In some RPGs, when you get into a battle, the game changes into a battle mode. Often this is a separate screen, but there are a few games that have combat on the main screen, but in any case, it's a separate mode: Once battle starts, the gameplay changes completely. (For example, typically you can move around freely outside of battle, but during battle movement is either impossible (if you want to escape, there's usually a command for that, and it typically can fail) or is subject to tactical battle rules (like in Pool of Radiance).)

Other RPGs, on the other hand, don't have a separate battle mode, and instead the way you interact with the game does not depend on whether you're in combat. Traditional roguelikes fall into this category, as do the first two Ultima games. (It's also the way things tend to work in non-RPGs.)

So, do you happen to have a preference for one or the other? Or do you have other thoughts on this? (One thing I don't like is when combat is non-modal, but there are still rules (typically involving things like resting and saving) forbidding certain actions from being performed during battle.)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/modal

Uhmm, preference... Not really, as I have enjoyed games that used either of them. Fallout 3 is interesting here as you can use VATS* or not, as you like.

.

* Kind of turns combat into turn based despite the game being otherwise a first person action role playing game.

In this case I actually have a clear preference: I like it much better when combat is integrated into the general gameplay and the game world you explore. It's more immersive to me, less disruptive. I also like to see enemies from afar, so I can plan on how to avoid them or ambush them. Much more fun than them just popping out of thin air, which gets annoying after a while. It's also part of why I don't get along that well with many JRPGs, in addition to the rigid and repetitive menu-based combat without character positioning etc. A compromise are games like Unlimited Adventures, Realms of Arkania or Albion, and maybe also Ultima 3+4 (? I haven't played them myself), where there is a different combat screen but you can still move and change position in combat. And I love UA, even though you can't see enemies in the game world and combat is a different mode, but in general I still prefer combat taking place directly in the gameworld that I explore. The only thing I don't like is when roaming enemies (in real time games) are able to interrupt dialogues or interfere with scripted events and mess things up.

I prefer non-modal, as it seems to me that it often allows a greater use of the environment (retreating, luring away part of the enemy group etc.). Modal battles can have that too if they have an extensive battle map like in goldbox games, but usually not to the same extent.

I feel the distinction is somewhat similar to normal fights vs boss fights (which often lock you in to an "arena" even in otherwise non-modal games like Grimrock 2).

Definitely depends on the type of game.
JRPGs? gimme that battle screen and menus all day.
Tactical games? I prefer to stay on the field I was on.

Although Chrono Trigger did the battles pretty well. Also the FF7 remake looked nice with it's half n half system.

I'm a sucker for old school JRPGs though.

I dislike it when visible enemies roam in real time when the game (or at least the combat) is otherwise turn based.

It's especially annoying when I get into another battle when I'm trying to heal and adjust equipment after the first battle.

Case in point:
* SaGa 3 (Game Boy) uses the traditional JRPG convention: After walking a certain number of steps, you get into a battle. The encounter rate is reasonable in this game, and it never feels like you're getting repeatedly attacked.
* SaGa 3 DS has visible enemies that move in real time. By the end of the game, most enemies are moving faster than you, so you can't avoid them (without stopping time, which is a limited use power), so it does feel like you're getting repeatedly attacked. Even worse, after a battle resolves, you can get into another battle even if you don't move, which is why I dislike having the visible enemies move in real time. Chrono Trigger has battles take place on the same screen, but the combat is still modal; once battle starts, you can no longer move as you could outside of battle, and menus pop up that you use to enter commands.

Ok I totally misunderstood that.
I dunno if I've played a game like that?

Yes.

Otherwise you get crap like FF12, 15, etc... "Combat mode" allows for far deeper combat mechanics, and, more importantly, discourages action-combat a little bit. (Doesn't prevent, but removes some encouraging factors.)

Fallout (1 & 2)kind of falls in between. While there is a combat mode, the rules don't generally change. The game simply ignores ending turns in non-combat situations.

Other than some games in the roguelike sub-genre, I'm struggling to find turn-based RPGs that are non-modal. Space Rangers is the only example I can think of. The first two Fallout comes close, since you can perform many of the same actions inside and outside combat, but there is still a switch from real-time to a turn-based phase.

As for preferences, I don't really care either way. It depends how the combat mechanics work, the duration, and frequency of combat situations.

Yeah, after thinking over it, it depends on the circumstances. A game like Earthbound wouldn't really have the same feel if not for the trippy backgrounds, plus I can't exactly imagine trying to cooridinate the use of varying psionic powers with upwards of 8 foppies.

I think it really depends on the game. I love the combat mode in the Gold Box games, but I would not want to move around the whole game in that mode.

I suppose you could instead use a Might & Magic or Eye of the Beholder approach and instead ahve combat in the first person mode. But then we would not have the isometric combat mode that I love.

Games like Eye of the Beholder, Ultima VII or Skyrim would be less immersive with separate combat modes, though. So I am glad we have variety and have enjoyed both approaches.

Ultima 1 and 2.

Also, Ultima 6. There is a combat mode, but it's something that the player manually switches on and off, and you can perform the same actions regardless of combat mode. The only differences are that everybody gets a turn in combat mode (instead of just the main character and NPCs not in the party), and that the music changes to "Engagement and Melee" when you're in combat mode. (Note that the game starts in combat mode, which may confuse some new players; you'll probably want to kill the gargoyles that are attacking you and then end combat mode.) (Also. note that none of this applies to the SNES version, which functionally has modal combat, due to combat starting and ending automatically, and combat commands (like attacking) only being available during combat.)

I re-read the OP and it seems that I misunderstood it somewhat. I thought this was about the combat happening on a completely different screen, not about a simple switch from real-time to turn-based, but it appears that you are right. I don't actually care about the latter, that's fine with me, I only dislike the switching of screens. The Divinity: Original Sin and Shadowrun titles as well as Wasteland 2+3 would be popular examples of RPGs where the mode switches from real-time to tactical turn-based in combat but stays on the same screen and allows for more or less for the same actions that you can do outside combat.

What about Chrono Trigger, where the battles take place on the same screen, but you have windows and menus appearing during combat, and a battle system similar to Final Fantasies 4 through 9?