Why I Have Come to Dislike RPGs, Part Three

4) Random / unavoidable battles

Sure, combat is fun sometimes (depending on the RPG), but being forced to fight enemies every three steps is a bit much, even for an abstraction such as an RPG system. The assumptions behind a random battle system (and to a lesser extent, a respawning system, which for simplicity's sake I will lump together with random battles) are, upon inspection, so ridiculously absurd that you have to wonder why they still exist in the first place.

First, random battles assume that there is an inexhaustible supply of enemies in any given dungeon or region of the world map. No matter how many enemies your party or character slays, there is always an infinite number more ready and waiting to be felled by the character's sword. Though fighting against impossible odds and succeeding is certainly dramatic, it's disheartening to know that no matter how many enemies you defeat, you are never any further along than where you started (unless you defeat the boss and magically leave the dungeon due to the dangling carrot cutscene). There is a definite sense of accomplishment in games such as LUNAR, where there is a finite number of foes in any given dungeon: you can "clear out" the dungeon. If you're going to be forced to be a menial exterminator, you should at least be allowed to complete your task satisfactorily!

Of course, even LUNAR suffered from the second assumption behind random/unavoidable battles: that combat is the only way to resolve conflict. This is primarily the case in console RPGs, but PC RPGs such as Baldur's Gate suffer from the same conceptual flaw in many areas. Combat is required in many areas not because the character's actions necessitate it, but rather because "that's how the game is supposed to be played." What if I want to play a character that is a smooth-talker? Why shouldn't I be able to at least attempt to solve a conflict non-violently? Apparently, it's as simple as the fact that the designers believe that a game should be about fighting your way to the next dangling carrot. Then again, it could be due to the next reason I have come to dislike RPGs:

5) "Grinding"

Though Dragon Quest had its share of this kind of thing, I fully blame Blizzard for the current rash of this RPG design problem. Sure, it is fine for games like Diablo, but true RPGs should not be about fighting battle after repetitive battle in order to amass power and wealth. There should be some driving purpose to the player's actions, whether it be progression of a plotline or whatever other sort of reason – in other words, "role playing." Opportunity for role playing necessitates a context for everything that the character is doing, and grinding or powergaming is not something that should be readily embraced -- again, games like Diablo exist for that kind of thing. It is effectively materialism on a virtual scale: do menial labor in order to be able to acquire that kick-ass sword you've wanted ever since you first saw it for sale in the local merchant's stock.

Of course, this problem is inextricably intertwined with several of the other ones that I have already listed, such as random battles and length, and it is certainly a "chicken or the egg" argument to attempt to determine which causes which. If I need to fight, fine, but there needs to be a good reason for that fighting. Providing a believable context for battle not only adds to the verisimilitude of the game itself (which is of utmost importance in an RPG), but it makes the battles themselves more memorable. Instead of being the dreck of the genre, such memorable battles actually heighten the game due to their scarcity and emphasis upon the player.