RPG Maker Games: The Stigma, And How To Avoid It

[Frostorm]

Divinity: Original Sin would be my goal if I had the skills, but I’m solo devving on RPG Maker so there’s still few steps.

That's literally what I'm going for too! I love their elemental/environmental interactions. Granted, I'm making a Tactical RPG, so that helps, lol.

Without actually seeing the result I can't comment on how well your game mechanic works.

Feel free to share your game and get players reviewed, otherwise it's tough to discuss if this works well or not.

Not really...I can almost guarantee that a battle system that utilizes states will feature a more engaging and in-depth battle system than one that avoids states completely.

Which requires scripting.

What's wrong with scripting? It's a powerful tool at your disposal and something that ought to be embraced, not avoided.

Truth to be told, most of the devs with a strong battle system in mind probably won't use RPG Maker anyways, they'd build their own in other engines, it's faster and more flexible that way.

I actually find RPG Maker (MV in my case) to be perfect for my needs of making a Tactical RPG. Even those RM clones designed for creating SRPGs/TRPGs don't really cut it for me compared to MV and all the community support it offers. Of course, that's just me, a mere sample size of 1 lol.

I have to ask are you yourself making games with this tool? For me it feels that this is not the tool for more strategic turn based combat where you move around in the environment have elevations, ranges etc.
Someone can do it with this, but most likely it’s easier with Unity, Godot or maybe even Game Maker.

I can do pretty much everything most Tactical RPGs do or have done except for height/elevation using LeTBS. I was bummed out at 1st but quickly got over it because I realized there are plenty of successful Tactical RPGs that don't utilize that feature, such as the Fire Emblem series, for example.

 

[Tamina]

Sure. But the point wasn't to express that my battle system is really great.

The discussion here is about "avoiding RPG Maker Stigma" because some players avoid RPG maker games, and part of the reason why this stigma existed is because of many RM games have the flaws from 90s JRPG battle system.

If you want to make an argument that you have done something to change the stigma about RPG Maker gameplay, a "great battle system" is kind of required no?

What I mean is that aside from attack and healing, you must pay attention to other developments in battle. That gives you the 'things to do'. Even defense isn't a straight-forward thing. Since each character has different attributes, different kinds of defenses are necessary for each character and in each battle against each different type of enemy. And all of this is done with 'states'. Some states give players different skills and others take them away. Some states change resource acquisition and that plays directly into what skills are used and in what way.

I think something similar has already been done in FF with protect/shell/reflect. In fact I think it's common in many RPG with things like "fire shield" "water shield".

Mechanically it sounds like it's not very different from just another defense or defensive buffs.

Not saying you can't execute better than other games since I can't comment on your system without actually played it.

Now, to use ice attacks, a character might need to enter a 'stance' lets say.

It really doesn't! Explore all you can do with 'states'!

I think you missed my point here. The stance system you described was done in many games such as Slay the Spire, and it's done very well too. The battle system of that game built entirely on all kinds of buffs stacking and stance changing, or managing the pros and cons of each states/stance.

But they also have an entire custom battle system build to support this mechanic. For example they have states tooltips, which IMO is almost required for a states focused battle system. They also have an AP system to manage player's movement cost, so players have a lot of control on risk management when they use a highly risky stance, which creates strategy and entertainment.

They don't just come up with a states focused gameplay using RPG Maker battle mechanics and call it a day. They built one cohesive system that works as a whole.

If you come up with a good idea that is potentially fun, you are very likely to run into a situation that scripting is required to refine such system. Because default system isn't flexible enough.

What I have done is a bit rudimentary, and I will probably adjust it with plugins later, but I simply have a state that applies "Action Times +100%".

Isn't action times + just repeats your last action? I don't mean action times +, I meant input different command multiple times per turn.

Okay, but attempting something different is standard for creativity. Lazy is exactly the way to describe devs that use the pre-entered values and stats. RPGMaker can do a whole heck of a lot. The tools exist, and people should explore it more than not at all.

I never said game designers shouldn't design good gameplay. I said if a designer want to implement certain mechanic that is potentially fun, very often they'll have to code to make it work well.

I dunno. Seems pretty easy, fast, and flexible to me. There may be other engines that make it easier, but I honestly don't see any major need to streamline the process. The point is that the engine can absolutely do the things you were criticizing it for lacking. Seriously, explore states and mess around! You might be surprised just how crazy you can make things

To my knowledge, game design doesn't work this way. No professional game designer that I know of, just come up with perfect gameplay only because they are "creative" or "work hard" or they "explore and mess around".

