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

But BG3 is a videogame, not a tabletop game. So if it is meant to be a pure representation of the tabletop game, i.e. a tabletop simulator, then Larian should say so.

True. While I would hesitate to say that the screen representation is NEVER part of game mechanics, I personally do not recall seeing a game where the graphics are mechanically meaningful.

Even with the most gorgeous modern games you can usually quickly see how unrelated to game "reality" the graphics are from issues with clipping, collision detection and AI/pathfinding.

What game graphics actually do is provide visual context to understand the world state such that the player can make informed choices. With 50 years playing wargames, RP games and computer games, and 35 years in software engineering disciplines, I have developed a clear preference for computer games to lean towards the strengths of the computer medium, which leads me to favour RT for games that have a personally-controlled protagonist.

Because BG3 is conceived as a 5e TB game, primarily focussed on multi-player, it has a lot of difficulty being what I would consider a good computer RP experience. But that's just me. Even within the community that prefer TB and/or MP, I don't see unanimity concerning how the game is depicted; some seem to want an "accurate" rendering, some a "meaningful" or "satisfying" rendering, and some seem to prefer abstract or even cartoon graphics.

It's interesting seeing Larian trying to reconcile their game with what everyone wants it to be:

- In terms of graphical style, I consider their direction to be generally attractive "locally", but have rather poor backdrops and distant views. Character representations seem faithful to 5e, so any problems there are WoTC, not Larian. If BG3 assets are created in an abstract manner, they would have leeway to render them in different styles ( realistic/cartoon etc ), but I suspect the visual complexity of the game is already too great for that to work well.

- As the length of this thread indicates, flow, and control, of battle seems a most divisive issue. Larian do seem to believe that a strict interpretation of 5e doesn't work for them with the more AAA presentation of the rest of the game. It's curious to see them trying to use animation while idle ( i.e. most of the time ) in TB combat to try to generate tension and excitement, but striving to minimise wasted time when actually resolving actions by limiting animation, and modifying the reaction system.

As I have an RT preference, I'm all for reducing wasted time, particularly with animations, so I applaud that, but I have reservations about the BG3 reaction system. From what I understand, you turn on/off the reactions you want to trigger, and they trigger automatically, which is not accurate to 5e. It means that the first AOO will trigger, the first received hit will trigger a shield, the first applied hit will smite etc, which may not be how you actually wanted to use your reaction resources. Solasta does this "properly" by offering every reaction pop-up every time, but that is bad for flow even if it is more TB-friendly. I really think Larian need to devlop a visual language for reactions and optional actions like smite that allows them to be selected during play ( e.g. click the big friendly AOO button while it is visible for 2 seconds ) rather than auto-triggered.

I don't really think it's bad for flow because the player has to stay behind it's screen and react what's happening.

Being able to go away and take a cup of coffee while it's the ennemies turn is really what I call a bad flow. It's boring because you just have to wait, sometimes for several minutes.

If every ennemies actions could lead to something "like" a popup for a few seconds giving you the possibility to do something and to react... This is a better flow because player is involved in everyone's turn.

As I said I like TB games but it's actually to rigid to seems a little bit "real". I think the rules of D&D are made for fights to be playable (of course) but also to looks the more "realistic".

Fighting games come to mind - animations range, shape and speed a very much the defining factor of the character, as well as invincibility frames and such.


That's quite an exaduration. I don't recall ever playing a turn based game when turns would take that long - perhaps in large strategy games - like Total War and Civ when other factions can take their time to process their actions - but I haven't seen that happening for a while now, and we are talking 30-60 sec. wait when PC computes moves of a large empire. With no large strategic layer I don't imagine BG3 individual enemy turns taking long, even if there are few of them in the row.

It's not really about time, it's more about shutting off your brain or not.

Anyway I guess you never played Blackguards ? Sometimes ennemies turns were very very boring because you had many ennemies and nothing to do during their turn (as in every TB games)... but that's not really what I pointed at.

The alternative is to not shut down your brain, but always be thinking about plans and contingencies. More often than not you’ll know what you want to do as soon as they’re done.

This. I don’t start analyzing enemy moves on the start of my turn, I’m doing it in real time. That being said, enemy turns in D:OS2 were quite quick. If BG3 is even quicker, none of this should be a problem.

