Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

i afraid i have to agree with you there. i've watched many of the interviews with sven. although he's reluctant to admit, it's very obvious they have changed the game to be a pure turn-based game. there's no other better way if you ask me? if their main focus is "gather your party". their cover up for being co-op and mutliplayer focused. i hope i'm proven wrong, but i very much believed that's what Larian has done.

not that bg3 will suxs with TB nor i doubt Larian's ability to make an awesome game. it's just that what they have done is making warcraft 3 (it's an RTS) to World of Warcraft. who ever said WoW suxs? as it's one of the most successful game in history that has top 15M active subes a decade ago? but think of those people who loved the Warcraft 3 franchise. Think of what Blizzard has done to their fanbase in the name of money? They are like the RTwP players.. and DOS2/TB are WoW players.

But for me, the way Swen is putting things makes it far worse than just that it will be TB. Bad enough that as a fan of RTwP I will be forced to accept TB, but it certainly looks like the main reason they've chosen TB is because of multiplayer and a possible DM mode, which clearly demonstrates that the single-player experience will be sacrificed to the benefit of multiplayer. In other words, the game will be built first and foremost for multiplayer play and optimized for this, but if someone wants to play it (sub-optimally) single-player, they can. Larian appearing to make the single-player game secondary to the multiplayer game is what has me the most upset.

Interesting, if predicable discussion. Personally, I hope for TBS, but not like OS's turn based (seriously, why would anyone live anywhere so close to so many inexplicable poisonous and explosive barrels?). I have played the BG series a couple times, but funnily enough I never really liked the RTwP for party based games. I started with Champions of Krynn/Pools of Radiance/Buck Rogers (seriously, that game was great, the one shining gem out of that failed franchise). As such, I was really attached to the tactical TBS combat of those series. If we could make snappy TBS combat in the 80's, we should be able to do it now.

I trust Larian to create their vision. I hate RTwP. Won't whine about it if it is, but I am a turn based fanboy.

You mean the conversation we've been having for the last two pages? Silly? I hardly think so. I've been enjoying it.


That's the thing. Some of us like the fact that RTWP offers a unique feel that TB can't. In RTWP you coordinate things so that they actually happen simultaneously. It feels good when you manage to pull off good coordination involving multiple characters and actions within a short amount of time, like 2 or 3 seconds, for example. There's a sense of urgency in that. In TB you simply know when exactly an effect expires - if not this turn then next turn - and can take all the time you want to make your moves. Some of us appreciate the feel of the RTWP system. But, if you care about nothing but the technical aspect, that's fine too.


"How does that not coincide with commitment to actions?" I find it amusing that you're asking me this. To me, both these criteria are true for games like BG, DAO, NWN, PoE. Thus, they are "tactical" to me. However, you have been insisting that these games have no such thing as "commitment to actions", because they are all RTWP and thus "you can change movement at any point" - whatever you mean by this. Have you found your answer yet?

1) If you agree that both of these criteria DO apply to the aforementioned games, THEN you agree that they all have your so-called "commitment to actions" factor (because apparently you believe they coincide), which, in turn, makes them all "tactical" (by your definition of "tactical" so far). At this point you'll be contradicting yourself, and undoing pretty much every single thing you've said for the last two pages in this thread. You know, when something like this happens, it's usually because the person has no idea what they've been talking about.

2) On the other hand, if you say that these criteria do NOT apply to the aforementioned games.... Well, I wouldn't say you're wrong (though the legion of fans of these games would), but this would be one hell of a minority opinion. To say the BG and NWN games don't have much for player to learn and/or their combat doesn't get more complex and fun when you learn and apply what you have learned... Umm, ok.

It's yes or no mate. There is no 3rd option for you.


Here's what you said several posts earlier:

Now that you're pulling out a new "definition", I must say I don't see how these two definitions relate to each other...?


Are you saying in a RTWP game you have an unlimited amount of options to take, and don't have to use the correct options to beat encounters? And you can't fail even if you use the wrong options? And that it's not important to learn what your enemy is capable of doing, what immunities they have, what defenses they have, and so on?