Instead they come up with an idea by being "creative" or "work hard", then they test the mechanics, adjust the mechanic based on feedback, then test it again, then adjust it......repeat for hundred times until the gameplay is good.

In this process, programming skill is often required for greater flexibility to make adjustments.

I've already tried all of the mechanics that you mentioned. Then players will play the game, give feedbacks like "this state should do X instead of Y" "This skill should do A instead of B", and their feedback can only be addressed with plugins or code.

When I made my first game I avoided using plugins like many people, to avoid a messy project. All my battle system was default and I played around with default mechanics.

By the time I finished the game I ended up having like 70 plugins. Because everytime players point out a design issue, I have to make changes that isn't doable in the default engine so these design issues go away. So I add one plugin after another.

Personally, as a game designer, I think all designers who strive for better gameplay should have ways to modify the default system or build their own. Because game design isn't just about having one awesome idea, but tweaking and polishing the mechanic until they are perfect.

Therefore I don't agree when people insisted that "default works well if you work hard" at all. Comments like this is not nearly as practical as just code and get things done the way you(and the players) wanted.

Naturally, the most impressive well-known games are known for their aesthetic and story. Battle systems would only ever be a bonus... or a game breaker.

Slay the Spire has mediocre aesthetic and no story, but sold millions of copies because of their awesome battle system.

Divinity original sin 2, a CRPG with combat as the main selling point, currently has 120,616 reviews on Steam.

Disco Elysium, a CRPG with story and aesthetics as the main selling point has 46,022 reviews on Steam.

Disco Elysium doesn't sell more copies than Divinity original sin 2 even though they shared mostly the same target audience, and has similar metacritic score.

I think it's obvious that players very much care about the battle system.

Battle system is probably harder to do well than story and aesthetics, that explains why many successful games rely on graphics and story. It doesn't mean great gameplay in video game is only ever a "bonus". Nor I see story focused game have an advantage over combat focused game by comparing sales.

What's wrong with scripting? It's a powerful tool at your disposal and something that ought to be embraced, not avoided.

Exactly my point! There are many people here insisted "default battle system works well" then whenever I mentioned the importance of scripting and flexibility, I got replies like "devs don't work hard enough" "be creative".

If good game design can be done with just creativity but no programming skill, then why would studios hire programmers and build their own tools? Obviously programming is a very very important part of game dev.

 

[wilpuri]

I think the battle system like everything should serve the game. If you are making a dungeon crawler or otherwise battle heavy game you are in trouble without plugins and scripts. If you are making game like Stardew Valley or something then it might be an overkill to make the battles to be mini XCOM when the battles are just one of many varied activities in games.

I have quite a lot of plugins in my game (even one for battles that I forgot). Scripting is something that is still bit elusive. I think most of the instructions are often confusing and hastily written.
I have used Game Maker so I understand how coding works, just with RPG Maker it’s not intuitive to me where the script needs to be to do the things I want. Before I’m finished I think I will have to learn that too.

——

This discussion about the battle system has been very interesting. I think I understand both sides of the argument, it might just be how much you are a fan of the classic system. One thing is for sure, with the vanilla mechanics it’s easy to make boring, unbalanced battles and if there is much of it, it will ruin the game.

EDIT: By the way is there good examples of games where you fight like in Zelda without any battle screen? Made with MV or MZ? I think that is something that would actually suit many games. When I showed my game prototype to friends the biggest issue seemed to be that they wanted to whack the enemies there and then, not by clicking some menu box. Not gonna do that in this game, but I think it’s something I need to learn.

 

[ericv00]

If you want to make an argument that you have done something to change the stigma about RPG Maker gameplay, a "great battle system" is kind of required no?

Sigh... I responded to your claims about the limitations of the engine. That is all. It is capable of a lot more than you say it is. That is all. I do not exist to create a great battle system for everyone else. I'm just telling you it absolutely can be done in the engine as it is. I really really dislike it when people start trying to put words in my mouth.

I think something similar has already been done in FF with protect/shell/reflect. In fact I think it's common in many RPG with things like "fire shield" "water shield".

No. Protect/shell/reflect are abilities that you learn and keep. Not typically things that swap in and out with sets of stat changes. They are also very straight forward simple things. One boosts physical defense, full stop. One boosts magic defense, full stop. Etc.

