Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
DISCUSSING TURN-BASED GAMEPLAY
Posts
LightningLord2
230
LightningLord2
View playlists
CloseIn another topic, there's an extensive discussion on random encounters in RPGs. I feel many misconceptions about it also apply to turn-based games: People think it's a technical limitation and that it has no place in modern gaming.
What I'm trying to bring forth in this topic is how the turn-based gameplay lost its appeal, how it can be corrected (preferably not by timing events) and what caused the trends that made people think turn-based is bad.
What I'm trying to bring forth in this topic is how the turn-based gameplay lost its appeal, how it can be corrected (preferably not by timing events) and what caused the trends that made people think turn-based is bad.
Shinan
4314
I... really like turn-based. One of my favourite games of 2015 is Invisible Inc. Which is a turn-based stealth game. I guess it just never properly occured to me before but turn-based gameplay is the perfect stealth gameplay. The problem with real-time stealth is that inevitably you fail and then you just run around like a moron avoiding the AI, getting shot or shooting everything.
Invisible Inc. makes the ideal of stealth gameplay actually there. When a character is spotted time freezes (turn based whoho) and essentially you get to plan how exactly you are co-ordinating this in order to get away. Or to sneak past guards. Or all manner of things.
It also makes controlling more than one guy feasible. In a real-time environment I don't have the skills to control four people in two different locations in order to properly do a flanking maneuver. In a turn based (or pause-based with orders. This is another type that I've become quite fond of lately) I can set my guys up in the right location. Breach and gun down the enemies instead of frantically trying to switch between a number of characters and scroll the map to get to them so that the whole thing at least pretends to be slightly simultaneous.
Of course. Some times turn-based is more or less useless. For example often when dealing with only one character and a limited set of tactical options having it be turn-based really doesn't add much. As much as I love the original Fallout, it's turn-based battle system is not one of its high points. (though it is probably better than a real time version would have been)
Invisible Inc. makes the ideal of stealth gameplay actually there. When a character is spotted time freezes (turn based whoho) and essentially you get to plan how exactly you are co-ordinating this in order to get away. Or to sneak past guards. Or all manner of things.
It also makes controlling more than one guy feasible. In a real-time environment I don't have the skills to control four people in two different locations in order to properly do a flanking maneuver. In a turn based (or pause-based with orders. This is another type that I've become quite fond of lately) I can set my guys up in the right location. Breach and gun down the enemies instead of frantically trying to switch between a number of characters and scroll the map to get to them so that the whole thing at least pretends to be slightly simultaneous.
Of course. Some times turn-based is more or less useless. For example often when dealing with only one character and a limited set of tactical options having it be turn-based really doesn't add much. As much as I love the original Fallout, it's turn-based battle system is not one of its high points. (though it is probably better than a real time version would have been)
I believe the driving force behind "old is bad" is, as always, young people in an arms race to cop as much prestige and reputation as possible from their peers, at the expense of all else. This means ignoring and even vilifying any styles that those uncomely old people might have dutifully employed, regardless of their inherent qualities.
In other words, the rejection of something like the turn-based RPG is an arbitrary power play. Perhaps it's because the sequential nature of the gameplay, which is not processor-heavy, denies them their precious technological-superiority bragging rights.
Turn-based combat is still as strategic as it ever was, perhaps even moreso than before, as different games joust with unique game mechanics borne out of years of refinery, all hung on the framework of the "turn". (I'm thinking of the Etrian Odyssey series right now, but I know that there are others.)
Nothing elevates or depresses turn-based combat over any other gameplay style; it is, at its core, its own type of game.
In other words, the rejection of something like the turn-based RPG is an arbitrary power play. Perhaps it's because the sequential nature of the gameplay, which is not processor-heavy, denies them their precious technological-superiority bragging rights.
Turn-based combat is still as strategic as it ever was, perhaps even moreso than before, as different games joust with unique game mechanics borne out of years of refinery, all hung on the framework of the "turn". (I'm thinking of the Etrian Odyssey series right now, but I know that there are others.)
Nothing elevates or depresses turn-based combat over any other gameplay style; it is, at its core, its own type of game.