"Absolute control over what happens in RTWP"? I can't control what an enemy does, if that's what you mean. Except when I open up their scripts and script them to do exactly what I want them to. Or are you saying in a TB game you don't have absolute control over your own characters? I'm getting a bit lost here.


Exactly. You nailed it. It's exactly because it's an RTWP game, so players find it acceptable. Good for them. It is you who don't find it acceptable. Which is your opinion. You and other "hardcore" TB fans who can't see much beyond whether an encounter is a "trash mobs encounter" or not. An encounter helps set up atmosphere and build immersion. If an encounter happens at the right location, has the right difficulty, then it helps enhance the story flow and the role-playing experience.

An encounter can be a test of your tactical ingenuity, sure, but you don't have to treat every single encounter that way, you know. The moment you see a "trash mobs encounter" and you're like, "What is THIS? What were they thinking making a dumb encounter like this?! What an INSULT!" The moment you see that "This encounter is not worth my time and effort", you conclude that the whole system is bad. Some fights are there for you to fight, while other fights are there just because... it makes sense that they are there. It makes sense to the character you're role-playing.

You don't sound much like a real "role-player" to me. You sound more like someone whose only craving is to prove how good they are at tactical combat against a computer. You can't appreciate an encounter that consists of the right enemies, is placed at the right location, and has a reasonable difficulty for the time and place in which it takes place.


Yes, now you're explaining your point. I was looking for that, but just couldn't find it. Sorry about that. So basically you're saying RTWP is also an inferior system because its AI handling is naturally more taxing on the computer. I don't know what to tell you mate. There must be a reason why all RTS games exist. Because "RTWP" is just RT, With a Pause added. You're basically saying all RTS games in existence would be better as TB. Sure, it's your opinion. But you'll have to find a real RTS player to argue about this. Although I do play some RTS games, I'm not much into the genre in general.


What definition? I simply said, "Making the computer check for various conditions is part of making AI smarter." You're saying I'm wrong?

So, after two pages worth of discussion, my observation is that, you like to make "generalized conclusions" such as:
- "The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games."
- Because in a RTWP game, you can "change your movement at any point", so the whole system is less tactical, because you don't have to "commit to your actions".
- RTWP system is also bad because it makes "trash mobs encounter" more acceptable.
- "Kiting" is "stupid" and you cannot do it in real life. (What, you mean a person can't run and shoot with a gun at the same time? I see that in movies all the time and usually don't find it stupid.)

I like the fact that you can make conclusions such as these without any solid example or reasoning from ANY game OR real life that clarifies or supports or proves your points. Even at this very moment, you have never clearly explained what you really meant by "you can change your movement at any point" - which has been one of your major arguments, and how exactly it makes the combat less tactical.

Just got to the Underdark in BG2EE about 70 hours in. BG2EE looks dated but ohhhh boy it blows DOS2 out of the water in depth, tactics during combat and just ways to break the game..
Also the amount of different ways to complete a quest is also superior to DOS2.
BG3 has to be RTwP, TB is archaic and the battles drag out far too long and offer zero realism and are no way near as entertaining.
To the guy that said BG2 is just about pre buffing your party and clicking on the enemy! Stop playing on easy difficulty on story mode! In reality your party wouldn't last 5 seconds against a caster with a few mobs.

Try2Handing
Ok, you like the feel of RTWP, i hate it.
Theres no arguing taste.

Mate, can you please stop acting as if ive said that RTWP games are literaly braindead? You realize im playing them right? I wouldnt be playing them if i wouldnt like them, i just like turn based games more.
So stop misrepresenting my point. You are saying RTWP is more tactical than turn based,
YOU said that, so i dont know how i am contradicting myself here. You claimed RTWP was more tactical because of these things, i said Turn based also does this things, and is better because you have to commit to actions more.
Also you conveniently ignore the other points ive made like off turn actions and turn order management that RTWP cannot emulate.