What I am saying is that a state can alter your strengths and weaknesses with regards to every type of damage as well as alter your abilities, as well as alter your hp or mp regen, as well as change your max hp or mp, as well as give you multiple attacks, and much more, all in one single state. Applying another state can undo the original state while giving entirely new sets of all of these things. In a way, you could even use these to swap characters in battle with enough prowess. You could literally transform your fighter into a cleric with a single state change. Or a berserker, or a paladin, or an archer. Anything you want. It is very possible to make a very dynamic system with a lot of intricacy with the engine as is. It takes creativity, nothing more.

Which is only to say that the limitations of the engine don't really exist as you claimed in the post I responded to.

Mechanically it sounds like it's not very different from just another defense or defensive buffs.

It is when a state change gives you 50% fire damage, 25% earth damage, 150% wind damage, 200% ice damage, or 25/50/200/150, or 200/150/25/50, or any such combination against foes of varying degrees of elemental affinity. Or altering various types of physical damage like bludgeon, slash, and pierce. Not to mention changing your attack and support abilities. One state change can alter the entire nature of a battle. That is how dynamic the engine allows. It's up to you to make it good.

I think you missed my point here.

I'm getting a similar feeling.

The stance system you described was done in many games such as Slay the Spire, and it's done very well too. The battle system of that game built entirely on all kinds of buffs stacking and stance changing, or managing the pros and cons of each states/stance.

I don't really care where similar things have been done. My point is the engine is not limited in the ways you claimed in a previous post.

But they also have an entire custom battle system build to support this kind of battle system.

Okay. That doesn't mean RPGMaker is limited in the ways you claimed.

And my point is that, if you come up with a good idea that is potentially fun, you are very likely to run into a situation that scripting is required to refine such system. Because default system isn't flexible enough.

That is an assertion and not much more. The engine is what it is, nothing more or less. But it is a lot more capable than you claimed in a previous post. It just takes someone actually bothering to use it. Many don't. It's not the fault of the engine.

Isn't action times + just repeats your last action? I don't mean action times +, I meant input different command multiple times per turn.

Nope. Gives my character another turn. I choose the action.

You can also set action to repeat. That is a completely different setting.

Gonna skip over some stuff, because I don't feel there is fruitful continuation there...

By the time I finished the game I ended up having like 70 plugins. Because everytime players point out a design issue, I have to make changes that isn't doable in the default engine so these design issues go away. So I add one plugin after another.

I've spent a lot of time in many different fields. There is an interesting phenomenon I see regularly where people who develop advanced skills often forget about the simple and elegant solutions. They will develop a complex thought-controlled mechanical arm prosthetic to pick up a piece of paper when a simple nail in a stick will do the job. Sometimes you need that prosthetic arm. Often you don't.

 

[wilpuri]

Divinity original sin 2, a CRPG with combat as the main selling point, currently has 120,616 reviews on Steam.

Disco Elysium, a CRPG with story and aesthetics as the main selling point has 46,022 reviews on Steam.

Disco Elysium doesn't sell more copies than Divinity original sin 2 even though they shared mostly the same target audience, and has similar metacritic score.

This is interesting. I think the lesson here is to know what you are making. There should not be combat in DE just because people like combat. But devs should remember that if you are making a game that doesn’t have the popular mechanics it can result in a lack of interest.
DE by the way is great education to anyone who is trying to make a story driven game.

There is an interesting phenomenon I see regularly where people who develop advanced skills often forget about the simple and elegant solutions. They will develop a complex thought-controlled mechanical arm prosthetic to pick up a piece of paper when a simple nail in a stick will do the job.

Seen this too. Someone scripting things that can be done with a button in the event menu.

 

[Tamina]

Sigh... I responded to your claims about the limitations of the engine.

No you did not, all the limitations that I mentioned all required scripting to solve.

what if I want to make a battle system with movement, positioning like Divinity Original sin 2? I need scripting. What if I want to make a states/stanced based battle system like Slay the Spire? I need scripting.

All of the "no script" solution you provided so far didn't fully solve any of the above problems, you provided a "doable" solution, not a "good solution", so I'm not convinced that no scripting is a good practice in game dev.

What I am saying is that a state can alter your strengths and weaknesses with regards to every type of damage as well as alter your abilities, as well as alter your hp or mp regen, as well as change your max hp or mp, as well as give you multiple attacks, and much more, all in one single state. Applying another state can undo the original state while giving entirely new sets of all of these things. In a way, you could even use these to swap characters in battle with enough prowess. You could literally transform your fighter into a cleric with a single state change. Or a berserker, or a paladin, or an archer. Anything you want. It is very possible to make a very dynamic system with a lot of intricacy with the engine as is. It takes creativity, nothing more.

