What role should player skill have in RPG combat?

[Brawndo]

I was playing the demo for Kingdom of Amalur and I realized that I suck at the combat, mostly because I don't like all that rolling around and acrobatics. I felt like I was playing Street Fighter or Dynasty Warriors instead of an RPG. On the other hand, you have stat-intensive games like Morrowind, and it can be particularly jarring watching your sword repeatedly pass through enemy character models for 0 damage because you didn't put enough points in the right ability.

I'm very conflicted about which type of combat I prefer. I do like some amount of timing and precision, like you see in Mount and Blade. However, ultimately that game punishes the player who is slower and not as good at twitch gameplay, because player skill trumps stats most of the time. While stat-heavy combat games give you more control and feel more strategic like chess, I hate the fact that the "wrong" build completely screws you over in certain situations. Also, at a certain point these games become an exercise in mathematics and Excel, which takes the fun out of the game.

 

[krazykidd]

Well personally i like it , it's a nice change of pace to be honest . Now i think the game you played was a little extreme , BUT it's somehing worth playing around with, you know to keep things fresh . A shame you didn't like the combat , but you know a valiant effort from the developpers part to make things more interesting .

A type of rpg combat i like ( other than turn base) is in star ocean3. It's not turn base at all , you run around pressing different buttons to do different attacks , your able to chain them into different attacks skills , as well aas a light and heavy attack . It makez things fun , but a certain amount of skill and thought goes into the combat .

I think skill has it's place in rpg combat , depending on how it's done .. Another game that was heavily reliant on skill in combat was resonance of fate. As interesting as that game is , i couldn't make heads or tails of the combat in that game. I just naturally sucked at it .

All in all it's a fun change of pace , but definately takes some getting used to , but i like when developpers try new things so i won't ever bash a game for having differwnt combat.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think that the "skill in button-mashing = skill in combat" and "high stats = skill in combat" models can both lead to pretty boring gameplay. I think that chess is a good example of good gameplay that relies on neither twitch skills or excel skills, but instead on strategy. Witcher 2 and Human Revolution (those two are basically my new gold standard for AAA RPGs) did a good job of incorporating said strategic element, and games like roguelikes are even better at that. It would be nice to see more designers taking this route.

 

[BoogityBoogityMan]

How can anyone suck at the combat in Amalur, it's coded such that failure is not an option.

Personally, I like many different kinds of combat in games with rpg elements, as long as it is challenging and the potential for failure with a real punishment exists.

I like the struggle and the feeling of victory after a hard fought win.

It can be of the twitch/memory muscle variety, or a pure strategic victory or anything inbetween. What I cannot stand and find utterly boring is games that where everybody wins, don't punish failure, and provide no challenge.

Most games seem to be designed for temperamental ragequitters with big egos who always play on ULTRAHARDCORE mode and get pissed off if they don't achieve victory immediately. Which is why the hard mode on Bioshock Infinite has to be hidden. That fact alone says soooo much about current gaming and the delicate nature of the ULTRAHARDCORE gamer.

 

[TehCookie]

I like to have both in my games. If you have skill as a gamer you can take on an enemy at a lower level and if you lack all skill then level up to make up for it.

 

[octafish]

None. It should be the characters skill. During the heyday of the Nineties I used to buy games for my cousin who was a quadriplegic, he used to thoroughly enjoy the RPGs of the time because he could live an entire adventure just using a pencil clenched in his teeth and a special PC interface. I don't know what he would be playing now were he still alive. Avadon probably.

 

[Verzin]

Personally, I'd prefer a pure D&D style RPG with more tactics than skill in the combat.
I remember hearing this somewhere, and I agree: "Most 'RPGs' now are really just action games with RPG elements."

 

[Maze1125]

For each type of combat there should be an RPG that uses it, so that everyone can play the game with the type of combat they prefer.

