Topic starter here:

Since I think RPG combat is the weakest part of those games, from a game design perspective I think it should be either fixed or replaced. That's really my motivation for posting this (plus at some stage in the far future I'll probably be creating an RPG and I'd like it to be as good as I can make it).

I don't think combat is a crucial part of an RPG. This might degenerate into a "What is an RPG?" argument, but for me RPGs spring into two camps. The first came from the table-top role playing games. Sometime in the 70s or 80s (I forget when) people tried to emulate Dungeons and Dragons on computers; the end result was pretty much a "roll playing game", role-playing without the roles, only dice throws. Eventually RPGs came out with a bit more interactivity to emulate the role-playing experience a bit closer, and this turned into what I know call the Western-style RPG.

I'm a bit hazy on the history of the console or Japanese-style RPG since I was a PC gamer back in those days, so I'd be happy if someone more knowledgable could fill me in on that. I've heard of games like "Dragon Warrior" but I'm not sure which was first. However, looking at what we have today I'm quite sure there is a common ancestor to the console RPG that defined the basic gameplay techniques, and it will be illuminating for me to learn more about it. However these games seem to stem from a different source than the Western-style RPG.

Off the top of my head, the only combat system in an RPG that I've really liked is the one in Fallout. I think that might just be because they coloured the usual gameplay dynamics with some neat touches, like having a good balance between character types (a dexterity-based character will play differently to a strength or perception based character), amusing taunts to keep the fights interesting, and a really deep critical hit system that adds the element of the lottery to the fighting (critical hits vary from just extra damage, to wounding, to instant kills).

But the consensus so far is to keep the combat, but improve it. I like Wavinator's suggestion of multiple resources, but isn't that used to some degree already? Some RPGs have several resources to manage like hit points, magic points, stamina and move points/speed. I agree that these systems are better, but are they enough?

Also, what is your opinion of including more action elements (blocking, special moves) etc. to RPGs? Do you think that cheapens the genre and that it should be more 'hands-off' and stats based? I'm just not sure myself.

Quote:

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

That's yours and Nintendo's opinion. As much as I love the games, the story, the characters, and the entire experience, I still don't consider it an RPG. It's beyound me why anyone cares what subject it should fall under, but I also don't understand what properties it has that set it apart from any other adventure game. Your original statements seemed to suggest that drastically changing combat causes a game to be evicted from the RPG genre. Now you're arguing that drastic changes to the whole idea of an RPG is okay as long as you put RPG on the box and make sure it's successful.

Quote:

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.

There's not enough variation to interest smart, creative players who enjoy excitement and a bloody rough challenge in between saving the princesses.

Quote:

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

I think it's supposed to be vague. As in almost all RPG combat is lacking.

Quote:

[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.

It doesn't concern me much about what classifies a game as an RPG. If changing nothing but combat in such a complex blend of elements throws a game into a different genre, what good are the genre names anyway?

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid I'm a bit hazy on the history of the console or Japanese-style RPG since I was a PC gamer back in those days, so I'd be happy if someone more knowledgable could fill me in on that. I've heard of games like "Dragon Warrior" but I'm not sure which was first. However, looking at what we have today I'm quite sure there is a common ancestor to the console RPG that defined the basic gameplay techniques, and it will be illuminating for me to learn more about it. However these games seem to stem from a different source than the Western-style RPG.

If you're complaining about western RPG combat, then I wouldn't suggest looking at any old-school Japanese games for guidance. Japanese stories and characters beat the pants off of our games. But the combat is.. tedious, for me anyway. In a lot of the old school games, you were restricted to one character through most of the game, and sometimes that character couldn't even cast a spell. He couldn't even swing instead of thrust. There's only so many times you can press the same menu button to attack before you snap. It makes little difference to me if I'm whacking a jelly or a frog. They all fight the same way, aka a red streak across the screen, with slightly varying degrees of damage.

To be fair, I've played entirely through every single Japanese console RPG I've ever tried. And I've tried every one that was translated to English.

Quote:

Off the top of my head, the only combat system in an RPG that I've really liked is the one in Fallout. I think that might just be because they coloured the usual gameplay dynamics with some neat touches, like having a good balance between character types (a dexterity-based character will play differently to a strength or perception based character), amusing taunts to keep the fights interesting, and a really deep critical hit system that adds the element of the lottery to the fighting (critical hits vary from just extra damage, to wounding, to instant kills).

I just started playing that again a few weeks ago. I had to uninstall it because I wasn't getting any work done. The last thing I did was built a character that relied on critical hits to win. I jacked her luck to 10 (max), gave her the finesse trait, and kept picking "more critical hits" perks. She had like 45% critical chance when I was done. But for some reason, she got critical hits every single time she attacked. Of course I hit people in the eyes a lot. I guess that's bad.