Turn based owns when there is a decent layer of strategy involved, it sucks when all you have to do is press a button repeatedly to win.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I'm cool with both styles of play, but I really prefer turn-based in general; there's less pressure in general, which is cool when I'm in an environment where maybe I need to suddenly stop playing in the middle of a battle because phone or housemate or OH GOD THE DOG HAS A PIECE OF PAPER AGAIN.
It's also kind of nice to be able to actually sit and survey what's going on and think through my actions. I like approaching battles as sort of a puzzle to solve, rather than a reflex test. It also feels more awesome to pretend like, while I, the player, am spending all this time thinking, the PC is doing the calculations super-fast and/or instinctively.
Perhaps the same could be said of all gameplay :V
It's also kind of nice to be able to actually sit and survey what's going on and think through my actions. I like approaching battles as sort of a puzzle to solve, rather than a reflex test. It also feels more awesome to pretend like, while I, the player, am spending all this time thinking, the PC is doing the calculations super-fast and/or instinctively.
author=Frozen_Phoenix
Turn based owns when there is a decent layer of strategy involved, it sucks when all you have to do is press a button repeatedly to win.
Perhaps the same could be said of all gameplay :V
ioashfdlkdas i lost my post in the middle of doing actual work. tl;dr version:
frozen_phoenix, that goes for any genre, even clickers. not really a useful point
zachary_braun, i feel like you have a bee in your bonnet over something. people just want to try to make new experiences but forget to freshen up the actual relics of the genre, like useless poison effects and mana points, so they wind up stale and copycat-y. i'm not sure it's a conspiracy against developers from the 80s
shinan, i think you just sold me on invisible, inc.
crazeadvice: a good turn-based game involves customization and synergy.
whether that customization is swappable party members, or changing battle stances, or an open-ended equipment system, or whatever, it helps lure the curious player into your potential strategies. you gotta have it in some way, even though it makes balancing more difficult.
and, without synergy, you don't have anything worthwhile. this is one of the reasons Devil Survivor 1/2 are so much more enjoyable than the mainline SMTs or Persona, because the way you construct parties and the racial skills and the group passives and the auto-abilities all ties together into a glorious min-max machine.
even ff1 has some synergy, at least, with the way that mages can buff monks to deal 16 hits of major damage. (too bad the intelligence stat didn't work.) etrian odyssey 4 is ENTIRELY about synergy, and it helps that it has systems that all build into allowing new ways to synergize, from rows to blast skills to chasers to ailment manipulators. it's nice.
basically... design around an engaging, developing party instead of around isolated characters and you'll have something fun on your hands.
frozen_phoenix, that goes for any genre, even clickers. not really a useful point
zachary_braun, i feel like you have a bee in your bonnet over something. people just want to try to make new experiences but forget to freshen up the actual relics of the genre, like useless poison effects and mana points, so they wind up stale and copycat-y. i'm not sure it's a conspiracy against developers from the 80s
shinan, i think you just sold me on invisible, inc.
crazeadvice: a good turn-based game involves customization and synergy.
whether that customization is swappable party members, or changing battle stances, or an open-ended equipment system, or whatever, it helps lure the curious player into your potential strategies. you gotta have it in some way, even though it makes balancing more difficult.
and, without synergy, you don't have anything worthwhile. this is one of the reasons Devil Survivor 1/2 are so much more enjoyable than the mainline SMTs or Persona, because the way you construct parties and the racial skills and the group passives and the auto-abilities all ties together into a glorious min-max machine.
even ff1 has some synergy, at least, with the way that mages can buff monks to deal 16 hits of major damage. (too bad the intelligence stat didn't work.) etrian odyssey 4 is ENTIRELY about synergy, and it helps that it has systems that all build into allowing new ways to synergize, from rows to blast skills to chasers to ailment manipulators. it's nice.
basically... design around an engaging, developing party instead of around isolated characters and you'll have something fun on your hands.
What Craze said.
Also, Devil Survivor has the hands-down most fun + interesting battles I have ever had anywhere. Altho personally, the tiered racials in DeSu2 felt like they were too strong and made it too easy. You didn't constantly have to swap around or have to counter something. But perhaps that's just me. It had a different flavour with the chess grid layout, tho, compared to other dungeon crawlers/main series where some of the conservation practices came into play.