And thus goes your next point. Exactly, youve got infinite options in RTWP, well, not infinite, you are still dealing with spellcast times, spell slots and buffs.
But more than in turn based.
Thus its harder to make a "Wrong" descision.
Again think of the chess analogy from earlier. When i said tactics means having to make the right choice, it also means that the easier it is to go back on your mistake, the less tactical something is.
Hence why the most tactical games are those like chess where the board is laid out to you, and the outcome is entierly based on someone making a mistake.

I also obviously never said that you controll your enemies, so please let go of that sillyness.

On Trash encounters.
It was you who said trash encounter were a problem with encounter design.
And now suddenly they are amazing because they "build atmosphere"? Pardon me but how do trash encounters build atmosphere exactly?
No brain random encounters on the world map dont build nearly as much atmosphere as a well coordinated ambush.
What is more immersive, going throuhg the dark forest and beeing attacked by 10 identical packs of Wolves before you make it through, or going through the dark forest, constantly beeing stalked by a pack of wolves, teasing the encounter, and eventually beeing ambushed when you least expect it?

Cause im pretty sure not a lot of people would say the first is more atmospheric.
And yes, i do want to have a challenge when playing. thats why its a game. You can go play the aristocrat about "Roleplayign" all you want, good combat doesnt make roleplaying go away. I DM IRL, i draw pictures of every single character and enemy of my games, i print that stuff out and think about the encounters i will throw at my players.
I make them anticipate them and tease them with whats to come, and then i arrange genuinly interresting setpieces with several ways of solving them.
I obviously dont want to win there, but i want to challenge my players, both in terms of roleplaying with tough descisions to make, aswell as with combat difficulty, with challenges to be overcome.

On AI:
Let me remind you, you said RTWP needs more advanced AI, i said it doesnt. Its just more taxing AI, not smarter AI. I didnt say RTWP AI is somehow a bad thing. Its not like it actually is very tough on your CPU, most games are real time, but real time AI isnt "Smarter" than turn based AI.
The combat pace and the AI are two things that are completley unrelated most of the time. WoW is real time and has some of the dumbest AI in gaming.


Kiting.
the only real lfie example of kiting would actually be mongol horse archers, an archer running away from a dude with a sword and stopping every couple of meters to fire a shot is quite frankly ridiculous.

This whole discussion isnt going anywhere.
Your point basically boils down to "RTWP is better because i like the feel more".
Your entire pretense on how its supposedly a better system is gone by now, you flip flop on issues like trash encounters or willfully misunderstand me.
I dont know what to tell you...

All characters and enemies on the screen moving or attacking at the same time.

Done.

Why are you still trying to argue about this? The above is clearly a perspective you are not able to grasp. Which is fine. Let's move on. My money's still on Larian doing what Obsidian did with POE2 and adding both options.

My money is, as ive said, on them doing an action combat system thats neither RTWP nor turn based.
Im arguing that turn based is better than RTWP, not that i think they are doing turn based.

In fact, if we arent getting a new system, i think them doing both is the most likeley option aswell.

And yes, you are correct that bit turn based cannot do, Thankfully.

A combat system that's neither TB or RTwP? How would that work?

real time mostly, something like dragons dogma.
or RTWP in the Dragon Age 2 / Inquisition sense.

When Sven talks about attakcs not missing, i cannot imagine turn based (OS1 and 2 got accuracy stats) or RTWP (all RTWP games i know have misses)
So i imagine a combat system where you directly controll one characters and whack people with attacks, thats the only system in which i can see not hitting someone beeing "Not fun".
Which makes me think that the combat will be action based, with maybe some party stuff like a "tactical view" where you can give commands.