I agreed with your entire post, but this part was especially relevant to me. The TB fans and the PnP/TT fans don't want to and won't ever admit to it, but the truth is that BG3 having TB combat has nothing to do with D&D 5e being TB or any attempt here to "faithfully replicate" the tabletop experience. Those are all empty and meaningless platitudes. Both the Larian devs themselves as well as that guy from WotC who were in the early interviews about the game back in February admitted when this was asked, that there is nothing about 5e rules that would preclude a game being made with RTwP combat (including even reactions, based on the way Larian is doing it right now in BG3). The true reason this game is TB is because this game is first and foremost a couch co-op game, and four people each doing their own thing in RTwP combat would be frustrating for all.

And it is this that bothers me the most about this game. I know some people here want to label me as just a TB hater, but the whole TB combat system issue is actually quite far down my list of things that bother me about this game, which in rank-order are:
Game is being made for co-op play firstly, and single-player is very much secondary
Game looks and feels too much like D:OS (this issue thankfully seems to be going away)
Poor/uninspired crop of companions
Party size reduction to four
TB combat

[And it is this that bothers me the most about this game. I know some people here want to label me as just a TB hater, but the whole TB combat system issue is actually quite far down my list of things that bother me about this game, which in rank-order are:
Game is being made for co-op play firstly, and single-player is very much secondary
Game looks and feels too much like D:OS (this issue thankfully seems to be going away)
Poor/uninspired crop of companions
Party size reduction to four
TB combat[/quote]

I dont agree with you there...
Turn based because its what Larian do anyway - they always wanted to do the next D&D game & turn based is what D&D is - it may not be what BG1 & 2 are but thats from 20 years past & now its another developers vision (& I suspect WOTC - if they thought RTWP was the thing to do then they'd be doing it ...).

How can you make any serious judgement on the companions with what we've seen so far ? give it a chance first....

Im happy with 4 party members but I can understand those who want larger parties - I think looking at the game itself they are just going to deep to allow for 6 i.e cost to much - then again maybe with enough feedback by release of the finished game 6 might be in ...

Clearly you care about the game - maybe you'll become a TB convert - or failing that you'll have a better idea of what might be improved in EA - I think Larian are trying (after that last interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun) to speed combat up abit & find some middle ground so its got a broader appeal. With any luck we wont have to long to wait & find out..

Larian are quite capable of making the game any way they want, but from what they have said it's clear that WoTC liked the TB/MP mechanics of their latest D:OS games for its similarity to PnP, so that's the basis of their agreement for BG3.

This is great if you want to play the game as a PnP experience with friends, but not so great if you want to play a SP RPG experience where you invest yourself primarily in your own character.

From the gameplay so far, it doesn't seem that your companions can do anything for themselves apart from follow you ( no AI that I noticed ), so you have to control every action. At the same time, you have apparently tense conversations with them at camp, because they are all "individuals" with their own motivations - apparently just not enough motivation to actually do anything for themselves.

That's not to say there are no players that will be happy to play SP the way Swen is showing the game; I might even like it myself, I don't know yet - it might be fun, or it might be very tedious; so it would be nice if companions were actually capable of doing their own thing in SP, if you want them to.

The requirement for MP to work the way it does, also means that the game has no real concept of passing time, since some players can be acting in "real-time" while others are in local "turn-time" bubbles. This makes it very difficult to implement something like a day/night cycle. It's not clear how Larian will even deal with the 7 day ceremorphosis, so I suspect it will either be tied to events, or to the number of times you use long rest, rather than any relation to how long you actually play the game.

As for the companions; they are currently a rather limited choice, both in class, and in outlook, seemingly designed as a ready-made co-op party. I've no real interest in playing *AS* a pre-made companion, but it seems you can ignore playing *WITH* them if you don't like them, at the cost of using generic hirelings with no particular personality. Swen also held open the possibility of more companions in one interview, but that probably depends on whether they can afford that or not; it's not guaranteed at all.

As you suggest, posters like Kanisatha and myself do actually want the game to be good/enjoyable ( or we wouldn't waste our time in the forum ), but don't see the sort of video game we each prefer reflected in BG3. Just as some Fallout 1/2 fans were unhappy with Fallout 3 because the gameplay was totally different, even if the lore was mostly respected, there are people who enjoyed BG1/2 that don't see BG3 as being the same sort of game, with the features we enjoyed.

