This is a weekly column from freelancer Rowan Kaiser, which primarily focuses on "Western" role-playing games: their stories, their histories, their mechanics, their insanity, and their inanity. This week, however, Rowan focuses on a forgotten JRPG: Grandia. One of the core issues facing most role-playing games is how they deal with repetitive combat. Since RPGs tend to be so much longer than normal games, with a wider scope, it's much more difficult for them to create unique battles like a shorter action game can. So RPGs tend to have constant, similar, repetitive fights. These are often derided by players and critics under umbrella terms like "random battles," "grinding," or in massively multiplayer games, "trash."

Yet RPGs need those regular battles to keep the games interesting. With rare exceptions, the player skills are unlikely to be tested in terms of skill outside of combat, and most RPG stories depend on violence and its consequences. This makes combat an integral component of the pacing of RPGs. Successful RPGs tend to strike a balance between combat, exploration, and storytelling. When one of those three part is left unchecked, the game can become boring - and it's usually excessive repetitive fighting that's the issue.

For decades now, RPGs have attempted to make their regular battles more interesting, and less likely to be described as trash or grinding. Japanese RPGs have historically tended to experiment with different combat forms more aggressively than their Western counterparts. Some games, like the Suikoden series, tries to avoid the combat issue by making combat smooth and unobtrusive, as I wrote about in a prior column. But not every RPG can, or should, de-emphasize combat. When combat works, even in common random battles, it can be the best part of an RPG. How can RPGs avoid having combat be too repetitive and meaningless?