Past the trees and bushes, over the stones and corpses, you lunge towards your enemy. You both engage in battle, each with a certain preferance to combat, each with a way of achieving true skill. You are the statistic-based warrior; with your sheer numbers, you could pick up a stick and kill dozens as if it is a claymore. Your nemesis, a skill-based warrior, has been here before. After countless battles, he has been able to find weak spots in his enemies, recognize when to dodge, retract, and quickly and efficiently locate areas to strike. Depending merely on talent and a sharp blade, he feels, as you do, that he has the upper hand.

Some of you may be asking: who's going to win the fight? Fortunately, there can never be an answer to such a general question. The stat warrior may kill his enemy by having +20 critical damage, and the skill warrior may break the stat's shield and quickly slash him clean with his trimmed blade. Nothing is certain...but the question remains: which warrior comes from a true RPG, and which one doesn't? And, hell, why can't they both be counted? Realistically, they both perfectly can be. Games such as Mass Effect have demonstrated the slow move towards real-time, skill-based combat...but even Mass Effect, in all it's glory, still clings to attributes. With the new combat article in Game Informer, I perennially wondered: where does Skyrim stand? Where should it stand?

Before we answer that, let's get general: There has been a reasonable criticism by many that Skyrim is a representation of RPG games in general: getting "stupid". Contemporarily, like Caesar and his once powerful triumverate, RPGs come in all shapes and sizes. From Mass Effect to Final Fantasy each game series partially represents who we are as gamers, and what we prefer. However, like Caesar again, only the smartes and advantageous leader will survive and triumph in the mainstream and charge into Rome with all the splendor. Only one formula of RPG can really dominate the market and, therefore, survive with time.

As of right now, the RPGs that have won have been the ones that attract a variety of audiences and part of their success has been in their combat. Ask any FPS player about Final Fantasy and he'll cringe in fear...but mention Oblivion, and he'll quickly recover from his trepidation. In his eyes, Oblivion is "that" RPG. Hell, he may even dismiss Oblivion and pick Mass Effect. One of his reasons? The combat, of course.

Ignorance? Maybe. Consider, though, that RPG's are extended as "Role Playing Games", games in which you generally assume the role of your choice. In that same sense, you can choose the type of person you are...what you buy, what you where and, ultimately, how you fight. To many players, however, the choice goes even further: "I want to directly affect individual attributes to fully customize my character". My question: Is such an assumption fair, that RPG's are losing their charm because of this departure from a point-allocating system? It's an honest question. Those like me, for example, would argue that skill-based combat better suits players: those who prefer to stay in the back are required to play an archer, while a warrior-type player naturally picks up the sword. What you're good at is what you'll be...what "role" you'll "play".

Fortunate for you readers, this post is getting way too long and I'm dying to hear what RPG players from both walks of life think about this situation. Should combat in an RPG be restricted to a certain regimen? Which combat system seems more like an actual "Role Playing Game", and what do you see as the future of combat in the genre?

Ive thought about that. Im stoked about the improved combat systems (from what I understand) but I also don’t want TES to become to “action” orientated. TES is TES not Mortal Kombat.

The key is just good game design and providing a system that allow players to play as strategically or as balls-out as they want to. The easiest example being the deference between running up and smashing an enemies over the head with a hammer, carefully planning precise shots from cover, or meticulously planning various spells and/or poisons to plan their downfall before they even enter combat.

I actually think a lot of games, like ME2, have been getting this right. Ultimately it’s probably just a matter of what we buy. Hopefully new RPG/ARPG gamers who have been attracted to great games like Oblivion, FO3, or ME2 (I never would have played Morrowind if I hadnt been introduced to the genre by “light” RPG’s like KOTOR.) Will grow into a new market that will allow developers to create titles that are as sophisticated yet approachable enough to keep us all happy.

Well said! I agree. As a developer, I'd imagine trying to please my entire fanbase by finding some way to equalize the experience to satisfy everyone. In the end, however, someone is always disappointed.