 

[PurePareidolia]

The most simple interaction would be determining hits and misses, while the character skill determines what happens when you do/are hit. I'd be highly in favour of this as a bare minimum in any non turn based game as opposed to dice rolls because it's really unsatisfying to hit a guy with a sword and be told you missed. As in, I can't play Morrowind because that system annoys me so much.

 

[SageRuffin]

I was playing the demo for Kingdom of Amalur and I realized that I suck at the combat, mostly because I don't like all that rolling around and acrobatics. I felt like I was playing Street Fighter or Dynasty Warriors instead of an RPG.

Really?

Sign me up! I prefer games that test reflexes and reactions than for the combat to be reliant solely on numbers.

 

[Nyaoku]

About as much as pokemon. Just turn up the difficulty though so it requires actual planning rather than just spamming hydro pump/ Thunderbolt to get through the regular story. Also, NO QUICKTIME EVENTS. It's an rpg. A role-playing game. That means you are suppost to take turns. That means that reflexes should be out of the picture.

 

[Zhukov]

I prefer games the rely on the player's abilities, not a list of numbers. This includes RPGs.

I have no problem with games that use stats to differentiate character builds and whatnot, but I want stats to stay the hell out of my combat. Watching my character use his numbers to deplete the enemy's numbers is not gameplay, it's an abacus simulator.

It should be noted that "skill" does not necessarily mean twitchy reflexes. Someone above used the example of chess. That game is entirely dependant on the skills of the players, but you obviously don't need quick reflexes to play it.

 

[Wolfram23]

I guess it depends. I always liked the stat driven turn based combat games, whether Heroes of Might and Magic 2 or Final Fantasy.

I also like action RPGs like Demon's/Dark Souls and Fallout or Skyrim. However those seem to be the norm these days, and there's really not many big, quality turn based or at least stat based RPGs which is really too bad.

 

[SageRuffin]

It's an rpg. A role-playing game. That means you are suppost to take turns. That means that reflexes should be out of the picture.

Excuse me, but... what?

A role-playing game is just that: playing a role. Thus, at its core, combat has little if any correlation with the core element (playing a role). By your definition, anything that has you take turns - from checkers to poker to even Mario Party - means that it's an RPG.

Anyone else reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't wait to see this...

 

[Nyaoku]

It's an rpg. A role-playing game. That means you are suppost to take turns. That means that reflexes should be out of the picture.

Excuse me, but... what?

A role-playing game is just that: playing a role. Thus, at its core, combat has little if any correlation with the core element (playing a role). By your definition, anything that has you take turns - from checkers to poker to even Mario Party - means that it's an RPG.

Anyone else reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't wait to see this...

I don't mean to offend you but personally, I consider those to be RPG games as well. Mario Party's a mix of a lot of stuff though. Not really sure what to call it.

 

[hazabaza1]

Depends on the way the game works.
For example, if you're going to have a very stat-based game where a single missed attack or critical hit could change the entire battle, simply have the player give commands through a list, a la Persona 4.
If you're making it so that the game is all about timing and gear and positioning, give the player full control, a la Dark Souls.
Naturally, there are probably exceptions to the rule, but I think the two examples are good ideas of how thing work well.

 

[DionysusSnoopy]

I prefer that a players skill is involved in combat. Personally I would much rather be in control of my characters actions then sitting back and watching a fight unfold this of course is in current gen 3D rpgs like fallout, DA and so on. But I also enjoy the tactical rpgs either turn-based (like FF Tactics or Disgaea) or old D&D such as baldurs gate (on harder difficulties) where you can stop and plan your next 5-10 moves as you like or if playing in real time assess and react to enemy moves. Both involve the players skill its just they require different skills and thought processes.

You could be really good at combat but even if your opponent is weaker if they can outmanoeuvre you they are more likely to be victorious.

On a side note this is why i don't often play MMORPGs unless they are free-to-play cause as Yahtzee said "Its all about the numbers" (paraphrased)