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

Okay, you have a few months on me...

I would like to say I'm fine with either but I wouldn't mind having both as an option in game settings either if possible.

Having now seen the gameplay, I am more encouraged that the end result will be a good game.

I do like the camera treatment and the fact that the environment is fully 3D, and on the evidence so far, they do appear to have higher quality writing to go along with the well-established world lore of the Forgotten Realms.

The increased production values compared with previous Larian games will probably result in more players new to cRPGs, so I can see that the low mechanical skill needed by TB will be an advantage for that cohort.

I do still have some concerns about the resulting, rather glacial, pace of the game, and the fact that unavoidable combat appeared to be the only means of progress; but what we saw may not be representative of the final gameplay.

And I still think it was probably unwise to use the "BG3" title without any obvious link to the original story arc; it just gives people a stick to beat them with.

Gameplay in real time with rounds and pause could be kickstarted if needed and added as optional much later after the launch with new encounter and system designs.

An interesting, if cryptic answer from Swen

Switching to real time requires overhaul on encounter basis. Realtime gameplay tends to have more encounters. It would require huge amount of work for modding team.

Sven Vincke in reddit´s AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fhk1u3/im_swen_vincke_creative_director_at_larian/fkbwcis/

why it's TB: "From the start we wanted to stay as close to Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition as we could. Making combat turn based felt only natural given that Dungeons and Dragons is turn based by nature. It allows us to replicate the same high stakes combat experience as the tabletop game while still giving players exact control over what happens on the battlefield

The type of world and game we are building, allows for so much that you really need the control. Think of the environment, all the interaction, the systemics you can use against themselves, all of this combined with the actions and spells of DND, you need careful planning, setting up and executing. That works really well in turn based.

Knowing that it’s turn based also allows us to make every combat moment feel unique and very different from the previous fights. You get lot of diversity and we can make each encounter a real challenge.

Combined with all of this, turn based gives each person playing a greater sense of control, strategy, and agency.

And on top of that, turn based works very well in multiplayer."

But why conflate two separate things? Balancing encounters is completely separate from creating a RTwP mod. I would be fine with a mod that just only enables RTwP combat and nothing else. All the talk of how encounters in TB games are "hand crafted" and "unique" and so on are complete nonsense to me. I have yet to see a single combat encounter in a TB game that was in way better designed than such encounters in any RTwP game.

They are not directly related. A common trait when people look for arguments to support a point of view is to consider that correlation is the same as causation - it is not.

Quite a few games have filler content in the form of an endless stream of unnecessary encounters that are largely the same, followed by some form of ( often ludicrous ) "boss" fight. This is just bad design, and has no causal relationship to how the encounters are actioned and resolved.

Although there is no causal link, there is a correlation with systems that have quicker resolution; because many games don't have anything much to do if you are not resolving encounters, it's easiest for designers to just add more. This then becomes an argument against the resolution system rather than against the designer.

It seems that a very large proportion of gamers like the formula of repetition+boss, and don't really like complexity, and don't really like to have to think too much. In truth, the games industry, like many others, is often risk-averse, so giving this to gamers is often much easier than designing in the complexity and variety we might like.

Whichever side of this "ragin debate" you might fall, the truth is that games like this one, based on complex rule-sets, remain rather niche products in global terms. So arguing too strongly with each other over details is a bit like flouncing around after a family tiff. I personally prefer something more akin to real-time, because I feel it's more appropriate for the medium and immersion. However, I do recognise that an effective game control scheme that retains that immersion is not usually possible, and that there are competing ideas as to what is the optimal compromise.

Regardless, I think the people making the game genuinely want it to be as good a game as they can make it, and although there are bound to be aspects that I will not like, I think BG3 will turn out to be a good game. If modding then allows each person's personal gripes to be removed, all the better.

The things are inextricably linked if you want an even a remotely balanced gaming experience. D&D 5e + verticality + environmental interactivity makes for a HUGELY complex system UTTERLY incompatible with real-time combat. Any difficulty that would challenge turn-based combat players - would totally smash someone playing real-time unless a severely dumbed down AI was implemented. You can't ever have played DOS2 for instance if you think generic is as unique as hand-crafted. Two years after playing the game, I can remember the majority of the battles, and the major ones vividly so. I can remember most tactical decisions, from positioning to targeting priorities. I can hardly remember any real-time battle of more recently played games. There simply is no comparison, one is cerebral the other instinctive.

This is just TB-superiority propaganda nonsense. Both WotC and even Larian devs have stated that 5e rules are quite compatible with RTwP even if some elements maybe harder to code. And D:OS combat encounters are among the worst-designed encounters I have ever come across in a videogame They were completely boring, repetitive, and far from challenging. It is the easiest thing in the world to make "tactical" decisions when your enemy is a statue. By definition, a combat situation where you are the only one able to move and act while everyone else is frozen stiff is NOT tactical. One can be tactical ONLY in a dynamic situation (i.e. real time) and never in a static situation (i.e. TB).

If you mean "while everyone else is frozen stiff and never able to move," then yes that would not be tactical. But that is not the case in a TB system. Which definition are you referring to, by the way?



Wouldn't chess fall under a TB system? Is chess not tactical and strategic?

Probably because I grew up with BG and such, but I prefer RTWP in general. It feels faster, more responsive. However I can enjoy TB too. TB has a tendency to slow to a crawl, though. So can RTWP if you fill it with filler fights, of course. I'd take a well designed TB system over a poor RTWP one, but between a well realized TB system and a well realized RTWP system, I'll take RTWP pretty much every time.