Anyway, that is also my favorite turn based RPG combat system. A heck of a lot of strategy envolved. There's not many games where you can fight level 30 enemies at level 3 just by being really smart.

Quote:

Also, what is your opinion of including more action elements (blocking, special moves) etc. to RPGs? Do you think that cheapens the genre and that it should be more 'hands-off' and stats based? I'm just not sure myself.

There's no need to remove the stats or make them any less important. They can have just as much of an effect as usual. The only stat that might conflict is one that would determine accuracy. But you could even make that one blend by making the character wobbly with his weapon.

I don't think its a good idea to remove the combat, I like the combat but after some time its getting realy boring if you have to fight a monster every meter you walk over the worldmap or in a dungeon, and it isn't realistic anymore I mean: you enter a dungeon and every meter you look there is a big monster... fun!
It should be much better if there where much less combats.
And about the "combat style": maybe it should be better if a fireball or another magicall attack need more MP, so you don't use them to much and the sma e for restoration and healing potions sould be more expensive. On this way the player have to use more tactics.
Thats what I think about it, but remove the combats isn't a good idea...

Quote:

Original post by Fenryl And about the "combat style": maybe it should be better if a fireball or another magicall attack need more MP, so you don't use them to much and the sma e for restoration and healing potions sould be more expensive. On this way the player have to use more tactics.

Except that many RPGs seem to be designed to be modable, and the first mod I find on the community sites is almost always infinite mana and/or infinite health.
Also, most of my friends find RPGs extremely boring, but this (IMHO) is only because the first thing they do, after buying the game, is to go look up the cheat codes (or download cheat mods, etc.).
If you weren't worried about user expandability, you could make it very hard to write these sort of cheats for a game, but I don't know if you can ever stop a user from ruining their own gameplay experience.

A few more replies...

Quote:

Original post by Jiia There's no need to remove the stats or make them any less important. They can have just as much of an effect as usual. The only stat that might conflict is one that would determine accuracy. But you could even make that one blend by making the character wobbly with his weapon.

I suppose you are right. All the usual stats can perform in their normal way (strength, endurance etc.). Perhaps instead of accuracy there would just be a stat requirement for doing more advanced combat moves? I suppose this would work well in an action styled RPG.

Quote:

Original post by Fenryl And about the "combat style": maybe it should be better if a fireball or another magicall attack need more MP, so you don't use them to much and the sma e for restoration and healing potions sould be more expensive. On this way the player have to use more tactics.

Er, I'm not sure that will work well if done on it's own. That will just reduce the combat to 'slash, slash, slash, slash, slash, slash, die' [smile]

Part of the problem I have with the current system is there isn't much of a different between the 'boss' battles and the regular ones; it's just the bosses have a lot more health and do more damage.

Would it help at all to point to what is a very good example of combat? Would there be any general consensus on what you'd be aiming for?

For me, here are some things that make a game more tactical:

• Facing - If I have weaknesses to the back, or am stronger on my right side, then I have reason to care about where the enemy is in 2D / 3D space (this is one reason I dislike console RPGs that have you line up in rows)
  
• Specific Vulnerabilities - If I'm vulnerable to fire or EMP and face a weapon / enemy that uses it, I'm going to have to rely on spatial positioning or some other tactic; the game gets much better if this also applies to enemies who take into consideration their own vulnerabilities
  
• Varying Effectiveness - If I have a rifle that's great at long range but weak up front, or a fireball that diminishes in damage as it travels, then I have a reason again for 2D / 3D spatial considerations
  
• Blocking / Cover On A Per Attack Basis - Blocking automatically makes a game more tactical, as does cover. It gets even better if there are material strengths or resistances to consider, such as a knife not being able to penetrate thick wood, but wood not stopping rounds from an AK-47
  
• Timing - It's better if certain moves, like blocking, either only last a certain time or must be triggered within a certain time. This can be done in both turn-based games (action points) or real time games.
  

---

Just a quick followup note to adding more resources / stats: Every game has stats, whether they're made visible or not. Racing games have handling delays, FPS have move speed, etc.

Tactics in games works best I think if you give the player a way to manipulate these stats such that each bid for control (attack / strategy / move) will, if successful, alter gameplay. Dropping oil to increase handling delays would be a tactic in a racing game. Shooting someone in the knee so that they now have to crawl (reduced move speed) is a tactic in a FPS.

