DISCUSSING TURN-BASED GAMEPLAY

author=Red_Nova
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.

Eden Legacy did this, but I feel it did it poorly. At certain levels, you'd unlock combat skills that you would choose to learn in a one-off message box, but they never really said what they did and - without a sort of skill tree to use as a point of reference - never gave any clues to what would benefit your "build", making all choices a crapshot, nullifying the sense of progression and purposeful customization.

author=Red_Nova
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.

Yes to everything in this post.

author=luiishu535
EDIT:I've read about combat a lot in the RM communities and I noticed that over at RMW, most people just want story and graphics and as little combat as possible...in RPGs! It's either wrong players playing the wrong type of games or lazy developers making terrible, slow and boring combat in their games, which of course creates a bad stigma.

As if I needed more reasons to not give a damn about anything on RMW.

If a system has any sort of strategic depth at all, I don't really want to be graded on my ability to act quickly. Unless the game is extremely difficult, that makes it so quickness turns into an allowable substitute for thought, and the player can win with either one. It cheapens the whole experience and makes it so playing the game intelligently doesn't help you win any better, it just slows you down compared to the alternative. Diablo 3 is a great example of this - there's an incredible amount of depth that the combat system could potentially have if I could stop and think "there are 2 enemies about to enter my range and I have an AOE stun skill that's about to come off of cooldown, but there are two more approaching and they're weak to arcane damage, do I have enough HP and elemental defense against this type of enemy to survive until then? And how fast is my mana regenerating, can I use another skill in the meantime and still have enough mana left over to use the stun? If so let me examine all my other skills...", but clicking really really fast is way more effective and so almost all that depth is just completely lost. RPGs are supposed to be the thinking man's game. And anyway, progressing in the game faster is its own reward without also preventing game overs; you don't need to incentivize speed and reaction time.

author=Red_Nova
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.

A lot of designers who aren't used to working with turn-based games, or with RPGs that have much combat depth, seem to think that action games are capable of including a lot more variety in their skills, since they can have skills that hit larger areas and skills that home in on targets and skills that bounce on the ground before exploding.

But you can absolutely make characters/classes in a turn-based, menu-driven game have at least as much variety in play style, if not more. This variety in play style can take the place of variety in Final Fantasy role - instead of a tank and a single target attacker and an area attacker and a debuffer and a healer, you can have a character who specializes in using chain attacks to use up his MP and then self-destructing at the end, and a character who specializes in setting up debuffs that can be detonated later for damage, and a character who specializes in moving buffs/ailments/HP/MP from one character to another, a character who specializes in absorbing enemy attacks as returning that damage as counterattacks, and a character who specializes in changing between elemental barriers and using spells matching his current element.

The fact that the player can stop and think about what to do means that the player can think about far more variables. Because the player can think about them, you can add them, and make them important to winning. For example, in an action RPG, you would probably not want to include enemies that redirect fire-elemental debuffs that are applied to them, but use a high amount of MP to do so, and can no longer use their strongest attack once they've used up all their MP redirecting debuffs. That's too complex for a game that isn't turn-based. Certainly you wouldn't want to have that enemy show up with three other equally complex enemies all in the same non-boss battle. But in a turn-based game, all those variables can actually be responded to, adding a ton of depth. Different characters can respond to these variables differently, which can turn their different skill rotations into more than just flavor - the character who uses chain attacks loses far more damage by being interrupted for one round or by the enemy summoning a new target, but the character who inflicts debuffs and detonates them later is far more susceptible to enemies that mitigate or remove or redirect debuffs. The player's strategy will have to adjust for these sitations on a micro level, and feel out exactly what each enemy is capable of.

author=LockeZ
If a system has any sort of strategic depth at all, I don't really want to be graded on my ability to act quickly. Unless the game is extremely difficult, that makes it so quickness turns into an allowable substitute for thought, and the player can win with either one. It cheapens the whole experience and makes it so playing the game intelligently doesn't help you win any better, it just slows you down compared to the alternative. Diablo 3 is a great example of this - there's an incredible amount of depth that the combat system could potentially have if I could stop and think "there are 2 enemies about to enter my range and I have an AOE stun skill that's about to come off of cooldown, but there are two more approaching and they're weak to arcane damage, do I have enough HP and elemental defense against this type of enemy to survive until then? And how fast is my mana regenerating, can I use another skill in the meantime and still have enough mana left over to use the stun? If so let me examine all my other skills...", but clicking really really fast is way more effective and so almost all that depth is just completely lost. RPGs are supposed to be the thinking man's game. And anyway, progressing in the game faster is its own reward without also preventing game overs; you don't need to incentivize speed and reaction time.