I've never played PnP in my life, I know DnD is turn based even though BG is not. Of course with Larian making BG 3 I was expecting it to be TB, and I have no problem with that. I will say though that in general I feel RTWP is a system that's better suited for the medium (computer games). A board game is TB by neccessity, but obviously computers aren't restricted in the same way. I'll always believe that as the "ultimate" combat system RTWP simply has higher potential than that of TB. Then it's up to the developers to make the most out of it, to realize that potential. Having said that, TB can be really good too, naturally. It's all in the hands of the devs.

Turn-based has to be really good to be fun. Poor RTwP will always be substantially more fun than poor turn-based.

Combat in a turn-based game can really drag along and becoming extremely boring (hence the term "trash mobs"), but in a RTwP or even a real time game, that is seldom the case in my experience.

For me it's weird. easily I prefer turn-based since I've always been a fan of those kinds of RPG games growing up so there's the nostalgia factor but I also like that it emulates playing 5e more which is in fact turn based as well. In fact when other cRPGs like Pillars implemented a turn based mode, I never looked back.

That being said, I get there's the disconnect considering fans of the classic games grew up/played with the RTwP so that in itself is valid. In a perfect world we'd get offered both options but a lot would need to be changed if that were the case. Personally I will always prefer Turn-Based as I like being able to move around tactically, positioning is really fun in my opinion and I like that sense of strategy.

I think the only game where I felt like RTwP really showed me the fun potential was Dragon AGe Origins on PC. I really loved that RTwP for some reason, It might just have to do with the graphical presentation of it and how I could move around the camera in view while it was paused as opposed to the 2 dimensional presentation of the classic games and even Pillars.

I think if they were to pull a Pillars and implement a different gameplay mode to make everyone happy that would be ideal but honestly it's not realistic since it's best if they iron out the more pertinent things such as plot, variable permutations and adding weight to choices and customization and the overall writing. One thing I also always liked about Larian games so far considering the D;OS duology is that in my experiences at least they've been relatively bug free and clean and being biased to Turn-Based combat, I don't mind them sticking to it.

I feel for all of the fans who were sorely disappointed though and one thing I think will be unavoidable are the connections and similarities to D:OS consideing that it's also on a turn-based engine and no matter what that aspect will be inescapable.

Can you explain why "positionning" is more important in TB than in RTwP ?
I think it's more important in RTwP because it's real time and ennemies are not waiting you to play without doing anything...
there is no "dead time", so you HAVE to use what you can not to be in a bad situations at the begining of the fight.

RT is less strategic because you don't have time to think, so you can't have as many options as in TB games.
RTwP is in the middle. You can have as many options as in TB, but also more dynamic and realistic situations.

Everyone can think one is better than the another but no one can say that you can't have the exact same gameplay elements in RTwP than in TB.
TB is just easier because you can plan everything step by step.

Agree about the better camera of DA:O.
BG-likes and "oldschool RPG" uses an old camera. Improve it is necessary.

Hi,

I created an account just to pitch in!

Clearly Larian didn't think enough about this!

---Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."
---David Walgrave, executive producer on Baldur's Gate 3 at Larian Studios.

They basically did go turn based only because they were used to it on their previous games. read here: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview

And they will suffer from this decision.
Because I will surely not buy that game if it is only turn by turn and I know for a fact that I am not alone!
They simply are not true to the BG saga. Call it a DnD game if you want, but I know that this is a huge deal breaker for many of us fans, so just address the problem Larian...

The community is really divided by this question, ppl have a look or better, go answer that poll: https://strawpoll.com/s4561xkh

They should at least give and option to play the game both ways. I know it might imply complex modifications to what they have already made, but its still better than to have a failed game and a failed reputation afterwards.

Don't get me wrong here, I enjoyed playing Divinity, but I really enjoyed playing BG, and now this game is called BG3, so act accordingly Larian.

My point here is, address the situation or feel the consequence!

Okay, so let's just say for the sake of argument that one half wants RTwP and the other half wants TB. Currently, then, one half is happy, the other half isn't (though we know it isn't that cut and dry). If Larian goes about redesigning the game to make it RTwP, then one half would still be happy and the other half would still be unhappy. Should they spend all that time and money to end up right where they started? Of course not. Now, I know the response: do both. I believe that have recently said they will not (AMA chat?), but if they can and they deem it worth it, they will. The timers on skills are already present, so maybe it isn't so far fetched an idea. At the very least, I wouldn't expect it for release.

This is exactly so for me as well. I really don't get, and to be honest get irritated, when TB fans talk about positioning, and tactical this and that as though you can do those things only in TB. I do ALL of those tactical things in RTwP games, and I get to do it in RT with the enemies not making it child'splay for me by conveniently standing perfectly still while I position myself. RT/RTwP is what is truly tactically challenging. Being tactical in TB is cheese-easy.

Maybe it is just a matter of different tactics used when it's TB instead of RT. I just know that after so much RTwP saturation (e.g DA and ME), I never recall having the level of tactical control over a game like in DOS. For me, I think TB gives much more tactical control, but hey, others feel differently. It really might be nothing more than a matter of preference and style. Any commentary about how one or the other is dumbed-down, 'leet', cheesy, or whatever just seems juvenile, though.