next »

[jack_norton]

I'm designing a new RPG, and I have a big doubt... is better to use a semi-realtime combat or classic turnbased?
1. classic turnbased using action points with initiative/speed movement order (think fallout 1-2)
2. semi realtime with two phases, planning and execution (a bit like frozen synapse)

I'm thinking about 2, even if will be obviously harder to code...because need also to think about player AI or "tactics" like Dragon Age 2. But I think the 2nd would be better in particular for non-hardcore RPG players ?
Any feedback welcome

[Danmark]

You're speaking of the distinction between IgoYouGo and WeGo in turn-based strategy games. In my experience, WeGo (in particular, as demonstrated in Combat Mission, Flotilla, and Frozen Synapse, among others) is more challenging and compelling.

In a discussion pertaining to board games, a wise man once said that "IgoYouGo promotes a non-beneficial combinatorial explosion" (obviously not ad-verbatim). With WeGo, the player considers the possible moves of his opponent, and never the order in which he executes his own moves. Of course, IgoYouGo may impose an order of moves, but considering this order is still fundamentally unfun.

Option #2 all the way.

[SundownKid]

Right now I'm trying to make a TBS game with a "WeGo" system. I think it makes more sense because no one is ever a sitting duck. Of course, it requires a different way of thinking about gameplay because you can't make your moves with precision.

[jack_norton]

Thanks, I am really unsure what to do. Of my users, many still like the classic turnbased system, but I would at least use initiative to decide who moves first.
I don't want to make something too complex, so I'm thinking either turnbased with some sort of map, or semi-realtime with no map.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

aren't there already enough rpgs being made with real-time combat? it dominates rpgs right now -- dragon age, the elder scrolls series, fallout series, modern final fantasy games, etc. -- turn-based combat rpgs are relatively rare nowadays. so i say do turn-based just so you can stick out from all the others

the frozen synapse idea could work but that basically *is* turn based, not semi-real time; i don't really think it's real-time at all. turn-based to me only means that you have unlimited time to make your decision, not that the action necessarily happens through "turns"

if you haven't played the suikoden series, they basically do what you suggest. you tell everyone what to do, then the turn begins and everyone mostly does it all at once

[Vino]

Bear in mind that there is a friction against turn-based games for core gamers. I suppose you'll alienate some group of people either way, but I've gotten a lot of friction about my game being turn-based.

[Bree]

I recently read about a role-playing game called Dread that had an interesting conflict resolution system. Instead of rolling dice like Dungeons & Dragons and its ilk, you use a tower of Jenga blocks. You carefully remove blocks to perform actions, or else you succumb to madness, dismemberment, being eaten by a grue, etc. If you want your character to go out with a bang, you can choose to intentionally knock all of the blocks over; your character will succeed, but will also be killed off.

The system intrigues me greatly, in part because of its novelty. After all, just how many role-playing games resolve conflicts through dice? If we can use Jenga blocks, what else can we use? Could we use Lego kits? A Monopoly board? Hot Pockets? But... apart from the gimmickry, the system suits the style of role-playing- the game is designed for survival horror scenarios, the types of movies where cheerleaders are chased by men with very large knives and luminescent eyes peer out from the shadows wherever you look. As the story's tension increases, so too does the meatspace gameplay- Jenga's key hook is that dreadful feeling that, with just one slippery finger, you're going to be the one to knock over the tower and lose the game. Makes for a very interesting dynamic....

I assume that this was meant to be a thread about video-game combat systems, but I think it'd be worthwhile to see what other opportunities are out there. After all, computer RPGs as we know them today are derived from the d20.

[jack_norton]

aren't there already enough rpgs being made with real-time combat? it dominates rpgs right now -- dragon age, the elder scrolls series, fallout series, modern final fantasy games, etc. -- turn-based combat rpgs are relatively rare nowadays. so i say do turn-based just so you can stick out from all the others

Yes that's true. Beside probably the style of visuals I'll have wouldn't really work well with real-time!

the frozen synapse idea could work but that basically *is* turn based, not semi-real time; i don't really think it's real-time at all. turn-based to me only means that you have unlimited time to make your decision, not that the action necessarily happens through "turns"

I couldn't find a way to describe it but...

if you haven't played the suikoden series, they basically do what you suggest. you tell everyone what to do, then the turn begins and everyone mostly does it all at once

Yes, I LOVED suikoden series!! but even more recent JRPG like Last Odyssey have that system, you tell orders and then you execute them. That's what I meant by "semi-realtime" It's still turnbased, and that's what I was thinking to do.

[SundownKid]

"Semi-realtime", to me, would be something like Final Fantasy 6 where you don't actually attack all at once, but the enemy doesn't wait for you to move.

Lost Odyssey was definitely PURE turn-based, because there was no time element. They would stand there forever if you wanted to go AFK, with no enemy attacking you.

[Sankar]

For me Semi-RealTime is a game that pauses when you're going to execute an action. Usually you can move your character freely, and when your ATB bar (or whatever) is filled, you can attack.
Its one of my favorite combat systems.

Now, Turn-Based is good too, but it needs to be well animated I believe. Fallout 1/2 Turn-Based combat is fun because you never know when you're going to hit a critical and splash the enemie all over the ground. So is Final Fantasy VII, the characters are very well animated and its great to see their attacks.

I think people usually prefer "real-time" these days, but there is enough fans of both styles for you to be able to choose your prefered style.

[jack_norton]

Thanks for the suggestions. In the end I'm thinking to go with turnbased and use of initiative and Action Points. I have limited resources and cannot do isometric animations like FF or Fallout sadly
So it's going to be fist person look and use that turnbased system, but will have an auto-combat for easy/normal mode and use auto-leveling enemies for Hard mode, to solve the problem of "boring battles" that some people had with my other JRPG Planet Stronghold.

[Ranordine]

Thanks for the suggestions. In the end I'm thinking to go with turnbased and use of initiative and Action Points. I have limited resources and cannot do isometric animations like FF or Fallout sadly

Good choice. Turn-based systems have always felt much cleaner to me than realtime-with-pause, and are actually capable of containing greater tactical depth.  And don't worry about graphics--a simply overhead square grid is more than enough! It would be nice if you took combat deeper than the standard oldschool jRPG "we stand over here, you stand over there and take turns hitting each other" model.

So it's going to be fist person look and use that turnbased system, but will have an auto-combat for easy/normal mode and use auto-leveling enemies for Hard mode, to solve the problem of "boring battles" that some people had with my other JRPG Planet Stronghold.

If you know your combat is going to be boring beforehand, why put it in? Simply because it is an expectation of the genre? That is a poor excuse.

The reason people complain about boring battles in jRPGs is because there are usually far, far too many, and most of them are not challenging at all. Design an intricate combat system with lots of strategic options, then gear your efforts toward fewer, more engaging combat encounters. Then you won't have to worry about the boredom problem at all.

Also, I think you already know how most people feel about autolevelling.

[jack_norton]

Well not sure yet about those two last features I posted.
Boring battles for a GROUP of people. There are obviously others who loved the battles. Though maybe I should give up trying to "appeal everyone" and focus on the features that my code audience prefers in my JRPG.

If anyone's interested this is official WIP forum for the game:
http://www.winterwolves.net/viewforum.php?f=30
has some WIP screenshots. Warning: big boobs ahead