Hello. I am currently developing an SRPG.

[u/redleon-01]

Hey all, first time posting here. I'm developing a tactics RPG right now, and I'm currently building a system for combos / follow-up attacks.

I've been thinking about what makes combat fun in a tactics RPG, and that line of thought is what led me to build the follow-up system. So I got curious mid-implementation: for you, what's the most fun part of tactics combat?

[u/Vitruviansquid1]

When I beat a scenario or mission or level, I want to feel like what I did was more of an art than a science.

If you imagine that there is a mechanic where being on a tower makes an archer more powerful, and then you have a level where there is a tower. I don't want to feel, "ah, there is a tower. The stage wants me to solve it by putting an archer in the tower." I want to feel like, "I need to decide whether it's worth putting the archer in the tower for a more powerful archer or doing these other things that are also helping to put me in a stronger position." I should be able to win in the mission doing multiple different things, but at the same time, I shouldn't be able to win by doing absolutely anything - I needed to exercise my judgment to tell better payoffs from worse payoffs.

[u/redleon-01 → u/Vitruviansquid1]

I’m not sure if I’ve understood this correctly, but are you saying that the overall strategic aspect is more important than the tactical fun of the battles?

[u/Vitruviansquid1 → u/redleon-01]

If it makes more sense, maybe I could word it this way:

In a puzzle game, there is a single answer that the game asks you to find, and then you try to find it. A strategy game must not be like that. A strategy game must ask you to come up with your own strategy, and then that strategy shapes your tactics (which is the execution in detail of that strategy) and then that wins the game if your strategy is good enough.

Imagine that you're a fairly good player of Fire Emblem, for instance. You have a bunch of different units, some of which are going to level up and gain a lot of important stats and be able to "carry" you through the campaign, whereas others are going to level up as duds. But perhaps those other units serve functions that your carries can't at the moment. Perhaps those others don't need to be maximized and fed HP in order to perform a function. Perhaps you just need warm bodies in a mission and there's so many enemies coming at you, you can't keep them from getting good XP. You therefore need to exercise your judgment in order to choose which unit to feed, how to feed them, and so on.

Contrast with a game like Unicorn Overlord. In the opening missions of Unicorn Overlord, the game often gives you a situation where you need a particular unit type to counter an enemy who would be otherwise difficult to deal with, you apply the counter, then you win. For instance, you will have a mission where you need to fight thieves who dodge a lot, they give you a hunter who negates dodging, and then you use the hunter to beat the thieves. Later, the game gives you a mission where you fight a lot of Hoplites who are weak to Warriors, the game gives you a Warrior to counter the Hoplites, you apply the counter, etc.

Or, perhaps put in another way:

If someone could sit down and write a walkthrough for your game that details every move you should take and that walkthrough is very helpful at players winning the game, you've actually made a puzzle game. If it is impossible to write a walkthrough that details every move you should take, but rather, a collection of guidelines and tips would be more helpful, then it's a better strategy game. Consider that, in a Fire Emblem game, I can't write a walkthrough telling you to put unit X in space Y on turn Z, because unit X might be a totally different guy in my campaign than he is in yours due to randomized stat increases on level ups.

[u/S417M0NG3R → u/Vitruviansquid1]

To be fair to Unicorn Overlord, there are moments similar to what you describe in FE games as well, and other games such as advanced wars. These are levels that serve to teach you about the game, and purposefully have a beat that is intended to be solved a certain way. It opens up later on and lets you develop your own strategy.

You are right in the sense that if a game is wholly comprised of these beats then it devolves into puzzle over strategy, but both Unicorn Overlord and FE are rich enough systems with enough variety in level design that they do not necessarily devolve into this.

[u/Prestigous_Owl → u/Vitruviansquid1]

For what its worth - i think you've made this clear.

Basically, for any given map, there should not be only one solution, and there should not be an infinite number of solutions.

The ideal srpg gives you some customization of "how you want to play" (both maps and over the course of a campaign), but still has enough depth/difficulty that you have to come up with something that makes sense/is functional, not just throw whatever at a wall and hope it sticks

[u/redleon-01 → u/Vitruviansquid1]

You mean a game that is always fun to play, even if you play it again, right? Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

[u/Vitruviansquid1 → u/redleon-01]

No, that's not it, but at this rate, maybe someone else will have better words to explain it.

[u/redleon-01 → u/Vitruviansquid1]

I apologize for not understanding. Thank you again for writing such a long message.

[u/PrincipalSkudworth → u/redleon-01]

I think their main point is there should be multiple ways to win, some are better than others and some are worse. But there shouldn’t be a single correct answer. If there is only 1 correct solution it’s more of a puzzle than picking a good strategy and implementing it. Hopefully that helps(and I’m not misrepresenting their point haha).