Combat Systems in RPGs

First, I would like to thank those that have been keeping up with me, and reading the entries as they come out. Out of the 50 some odd views, I suspect that between 20-30 of them were my own, before I figured out how to not track my own, which leads me to believe I have maybe a good 5-10 unique visitors for each entry. Thank you so much! Its with your reading that supports me to keep going, I don't want to let you down!
Are you a regular? Lemme know in the comments section, there is huge benefit on your part to not be seen as just a view count! :D


Today, we take a look at some of the combat system ideas that I have towards the game. They range from a simplistic turn-based, left vs. right design, all the way to a more complex tactical DnD board style. We balance the ups and downs of each, so that the ideas are laid out in front of us and we can begin making comparisons between them, ultimately coming to a conclusion for what will be the best option.
Keeping in mind the previous entry on class systems, a combat system must fit in well with its classes, and vice versa. The two go hand in hand, a synergy is necessary. If you build a class system that doesn't work with its combat, the results can be disgustingly bad and utterly broken.

Now, lets talk maths real quick. I'm terrible at maths! So terrible in fact, that I have been known to obliterate simple equations that involve simple addition and subtraction. But math is extremely important for RPGs, namely in the combat system itself. Maths determine how much damage one does, what chance you have to dodge an attack, or how much mana you'll have left after casting a spell. RPGs and numbers might as well be married! I have no idea of any game that has any remote level of RPG aspects that doesn't involve math to even a minor degree, and if there are any, I guarantee that they are abominations.
How, then, should they be incorporated in the battle system? Well, there are 2 broad ways to do such: A high value system, and a low value system.

Low Value Systems

In a low value system, each number has a very significant weight behind it. A +1 to damage is a lot more powerful than it may seem, and having 100 health may be a very beefy amount. Games that incorporate a low value system are games like Pokemon, Dungeons and Dragons, and Magic the Gathering, even though it's a card game.
Low value systems are typically much easier to min-max with for those, like myself, that can't figure out the square root of 20 without a calculator and scrap paper. It also allows the more generic items and abilities to retain their usefulness throughout a game. Since something like a boost of 5 HP becomes a more significant bonus, the weight behind the decision of who to give it to becomes much more important. Do you give it to your beefy tank, who can always use more health? Or do you give it to your healer, who is more important to keep alive at all times?

High Value Systems

High value systems take larger numbers in an attempt to make tweaking that much more hands on. With higher values, a +20 increase to Mana isn't all too important, but with 5 +20 increases, you now have a larger mana pool. Games like World of Warcraft, Dragon Age: Origins, Borderlands, and Diablo 2 incorporate higher values in their maths. While sometimes it borders between low and high, overall the distinction is that a single boost to a stat is much less significant than it would be in a true low value system.
High value systems are a min-maxers dream, for they allow the most control over your numbers, and a character can be tweaked to your perfect combination. The downfall of these systems is that many times, like in games like WoW, the equations can be difficult to find, and even difficult to understand without a decent knowledge of mathematical procedures.
In high value systems, the prevalence of magical gear and skills/spells/abilities are much less impactful: It requires a lot of condensing things to make a powerful combination of numbers to achieve your goals, instead of a single item or level up. This results in taking more time, and careful consideration, in how to level up or gear your characters. This, in turns, means for a longer game as a whole. These systems also are much more difficult to reach a wider audience, as the RPG elements are a lot heavier than others, and unless you've been playing games like these for years, you might be hard pressed to get any good at the game, or even finish it.

With basic number theories out of the way, we can begin looking at the real meat of the combat systems I have in mind. As usual, we'll start off with the simplest forms, and move on to the more complicated, and how it could be done with each style.

Left vs. Right Turn Based

This style is 100% self-explanatory, and requires little practice to understand the nuances in the mechanics

Popularized by the Final Fantasy series, the Left vs. Right style includes basic "I move, then you move" combat style. Other iterations, like in Dragon Warrior, feature a "top vs. bottom" style, though the game play is identical, even if the perspective is different.
The upside to a style like this is lack of extreme complexity, meaning a wider audience, a more nostalgic feel to really bring out the old school aspect of the game, and a much less design time over all.
The downsides are almost the same as its ups, however. There is a lack of complexity, and those that find extreme tactical depth wouldn't be able to find much. The nostalgia goggles you would be putting on always wear out, no matter how much you may love the style, and there is little to no innovation behind it, depending on how its done.

I have 2 basic ideas behind how to do a left vs. right style, one of which being almost a carbon copy of the Final Fantasy system. For those who understand the system, there is little need to explain its inner workings. The battle starts showing your characters on one side, the enemy on the other. You pick each characters actions, then watch as the battle unfolds. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The other idea, while similar, does require an explanation. Using a 3x3 grid system, you make the formation of your party a major tactical decision. This adds a layer of depth to combat, something the left vs. right has less of than other systems.
How it would work is as such. Lets say you have 5 characters in your party: 2 warrior types, a mage, a healer, and an archer. You decide to form the party as such, with the left side being the front row, and the right side the back row:

W = Warrior, A = Archer, H = Healer, M = Mage

With that positioning, our warriors block any melee access to the other 3 members of the party. The archer and mage can pelt people with projectiles from behind the shields of our front fighters, and the healer has a thick, two character wall in which one must fight through to actually damage him. Of course, ranged attackers could hit them in the back rows, but there could be abilities to assist in that. Let that be an after thought though.

