What role should player skill have in RPG combat?
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a tricky question all right. To me, real time RPG combat should lean more towards the skill end of the "stats/skill" slider, just like an action game. Conversely, turn based combat should lean heavily towards stats since there's already a layer of disconnect between player and character.
AND NEVER THE TWO SHALL MEET. To explain that point, I'll give some examples.
Fallout 3 was, in my opinion, a more action based RPG. Running around in real time, getting headshots because you shot the guy in the head. Then VATS came in. Remember the last boss fight, against Colonel Autumn? I prepared for ages for that fight, even buying every nuke I could find. Then when I got to the battle, I flipped straight to VATS (with a character best described as a VATS-demon). The baddie was a puddle of green goo in one shot.
Meanwhile, on the other end is Arcanum. Nice, heavily stat-based isometric turn based RPG that had a real time combat option you could toggle at will. Of course, if you toggle it to real-time the whole thing degenerates into a too-fast orgy of destruction that means all you can do is sit there dumbfounded at the rapid swordswinging/gunshooting/spellcasting/grenadetossing action, with little time to do much else. Incidentally, that real time option was added so marketing could put it on the back of the box.
The point of that diversion? Not sure. Kinda shows how easy it is to get the balance all mucked up I guess.
AND NEVER THE TWO SHALL MEET. To explain that point, I'll give some examples.
Fallout 3 was, in my opinion, a more action based RPG. Running around in real time, getting headshots because you shot the guy in the head. Then VATS came in. Remember the last boss fight, against Colonel Autumn? I prepared for ages for that fight, even buying every nuke I could find. Then when I got to the battle, I flipped straight to VATS (with a character best described as a VATS-demon). The baddie was a puddle of green goo in one shot.
Meanwhile, on the other end is Arcanum. Nice, heavily stat-based isometric turn based RPG that had a real time combat option you could toggle at will. Of course, if you toggle it to real-time the whole thing degenerates into a too-fast orgy of destruction that means all you can do is sit there dumbfounded at the rapid swordswinging/gunshooting/spellcasting/grenadetossing action, with little time to do much else. Incidentally, that real time option was added so marketing could put it on the back of the box.
The point of that diversion? Not sure. Kinda shows how easy it is to get the balance all mucked up I guess.
I've found that my favorite RPG combat system was the one that was in Shadow Hearts: Covenant.
Turn based fighting that allows you to select exactly what your team does but also a timed ring that means the better you are at timing your button presses the more powerful your abilities were (If they even went off, which they wouldn't if you missed) it also allowed there to be really powerful items in the game which where balanced by affecting your rings (I had my 2 best characters getting double damage but the ring sections were invisible, meaning that I had to either guess when to press or memorise the timing to hit the spots)
But in a general sense I'd like player skill to take at least some part in RPG's because otherwise it becomes a game of "Figure out the best stats and win" which really bores me... I mean Skyrim was pretty bad for this, what with finding that Smithing + Enchanting = no effort in killing things, throwing maxed sneak and daggers into the mix and it's time to one shot everything...
So yeah a balance needs to be reached, enough of a stat focus to allow for meaningful choices in how the character(s) develop as well as being able to personalise things and allow for multiple playthroughs in different styles and an engaging enough combat system to keep focus when playing and to allow people to get better at fighting and move into harder difficulties for extra playthroughs.
Turn based fighting that allows you to select exactly what your team does but also a timed ring that means the better you are at timing your button presses the more powerful your abilities were (If they even went off, which they wouldn't if you missed) it also allowed there to be really powerful items in the game which where balanced by affecting your rings (I had my 2 best characters getting double damage but the ring sections were invisible, meaning that I had to either guess when to press or memorise the timing to hit the spots)
But in a general sense I'd like player skill to take at least some part in RPG's because otherwise it becomes a game of "Figure out the best stats and win" which really bores me... I mean Skyrim was pretty bad for this, what with finding that Smithing + Enchanting = no effort in killing things, throwing maxed sneak and daggers into the mix and it's time to one shot everything...
