Agreed with Michael. Find the ideal compromise between action & strategy. Starcraft 2 is a good example of this (though a different genre).

[quote name='Roots' timestamp='1311130723' post='4837764']
I like both. I tend to like turn-based more because for some reason the story in those games is more compelling to me, although I admit that the battle systems are usually awful. But hack-n-slash can be bad as well. If all you're doing is clicking an enemy until its dead most of the time, I call that a failure of a battle system.

Interesting you said that, I am actually right on board with you. IMO both play styles seem to have equally opposing strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, I would like to see/design a game that puts these two halves together, like yin and yang. An RPG which has the story and emotional depth found in games like Planescape, but with the pacing and action of Diablo games.
[/quote]

At the moment I've been experimenting with designs in how to make a turn-based battle system better with my own project. My view is that the typical TBS lacks two critical features: strategy and player engagement. A lot of the older console RPGs you just select the "Attack" command for your character until the enemy is dead. Not very fun at all. I have a whole thread about this topic (linked below) where I discuss the problems and propose some potential solutions. Three days ago in fact we launched our latest development release demonstrating some of these solutions.

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/604435-improving-rpg-menu-based-battle-systems/


One idea I had recently was to try to make the battles more skill based, requiring the player to constantly be issuing commands and adjusting their strategy on-the-fly, not unlike playing a multiplayer match in a RTS game like Starcraft. But after some thinking, not everyone is going to enjoy that sort of fast-action and quick-thinking playstyle, as many people want to be able to take their time to think and make a decision (like a game of chess). Indeed, many people who play RPGs expect this. But its an exercise in futility to try and satisfy every player.

I think positional bonuses are really important to turned based RPGs. You need tactical depth I guess is the boiled down version of it. In real time games you have tangible benefits to where you are because everything is happening in real time. Being behind someone means they aren't facing towards you. In turn based games you need to account for those benefits or it just turns into non-interactive click fests.