Then, we can incorporate a flanking mechanic. Lets say your party is attacked from behind. Now the grid would look like this:

Uh oh! This could end up being bad news for an un-prepared party

Now, your mage and healer are vulnerable, and your warriors are out of position to do their job properly. This mechanic would add to that tactical depth. Should I put my squishies (In RPG lingo that means mages or cloth armor wearers) in the back row, or put them in the middle row, so that they can be protected from more than one angle?
To add to it, perhaps throw in a movement system, so that when attacked from an inopportune position, allow the party to re-configure their formation on the fly to make up for them being flanked. Considering the inherit lack of tactical depth of a left vs. right system, this gives some flare to the combat system, and even adds a couple mechanics that can be integrated into skills and spells. Mages could light a square on fire, for example, making any enemy that re-positions to that tile take continual damage. Or maybe a warrior can perform a sweeping blow that damages the entire front row of attackers.

This, over all, bridges the gap between the standard left vs. right style, and the pure tactical RPG style found in games like Ultima, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Fire Emblem, which is one of my absolute favorite genres of RPG.

Tactical RPG Style

Tactical RPGs involve a ton of thinking, and critical decision making, with an emphasis on efficient strategy

In a tactical RPG, your group of characters take turns moving on a grid of either squares or hexes, and the emphasis is on critical positioning techniques and strategic thinking. This adds extreme depth to combat systems, and mistakes can be punishable by death of characters, or making a battle more difficult than it had to be.
The ups to a tactical style is the depth, of course. With this style, I can incorporate a lot more class mechanics such as movement abilities, active flanking mechanics, and ultimately longer and more engaging battles. It also makes good use of the art style, using the graph paper aesthetic as a game play mechanic.
The negatives? Well, tacticals are a somewhat niche genre: You're either a fan, or you're not. This closes up the audience to a select crowd, something that can be seen in a negative light as a game designer. While it's one of my favorite genres, it isn't the most popular, tacticals are more a cult genre.
Another heavy negative is that there would be less battles than in a left vs. right: With a standard Final Fantasy build, random encounters make the meat of the combat. Battles happen frequently, and grinding can be made possible. With tactical combat, each battle can take upwards of an hour, and it turns the true focus of the game on its combat. Exploration and dungeons become almost unnecessary, as the games driving point is going from battle to battle, defeating the purpose of adding a new school twist to a genre mostly seen as true retro gaming.

A way I see as combining the tactical prowess of a pure tactics game, and the exploration and discovery of a  left vs. right style, is do something similar to how the pen and paper DnD game works.

For those unfamiliar with how standard DnD plays, the DM (Or Dungeon Master) creates a dungeon on a grid. Each room can have a monster or two, some traps, or secret passage ways. The players (Each with a character, sometimes two characters) do their own thing. Jimmy may want to check out that wall using his keen senses, and Barbara may want to go try figuring out the puzzle on the pedestal in the center of the room. While the party is exploring the chamber, goblins appear! Now the room becomes a battleground. Since the party has dispersed itself about the room to do their own thing, they all have a position on the grid, and the goblins do as well. Combat ensues using dice and the like, all within the layout of the room that also acts as a non-combat mechanic. When the battle end, unless something within the battle changed the environment, the room stays the same, and the party can continue what it was doing before the ambush.

Something like this would allow for the same combat depth of a tactical RPG, but still enable the mapping and discovery of other RPG styles. What are the negatives? Well, a huge design time, for one. Each dungeon, while being hand crafted, wouldn't have many random encounters. Each engagement would be different, and would have to be designed in its own special way. While the world itself can be enlarged, this makes the design process super long, as extreme attention must be put into dungeons beyond its layout.

Addendum
I'm somewhat leaning towards the "DnD based" style of tactical combat, though that is extremely ambitious. The safer, more conservative route would be a basic left vs. right style, which would be easier to design and take less time over all without rushing it. I'm torn maybe 55-45 between it. I think that a comprimise on the grid based LvR would be a fun twist to throw in, even if it still doesn't have the same level of depth as a true tactical. What are your thoughts? This one I would really love to hear your opinion, so make sure to comment below, and lemme know what you think!

GET INVOLVED!

Those who comment get recognition! The more you comment, and say what you think, the more and more you get credited for assistance. Heck, who doesn't like seeing their name on something? I know I do! In the future, I plan on having incentives for being a part of it, from simple signed pictures of sprites and art, to conceptual demos, and maybe even a position on the design team. I know I'm not capable of doing everything by myself without intense amounts of learning and discovery, and adding new people to the team not only enables faster development time, but allows more than my own creative influence on the game. You can be a part of game design to what ever degree you want, as long as you put your mind and mouth into it!