I was talking about being graded over battle performance. Speed was just one component of that grade. You could be given bonus points for dispatching multiple enemies at once, hitting elemental weaknesses, resisting enemy elemental attacks, etc.

But you can absolutely make characters/classes in a turn-based, menu-driven game have at least as much variety in play style, if not more. This variety in play style can take the place of variety in Final Fantasy role - instead of a tank and a single target attacker and an area attacker and a debuffer and a healer, you can have a character who specializes in using chain attacks to use up his MP and then self-destructing at the end, and a character who specializes in setting up debuffs that can be detonated later for damage, and a character who specializes in moving buffs/ailments/HP/MP from one character to another, a character who specializes in absorbing enemy attacks as returning that damage as counterattacks, and a character who specializes in changing between elemental barriers and using spells matching his current element.

The fact that the player can stop and think about what to do means that the player can think about far more variables. Because the player can think about them, you can add them, and make them important to winning. For example, in an action RPG, you would probably not want to include enemies that redirect fire-elemental debuffs that are applied to them, but use a high amount of MP to do so, and can no longer use their strongest attack once they've used up all their MP redirecting debuffs. That's too complex for a game that isn't turn-based. Certainly you wouldn't want to have that enemy show up with three other equally complex enemies all in the same non-boss battle. But in a turn-based game, all those variables can actually be responded to, adding a ton of depth. Different characters can respond to these variables differently, which can turn their different skill rotations into more than just flavor - the character who uses chain attacks loses far more damage by being interrupted for one round or by the enemy summoning a new target, but the character who inflicts debuffs and detonates them later is far more susceptible to enemies that mitigate or remove or redirect debuffs. The player's strategy will have to adjust for these sitations on a micro level, and feel out exactly what each enemy is capable of.

These are awesome examples.

author=luiishu535
EDIT: I've read about combat a lot in the RM communities and I noticed that over at RMW, most people just want story and graphics and as little combat as possible...in RPGs! It's either wrong players playing the wrong type of games or lazy developers making terrible, slow and boring combat in their games, which of course creates a bad stigma.

I haven't read what you've read, but I feel like it's less "I don't want RPG battles," and more "I want more stuff to do outside of battles." Persona 3 and 4 come to mind since there was a LOT of stuff to do when you weren't dungeon crawling.

author=Sooz
I actually had an idea for a similar mechanic in a game that I never got around to fleshing out: At the start, you could fight using a default attack, but later on, you'd be against enemies who were immune to it, forcing you to use skills only.

Or maybe default attacks would only work after certain conditions are met? Like breaking enemy guards/shields or inflicting ailments? That'd be cool, and throwing out attacks could be like a home stretch for finishing a battle.

author=Sailerius
Ehh... I'm not really sure that's true. In a real-time/continuous game, you can do anything you can do in a turn-based game and more. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with turn-based games, but there's a *lot* you can do with continuous real-time gameplay that's either walled off to you in turn-based or is prohibitively difficult to design or implement. A good example is anything involving three-dimensional spatial awareness. For instance, aiming a spell or ranged weapon. While you can switch into an aiming mode in a turn-based game (Eternal Sonata did it), it's always a really awkward context switch because it basically thrusts an FPS minigame into the middle of a menu-based game. It's just not a natural transition.

I'm never sure why anyone thinks it's a grand idea to introduce 3D spatial-based stuff into a 2D medium.

If you're implementing FPS type stuff into a turn based combat just do an ABS. While a fake FPS inside of a turn based combat can be unique and interesting it's just backwards. There are just some themes that should be FPS or "shooter" not necessarily a first person game. (I've done it or tried and I ended up making a turn based combat and then a shooter)

Turn based combat is like playing a table top game where imagination is key. It's obviously not so straight forward and requires you to think and imagine the situation or the actual act of the encounter or the fighting. If you have ever played Warhammer Fantasy/40k or any game of that type with models you really have to have an imagination unless you just enjoy the painting hobby or like dice rolls and numbers.
Because it can be boring. (and I like this stuff)

I actually love turn based combat as long as it's exciting and dangerous and I feel part of it besides smashing spacebar to get back to the map.

i'm gonna reply to more to this at large later but i wanted to immediately respond to slaibuouasus

Ehh... I'm not really sure that's true. In a real-time/continuous game, you can do anything you can do in a turn-based game and more. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with turn-based games, but there's a *lot* you can do with continuous real-time gameplay that's either walled off to you in turn-based or is prohibitively difficult to design or implement. A good example is anything involving three-dimensional spatial awareness. For instance, aiming a spell or ranged weapon. While you can switch into an aiming mode in a turn-based game (Eternal Sonata did it), it's always a really awkward context switch because it basically thrusts an FPS minigame into the middle of a menu-based game. It's just not a natural transition.