I got the point that it's different from protect and shell, and I already mentioned how scripting could make this system a whole lot better. Such as showing states durations and description, apply a cool down to stance stacking states, or whatever gameplay enhancement rules you may want to apply.

Being able to implement stance change without scripting doesn't mean such system is being pushed to it's fullest potential without scripting.

I don't really care where similar things have been done. My point is the engine is not limited in the ways you claimed in a previous post.

I mentioned other game as an example to demonstrate how important it is when it comes to customization your game system.

Okay. That doesn't mean RPGMaker is limited in the ways you claimed.

If I already know the game mechanic worked well in a different game, and that game has X feature to make such gameplay shine, but I can't do X feature without scripting, then yeah, that's the definition of limitation.

I've spent a lot of time in many different fields. There is an interesting phenomenon I see regularly where people who develop advanced skills often forget about the simple and elegant solutions. They will develop a complex thought-controlled mechanical arm prosthetic to pick up a piece of paper when a simple nail in a stick will do the job. Sometimes you need that prosthetic arm. Often you don't.

And sometimes the "simple and elegant solutions" needs scripting to accomplish.

Another example, the default UI that's used in 90s RPG requires you move a cursor up and down then press confirm to select a command. It's 2 button click to select 1 command.

Modern JRPG UI like persona 5 or Trails uses 1 click UI system that each command is assigned to a button on the controller. Which makes it so much more faster to select commands. It's a "simple and elegant solution" that you mentioned.

And it requires scripting.

Very frequently I play other games and I see their "simple and elegant solutions" that solved complex design issues. I want to use it in my game, but it requires scripting....

Yeah you get where this goes

 

[wilpuri]

Tamina, you have some good ideas, but the attitude is annoying. Just hitting everyone down like you are above them gets old fast.

EDIT: and I understand communicating in writing is difficult. English is not my first language so I may come across as rude. But just saying things on popular games you like is not really helping people trying to work hard on their games.

 

[Tamina]

Tamina, you have some good ideas, but the attitude is annoying. Just hitting everyone down like you are above them gets old fast.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to act as if I know better than everyone else. I was reacting to people who bashed RPG Maker game dev for not trying hard enough.

But I was indeed slightly frustrated in this entire discussion since there several people who tried to made a point about default system being good enough, when this entire discussion is about removing stigma, which existed because the default system is likely not good enough.

If I sound rude, it's probably due to frustration of community not willing to face the weakness of the default system, and blamed the stigma on lazy developers. Then this stigma won't be removed.

We all try to make good games here, I don't think it's fair to say people are lazy if their result isn't good.

I think the nature of discussion like this(and RTP discussion too) can get very heated easily. Then it gets to the point that neither side can convince each other.

But just saying things on popular games you like is not really helping people trying to work hard on their games.

You asked what's wrong about RPG Maker mechanics, I gave my honest opinion from player's perspective. (Which, unfortunately, it's slightly negative.)

I got that it doesn't feel good to hear negative opinions about the game mechanic that they are using, but that's life of game dev.

And yeah, I've seen players compared my default RPG Maker game with Divinity Original Sin 2 and bashed it no end. It happens even outside of this forum .

Personally, I just learned to do my best and accept whatever negative opinion player said.

 

[wilpuri]

But I was indeed slightly frustrated in this entire discussion since there several people who tried to made a point about default system being good enough, when this entire discussion is about removing stigma, which existed because the default system is likely not good enough.

I can understand that. My pet peeve is the default graphics and I am too harsh to people who use them. I think most people should not use them, but I have to admit some people can make them work.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

Divinity original sin 2, a CRPG with combat as the main selling point, currently has 120,616 reviews on Steam.

Disco Elysium, a CRPG with story and aesthetics as the main selling point has 46,022 reviews on Steam.

Disco Elysium doesn't sell more copies than Divinity original sin 2 even though they shared mostly the same target audience, and has similar metacritic score.

I think it's obvious that players very much care about the battle system.

Not meaning to be critical, but this is not a sound generalization. Comparing just one aspect and then arriving at a conclusion is not good reasoning.

I have been following Disco Elysium for a long time, trying to figure out if I want to buy it, but I have no reservations about Divinity Original Sin 2. Why? Because one game looks like a game I will enjoy and the other, not so much.

