Combat in RPG's

RPG is just a term to categorize games. It makes no sense to base your concept on an abstract of what most closely resembles what you're trying to make, instead of just making it the way you want.

This certainly isn't a question already been done to death.
In short, it's anything to do with character building, abstraction between player input and character actions, and making meaningful choices in character progression - in various contexts such as attributes, gear, NPC interactions, story, etc. For more, see some threads like these
archive.is/ttEUN
archive.is/JDcUC
Note that what I'm describing is the design of the mechanics, not necessarily their individual implementations. That varies on a game-to-game basis.

This drives home a point for me.

RPG's are ideally story driven turn-based single player or team/co-op vs. non-player enemies. No different than pen and paper RPG.

PvP in RPG's always seem to motivate people to add more skill based elements but that's not what the genre is designed for. It's not a shooter or fighting game.

I'm actually not a big fan of RPG's now that I really think about it.

roflcofl

Pen and paper RPG's are purely story driven. The combat is purely a dice roll. Combat isn't a selling point at all. It's just a story that has branching events.

A "combat role-playing game" is dumb and shows that we've been playing telephone and the original meaning has been lost down the line.

what?
Worst RPG series out there, assuming action-based combat is a different genre than turn based. Literally just repeatedly press attack repeatedly to win, and the combat is somehow worse than skyrim.
What fucking TES? I'm going to assume skyrim. and just the fucking mention of the game is a big NO to any game design cue. all others have either turn based or really slow combat, although i don't know what oblivion is like since it's the game in the franchise i haven't touched.
At least it was good at some point unlike witcher, but combat in today's dark souls is an example of how NOT to do shit. I mean even the good dark souls games had issues with hitboxes.
I personally think so, it was acceptable when you couldn't do better (for instance during the days of the first final fantasy)
Nope, that's just always objectively shit.
Overall OP is a homo and made a post about things anyone should be able to know with common sense.

There are people who play P&P RPGs like some some sort of Diablo, in that they come with a stack of character sheets, they venture in impossibly hard dungeons, fight lots and lots of enemies, and when one of the player's character dies, at the end of the battle, he picks the next hero from his stack of character sheets. Only when the entire party dies in battle, do they loose. Whether or not you think this is fun or not, doesn't matter since THEY do, and is why they play the game the way they do. Thus P&P RPGs aren't necessarily story driven.

Severance is the only ARPG that does combat right, even though the RPG aspect is only a side dish.

Dumbass.

After thinking about it, maybe not. The RPG aspect is quite prevalent, but once you picked a class in the menu screen there's no way to deviate to another class inside the game. The skill points are distributed linearly. I think I like it better that way, there's a clear sense of balance and diversity in all the classes.

This meme needs to die.
RPGs, especially the tabletop ones that vidya RPGs are still trying to capture the essence of, are about decisions, whether you're sitting at a table full of munchkins doing their best to emulate Punpun, putting character sheets together with a Shakespeare company, or playing a vidya RPG.
The reason RPGs are not a well-liked genre of vidya is because the people who make RPG vidya are fucking terrible DMs who either weld the car to the rails, glue you to the seat, and tell you to keep your hands in the ride at all times because "this is our story, not yours," or never write anything beyond what your character does.