lockez didn't say the exact same shit he just meant variety in general. there are loads of ways that turn-based gameplay can unfold in ways that more active genres can't get away with. everything has its pros and cons. both you and shinan already described how turn-based gameplay can lead to fulfilling experiences outside of the norm so idk what you went on about for exactly (especially since you then were confused by sooz's appropriate reply)

also i think we can do a lot better with "skills from menus" and that there's a lot of validity to it even if there are other ways to make cool turn-based games too! that's probably bias but i'd also like to think that i'm proof positive that "picking skills from a menu" can still be made interesting but i'm gonna stop before i make fun of vacant sky. ad hominem is only fun in moderation


i'd also like to both paraphrase and quote red_nova a bit before disappearing for the night because i like red a lot but a few random hairs on my body had small electric shocks emitting from them upon reading a few things

(paraphrased) final fantasy and slow battle stuff lol

what sooz said but seriously ff3 and 9 have some of the worst examples of drawing out battles through poor optimization and masturbatory camera pans. also suikoden 5 but you didn't mention that, how i wish suikoden 5 was a better game

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.

yeah firaga is the bane of my existence and there are way more clever ways to handle nuking and the generic concept of "strong spellcaster"

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.

i think your ideas are just as boring! i mean that nicely. it's basically the smt/persona method ("give each character one element or skill type"), and it's just as much a design fallacy as the black mage & co ("give each character all elements within a skill type, whether it be debuffs or attributes or w/e") of ff fame. the most important part of designing a character or class is theme, not fitting some arbitrary archetype.

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.

basic attacks can be cool if used well. not every character needs the same basic attack. maybe basic attacks happen automatically as the turns progress? maybe there are a variety of modifiers and buffs attahced to them? a rogue character that has no direct offense except their basic attack but can activate modifiers such as "basic attack deals 3 hits for three turns," "next turn, your basic attack will poison an enemy," "enter stealth to gain total evasion; when you next attack, you lose stealth but deal additional damage equal to the target's missing hp" and so on. THEMEING

mp is hard to get right i feel. if you're struggling with balance and not making an attrition-based game, i highly recommend using cooldowns, ammo, a building resource or any mix of the above. it's a lot easier to make feel natural to the player.

i'm gonna use this chance to respond to red_nova's "basic attacks and normal turns are boring" with "a" character we've designed for our current project that we've been really quiet about for a while. (well it's easy for him to be quiet since he's not on here often, BUT IT'S HARD FOR ME). this game uses the "free-turn battle system" like most of my recent projects, where it's a player goes/enemy goes alternation but you can execute each character's action in any order. each character can only act once per turn.

immediately screwing with that rule, in THEME (gosh that word), is Lydia & Osric, Who Always Get Their Man, a two-in-one police officer duo. they take up a single character slot but they are, in reality, both lydia and osric. "cdX" is "cooldown of X turns".

author=Craze
also i think we can do a lot better with "skills from menus" and that there's a lot of validity to it even if there are other ways to make cool turn-based games too! that's probably bias but i'd also like to think that i'm proof positive that "picking skills from a menu" can still be made interesting

Oh I agree entirely, but what I'm getting at is that most people here still only look at turn-based RPG design in terms of reskinning battle systems they've already played, and stepping out of your comfort zone and questioning fundamental assumptions about the way turn-based games work is valuable for drawing inspiration on what boundaries exist and how they can be explored.

author=Craze
but i'm gonna stop before i make fun of vacant sky

Are we really not past harassing me over something I made five years ago? Because it's getting really boring and predictable by now.

author=Sailerius
Oh I agree entirely, but what I'm getting at is that most people here still only look at turn-based RPG design in terms of reskinning battle systems they've already played, and stepping out of your comfort zone and questioning fundamental assumptions about the way turn-based games work is valuable for drawing inspiration on what boundaries exist and how they can be explored.

I'm not sure how you hope to communicate that from just beating the "Realtime action is better in every way imaginable!" drum.

Not seeing a lot of concrete examples or anything, breh. The only concrete thing you've offered is "Turn based can't do 3D spatial stuff but realtime can." The rest is just vague "people do it bad."

ETA: Just to make it clear why this is an issue in these discussions, it is very difficult, if you are already doin it rong, to tell that you are, in fact, doin it rong. Therefore, if the interest is in getting people to do it less rong, it becomes important to point out what, exactly, the problem is and/or offer some suggestions for improvement.