So yeah a balance needs to be reached, enough of a stat focus to allow for meaningful choices in how the character(s) develop as well as being able to personalise things and allow for multiple playthroughs in different styles and an engaging enough combat system to keep focus when playing and to allow people to get better at fighting and move into harder difficulties for extra playthroughs.
probably yahtzee, and I want BG2 with the 3.5 ruleset personallyVerzin said:
that would be an awesome game!
Skill-based is fine, aslong as the action in the action-RPG isn't crap. I can enjoy good action games.
Stat-based gameplay is mandatory for turn-based RPGs and RTWP games.
The sad thing is that both RPG genres are usually inferior to pure action and strategy games, when comparing the most important part of gameplay, which is combat.
Action-RPGs still have the worst trackrecord. No ARPG can measure up to the better fighting games, beatemups and shooters out there. ARPGs are less responsive, poorly balanced and inaccurate.
Tactical RPGs compare a little more favourable where games like Tactics Ogre and TOEE, may be of a smaller scale than stratey games, but still manage to be challenging and the difference in playstyle doesn't put them in competition with bigger strategy games.
Stat-based gameplay is mandatory for turn-based RPGs and RTWP games.
The sad thing is that both RPG genres are usually inferior to pure action and strategy games, when comparing the most important part of gameplay, which is combat.
Action-RPGs still have the worst trackrecord. No ARPG can measure up to the better fighting games, beatemups and shooters out there. ARPGs are less responsive, poorly balanced and inaccurate.
Tactical RPGs compare a little more favourable where games like Tactics Ogre and TOEE, may be of a smaller scale than stratey games, but still manage to be challenging and the difference in playstyle doesn't put them in competition with bigger strategy games.
I found Two Worlds 2 to be awesome for a player skill in combat, especially with polearm weilding melee characters, if you had the correct timing nothing could hit you and you could dominate things so easily, but if you screwed it up you'd take some hard hits, due to polearms not being great for defense...
I've played tons of RPGs and that one stands out, I think it really depends on what kind of RPG it is too, some games you have really well made turn based combat, some games you have sweet action combat, some games are more stats less action some are more action less stats, but if it's balanced propperly then they only question is personal preference, and I like all styles.
I've played tons of RPGs and that one stands out, I think it really depends on what kind of RPG it is too, some games you have really well made turn based combat, some games you have sweet action combat, some games are more stats less action some are more action less stats, but if it's balanced propperly then they only question is personal preference, and I like all styles.
My favourite combat in RPGs has always been that in the Tales games, which is far more like Reckoning's than something like Golden Sun, for example. I like how realtime combat lets you get through fights for which you aren't prepared if your personal skill is good enough.
In Tales games you can either beat the fights with stats or with fighting skill, either way is viable, and I like that.
In Tales games you can either beat the fights with stats or with fighting skill, either way is viable, and I like that.
I can't really say seeing as how I'm big on RPGs, I'm more of an RTS guy.
But really I'd prefer them to be more strategy based like the new Deus Ex, which was one of the few RPGs I've actually enjoyed.
EDIT : I'm not a fan at all of games where you let a person's AI do the combat, I'm more in favor of controlling every action.
But really I'd prefer them to be more strategy based like the new Deus Ex, which was one of the few RPGs I've actually enjoyed.
EDIT : I'm not a fan at all of games where you let a person's AI do the combat, I'm more in favor of controlling every action.
I have yet to really see a game do it right.
Honestly, any kind of sword fighting in games where it's "hit" "miss", or turn based, I get completely turned off. To me, that's a huge cop out (provided it's not MMO).
More realistic, the better. Assassin's Creed was sort of heading down the right track with you actually having to counter (I'm sure there's a better example).
Honestly, any kind of sword fighting in games where it's "hit" "miss", or turn based, I get completely turned off. To me, that's a huge cop out (provided it's not MMO).
