Editorial Sinister Design on 6 Ways to Improve Turn-based RPG Combat

[Captain Shrek]

Technically, yes. In practice, when there is next to nothing to spend a large amount of time over, TB is pointless and boring. So Norfleet is for all practical purposes spot on.

(that non-TB, by the virtue of having next to nothing to spend a large amount of time over by default, is pointless and boring, goes without asking).

Of course. All I said was that it i an effect and not the cause of TB.

 

[Grunker]

(that non-TB, by the virtue of having next to nothing to spend a large amount of time over by default, is pointless and boring, goes without asking).

Disagree.

Oh.

That, too.

OH SNAP HUH

 

[Norfleet]

Is not the cause, but an effect. Sorry for the nitpicking but I thought this was an interesting issue to discuss.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. The entire reason "turn-based" was invented was because people were dealing with systems too complex for both players and adjucators to manage in real-time. This model breaks down when a player is making only high-level decisions for a single unit, while the computer is adjucating these decisions at computer-speeds. At this point the overhead imposed by a turn-based framework actually impedes gameplay rather than promoting it. Just imagine playing Diablo as a turn-based game, watching all the monsters TAKE THEIR TURNS just so you can make the obvious decision of "I hit it with my sword" on yours. This would be mindnumbingly boring, because a Diablo player is practically never called upon to make decisions with any depth to them. You don't decide you swing your axe at the monster's left arm, you just swing your axe and do damage. It's totally abstract. And thus totally boring as a turn-based game.

TB combat as an abstraction DOES work for single player as long the part being abstracted is the idea that the system implementing the design wants to emphasize the strategic skill instead of hand eye co-ordination.

This is true when the number and depth of decisions to make is fairly complex. But let's face it: Most games DON'T actually have a detailed strategy...and it's very difficult to really showcase ANY amount of strategy when all the player has is ONE UNIT. Let's face it: Diablo isn't a game that really tests one's hand/eye coordination despite being real time. This is because all actions in Diablo are abtracted at a level which makes actual turns pointless.

In general, TB systems would require you to spend a large amount of time (not necessarily giving you infinite time) to come to some conclusion about your next move thus DE-emphasizing how quickly and accurately you can move and place and target units.

But you only have one unit. If, on top of that, your choices of what to DO with those units is fairly small, the point of having things which qualify as "turns" is sort of eliminated.

Thus the need of TB system is NOT to have difficult encounters, but rather strategy.

And since there's not much of a strategy when all you have is ONE DUDE WITH A SWORD, making such a game turn-based means that your move is frequently just going to be "I Kill An Orc".

 

[DraQ]

Elevation is something any self-respecting 3D game should handle perfectly well completely implicitly.

Nono, randomize drops is a bad idea unless you let all drops in battle appear in the final act of that battle.

The article was about different kind of random drops - items or resources appearing/located unpredictably around the map. It's more relevant to strategic/tactical games, which have the concept of map control, but can be used in RPGs to reward exploration (of gameworld, rather than online wikis).

Randomization of loot dropped by enemies is indeed bad - enemies should be given normal (although possibly pre-randomized) inventories they would be capable of using themselves (unless forbidden by in-universe logic - for example: a zombie probably won't be smart enough to fire charges from magic item it carries) and which they would drop upon death unless some items were damaged, used up or otherwise lost in battle.

 

[Ebonsword]

4E would have made for a pretty good cRPG, actually. Hell, it practically was a cRPG. The fact that it was locked-in and non-modular was mostly problematic in a P&P-perspective (where the system was less that optimal). It would work pretty well in a cRPG, I think.

Also, inb4 someone says "lol it would have been a WoW-copy", thus missing the point.

Yeah, it's kind of ironic that the D&D edition best suited to being a CRPG never had a CRPG made using its rule set.