I believe what Chris Crawford was getting at was that when you have no input/access to affecting these stats (and nor does the enemy) you get linear gameplay. So just because RPGs have MP/DFP/ATP/etc/etc doesn't mean that the game is more tactical. It means that the game has more rigorous success tests and action limits.

The game can only be tactical if you fight mixed forces that can potentially affect ALL of these stats (as in Phantasy Star 2 where you encounter weak monsters that interrupt your attack paired with fast attacking, deadly monsters); or if any given enemy can affect all of your stats (and vice versa).

Quote:

Original post by swiftcoder Except that many RPGs seem to be designed to be modable, and the first mod I find on the community sites is almost always infinite mana and/or infinite health. Also, most of my friends find RPGs extremely boring, but this (IMHO) is only because the first thing they do, after buying the game, is to go look up the cheat codes (or download cheat mods, etc.).

This is slightly OT, but it does relate to tactics: I find the same thing going on en masse and don't understand it. It's particularly acute among the younger players I've seen (children of family/friends ages 10-12, but some older) in that they want to be invulnerable / godly. It's hard to design tactics for this set because they'll resist being made weak-- and that's what tactics is all about, using your brain to overcome a specific weakness or limitation.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Would it help at all to point to what is a very good example of combat? Would there be any general consensus on what you'd be aiming for?

A very good point, and I think the main problem is that I don't know what I want! I guess I'll know it when I see it (or think of it myself).

Maybe I need to brainstorm over some of the things I've liked in RPG combat and see if I can spot a trend.

Like I've said, I like the combat system in Fallout the best. That's for a number of reasons, but I'm thinking the main ones are:
- your character build has a very direct result in how you approach battles.
- there's always a chance you can win a battle, based on brains and a lot of luck.
- conversely, there's always a chance you might lose a battle, based on stupidity and the lack of luck (or lots of bad luck?)
- you can see the results of your attacks easily, through a cleverly worded damage reading (You shoot the guard in the left arm for 56 points of damage, shattering the bone), and through the taunts of the enemy ("Holy shit, my arms just hanging on by skin!")
- tactics are an important part of battle. Example: Fallout is turn based, you get a certain number of move points. It's usually best to duck behind cover, use a couple of points to move out, shoot at someone, then duck back. You can only follow this tactic if your character has high agility, though (this is the character stats coming into play).
- there's advantages and disadvantages to using nearly every weapon (melee: have to get in close, so you'll get hurt, but uses no ammo and has a good chance of disabling your opponent. Firearms: can stay out of danger and deal a lot of damage, but ammo is scarce in Fallout).

Oh, and I like your list of tactical approaches to RPG combat, Wavinator. Just one point:

Quote:

b]Blocking / Cover On A Per Attack Basis - Blocking automatically makes a game more tactical, as does cover. It gets even better if there are material strengths or resistances to consider, such as a knife not being able to penetrate thick wood, but wood not stopping rounds from an AK-47

With most RPGs, blocking usually a losing tactic. Your avatar does no damage to the enemy, but the enemy does damage to you. How are you making blocking a useful strategy in your game?

Quote:

I believe what Chris Crawford was getting at was that when you have no input/access to affecting these stats (and nor does the enemy) you get linear gameplay. So just because RPGs have MP/DFP/ATP/etc/etc doesn't mean that the game is more tactical. It means that the game has more rigorous success tests and action limits.

I'll have a look if I can find this article from Chris Crawford and see what he has to say. I haven't had a look through his articles for a while, so it will be good to get some pointers again.

Quote:

This is slightly OT, but it does relate to tactics: I find the same thing going on en masse and don't understand it. It's particularly acute among the younger players I've seen (children of family/friends ages 10-12, but some older) in that they want to be invulnerable / godly. It's hard to design tactics for this set because they'll resist being made weak-- and that's what tactics is all about, using your brain to overcome a specific weakness or limitation.

While I sometimes enjoy playing these games for a bit as an overpowered character, the appeal does wear off quickly. But isn't this similar to a problem with games that match the difficulty of the enemies to match the level of the character? If the enemies in an RPG scale to match the strength of the character, then in terms of difficulty there is no difference between a Level 1 character and Level 100, as it takes the same amount of effort to defeat your foes.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid With most RPGs, blocking usually a losing tactic. Your avatar does no damage to the enemy, but the enemy does damage to you. How are you making blocking a useful strategy in your game?

Blocking is nice, but I prefer counters. As in a move that uses the enemy's attack to throw them off balance. It's the same idea, but harder to pull off, and leaves a larger opening for attack. I would suggest having both if you add countering, because countering really should be something that needs mastered before it's very effective.

I suppose fighting with firearms would leave less room for such tactics. But it could still be done with energy shields and light-saber-like deflecting.