There are a lot of things I don't appreciate about Disco Elysium. I don't really like the main character, I don't like the overall graphics, I don't like some of the things I have read about game play mechanics, etc. But this has nothing to do with any combat system and it hinges significantly on my own personal preferences.

Again, this comes down to a matter of perspective and to me, those two games aren't even remotely similar. Another factor is that DOS2 is a sequel. It plays off the success and following of the first game. Plus any number of other factors that go into why a game appeals to some people and not others.

Now, these back and forths sort of remind me of groups of people who talk at each other and not to each other. Each side has their own point of view that is most likely not going to change.

Perspective in these situations is huge and your opinions around RM are probably shaped by your underlying interests. Are you here as a player with your own preferences, or as a developer who wants to make money, or as a casual developer who wants people to love what they make for personal fulfillment, or a hobbyist dabbling with something you enjoy, or a combination, or something else?

But one thing I have found to be true over the years. The power of negativity is absolute for the person projecting it. If your mind is set about something, you will most likely never be able to reach beyond your own personal bias. And I mean "you" in the general sense, not specifically to the OP. Like the collective "we."

 

[ThreeSixNine]

Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind.

“It’s the wind that is really moving,” stated the first one. “No, it is the flag that is moving,” contended the second.

A Zen master, who happened to be walking by, overheard the debate and interrupted them. “Neither the flag nor the wind is moving,” he said, “It is MIND that moves.”

 

[TheMeowingFox]

While alot of developers tend to focus too much on how lackluster the battle systems in RPGMaker games tend to have and trying to make their own twist on it, the real issue is that alot of RPGMaker games simply don't have any substance besides the fairly standard RPG gameplay loop.
It gets extremely repetitive when all you do is the same "kill enemies, level up, learn skills, defeat boss, repeat" with similar battle systems, reused/recycled battle animations, enemies, locations etc.

Unless you are an experienced coder that can create a completely unique battle system not already used by 50 other Yanfly plugins games (eg. Undertale back in 2015), a developer will have to focus on other gameplay elements and come up with their own interesting concepts to avoid this stigma.

Some people have said this already, but if you're not looking to make the kind of game RPG Maker is best at...you'd likely consider other engines.

That's not to say that people shouldn't use RPGM and be creative with how much they can twist its default settings, but at that point, they're likely a little more than just a beginner at code, and can probably make due with something like Unity.

 

[Frostorm]

If I already know the game mechanic worked well in a different game, and that game has X feature to make such gameplay shine, but I can't do X feature without scripting, then yeah, that's the definition of limitation.

But it's not a limitation because RPG Maker does allow you to script. It was designed that way from the outset. In fact, you'll encounter scripting no matter what engine you decide to use, whether a "child's tool" like RPG Maker or "big boy toys" like Unity. People don't say that Unity, Godot, or Game Maker are limiting because you have to script to implement feature x, y, or z, do they? Cmon, that's just silly.

Edit: You see, you have to consider the scripting aspect of RM as part of the "default system".

 

[wilpuri]

People don't say that Unity, Godot, or Game Maker are limiting because you have to script to implement feature x, y, or z, do they? Cmon, that's just silly.

I think the script avoidance is just higher with RPG Maker users. When I tried Game Maker I started using code from the beginning, but now with two years of progress in my game with RM MV I still haven’t touched scripting and I see alot of help requests ”without scripting”.
There is something unintuitive in it, but I can’t put my finger on it. Once you learn it’s probably pretty easy. I think scripting has a stigma too.

 

[fugahagen]

My question is why try to avoid the stigma at all? I assume that only matters when trying to sell to other vet RPG enthusiasts. Will a kid with a Switch care? Probably only cares if its fun.

 

[ericv00]

@Tamina

I am not arguing against scripting. Never have. Script to your heart's content. Script like there is no tomorrow. Make the best scripts that ever scripted. Nor have I ever said that scripting can't expand what can be done in the engine, or that coding can't be used to make interesting things. You seem to be participating in this exchange as if my posts encourage people to ignore scripting when the only point was ever that the things that you said couldn't be done in the engine, 'multiple actions', 'logical actions beyond most damage or healing', 'choosing something other than the element that does the most damage' is wrong and vastly understates what the engine can do.

And anyone saying that the issue is the limitations of the engine because every game is the same is also wrong because the tools exist to make a dynamic system. It is a failure of creativity that causes lackluster battle systems, not the engine. If you want to code stuff to add things, great. Have fun. Please don't say the engine can't do things that it obviously can do. And please don't cover for the laziness of many devs out there. I'm not even saying lazy devs are failing to dev games. If that is what they want to make, great. Make make make. Just don't blame the engine for not being able to do what it can obviously do.

