A Look at Turn-Based Combat

[BlueCRE]

Earlier today, I was coming up with an idea for an RPG game, and as I was drafting, I sorta got curious about what the main goal of turn-based combat was. With other games, the goal is pretty simple. With a platformer like Mario 64 or Banjo-Kazooie, you need to make it to the end and collect as many collectibles as possible, possibly to unlock more levels. With an adventure game like Zelda, you need to beat dungeon bosses in order to get to the final boss' castle and save Hyrule. Pretty simple. But RPGs? You've gotta beat enemies to get to the next town, but is there really much strategy needed. Sometimes these games are so open that I don't really know what I'm doing, and I feel like I need to backtrack and do annoying grinds in order to catch up. The goal never really feels clear, and sometimes I feel like I may miss out on building strategy or getting strong enough to beat a boss. What do you guys think?

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Turn based combat allows you to strategize more, generally giving you plenty of time to think of how best to handle something and react accordingly should something happen. It also depends on the combat systems. I've been playing 45 hours of SMT Nocturne over the past 2 months or so and in that game, you make your protagonist's build yourself. Do you want to focus on strength so that your basic attacks do much more damage? You can't exploit weaknesses, but you'll still pack a punch. Or maybe a magic build? MP is harder to restore compared to HP costing spells, but you don't risk dying as much and as you can exploit weaknesses, you can get bonus turns as long as you have the MP for it. Turn based combat systems really depend on your playstyle while giving you plenty of viable strategies to mess around with should you desire to use them. What RPGs do you generally play? I feel most people who don't get turnbased combat generally don't play RPGs to begin with and if they do, they play ones meant for a rather young audience which naturally makes it easier for the kiddos to beat

 

[BlueCRE]

I mean, my first was Pokemon Let's Go, but honestly that was aids, so I don't claim it. I've played Dragon Quest XI, Deltarune, and am playing through Final Fantasy 6. I have a good amount of experience, I think.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

I can't speak on Deltarune but Pokemon and Dragon Quest especially are meant to be easy for anyone to pick up and play. They do offer strategy though, Pokemon lets you pick and choose your team and a few attacks so you can look at their stats and think what's best to put on them, especially when considering abilities too like having a Scizor with either Quick Attack or Bullet Punch. Dragon Quest XI gives you multiple characters who generally have their own strengths and weaknesses, when I played that, I managed to make Erik, who's class is generally more utility focused rather than offense, an absolute monster who would shred bosses into ribbons with ease. However, Erik is very frail and has very limited options for MP and my build for Erik wasn't bery useful for crowd control so other players may prefer to use Jade, who generally takes hits better, has status ailment moves to force the enemies to skip turns or hit multiple enemies at once while healing herself from it. I still need to play FF6 but that game has every character have some sort of gimmick to make them stand out so you may think "Well, Celes can absorb enemy magic attacks so I can have her on healing duty while protecting the party if I expect the monsters to do this attack". Some games show you the turn order and let you plan around it like FFX or the Trails series, others like SMT have specific systems designed to reward players for understanding weaknesses and resistences by giving them extra turns, others like Mario and Luigi make every attack a little minigame so you can get bonus damage or dodge attacks. The main goal is to overcome any trials and generally speaking, save the world from evil

 

[BlueCRE]

Ah, I see it now. Beating the big bads in RPGs requires strategy. The exploring and battling offers tools to build said strategy. Stuff like abilities, customizing stats, party members, etc. I can get behind that. Though, what about the leveling system in RPGs? If the bosses require strategy, is there much of a need for automatic stat increases as battles go on? The main point of them is to help you build strategy, right? If you get beaten by a boss, you just have to go back to rethink your strategy. If the point of leveling up is to pace the new abilities you learn, why not get abilities at set points in the game instead?

 

[Cutie Gwen]

The point of leveling up is quite simple, to show that you have improved as it's proof you've made progress as you are objectively speaking stronger than before. It also serves as a way to make major fights important, after all, if you can beat the final boss with the same stats and gear as when you fought your first enemy, then they wouldn't feel very threatening. As for why leveling up to gain abilities is generally seen as better than getting them during story beats, it feels more earned as you had to train for it rather than have it just given to you. It's like how finding treasure chests with useful items and gear is satisfying as you went out of your way to find it.

 

[BlueCRE]

Ah, I can see that.

 

[BlueCRE]

Though, I do wonder. What happens if you over-level up? If gaining levels is simply earned by defeating enemies, which is entirely in the player's control, what if they got to a point where they can just one-shot enemies and avoid strategy entirely? It throws off the pacing meant to resemble a hero's growth, and as a result, can make the adventure feel a lil less immersive. Just seems like the system's exploitable, but I may be missing something here.

 

[BlueCRE]

Or actually, maybe that might not be as much of a problem... To do that would take an egregious amount of grinding, which a lot of players by nature, hate to do. I can guess most people would actually fight a good amount of battles between towns and dungeons then move on, keeping the proper pacing.

 

[osby]

Though, I do wonder. What happens if you over-level up? If gaining levels is simply earned by defeating enemies, which is entirely in the player's control, what if they got to a point where they can just one-shot enemies and avoid strategy entirely? It throws off the pacing meant to resemble a hero's growth, and as a result, can make the adventure feel a lil less immersive. Just seems like the system's exploitable, but I may be missing something here.

That's true, if the game is not balanced well, you can break the difficulty but keep in mind that grinding is usually boring and is made less effective as leveling up gets harder as you get stronger in most RPGs.

Some games also prevent you from grinding by scaling up the enemy difficulty or sending over-leveled bosses after you if you try to grind in one place too much. It all depends on how easy the game is trying to be and how good developers are at conveying said difficulty.

Or actually, maybe that might not be as much of a problem... To do that would take an egregious amount of grinding, which a lot of players by nature, hate to do. I can guess most people would actually fight a good amount of battles between towns and dungeons then move on, keeping the proper pacing.

Just like you said. Also, some games have special dungeons and bosses that require you to be extremely strong, in case you got to level 99 and still want some challenge.