Comments on: Do RPGs really need combat?

By: Ashiq

Ashiq — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:25:41 +0000

Awesome post. Combat is definitely non-essential, but often fun. There are many games that support “autobattle,” or games that have non-interactive combat (like Progress Quest”).

I would personally love to see an RPG without combat. For me, autobattle is the first step.

By: MrBeast

MrBeast — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:28:32 +0000

Combat is a easy way to increase the length of the game. Interesting decisions, exploring a world etc. is very nice, but also a incredibly amount of work as everything has to be hand crafted. In two years one might make a 40 hours diablo-like game, or alternatively a 4 hours decision driven game. While I would certainly enjoy the second one more there are many people who play RPGs for their longevity, or rather: get addicted to it because they are so long-living.

By: Juuso

Juuso — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:32:54 +0000

Deserved a blog post:
http://www.gameproducer.net/2012/03/22/what-if-there-would-be-alternative-to-combat-when-dealing-with-conflicts/

By: Tamar

Tamar — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:26:32 +0000

I think it’s because battles can have variable results.

If you have an RPG that has diverging story points, they are limitations to how many variations and the success is somewhat rigid: did you pick the right option? If so, you proceed this way. If not, you go that way. This way may continue the game. This way may be an instant game over. It may be possible to overcome this with a procedurally generated story system, but that can’t guarantee a meaningful story worth seeing through to the end.

That’s why a lot of developers prefer finite (if not somewhat variable) story points coupled with combat. In combat, there’s more variability and, hopefully, deeper conflict. Did that orc kill you in the last battle? Maybe if you step a little more to the left when he swings his club, you can get him next time. Did the wizard cast a spell that depleted half your HP? Casting this particular spell may counter his spell.

Such a preference stems from the intended narrative goals in most RPGs-saving the kingdom/world that your character(s) inhabit. However, it’s different in other RPGs like Harvest Moon; there isn’t combat because the goal isn’t saving the world, it’s running a successful farm. Combat doesn’t fit the intended narrative in Harvest Moon’s case and would not appeal to the target audience.

By: hermitC

hermitC — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:57:57 +0000

Conflict is the essence of each story, is it physical, mental, spiritual, etc. It’s an imbalance which has to be solved throughout the play. (Counter opinions? I know it’s a bold statement but I’ve thought about it and could not falsify it myself.)

IMHO RPGs still use combat that often because its granddaddy D&D did so and the paying gamer audience of the 80s/90s were mostly boys. Never change a winning team/formula.

It’s a good question why RPGs can’t live without beating enemies’ daylights out. Maybe war and battle is the distinctive audio-visual manifestation of conflict?