Definitely something to look into.
As for the "this is bad, this is good" seems to be an arbitrary line drawn by many big developers or parts of the more popular media.
It is "said" that "nobody" likes turn-based combat anymore when "unexpected" successes like Bravely Default clearly state otherwise. I mean as much as I understand the desire to change things up - like adding action combat to FF7 - I don't see it as a necessity. (and then there is the indie scene filling for the lack of horror games and .. all kinds of ignored genres)
People like what they like. Variety is good, for different kinds of things offer different kinds of enjoyment.
Turn-based combat is like Sooz said generally up to your own pace, a lil laid back and relaxing and versatile to your needs. You can get absorbed into it, too, of course.
It allows for more long-term planning, be that in the way you create your party, equip them, buff them (DeSu had with the fusion system ways to change spells and passives, for example) or head out and back to town. Etrian Odyssey and other dungeon crawlers are a lot about conserving your resources and deciding between risking moving further or returning early to save progress.
Short-term planning is there in battle depending on the setups (like classes needing spells to prepare other stuff), possible buffs, evaluing enemies quickly and choosing appropriate attacks to get rid of them without wasting resources (and later recognizing and learning their weaknesses, patterns or possible countermeasures - like needing to prepare dispells in advance, as they will curse you often etc)
Also, Devil Survivor has the hands-down most fun + interesting battles I have ever had anywhere. Altho personally, the tiered racials in DeSu2 felt like they were too strong and made it too easy. You didn't constantly have to swap around or have to counter something. But perhaps that's just me. It had a different flavour with the chess grid layout, tho, compared to other dungeon crawlers/main series where some of the conservation practices came into play.
Definitely something to look into.
As for the "this is bad, this is good" seems to be an arbitrary line drawn by many big developers or parts of the more popular media.
It is "said" that "nobody" likes turn-based combat anymore when "unexpected" successes like Bravely Default clearly state otherwise. I mean as much as I understand the desire to change things up - like adding action combat to FF7 - I don't see it as a necessity. (and then there is the indie scene filling for the lack of horror games and .. all kinds of ignored genres)
People like what they like. Variety is good, for different kinds of things offer different kinds of enjoyment.
Turn-based combat is like Sooz said generally up to your own pace, a lil laid back and relaxing and versatile to your needs. You can get absorbed into it, too, of course.
It allows for more long-term planning, be that in the way you create your party, equip them, buff them (DeSu had with the fusion system ways to change spells and passives, for example) or head out and back to town. Etrian Odyssey and other dungeon crawlers are a lot about conserving your resources and deciding between risking moving further or returning early to save progress.
Short-term planning is there in battle depending on the setups (like classes needing spells to prepare other stuff), possible buffs, evaluing enemies quickly and choosing appropriate attacks to get rid of them without wasting resources (and later recognizing and learning their weaknesses, patterns or possible countermeasures - like needing to prepare dispells in advance, as they will curse you often etc)
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Craze
zachary_braun, i feel like you have a bee in your bonnet over something. people just want to try to make new experiences but forget to freshen up the actual relics of the genre, like useless poison effects and mana points, so they wind up stale and copycat-y. i'm not sure it's a conspiracy against developers from the 80s
I think it's more that there's a lot of developers (mostly mainstream) and players who just go "It's old, it sucks!" and don't even consider the possibility of adding a metaphorical new coat of paint, they toss it aside. Which is crap, because it leads to a lot of really samey games, as well as games that are poorly served by the chosen mechanics.
You can see the same thing with mainstream horror games; for a while, it was just common knowledge that horror was outdated and unpopular, despite the fact that whenever a decent horror game popped up, it sold a buttload.
I think a lot of it comes down to a problem where people think of the bad examples, assume those are the only examples, and reject a mechanic out of hand because "We've moved on from that."