If my battle system fails to impress. It is not the fault of RPGMaker. It is mine.

 

[Frostorm]

Will a kid with a Switch care?

Wait, we can deploy RM games to Switch?!

 

[fugahagen]

Wait, we can deploy RM games to Switch?!

Wait, we can't? Oh no I though I heard that somewhere but don't quote me!

 

[Sword_of_Dusk]

Wait, we can deploy RM games to Switch?!

Not us PC users, but those with the Switch version of MV can only release to Switch. There's also those who work to get their games on the system through official channels, like Mad Father did.

 

[Tamina]

@Tamina
You seem to be participating in this exchange as if my posts encourage people to ignore scripting when the only point was ever that the things that you said couldn't be done in the engine,

I mentioned very very specific features in a system which requires scripting. You presented "alternative" no script solution by water down the feature that I mentioned. I think that's "limitation". But it looks like we have different opinions on what "limitation" means.

You really misinterpreted some of my ideas when we discussed RPG Maker mechanics.

@Tamina
'multiple actions',

I didn't say "multiple actions" nor "action time+"

I was specifically talking about an AP system in the original post. It's not just "move twice per turn".

This is an exact quote from my original post (feel free to go back and reference it).

Some game uses AP system so each character can move several times per turn, so you can choose to attack twice per turn, buff then attack once, attack once then defend, move then attack or move then defend.

To be even more specific. This system that I mentioned came from Slay the Spire. In this system, every action is managed by an AP system. Like attack that cost 2 AP, defend cost 3 AP, special move cost 8 AP. AP can be share between members and I want party total AP displayed as part of UI element.

This is a system with very specific features and several component required scripting to achieve, including AP UI display.

Then you read the post, completely missed the word "AP system" in the post, only read "move several times per turn", made an assumption that it's action time+. Then you presented a very different solution that is completely different from the original idea then expect me to accept such limitation the way it is.

I mean, I got that my original post I didn't explain the details of an AP system because that would make the post way too long. But you could have asked for more detail before you make any assumptions and jump into conclusions that such system is completely doable with default.

So yeah, the default engine can't do that without scripting, therefore it's limitation.

'logical actions beyond most damage or healing',

Once again, you presented an entirely different solutions from what I said:

Some modern turn based games have buffs/debuffs with a more complex mechanics. For example in Slay the Spire you can stack poison every turn until poison deals MASSIVE damage per turn, or you can choose to simply attack multiple times. That's decision making because each choice has pros and cons.

I described a "set up the buffs in advance" system with a very specific function (stacking them), then you proceed to present your own alternative solution (stance change).

This isn't communication. You are presenting your version of compromised solution which is completely different from my original vision, then expect me to change my mind about the limitations of the engine. It's not going work like this.

@Tamina

'choosing something other than the element that does the most damage'

The stance change system that you presented is still about finding the elements that does the most damage. Sure it has more variety and risk management involved, but at core it's still a mechanic about finding mathematically the most optimal choice.

Not saying your game is not fun(I don't know about that), but I don't think I'm wrong about this one unless I completely misunderstood stance change system. But feel free to show me the build if that's the case.

Oh and by the way, you also never address this:

For example you can lure enemy to a narrow passage and use ranged attack from above taking 0 damage. Or you can gather enemies together and blast them with AoE spells.

You only said it's "doable in default system, but with different visual". I don't want different visual. I want terrain to affect the battle right on the map like other SRPG games. And this kind of SRPG system is certainly more ideal to use scripts.

I apologize if I sound rude in this conversation. But truth to be told, it's tough to stay civil when my statement was misunderstood and twisted into something else repeatedly, followed with statements like "you underestimated the engine" "devs are lazy(hinting only lazy devs thinks the default system has limitation)".

I didn't underestimate the engine, the features mentioned above really needs scripting. It's fact. And there is no shame to admit the engine has limitations without coding. I think it's a good thing to acknowledge the fact that there are things that this engine just can't do without compromising your ideas or coding.

I don't understand why people react so strongly about the word "limitations". It's not an attack on the engine because scripting is an option to bypass the limitations.

Like others said, every game dev has different but specific goals and vision about their project. And the engine is a tool to achieve the goal, not the other way around. You can't change others opinion about the engine by asking them to change their goal and vision. Because if they do compromise goals for the tool, that's the very definition of limitation in my opinion.