combat out and still trying to make an RPG that people will like. For instance, an RPG set in an environment like Gormenghast, where you have to use your brains more than your weapons; and where there are lots of intersting characters and ways of dying other than by the sword (poison, for instance, at the royal dinner).

I think if you DO remove combat you're in for some serious head pounding trying to find adequate substitutes (the insanity of which will move you to post on GameDev prolificly in search of THE ONE TRUE ANSWER [grin])

Quote:

Original post by HAM RPGs traditionally allow the playing to decide WHAT actions to perfrom, and then the character performs them according to the characters abilities (stats) not the players abilities.

The same could be said about Street Fighter. I can't do a hurricane kick to save my arse, and fireballs are way out of my league. But a quarter circle roll is pie. So you don't consider Secret of Mana as a pure RPG, just because it replaces menues with buttons? Then you're saying the line must be drawn somewhere? If so, I don't agree.

Quote:

If the success of a character's actions are largely based on the player's button pushing skills, then the game is getting away from the RPG tradition.

No different than pressing the attack button in Final Fantasy with a timer counting down before each enemy whacks you. Skill has nothing to do with button pushing. I can beat the pride out of any idiot that comes into the arcade room and starts whacking the buttons on Tekken, and I only need to press a button about six to eight times during the fight. It's more about mind games than anything else. Predicting your enemies and staying unpredictable. You can't do that very well with a six action menu list.

Quote:

But no one would think of calling tony hawk an RPG. Mainly becuase it is focused on twitch gaming.

Erm, umm, Tony Hawk is nothing like an RPG. I think all genres should add stats and skills and careers. Why not? It only adds depth. I think the main concept that describes an RPG is detail. Any game can include little bits of what an RPG is, but they lack complexity. Zelda had most of the elements of an RPG, but it didn't feel like one to me. And it had nothing to do with the combat.

Quote:

EDIT: Now a pretty big exception to this would probably be Zelda. Definitely considered an RPG, but with many Arcade Action Features (primarily combat).

I consider Zelda to be farther from the RPG tree than GTA. Same elements. Same idea. So what is your reasoning for ruling one out over the other? Swords instead of cars?

Quote:

Original post by Jiia So what is your reasoning for ruling one out over the other? Swords instead of cars?

I'm not ruling out anything.

Genres are defined by the games that are labeled as such. Zelda is labeled as RPG, GTA is not.

There is plenty of variation in RPG combat. But what systems are most commonly employed or what systems are implemented in the genre defining RPGs, the king of the hill RPGs.

The thread is too vague. How to improve RPG combat?

We have to define RPG combat. Either by choosing what is mostg common in RPG combat or choosing something very specific.

[EDIT} slight off topic. What an RPG 'is' can change at anytime. IF you make a game with wildy different systems than typical RPGs, but people call it an RPG, then that is what RPGs will be.

Take for instance the Majority of RPGs before the widespread use of the internet or consoles.

IF someone said RPG you would have almost instantly thought about controlling a whole party. There were RPGs were you didn't, but the vast majority of RPGs you controlled a whole party.

Now people think it sounds wierd to control more than one central character.

Many people who bought NWN couldn't even fathom you didn't play a whole party, but now its more than common.

Things can change. I'm not trying to define RPGs. I'm trying to define what we are talking about. What is sort of RPG combat are we talking about?