More realistic, the better. Assassin's Creed was sort of heading down the right track with you actually having to counter (I'm sure there's a better example).
Reward/Punish the player's decisions (as appropriate). Force the player to consider how to respond to any given situation. Player Skill should be represented in making good choices in games where Character Skill is abstracted (most RPGs).
When an RPG ceases to do that and each encounter has the same exact solution it becomes grind.
And grind is worthless.
When an RPG ceases to do that and each encounter has the same exact solution it becomes grind.
And grind is worthless.
If it's an RPG like skyrim or the other elder scrolls games, it should be mostly player skill, ESPECIALLY for accuracy *shakes fist angrily at Morrowind*
But in a turn based RPG, there should be no reflex-twitch commands. Unless it's a lighthearted game like Mario RPG. Games like that can work with timed hits. But if you're doing a super serious RPG with lots of strategy, then they feel out of place (I turned off the timed hits in The Last Remnant, for example).
I'm more partial to turn based, stat-based combat. It allows for time to make more strategy and exploit the party's skills to their fullest. Action based tends to devolve into mashing attack to win, or not having the time to develop strategies.
But in a turn based RPG, there should be no reflex-twitch commands. Unless it's a lighthearted game like Mario RPG. Games like that can work with timed hits. But if you're doing a super serious RPG with lots of strategy, then they feel out of place (I turned off the timed hits in The Last Remnant, for example).
I'm more partial to turn based, stat-based combat. It allows for time to make more strategy and exploit the party's skills to their fullest. Action based tends to devolve into mashing attack to win, or not having the time to develop strategies.
Too many people confuse "skill" with "reflexes" when it comes to games. Many RPGs require skill, in the form of knowledge. Games Baldur's Gate are plenty skilfull, because you have to know your party's skillset, what they're best at and how to maximize their potential. This requires skill, through knowledge, of tactics and strategy, in the same way you need skill to be a good Starcraft 2 player, RPGs still require skill.
I think that it should always have the greatest role possible, except in tabletop RPGs. The one reason I prefer Oblivion over Morrowind is that in Oblivion player skill mattered, whilst in Morrowind it was all about dice rolls. However, I wouldn't like an RPG if some sort of limitation around skill based on in-game stats wasn't in place. A level 1 character should never be able to defeat a level 10.
In most RPGs, I tend to think of stats as the way the game blocks off areas. Whilst in most games the game will block off an area until you progress there by beating previous levels, in most RPGs, even the highly linear ones, there will be areas you can go to, but not progress in, simply because you don't aren't good enough.
Another important thing is that an RPG forces you to strategise, rather than just have fast fingers. It has to make you think about your skillset, remember your stats, and be able to make a fast decision. Note how I say a fast decision, not a fast action. By this, I mean battle-changing stuff, like running away, changing your position, or gulping down a health potion. Not an action that will live on for a few seconds before becoming unimportant, like attacking EVIL GOBLIN WITH POINTY STICK Nº1.
The only RPG I've ever played that I think did it perfectly is a rather hidden gem called Risen, made by the some of the people that made Gothic 1 and 2 (Which I've never played). Understanding of the combat system and being really, really good at it allows you to go to areas meant for much later in the game, but there are still areas you just will not be able to go to at level 1, because the enemies are just too strong. If you had a lot of trouble you could grind up to make your life easier, but ultimately, your progress through the game was dependent on your skill, not your character's. It didn't force you to think much, though. The only two "Battle changing decisions" were to gulp down a potion or to switch from melee to range, or viceversa.
In most RPGs, I tend to think of stats as the way the game blocks off areas. Whilst in most games the game will block off an area until you progress there by beating previous levels, in most RPGs, even the highly linear ones, there will be areas you can go to, but not progress in, simply because you don't aren't good enough.
Another important thing is that an RPG forces you to strategise, rather than just have fast fingers. It has to make you think about your skillset, remember your stats, and be able to make a fast decision. Note how I say a fast decision, not a fast action. By this, I mean battle-changing stuff, like running away, changing your position, or gulping down a health potion. Not an action that will live on for a few seconds before becoming unimportant, like attacking EVIL GOBLIN WITH POINTY STICK Nº1.