Full move turn order management can't be done, yes. Other question is: why should it be done? Initiative handling can be done. There are multiple games proving that. The "advantage" of TB here is that characters don't move in TB they warp from place to place while interacting with the terrain and can't be interrupted exept for AoOs. RTwP allows actively catching a non-sneaking character that goes for a gap between controlled spaces. I'd claim that RTwP is harder to abuse here. And I am caling it abuse. So RTwP has more options? when did that happen? Yes there are more options regarding the exact direction you are moving and how to walk curves in a momentuous manner. Turns and actions can (and should and do in many cases) exist in RTwP too, so the actual actions are still just as restricted. and all the meticulous amounts of placement and puzzling you want to do in TB always seemed to be more complex and actually more diverse than you think RTwP could be. And I do not know how more options translates in less "wrong" options. Just does not compute. Props to you as DM. You seem to take Preparation seriously and i respect that.
Now on to the point: Yes, fighting the same pack of wolves for the umpteenth time is a stupid waste of time. It does not build immersion at that point. And trash quickly tends to become just that. But that is because it feels like there is no consequence to it and no reason for it. This type of trash (especially the random encounter) takes away player agency. But if your goal is to clear a nest of giant rats.... trashmobs galore. It does not make sense to just have 5 or maybe 10 giant rats in the nest, there are bound to be 30+ and most of them won't be a challenge. In TB, where fights need full time attention and can't move beyond certain speeds the combat would suck hard. in RTwP you'd still be peeved, but it would be much better and the game would not be forced to break immersion by removing enemies that should be there.
There is not a thing that keeps good developers from chasing the players with a pack of wolves in just the way you described. Not a single thing. It is about Encounter design and you can fail or win at it either way.
There is a mechanic that can be used to make all encounters challenging. Its name is "Level scaling" and it is bad. Some encounters should be easy, because the world just works that way. Others should be near impossible, but you can have those in both systems. The easy ones suck in TB and suck far less in RTwP.
I don't know where to start here... RTwP and TB need different AIs. That's it. Moving on.
WoW AI does not check sh**. Okay, the PvP isle AI does check some sh**, but it is still a very basic AI. All bosses and about every mob though? Scripted. And the scripts are very easy ones just consisting of timers, chances and for bosses and some odd enemies there are triggers based on healh points or mana. This is barely AI and most know that. Starcraft AI is actually a bit intelligent.
D:OS2 AI was "how do I drop at least one enemy to the least amount of life possible" (I am not sure, but it sure felt like that) and used anything it had for that. Especially knowing that Fane is undead. I don't think it ever took creating ground effects that hinder me into consideration, but many D&D players will agree with me on the effectiveness of grease. Kiting is ridiculous. Okay. What about TB is restricting me from it though? D:OS2 had action points for that, but D&D... I Don't think there is a rule against it in the Players Handbook. For archers maybe, but what if a bard runs away while shouting insults? I could pull that off in TB. Kiting depends on the enemy owning no ranged attack anyway.
I started out liking TB more, but I can't help but think that your arguments are... flimsy. And that some arguments for RTwP or some other hypothetical system are just... good?

Heh. Except, I have never said such thing. Go ahead and re-read all of my posts until this point, if you're inclined to. I have never once said that RTWP is more tactical than TB. The only one who's been comparing which is more tactical than which here is you. The only thing I've been doing until now is challenging your rationale behind why you think TB is more tactical than RTWP. This is what I said:


I said, "it's a different kind of tactical." Unlike you, I don't make generalized conclusions like one system is inherently more tactical than the other one simply because of one single vague factor which is "you can change directions any time". I would judge a game individually how tactical it is, based on my own criteria, no matter which combat system it is running.


As a matter of fact, I did not ignore that. In reply to you, I said:


How can you say something like "you can't manipulate turn order in an RTWP game" when THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TURN ORDER TO BEGIN WITH??? You realize how dumb this reasoning sounds, right?? This is literally like saying an orange is better than an apple because an apple is not an orange. As if an apple not being an orange is inherently a flaw of the apple. Of course, someone could argue that it is possible to implement a (semi) turn order and initiative system in an RTWP game, which is why I mentioned the case of Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which attempts to implement this element, in that same statement. Kingmaker might have not done it very well, but at least it proves that it may be possible.

