Interesting Tactical Choices in RPGs

[steelyglint]

What kinds of choices make the combat system in an RPG interesting? I'm concerned with both the tactical (choosing whether to use melee, spells, items, movement, etc.) and strategic (character building).

Obviously, the least interesting RPG combat system gives victory to the character with the bigger number. One step up is a rock-paper-scissors ring of abilities that trump each other. Can you think of a specific choice you made in combat in an RPG that added significantly to the fun of the game?

Sorry if this is a little vague, I want to get other people's ideas without tainting them with my own biases.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

Mass Effect can be a totally different experience depending on what class you played as.

 

[David_G]

Mass Effect can be a totally different experience depending on what class you played as.

So can Dragon Age:Origins.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Mass Effect can be a totally different experience depending on what class you played as.

So can Dragon Age:Origins.

So can the majority of RPG's, for that matter. In fact, that's what they're about.

...

 

[David_G]

Mass Effect can be a totally different experience depending on what class you played as.

So can Dragon Age:Origins.

So can the majority of RPG's, for that matter. In fact, that's what they're about.

...

...So, I guess we've answered the OP's question in three posts... I think.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

Fallout (1, 2, & 3 for all you nay-sayers) seemed very different to me when I put skill points into a certain thing, or altered my S.P.E.C.I.A.L.
I remember fondly a character with a Strength of just 1.
She couldn't fight at all so I had to be diplomatic, and sneaky.

 

[RandV80]

Sometimes it's not just how you play out the tactics, but rather how well you can develop your character(s). This can hold true on both sides of the fence whether it's Fallout 3 or Dragon Quest VIII, though generally Western RPG's are more consistent at it.

 

[steelyglint]

Yes, the listed games are different depending on what type of character you play. But that's not really the question I was asking.

Perhaps I didn't word my post specifically enough, since I gave equal emphasis to tactical and strategic elements. Let's forget about character building and focus on tactical combat. Specifically, what kind of choices make combat fun.

Is it having to choose between doing damage now, or using a damage increasing buff? Or healing versus debuffing your foes? Or using a high damage single-target effect versus an area effect that does more damage total but less per target? What I'm looking for are specific choices of this nature that people have found to be fun.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Mass Effect can be a totally different experience depending on what class you played as.

So can Dragon Age:Origins.

So can the majority of RPG's, for that matter. In fact, that's what they're about.

...

...So, I guess we've answered the OP's question in three posts... I think.

... Yeah... So we have...

 

[steelyglint]

...So, I guess we've answered the OP's question in three posts... I think.

... Yeah... So we have...

Actually, my question hasn't really been addressed. I'm interested in specific examples of interesting tactical choices that can be made in RPGs.

Fallout 3 gives an example of what's NOT an interesting choice: why would you ever not aim for the head in VATS? There's practically no reason to aim for the limbs or torso, unless you're a sadist. In Fallout 2 the chance of hitting the eyes was low enough that you shouldn't attempt it unless you were extremely skilled or close to the target, so I'd say the Fallout 2 targeting system was a more interesting choice than VATS.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

Fallout (1, 2, & 3 for all you nay-sayers) seemed very different to me when I put skill points into a certain thing, or altered my S.P.E.C.I.A.L.
I remember fondly a character with a Strength of just 1.
She couldn't fight at all so I had to be diplomatic, and sneaky.

I tried that in fallout 3 fucking super mutant brutes detected me from miles away making the game impossible I started again and created the brain dead hercules and had no difficulty
My point being that interesting choices are punished in favor of making the generic super strong soldier hero

Actually, in F3 I never had any trouble with that... I would just put my points into sneak, and I would be right up to their faces and they wouldn't see me.

 

[veloper]

Fallout 3 gives an example of what's NOT an interesting choice: why would you ever not aim for the head in VATS? There's practically no reason to aim for the limbs or torso, unless you're a sadist.

Or you can aim for their weapons instead when they got missile launchers.
This is often better because launchers cause alot of damage even in trash condition, but one aimed shot may break the weapon.

FO3 still isn't very tactical though. Neither is FO2.

For great tactical options you need to play a full blown TBS. Playing AoWSM right now, where even simple stuff like attacking on your own round or just moving your units close for retaliation attacks can both have their cons and pros.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

An interesting choice is to make Magic a piss poor method of offense in the original Fable. MP regen'd so slow that you often ended up chugging potions everywhere you went. Wouldn't have been an issue if enemies didn't respawn every time you left the area. But mages had to buy potions or else sit around waiting for a long time.

Adept in ME was really fun, and different, too. Essentially the mage class. But instead of nuking, it focused on weakening enemies by moving them around, leaving them helpless to defend against your attacks.

Jade Empire did some really cool stuff, mixing fighting with RPG.

 

[steelyglint]

Would I be correct in saying that what many of you find most fun in tactical combat (especially when it's turn based) is building intricate combos that annihilate your enemies or leave them defenseless?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Out of games I have played recently I would say Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup and Last Remnant are both good.

Stone Soup often leaves you open with multiple different tactics to try with different costs and benefits. They are also very different for each class and depend on what you find.

Last Remnant is more like the normal Square formula of balancing between different sorts of attack and support but adding flanking and interrupts keeps adds some interest. It keeps it's tactical choices limited but not completely simple or obvious.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

 

[Veret]

Dragon Age gives a lot of tactical choices, especially if you're playing as a mage. I built a character that's aggressively focused on crowd control spells; within five seconds of entering a room all of my enemies are either stunned, knocked down, paralyzed, asleep, or on fire (or some combination of the above). It's great fun, but if you're not careful you can also take out yourself or the rest of your party along with them. Contrast that with an arcane warrior build, where the mage is essentially a spellcasting tank, or a healer/support build, where you stand at the back of the line and buff everybody while they deal and soak up damage for you.

The game also offers a downright sadistic variety of traps. When your rogue has the opportunity to prepare a battlefield before the enemy shows up, you can be pretty insidious about it all. Definitely a fun game for tacticians.