The only RPG I've ever played that I think did it perfectly is a rather hidden gem called Risen, made by the some of the people that made Gothic 1 and 2 (Which I've never played). Understanding of the combat system and being really, really good at it allows you to go to areas meant for much later in the game, but there are still areas you just will not be able to go to at level 1, because the enemies are just too strong. If you had a lot of trouble you could grind up to make your life easier, but ultimately, your progress through the game was dependent on your skill, not your character's. It didn't force you to think much, though. The only two "Battle changing decisions" were to gulp down a potion or to switch from melee to range, or viceversa.
I really prefer action RPGs to turn based ones. I think it helps with immersion and makes combat more stimulating than just watching a character perform for you.
That said, I agree that stats should play an important role in RPGs since they are what makes your character what it is and helps determine what kind of enemies you can take on. Though with action combat, it also allows a skilled player to challenge the odds and take on stronger enemies for higher reward should you prove to be good enough at the game. Or if you're not good enough, just level up a bit to decrease the difficulty. It's the best of both worlds.
That said, I agree that stats should play an important role in RPGs since they are what makes your character what it is and helps determine what kind of enemies you can take on. Though with action combat, it also allows a skilled player to challenge the odds and take on stronger enemies for higher reward should you prove to be good enough at the game. Or if you're not good enough, just level up a bit to decrease the difficulty. It's the best of both worlds.
what this guy saidNalgas D. Lemur said:
I mean we've even had turn based shooters , I'm looking at you metal gear acid
This is essentially my view. If there is too much focus on player skill then I tend to do poorly in the game. While I am pretty decent at twitch gameplay, I'm not fantastic at it. It is nice for the game to adjust to your skill set; if you're good at the gameplay, you can just breeze on through it and if you're bad at the gameplay, you can gain skill in and out of the game through something like[footnote]but less boring than[/footnote] grinding. Everyone wins!TehCookie said:
Well, player "skill" is just the stuff that you have control over at any point of the game. That can be when you time your swings in Skyrim, when you use your aoe abilities in Dragon Age, or if you flank enemies in Mass Effect. I'd say that combat skill is similar to non-combat skill in that the more you know = the better you are at the game, but combat skill is more flexible. If you make a random build in Skyrim, your combat skill can still make it work. The stats and points you put into abilities/talents/attributes/equipment do depend on skill as well, but that skill is more about knowledge of the game rather than "oh man, you made a heavy calvary unit instead of spearmen? damn dude you've got some skills!"
As for your question, I think it depends on the game.
If you are bad at combat in Skyrim, you should stay the hell away from dragons and forsworn.
If you are bad at combat in Ogre Battle 64, then you should try to out-stat the enemy as much as possible so it is a non-issue (even if your parties are 2 clerics with 3 imps or something completely silly)
If you are bad at combat in FFVIII, then you are going to have a very difficult game.
I think that if a game has combat in it and you beat it despite being terrible at the combat, either the game didn't do it's job and challenge you at a big part of the game, but that still depends on the game. I've had friends play WoW more than myself and never kill another player or very rarely kill something themselves, they just heal all the time or do other quests that don't require slaying X number of Y.
As for your question, I think it depends on the game.
If you are bad at combat in Skyrim, you should stay the hell away from dragons and forsworn.
If you are bad at combat in Ogre Battle 64, then you should try to out-stat the enemy as much as possible so it is a non-issue (even if your parties are 2 clerics with 3 imps or something completely silly)
If you are bad at combat in FFVIII, then you are going to have a very difficult game.
I think that if a game has combat in it and you beat it despite being terrible at the combat, either the game didn't do it's job and challenge you at a big part of the game, but that still depends on the game. I've had friends play WoW more than myself and never kill another player or very rarely kill something themselves, they just heal all the time or do other quests that don't require slaying X number of Y.