Styles of Turn-Based RPGs

[ThisIsNoName]

I'm brainstorming ideas for creating an RPG, and while I have ideas for general mechanics and characters, I'm having a hard time on deciding on what style I should use. For example, should I just use grid-based combat (like Disgaea), first person (like Wizardry or Planet Stronghold), or just two parties facing each other (like Final Fantasy).

Assuming that each are technically feasible, is there any styles you prefer? Does one style do something better than another? Are there any other styles that you would like to see more of?

Also what do you think are the benefits of Turn-Based vs Real Time or Active Battle type systems (like Final Fantasy 7, 8, etc.) Would you like to see them meshed together or think they should be separate?

[Funnyguts]

There can be a lot of variety within each kind of setup. You can have a face-to-face system that's fast paced and is about choosing what attack the enemy is weakest against and making sure you're a high enough level, or a face-to-face system where carefully choosing actions five turns in advance and manipulating the whole battle state to your advantage is essential.

I don't have any problems with any of the ways to handle turn-based RPGs you've mentioned. The important thing is that the system chosen complements the rest of the game well, and is thought out and tweaked fully. Just ask yourself what it is you're doing that makes your game work well, and work differently enough to be interesting.

[Crocosquirrel]

If I may...

Turn-based strategy (Disgaea) titles tend to sacrifice any kind of real RPG experience in favor of battle system, and are considerably more complex to get exactly right.

ATB gauges are possible to implement (My team and I have been looking into it), but they'll take some work, which may or may not be worth it. Two sides facing with ATB (FFIV-IX) style is certainly feasible as well.

Of all these options, 1st-person views are the simplest to implement (Phantasy Star/Wizardry/Early Ultima). Your mileage may vary, of course. The question becomes, what can you implement well, given your current skill levels and what you can readily research/obtain assets for?

[nyaatrap]

I chose first person view in my first game because I want to draw bigger sprites facing toward a player.
The next game will be "Animation novel" more than "Visual novel" and the battle system is design to achieve this concept.
Anyway, Graphics comes first in my case. Battle system is just a tool to reproduce my graphical vision.

[ThisIsNoName]

The question becomes, what can you implement well, given your current skill levels and what you can readily research/obtain assets for?

Well, I consider myself a reasonably good programmer, and chances are that I might go with XNA instead of Ren'py,just because I'm much more familiar with c# than with python. I also am learning how to use Blender and have some very simple 2d and 3d programming experience. I imagine I'd be able to create a pretty simple example of each style fairly easily.

But implementation aside, if you (anyone, not just DarkSpartan) were a creative director of an RPG and only needed to worry about story and mechanics, and assuming an unlimited budget (Go Big or Go Home! ), what would you consider before choosing a specific style?

[jack_norton]

In Loren we used two parties but having front/back row which was very cool for the battle mechanics. In Planet Stronghold there is no front/back row so the gameplay is simpler. I really think any system can be fun to play and appeals to different targets though - not necessarily more complex = better.
I think is more interesting to think if to make it turn-based or real-time (or semi-realtime).

[nyaatrap]

what would you consider before choosing a specific style?

What is your vision? is the answer.
If you have an ideal concept, everything you have to do is just organize anything to achieve your vision.
It may sound rude, but I'd say I can't say more before hearing what you want to make.

[ThisIsNoName]

What is your vision? is the answer.
If you have an ideal concept, everything you have to do is just organize anything to achieve your vision.
It may sound rude, but I'd say I can't say more before hearing what you want to make.

Ah, I suppose so
The main thing I want to accomplish is to have as little Gameplay and Story Segregation and as much strategic freedom as possible. For example, having attacks, counter attacks and grapples instead of attack, magic and items.

@jack_norton
I agree that turn-based vs real time is a very interesting question. The main reason I want to do a turn based game is largely because of how stagnant the genre has become. It seems like more and more companies are turning away from traditional turn-based games, and those that don't seem to adhere to the same design principles as every other turn-based RPG... But anyways, now I'm ranting.

I have to say I really like the idea of semi-realtime, though. I can't think of any games beside Resonance of Fate that used it as a core mechanic, but it's probably the best example of what I want to accomplish combat-wise.

[MoPark]

ATB is good, but I always preferred how Final Fantasy X spiced things up with Conditional Turn Based (CTB) battles. I don't really like ATB as much because it always makes me feel rushed, which, depending on the game you're trying to make, is a good thing, but CTB added a whole new element to battles in that moves like Haste and Slow really did impact the flow of the battle, and you spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to do the most damage using the least time-consuming attacks. Not everybody liked that, and I can understand why not, but I certainly enjoyed it.

Regardless of your choice of battle system, you should decide with certainty which one to implement well before serious development. There is nothing worse than having to change what you already had mid-game.

[HikkiPanda]

i vote for 2 parties facing each other or grid battle!

grid battle is more complicated to make, especially the AI >.> (though you can make it simpler by making all the grid accessible for movement).

[Shoko]

I've thought of this many times when thinking of how to turn my stories into a playable experience, specifically one of my favorite genres (RPGS).

It's got to fit your story. It's got to BE part of your story, I believe, or there's a disconnect. For example, I'm brainstorming an SRPG in which a midevial wizardish boy travels a ruined world looking for treasures, and summons creatures created from his soul from his weapon he was given to the by gods - a golden grid. In the original story, he didn't really summon anything, but was able to contain the power of the gods in the board. However, since this would be harder to show unless several different game styles were implented throughout the game, I decided to make it an SRPG because it fit with the story, allowed the boy to harness the power of the gods according to the battle system, and have a consistent method of gameplay throughout the game.

Gimmicks and unique gameplay can be amazing. But what truly impresses me is a game that feels like you've never left the "story" part of the game and the "real" game. That's probably because it's easy to make a gap between the player, the story, and the gameplay itself.

That disconnect can be created by AI thats too hard or easy, gameplay that's too shallow or convoluted, encouragement to rely on cheap, uncharacterisitic tactics, ect. For example, if I tried to make a game out of my own story that involves characters having very speedy, elaborate battles and lots of exploration/exposition, then a standard turn based RPG system would just slow it down. It'd be a much better fit as an Real time Action RPG.

So I would consult yourself most of all on how your game is made. Ask your characters to design your interface and battle systems. The best thing to do is to make it with the best of your ability and satisfaction now, be open to change and be willing to change if you seem something better.