As for your so-called "off-turn actions", you know why I didn't say anything about it? Because I wasn't sure what you really meant by that. In fact, I wasn't sure about a lot of things you said, because of the fact that you rarely clarify the things that you say. In most cases, however, I tried to guess what you really meant, to keep this discussion efficient. Now, I'm going to guess that by "off-turn actions" you mean "free actions" triggered by certain conditions which do not take place during the combatant's turn. If this is what you meant, then I don't see why such things cannot be implemented in RTWP. NWN does have Attack of Opportunity, at least. Other than this, you will have to list some specific "off-turn actions" which you believe are impossible to implement in a RTWP game.

See, a problem with your arguments is that you don't clarify what you say by specific details, leading to your arguments have little to no meaning most of the time. There may be a problem of "animation priority" when implementing free actions in real time, but I don't believe it is impossible to resolve.


You're literally just repeating yourself, yet still without any concrete example or a specific combat situation that demonstrates that "you have more options in RTWP than in TB", that it is indeed "harder to make a wrong decision", or "easier to go back on your mistake" in an RTWP game. You realize all these are just very generalized statements, right? They are not backed up by any reasoning or clarification whatsoever. "More options"... what options, exactly? Are these options only available to the player but not to the AI? As for "it is easier to go back on your mistakes", let's for the sake of argument assume that such a thing is true in an RTWP game. Then it would be true for both the player and the AI. This is also true for your so-called "you can change directions any time".

This is what led to my argument which is "this is an AI and encounter design problem". How punishing the game is can completely be adjusted by encounter design: how powerful the enemies are, what they are capable of doing, how deadly their attacks are, and so on. The problem here is to design the enemies so that they are powerful combatants, and script them so that they can take advantage of all the various mechanics available to them, in a way that makes the encounter challenging and punishing. Generally speaking, a "powerful enemy" naturally means you have fewer options to deal with it, and a "tough encounter" naturally means you have fewer options than an average encounter, and mistakes naturally tend to be costly. Otherwise, we wouldn't say the enemy is "strong" or the encounter is "tough" to begin with. This is my counterargument to your claim that one system is inherently more tactical than the other simply by virtue of their natural features.


Oh, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. But I did say I was getting a bit lost, didn't I? I also said "if that's what you meant", and asked "or are you saying...?". However, seeing as you never clarified what you meant by "you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP.", my misunderstanding is quite justified, IMO. Here we are again. The situation in which you don't clarify your generalized statement or back it up with any sort of reasoning. This is getting old. You didn't say you can control your enemies; you only said "you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP." Right. I can see how a misunderstanding would happen. You don't want people to misunderstand you? Tip: try to explain what you mean and clarify what you say.

I can vaguely guess what you may be trying to say, and you may have a point, but, as I said, your argument is mostly meaningless if you don't back it up or at least clarify it somehow.


Sigh. Not sure where I should begin here. Although, most people who read both my original post and this counterargument of yours will probably find this pretty lame. Suggestion: try quoting someone before you counter them, ok? Helps a lot. Requires a bit of extra work, but it helps other people follow the discussion better, and also helps you avoid confusing what someone did or did not say.

First, I didn't say "they are amazing", ok? I said they help do this and that, as in, they can be used as a tool for such purposes. They won't be "amazing" if they are set up badly.

"How do trash encounters build atmosphere exactly?" I also already said it. Simply by consisting of the right enemies, being placed at the right location, and having the right difficulty. This is my opinion. You can agree with it, or don't.

The rest of what you say here simply further proves what I said: you don't sound like a real RPG gamer, but more like a tactical combat nerd who can't see much beyond "how tough a fight is".

This feels like explaining 1 + 1 = 2, but here's a random, simple example:

Your party is on the outskirts of a peaceful village. Suddenly you run into a pack of one lich, two greater mummies, and three greater skeleton warriors. It is one hell of a fight. The enemies are much more powerful than your typical kobold, and have extraordinary synergy and coordination. You have to employ every single tactical trick you have up your sleeve, but you beat them fair and square, get amazing loot, and it feels amazingly good.

To you, this encounter would build atmosphere wonderfully solely because it is a "well coordinated ambush".