When really, it should be about what works best with the game itself. Some games work best with real-time combat (I can't imagine a game like Silent Hill doing well if you had the chance to sit and mull over your combat options!), some games are better served with a more meditative, turn-based combat system.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
There are two complaints I hear most often when talking about turn based battles: how it mostly boils down to spamming strong attacks without any strategy, and the immersion-breaking realization that characters deliberately stand still while getting hit by enemy attacks. Of course, both points could be argued, but that doesn't mean there's no validity to them.
Of those two, it's usually the latter that holds the most weight, as the first one is more a symptom of lazy design rather than a flawed mechanic. It does raise an eyebrow when you see characters standing still while the enemy just powers up for a super strong attack, especially when said attack could, realistically speaking, be evaded with just a short sidestep. It's understandable that players feel at least a little cheated by taking damage when they have done nothing wrong. This usually happens when games take place in a fully 3D environment. The most extreme example I can think of right now is the Legend of Dragoon.
I actually prefer Persona's take on turn based combat. If you exploit enemy weaknesses well and gain enough extra turns, it's possible to wipe out enemies before they even have a chance to act, which is super satisfying to do since it require a correct selection of moves rather than grinding to a super high level that a single attack could wipe out everyone. If not outright defeat them, you can open them up for follow up attacks by knocking them to the ground, and when you knock out everyone, you do an all out attack that hits everyone. The mainline SMT games, ore at least the ones with the Press Turn system, are a close second since you party can effectively double their turns if you have the right elemental attacks.
Not sure if off topic or not, but dear god don't make your system like Ni no Kuni. Adding clunky menu navigation and command input to a free moving environment is a perfect recipe for player frustration. The turn based formula works precisely because the enemies don't do that.
Of those two, it's usually the latter that holds the most weight, as the first one is more a symptom of lazy design rather than a flawed mechanic. It does raise an eyebrow when you see characters standing still while the enemy just powers up for a super strong attack, especially when said attack could, realistically speaking, be evaded with just a short sidestep. It's understandable that players feel at least a little cheated by taking damage when they have done nothing wrong. This usually happens when games take place in a fully 3D environment. The most extreme example I can think of right now is the Legend of Dragoon.
I actually prefer Persona's take on turn based combat. If you exploit enemy weaknesses well and gain enough extra turns, it's possible to wipe out enemies before they even have a chance to act, which is super satisfying to do since it require a correct selection of moves rather than grinding to a super high level that a single attack could wipe out everyone. If not outright defeat them, you can open them up for follow up attacks by knocking them to the ground, and when you knock out everyone, you do an all out attack that hits everyone. The mainline SMT games, ore at least the ones with the Press Turn system, are a close second since you party can effectively double their turns if you have the right elemental attacks.
Not sure if off topic or not, but dear god don't make your system like Ni no Kuni. Adding clunky menu navigation and command input to a free moving environment is a perfect recipe for player frustration. The turn based formula works precisely because the enemies don't do that.
Merlandese
3235
A game that was greatly overlooked when it was released was Resonance of Fate. I love that game for a lot of reasons, but arguably the best part is Tri-Ace's amazing battle system that combines turn-based decision making with Hollywood-style run-and-gun. There are so many ways to keep the genre fresh!
I have to agree with the overall sentiment that turn-based is still good and certainly not dead.
I have to agree with the overall sentiment that turn-based is still good and certainly not dead.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Red_Nova
Of those two, it's usually the latter that holds the most weight, as the first one is more a symptom of lazy design rather than a flawed mechanic. It does raise an eyebrow when you see characters standing still while the enemy just powers up for a super strong attack, especially when said attack could, realistically speaking, be evaded with just a short sidestep. It's understandable that players feel at least a little cheated by taking damage when they have done nothing wrong. This usually happens when games take place in a fully 3D environment. The most extreme example I can think of right now is the Legend of Dragoon.
I always felt like the "taking attacks" thing was just a side effect of the mechanic. It never occurred to me to think of it as "unrealistic" since, realistically, you wouldn't have a clump of combatants on either side just lobbing fireballs back and forth like some kind of magical tennis.
Realistic combat is difficult to execute in any game, just because there are so many styles and variables. (And because real melee combat tends to be over within seconds with nothing terribly exciting or spectacular having happened.)
That being said, adding an animated dodge or block function would be pretty keen. I've seen a few games that have that feature, and it's p. great.
