Combat-wise, what makes a good RPG system?

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Combat-wise, what makes a good RPG system?

Combat-wise what makes a good RPG system to you?

To me:
1-Flavor. Story.
2-Minimal grind. FFVII -level is about as much I am willing to tolerate today.
2.b-Speed. actions has to be speedy. I do not have the patience to watch a 5 minutes summon animation anymore.
3-A progression from weak to strong. If the monsters level up with you... major fail.
4-Balance (but not at the expense of flavor)
5-Skill over chance.

It doesn't need to be particularly punishing to me, as it is there to support the story and not the other way around.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I agree otherwise, but for me it is always chance over skill. I like the unpredictability and PnP esque feel of being able to fail according to how I've built my character much more than getting gradually buffed (+5% damage, +5% attack speed, etc) with an ability I've already mastered. One of the big things that have brought Witcher 3 down in my book is that the combat and character progression is boring and uninspiring in the long run.

Generally, I prefer combat in RPG's to be an option among other options rather than the selfappointed purpose it so often is made to be where every game boils down to how good at combat the PC will become in the end be it a tank, rogue/ranger or mage.

Good RPG system (regarding combat) is one that plays according to the context at hand, is not mandatory, and highlights the purpose and abilities of the role that the player is building and lets the player think and make decisions strategically and tactically according to it rather than boiling things down to reaction time with a controller or M/KB.

If I had to put it in a list....

1: Character over player when it comes to executing given tasks.
2: Context and optability in a given situation.
3: Strategy and tactics with variety of options during combat, and the time to think about them.
4: Clarity of the rules and the situation at hand (not needing to be simple and streamlined, just clear in what is going on and what all the all the actions and elements do and provide).
5. Yes, balance, but not overdone.

Progression from inept to adept is something I consider an inherent trait of an RPG system. But even that doesn't need to mean an initial character is completely out of chances (with a bit of luck, even the most inept can succeed at hard tasks, however low the chances for that are; and the same goes vice versa too, the masters are not completely infallible).

 

[Calistarius]

The whole PnP RPG thing is also sort of where I stand. I mean I do like games like Mass Effect, Skyrim, etc, where most things are player-skill based... but on the whole I do prefer it when most of my characters stats, skills, and what not, are the things that is the most importent thing for how things go in the game... and I also agree that I do prefer it when your character can fail at things they try to do, PnP style.

That is why Fallout 1/2/T instantly became one of my all-time favorit games, that is why I love the old "UFO: Enemy Unknown" ("X-COM: UFO Defence" for you Americans), and that is why I have been really happy with a lot of the games that have come out in the last several years. Because there has been a resurgency of all of games which feel very "PnP RPG-like" to me. The next one on the list that I am looking forward to is XCOM 2... yeah, I know, it's a "small-squad-tactical-combat-basebuilding-stratagy-game" kind of a thing... but to me it is very simmilar to a PnP RPG.

Part of this is that the things that are my favorit parts about PnP RPG's is: Combat, and preferabtly that combat is turn-based. I also really like the whole "leveling up" your character aspect of it (I do prefer skill-based PnP RPG system, never really was much for Level-based PnP RPG systems like DnD... but when it comes to PC and Console games I am ok with a level based system, since I know that it can be very difficult to make a good skill-based system on PC/Console games), it's mainly your characters skill in something that I like the "level-up" bit about... but it can also be equipmentwise to a certain degree (even though it is not neccesarily needed... it does give a PC/console game that little bit more of an edge to it if it does have that though). And also, I really do enjoy the whole "team" aspect of PnP RPG's... now, usually, in PnP RPG's your characters teammates are played by other players of course... but that particular aspect of it I dont really feel I need or want in a pc/console game (my pc/console gaming is a very solitary thing for me, I usually enjoy these games the most when I can play them all by my self with nobody else around), since there I much rather have full control over the entire team. Usually (but not always) one of the characters is "my character"... that usually falls to the main character the game, or the first character I create for the team, or something like that.

So this is why I totally consider both the old UFO:Enemy Unknown, and the new XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and the upcoming XCOM2... and a lot of other games that many people would not consider to be "RPG games"... to be just that, RPG games.

Heck, I even consider Dawn of War 2 a RPG game! XD To me DoW 2 was clearly the better game between DoW 1 and 2. It really did bug me a lot that I probably went through more then one chapter worth of Space Marines in DoW 1. I mean Space Marines are supposed to be the best of the best that humans have to offer, where if you have a really big threat a Chapter MIGHT send one Company (100 SM's)... or heck even just a squad or two (10-20 SM's). So to me DoW 2 was better on all fronts in my mind... both due to the RPG-lite aspects of it, the smaller unit size, and because it felt like it more accuratly portrayed Space Marines as the badass killing machines they are agaisnt vastly supperior numbers... and especially since it did not feel like I was getting an entire Space Marine Chapter killed every to every other mission.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

many different options to choose, and that choices really have consequences and change something, and yu can see those consequences and changs in story, otrs characters, outcomes, etc later in the game, in gamplay or cutscenes or whatever

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I'm not sure why the question should be phrased as "combat wise". What makes a good RPG system in general? For me personally it's immersion. I.e. believable characters and settings and a system which doesn't encourage Mary Sue type of playing.

 

[chriswebb2020.736]

Speed, Simplicity, Versatility and Adaptability. End of.

Combat systems need to be simple enough that you don't have to keep looking up equations and other BS, fast enough that your players are not going to get bored and capable of handling creative players with ease.

 

[Sardukhar]

Speed, Simplicity, Versatility and Adaptability. End of.

Combat systems need to be simple enough that you don't have to keep looking up equations and other BS, fast enough that your players are not going to get bored and capable of handling creative players with ease.

I agree.

Although New World of Darkness accomplished much of this, ( one die roll, etc), but lacked the..flavour of Old World of Darkness or Cyberpunk.

FNFF is pretty good, but is a bit math heavy and has lots of little rules you have to remember.

Nobilis doesn't use dice at all.

Numenera has players make all the rolls, of which there is one, and spend things like XP to improve those rolls.