To me, this encounter would be fine if there is a very good reason why the hell those enemies show up there in the first place. It is given by the scenario that we beat them, so let's assume that this encounter already has reasonable difficulty.



"The first" is a very vague example you pulled out of nowhere without much context or background to it. 10 may be a bit much, but then this is just an exaggeration you came up with. Now if your forest is big and is known to have a lot of wolves, then I see no problem with being attacked by several packs of two or three by the time you make it through said forest. The question here is simply whether it makes sense or not, for your party to be attacked several times along the way like that. This has nothing to do with the fact that the wolves may be "trash" enemies.

The second example is just a way of setting up an encounter. Sure, it works. As long as it makes sense. I mean, if there is exactly one pack of wolves in the entire forest, and if the wolves are so smart that they can recognize when an entire party "least expect an attack from wolves".


That is right. This is exactly why I said "you sound more like someone whose only craving is to prove how good they are at tactical combat against a computer." You play games simply "for a challenge". You do realize "Story Mode" or "Casual Mode" exist for a reason, right? There are those of use who can appreciate other stuff a video game has to offer, aside from how "tactical" or how "punishing" every single encounter you run into is.


Good to know. You do you mate.


I'm getting deja vu. Are you? Yet one more time you claimed that I said something which I did not. Why don't you go ahead and quote the section in which I said "RTWP needs more advanced AI"? I also never said "real time AI is smarter than TB AI". As such, I can't tell what the point of this part of your argument is.


Ridiculous? My question is, can it be done, or not.


Except, that has never been my point. Again, I have never once claimed that RTWP is a better system than TB. I said, some players, myself included, can appreciate the unique feel of RTWP combat. I never said "I like the feel more". There's a difference there. Don't believe me? Go ahead and re-read my past posts.

I'm repeating myself here, but everything I've done up to this very point is challenging your rationale behind why you think TB is a better system, because, frankly, your reasoning is ridiculously bad. I did make a few comparisons between the two systems here and there, but throughout this entire discussion I have never once stated that I prefer one system over the other. I can understand if you get the impression that I've been "defending" the RTWP system, but no, that's not what I've been doing. Let me tell you then: personally, I'm one who can appreciate either system for what it is, and can enjoy both as long as the combat itself is good.

You're just not very good at this, are you? You're not sure what you yourself are talking about, and you don't have a very good grasp on what *I* have been saying, either.

@Sordak:
Here's an idea I have for you: grab Baldur's Gate 2, then try fighting Kangaxx the Lich/Demilich, or Shangalar and his goons. Try doing these fights around level 14-16, without learning what these enemies are capable of doing, and without coming up with any specific strategy or preparation, while making only random and casual moves during the fights. I'd suggest that you have some balancing mods installed, but vanilla will do.

Then get back to me and tell me how it goes and what you think. Are these fights "tactical" enough for you? If not, what would you suggest can be done to make them more so? Or are you going to say that these fights are guaranteed to be more tactical if they are done in turn based, no matter how the enemies are designed and scripted?

The lenght of these posts is getting beyond ridiculous
At this point you do little more than hide behind personal insults. No i wont quote you, why? because i dont wanna waste that much time on a completley pointless debate. Im replying to you out of curtesy.

So lets get to the few actual points youve made:
"How does RTWP have more options", you simply have more possible moves per time unit.
To give you a DnD example, turns in older DnD editions lasted a minute, in later edition a couple of seconds. Thats essentialy the difference here. Smaller time increments to make descisions.
Here you make the same mistake you accuse me of making, because ive given an example of this before.

Lets say you are fighting two melee enemies and a wizard, you have a ranger and a fighter, the enemy wizard is currently obscured, so you now have the choice, do you move the ranger closer to the wizard, hoping that your fighter can keep the melee enemies occupied, or do you keep the ranger behind the fighter were he is safe but cannot take a shot at the wizard.
In a turn based game, thats a descision. In rtwp, you move your ranger to attack the wizard, if the enemy melee character goes after your ranger, you can immediatly backpedal and kite him.
In a turn based game, or tabletop DnD, this would mean your ranger gets tied down in melee.