LightningLord2
230
The fact that combat can look a bit iffy in turn based is often a tradeoff people are willing to accept when you're controlling a two digit amount of characters. Also, I never saw any complaints about this stiffness from players - it only ever came from developers.
Merlandese
3235
author=Soozauthor=Red_NovaI always felt like the "taking attacks" thing was just a side effect of the mechanic. It never occurred to me to think of it as "unrealistic" since, realistically, you wouldn't have a clump of combatants on either side just lobbing fireballs back and forth like some kind of magical tennis.
Of those two, it's usually the latter that holds the most weight, as the first one is more a symptom of lazy design rather than a flawed mechanic. It does raise an eyebrow when you see characters standing still while the enemy just powers up for a super strong attack, especially when said attack could, realistically speaking, be evaded with just a short sidestep. It's understandable that players feel at least a little cheated by taking damage when they have done nothing wrong. This usually happens when games take place in a fully 3D environment. The most extreme example I can think of right now is the Legend of Dragoon.
Realistic combat is difficult to execute in any game, just because there are so many styles and variables. (And because real melee combat tends to be over within seconds with nothing terribly exciting or spectacular having happened.)
That being said, adding an animated dodge or block function would be pretty keen. I've seen a few games that have that feature, and it's p. great.
"Taking attacks" I feel is definitely a necessity.
My friend and I once dabbled with the idea of making a turn-based game about "Deadly Strikes" that would kill you when they landed, and every turn you had to make micro-maneuvers to both try and get your sword to land in a good spot and avoid theirs.
It doesn't take too much imagining to understand why realistic dodging 99% of a fight is boring. Accuracy and Evade stats are already among the most frustrating of arbitrary RPG stats. XD
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I feel like a certain level of accuracy/evade shenanigans can help with the tension of a fight. Certainly, it's a lot of fun yelling "YOU CHEATING SON OF A BITCH!!!" at pokemans when they dodge what was going to be an amazing killing blow.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Sooz
I feel like a certain level of accuracy/evade shenanigans can help with the tension of a fight. Certainly, it's a lot of fun yelling "YOU CHEATING SON OF A BITCH!!!" at pokemans when they dodge what was going to be an amazing killing blow.
You want the deus ex coup de grâce? Quasi-Demi: divides the enemy's current HP by a googolplex and uses the resulting absolute value to restore the planet's lifeforce. Automatically win the game.
Red_Nova
There are two complaints I hear most often when talking about turn based battles: how it mostly boils down to spamming strong attacks without any strategy, and the immersion-breaking realization that characters deliberately stand still while getting hit by enemy attacks. Of course, both points could be argued, but that doesn't mean there's no validity to them.
the first part has NOTHING to do with turn-based combat, it has to do with poor game design as a whole.
the second part is pretty much just "you're not the target audience.
edit: i'd also counter-argue that developers of the genre greatly enjoy the turn-based front-view system because it allows for a wide variety of effects that DON'T require visual reactions from the characters. see: wine & roses, teenage costume squad (although the teens DO visually react to pain on the hud)
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Craze
the second part is pretty much just "you're not the target audience."
I feel like this is what a BUNCH of mechanics arguments boil down to. :/
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=Craze
the second part is pretty much just "you're not the target audience."
That argument can only go so far. If I make a Final Fantasy style RPG, but every action takes literally a minute to wind up, execute, then cool down, that's poor design and breaks the flow of the game.
author=Merlandese
"Taking attacks" I feel is definitely a necessity.
Sure, but there's only so many times you can use "my party attacks, then your party attacks," before it starts to get a little repetitive. Personally, I lean more towards RPGs that mess with turns, like the SMT games, since getting extra turns as a reward for playing well and losing them as a punishment for playing badly feels like more control is in my hands.
My friend and I once dabbled with the idea of making a turn-based game about "Deadly Strikes" that would kill you when they landed, and every turn you had to make micro-maneuvers to both try and get your sword to land in a good spot and avoid theirs.