If a game, however, is able to enthuse strategy without any form of straight-up statistics, I'd be interested in seeing how it accomplishes such a thing. I mean, to some extent, there is the notion that you need to make players "level up" and "increase skill levels" to encourage tactical gameplay.

Todd Howard actually addressed your issue in one of his interviews with Game Informer. There really is no set standard to what an RPG is. Not like an FPS, or an RTS. What Todd was talking about is how the RPG is really mixing in to all the different genres. Whether it be 3rd person shooter like Mass Effect 2, or a more traditional turn-based style in Dragon Age: Origins. What's great about RPGs is developers aren't really limited to any set principle or standard. They can really do whatever they want. The reason I was interested in Morrowind when I first picked it up was not because it was an RPG, but because I had the freedom and will to go and do whatever I wanted. That is one key aspect Bethesda maintains in all their games, as well as staying true to TES lore. No matter what direction Bethesda goes, I feel they have and will continue to make the best choice for the IP and the fan base that follows it.

"RPG" is, ultimately, a marketing term. It has no consistent definition. Nobody will ever argue about whether a given game is or is not an FPS or a racing game, because those terms describe elements of the games themselves. "RPG," on the other hand, is a genealogical label. It's not meant to be taken literally (since, by that definition, 90% of games are RPGs) but rather, to indicate that the game in question is, somehow, a spiritual descendant of pencil and paper RPGs. Since pencil and paper RPGs can take so many widely disparate forms, what constitutes a "spiritual descendant" of them is an incredibly subjective issue. Everyone has their own definition.

So, in other words, nothing in an RPG should strive to be "faithful to its genre." You should make the game design decisions that will make the best game for your target audience. If this means someone else stops calling it an RPG, so be it.

Personally I don't think numbers and statistics are what define an RPG. What defines an RPG is the ability to roleplay. To make choices that affect the world and people around you, to get to know interesting characters and to explore a well presented story. That's what makes an RPG for me, I couldn't care less about arbitrary statistics, numbers or spreadhseets.

I love Mass Effect, but I never so it as a true RPG - you get to customize your character, but only to a degree, you get to influence the story, but only how you do things, not the general outcome, it is more of an "interactive movie" type of story where you get to pick the way the main actor looks like. And the balance of stats and skill is a good one, yet even Mess Effect players complained that the second part was a bit to "shooter like" and it was not well received by everyone - it turns out people like to have fun shooting things, but when to much "skill" is needed a good deal of gamers just get frustrated - limited ammo and perfect mouse-eyes coordination is not to everyones liking.
So while skill based fighting appeals to thous who are good with the mouse, thous who are not may find it frustrating.
Completely stat based fighting thou is not much fun - you just go in to a dungeon and click you mouse until your finger falls off.
Sot the truth is probably as always in the middle.
For my self I can only say that I'm a looong time RPG player, stat based combat does not bother me, when I want I good fight I simply load a more action orientated game and get it out of my system. But skill based combat is although not something I want to see in my RPGs - I never used bow as it is, the need to carry ammunition simply crosses them out from my list, and while I have nearly perfect mouse-eye coordination due to being digital artist (I can draw with my mouse, I sure can click where they ask me to as fast as I'm asked to) I don't find it amusing in RPG - when I'm role playing I'm concentrating on the feel and mood of the world around me, on what I have to do and where I have to go, combat situations that I do not expect (and in open world they happen regularly) simply get me out of "role playing headspace" and in to rather removed "let's click where we must" headspace - to keep your hand steady you have to be calm, being calm means removing yourself from the experience, so ultimately the skill based combat is a huge immersion breaker for me.
Now I don't know how many people feel the same way, but I know of at last a couple more. If they want to add some skill based elements they have to be careful with making them more fun than skill.
As for good examples, for me The Witcher is one - you have to keep the rhythm and take part in the proceedings, but it has nothing to do with overly specific "shooter type skill set" and you don't have to concentrate so hard that you have no time to appreciate the beautifully done animations. On top of that the strategic element of picking your fighting style depending on the enemies adds both the involvement and actually makes you look at the enemies you fight and anolyze them.
Oblivion combat was tiresome and not fun at all, making it more "fighting game" is no a direction I would like to see it going.