Just to give you a very simplistic example.

Clear enaugh for you?

"Off turn actions"
are not only actions like attacks of opportunities, but also things like distracting shot if youve played DnD 4E. They are ways to interrupt and deal with the enemies turn, ofthen they re required to have a setup. Overwatch in Xcom is another example or a very simmilar ability in DOS2.
if you play MTG or simmilar games, they are something like Instants in that. The height of this that ive seen in a real time game would be Attack of opportunity, and even that didnt work all that well IIRC in NWN.

Seeing a pattern here?
There is an action economy in turn based games.
Something entierly missing from RTWP games.
And yes, this is the same argument as you make with the turn order. "It doesnt exist in RTWP so why bother": because its good, because its fun, because it opens up gameplay options that you otherwise dont have.
At the end of the day, its gonna boil down to "I like thing" versus "i dont like thing". But thats why i like one thing.
And the reason i dont like the other thing is because i find constantly having to press pause and re adjust my positioning and micromanage everything to be tedious and not impactfull.
It doesnt feel tactical it feels like beeing an elementary school teacher. Especialy if the Companion AI decides it wants to take over.

And story mode realy shouldnt be a matter of debate here.
Every game is bound to have a difficulty slider for those that want to have it easier, OS2 does too. But id say for the sake of discussion one should focus on the standard difficulty.

And the rest is just drivel, you can accuse me of one thing or another, i dont care.

Phi: just try it out then, its not, its tedious.
It might sound good on paper, but the execution turns every fight into one of two different beasts:
1. pre buff and auto attack
2. constantly pause and micromanage, slowing everyhting to a crawl

Disclaimer: I have never played a turn based CRPG.

I was initially unsettled by the thought of the game not being RTwP as BG1 and 2 are. I love combat in the BG games. My first thought was please don't fix what ain't broken. But the more I think about it, TB in a CRPG gives me indefinite time to make combat decisions (actually more than I would get in a tabletop game).

And I'm gonna be honest that I micromanage battles to the hilt in BG by pausing like damn near every other second. Or pausing even literally microseconds apart.

For how I play at least, I realized what in the world am I worried about here? I actually like the fact that with TB I'm making decisions slower and not having to react in such a micromanaged way.

Other side of that coin: the kind of neat thing about RTwP in the BG games is that it feels like the game engine almost has to be doing a fair bit of squeezing and stretching in order to get all the variables that are being calculated into each 6 second real time round. Maybe it's an illusion, but if this is so it feels like it adds a bit of a random variable to the battles. I'm not so sure how seamlessly each round stitches together in real time either. Those more knowledgeable about D&D mechanics and the coding can speak to that.

But anyway in the BG games I compulsively pause so often as I micromanage the battle anyway, that after reflecting about it a bit, I think I would rather just have one six second round at a time to worry about, and plenty of time to plan and adjust as the battle progresses.

I doubt most of the people here have even played BG2! Or if so I on easy difficulty with story mode engaged.
To the guy above, in BG2 the tactics are way beyond dos2 during a fight. The depth comes by countering enemy casters and their protection spells while buffing your own party then hitting them with de buffs and heavy hitting spells, all while you are trying to tank their most powerful melee with your own and trying to get your thief to back stab an enemy caster and ranged to pick off the weak. All with in the space of a few minutes. Obviously pause is heavily required, some BG and IWD set pause at the end of a turn which is every 6 seconds.

Crazy, right? It just shows how bad the points you've made so far are. I can make full-length essays simply out of questioning those points.


I must say, I still don't quite get it. "More possible moves per time unit?" Doesn't time stand still in your "turn" in a TB game? In the BG games, for example, how many attacks or how many special actions you can take per round is decided by the rules, so even if you change the games to TB, it shouldn't change how many "possible moves" you can make in your turn, unless you're using a different rule set.