It doesn't take too much imagining to understand why realistic dodging 99% of a fight is boring. Accuracy and Evade stats are already among the most frustrating of arbitrary RPG stats. XD
No argument here, but that's just one of the reasons that I've heard from others why they don't like turn based RPGs anymore. And Accuracy and Evade can work fine if it's manipulated more. Simply having high agility enemies with no way to reduce it or no guaranteed hit moves is frustrating.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Red_Novaauthor=CrazeThat argument can only go so far. If I make a Final Fantasy style RPG, but every action takes literally a minute to wind up, execute, then cool down, that's poor design and breaks the flow of the game.
the second part is pretty much just "you're not the target audience."
Isn't that basically what FF games are anyway? :V
For serious tho I think a lot of the actual points in that post are arguing based on poor implementation. I mean, yeah, a platformer with nothing to avoid is a shitty platformer, but that doesn't mean platforming as a mechanic is worthless, and anyone who would argue against platforming on that basis should rightfully be laughed at.
I'd rather see discussion of how this stuff can be done right, or at least how to fix stuff that's been done wrong, rather than just a list of stuff that's been done shit.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
B-but it's fun to complain! And a lot easier, too!
Oh, fine.
Personally, I'd like to see less of characters getting stronger versions of the same moves. That doesn't really add or change player's strategy and approach to combat, and can lead to stagnation and a bunch of weaker skills you'll never use again cluttering up the menus. If you really want stronger version of the same moves, I say implement a skill upgrade system.
I'd also like to see less Final Fantasy character archetypes. Shy away from making pure healers, or mages, or tanks. That's not to say you shouldn't have characters have focuses, but if you diversify skills among the party, the game feels less like like something RPG players have gone through before. For example, have a physical character able to cast physical buffs/debuffs and restore HP, while a magical character casts magical buff/debuff and restores MP. That breaks down the traditional healer role between two characters and makes the player put a little more thought into who does what and when.
Try taking away the basic attack command and only using skills. It's a pretty quick and immediate method to discourage spamming one move through random encounters and demands a little more thought put into each turn you take, especially if you have resource management (MP, items, etc.) to worry about for each move.
Rank your battle performance and give rewards the higher rank you get. If you've ever played Devil May Cry, then you'll know that doing the same attack over and over again, while possible, will not let you get a good grade at the end of a mission, resulting in fewer orbs (currency) to spend on upgrades. To translate that into RPG mechanics, the more diverse moveset you use, the more times you hit an enemy weakness, the more times you successfully dodge or resist an enemy attack, the higher your score. A higher score could mean more experience points, more items, or whatever you can dream up.
Like I said before, mess around with turns in battle. Gain turns by hitting enemy weaknesses, lose turns by hitting enemy resistances, etc.
Oh, fine.
Personally, I'd like to see less of characters getting stronger versions of the same moves. That doesn't really add or change player's strategy and approach to combat, and can lead to stagnation and a bunch of weaker skills you'll never use again cluttering up the menus. If you really want stronger version of the same moves, I say implement a skill upgrade system.
I'd also like to see less Final Fantasy character archetypes. Shy away from making pure healers, or mages, or tanks. That's not to say you shouldn't have characters have focuses, but if you diversify skills among the party, the game feels less like like something RPG players have gone through before. For example, have a physical character able to cast physical buffs/debuffs and restore HP, while a magical character casts magical buff/debuff and restores MP. That breaks down the traditional healer role between two characters and makes the player put a little more thought into who does what and when.
Try taking away the basic attack command and only using skills. It's a pretty quick and immediate method to discourage spamming one move through random encounters and demands a little more thought put into each turn you take, especially if you have resource management (MP, items, etc.) to worry about for each move.
Rank your battle performance and give rewards the higher rank you get. If you've ever played Devil May Cry, then you'll know that doing the same attack over and over again, while possible, will not let you get a good grade at the end of a mission, resulting in fewer orbs (currency) to spend on upgrades. To translate that into RPG mechanics, the more diverse moveset you use, the more times you hit an enemy weakness, the more times you successfully dodge or resist an enemy attack, the higher your score. A higher score could mean more experience points, more items, or whatever you can dream up.
Like I said before, mess around with turns in battle. Gain turns by hitting enemy weaknesses, lose turns by hitting enemy resistances, etc.
