By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
VXIII on 09 March 2015
Edit Thread
Sentient_Nebula said:
VXIII said:

The strategic element in a turn-based RPG comes from the ability to micro-manage all the commands of the party members.

The strategic element in an action-based RPG comes from stamina managing, positioning in the battlefield, the defensive stance as the player is in control 100% of the time not 50%, and overall control over the party members through "gambit" system if it is implied.

How deep the strategic factor in any RPG depends on the design choices, not the subgenre.

I guess I didn't use enough words (You also cut off a large portion of my post which explained more), but you do seem to understand what I'm trying to say. Yes, I do enjoy that sort of "micro-management" aspect of traditional RPGs. (I also like RTS games for the same reason).

Many action-RPGs require a different kind of strategy. Most generally require more "on your feet" impulse thinking, and rarely give you time to plan out your moves. In addition, making a mistake in an Action-RPG usually isn't a big deal, since you can quickly correct your mistake. In a turn-based RPG (or slow-paced action-RPG) making a mistake is usually much more punishing, since you have to wait a much longer time before you're able to correct yourself. So you're given more time to plan your moves, because you have to plan them well in order to play well.

I'm not trying to say one is better than the other... It's all completely subjective. I'm just trying to clarify the details as to why I prefer turn-based RPGs over action-RPGs.

I understand. And as I were saying, the strategic depth is up to the design choices, not the subgenre. Turn-based battle system is not more strategic by default (which is what I got from your first post). Most of the strategic elements mentioned can be implied in an action-based battle system.