And what's the point of comparing different rule versions? We were talking about how "RTWP has more options than TB", as you claimed. "Smaller time increments to make decisions"? When in a TB game there isn't even a concept of "time"? I mean, you have ALL the time in the world to think and play your turn in a TB game, no?


"There is an action economy in turn based games." Alright, now you're starting to make more solid points. This is the kind of arguments I hoped you'd make.

Let me point out something, however. In your example involving the ranger, fighter, and others, what you described in the RTWP scenario is what we call "micromanagement". In an RTWP game, you will have to do such little movements for every single party member of your party, unless you're playing solo, of course. And this is what I meant by there are players who appreciate the feel of an RTWP game. Micromanaging an entire party can be fun, especially in situations in which you have very little time, like a couple seconds, to micromanage and coordinate several party members to achieve great results. This is why I mentioned a "sense of urgency". The sense of racing against time. In a TB game, you don't get to do this (or have to do this, depending on how you look at it). In a TB game you can take all the time you need to manage one character at a time before moving on to the next combatant.

You may ask "what's fun about having to hit the Pause button every half a second?" Well, it's part of the system, part of the game. It's part of "how you beat an encounter". Players like me like it. Or at least, we can live with it. Just as you like the "action economy" in a TB game. Now if you say there is a less overall sense of tactics just because we can micromanage the characters, then I'll say we have differing opinions. I'll leave this at that.


You are right. One of your original points, fifteen posts ago, is that, you like TB better, because it offers something RTWP doesn't. Instead of saying exactly this, however, you said "RTWP is less tactical" - which is what I don't agree with. So I'm just going to say that, the opposite is also true: RTWP also offers something TB doesn't. As for what you like better, and what you prefer, I have no problem with it.

V4Skunk and more of the same.
the problem isnt that its not hard enaugh. its that when its hard, you pause constantly and constantly micromange your positioning.
Instead of making descisions with lasting impact, you constantly make micro adjustments.
And im sorry, but how does any of the "tactical" things you discribe BG having not exist in OS2, somehow i think you do what you accuse other people of doing: you havent actually played it.

Try2Handing
good grief, will you never shut up with those little jabs at me?

Alright, so you sitll dont get it after giving you two very obvious examples.
So let me try again maybe ill get through your willfully ignorant thick skull.

In RTWP, you can give commands in a smaller increment of time as constitutes one round in DnD. I dont know how simpler i can make this point, i hope even you understand this.
This leads to gameplay in which instead of letting what constitutes to one turn in DnD.
In 2E a Round (a turn beeing made out of several rounds) is 6 seconds long.
In RTWP , you can give inputs more ofthen that in 6 seconds intervals, this means that you can adjust your movements more ofthen than you can in DnD or a turn based game, this means you have more options in the sense of different kind of moves you can take.

And youve figured one part of the argument out, i dont like Micromanagement.
You still however failed to see the other very very simple point im making.

Micromanagement is not the same as tactics. Constantly adjusting your party in micro increments to what the enemy is doing, is not particulary tactical gameplay.
its reactive gameplay.
You constantly can make the "Ideal" move, its just very very tedious to do so.

And now you can say ok but thats not yur definition of tactics, but bear with me here for a while
Cause that was the very simple point that you somehow wanted me to make complicated:

In a turn based game, you observe the situation, you plot the correct course and you execute an action.
Then you see your action play out and see if your gambits paid off.
In a RTWP game, you judge the current battleifeld situation and react to it, then, you immediatly pause again to see the enemy reaciton, and you adjust your maneuver accordingly.

Do you see the fundamental difference here?
And do you see why one of these would be judged as superior by someone who enjoys thinking about his actions before he does them?

Ok I've been thinking this through.
Neither RTWP nor Turn based make sense for a multiplayer game

Turn based is boring if one of the player takes too long (I am looking at you Scythe )
RTWP is essentialy RT since nobody gets to pause the game.

Now, let's take a look at how some japanese RPG do it : intiative gauge.

in multi, each player could choose an action during a turn that last 6 seconds then all actions would be resolved according to initiative.
in solo play, it would be essentialy turn based.