I'm quite used to games in series changing and being grumpy about the changes, but most of the time you don't get to express your views until after a new game has shipped, by which time it is too late. At least here we can let Larian know that some of their potential BG3 customers are looking for differences from the experience than they are proposing. The more concerns they choose to address, the wider their sales base will be. Clearly there will be some concerns that are cost-effective to address, and others that are not; it's their choice what they do.

Personally I’m not bothered about it being like the tabletop, and I’ll almost certainly be playing alone. I like some turn based games because when done well they can be much more tactical than real time games. I’m in full control and I can plan what everyone is doing. It’s just a different way to play. No reason you can’t enjoy both chess and football.

Interesting point about your party being individuals though. I’ve never really felt that characters following their AI scripts had anything to do with their personality. If they do something daft, it always seems like it’s the program at fault, which I sometimes find frustrating.

If someone managed to nail the AI well enough that it really seemed like the actual characters making mistakes or not listening to me, I’d definitely give that game a go.

But just because Larian is doing an early access doesn’t mean they will be willing to change anything fundamental to the game. Sorry, but there just won’t be real time combat. They have a clear structure to the game which they’ve worked hard at to get to this point. Even if by some remote chance they were willing to try the sweeping changes that some want, the result would almost certainly be a total mess.

Let's see:
>BG series has an adapted D&D system
>BG3 has an adapted D&D system
How so?


Also:
>BG series simulates real time combat
>D&D series simulates real time combat
>BG3 emulates D&D
Sounds to me like the original BG series actually implemented combat as was always intended by D&D.

Really great post. So I'll just piggyback off of it by saying ditto.

Haha! The things people come up with when trying to promote their personal preferences.

D&D isn’t a simulation, it’s a game. If TSR had wanted to make a game where everyone decides what they are doing and it all happens simultaneously, they would have done so.

Please do explain to me how, exactly.

Tabletop games having people taking turns are not designed that way out of preference. They are designed that way out of there not being any other choice. Exactly how would a group of people seated around a table playing a game play it other than through taking turns? Please do explain.

There’s a difference between speaking in turn and having the actions in the game world happen in turn. It wouldn’t be hard to design a game system so everyone says what they want to do for each round of combat, then you roll for all the results. If I was making a game this way, I’d probably have an initiative system in reverse. There would be an advantage in declaring your intentions last as you know what everyone is doing. Maybe each attack has a speed factor that determines the order blows land. There’s lots of ways of doing it, but the crucial thing would be not knowing the outcome of the each character’s action before deciding what to do.

Are there no games like this? Shit, maybe I’m onto something here.

Anyway, even ignoring all that, it’s a massive stretch of logic to say that real time combat is somehow closer to D&D. Whatever the intent of TSR in designing it, or WoTC in evolving it, the D&D experience is decidedly turn based.

That’s not an argument to say a D&D video game should necessarily also be turn based, I just think that trying to argue to opposite is quite funny.

Right back at ya, because that is exactly what you are doing.


Wut? That isn't possible in a PnP environment due to the obvious limitations of human communication. D&D simulates real time combat in a turn-based manner, because there is no other way to do it on tabletop. Those limitations obviously don't exist in a CRPG, so it makes sense to make combat as realistic as possible in a video game.

That would be a phase based system or something, which is certainly not real time.


You're not on to anything. Real time tabletop RPGs don't exist for one reason and one reason only: the limitations of human communication.

Some enthusiast RPG designers actually tried to design a realtime PnP RPG system, but they gave up, because it was not feasible.

Nobody's tried to argue the opposite, as you put it. The argument is precisely that just because a PnP game uses turns, because that is the only way it can be done in a tabletop setting, does not mean you have to keep that turns-based system when the game migrates to a videogame setting. The whole point of moving to a videogame setting is to be free of the restrictions of the tabletop.

So, the bottom line is this: It's perfectly fine to argue that a D&D videogame should be TB because that's what you prefer. We all have our personal preferences, and arguing for one's preference of TB is fine. But don't try and push the completely fake, BS claim that just because D&D (or any other RPG system) uses turns in its PnP form, then automatically any D&D videogame MUST be TB and nothing else, because such a claim is complete fallacy.

Or maybe it’s a “tactical pause” to issue commands before letting events play out?



Whatever you want to call, it’s would be a system where the actions happen concurrently, not sequentially. It wouldn’t be turn based in the sense of everyone waiting to see what happens before deciding what to do.



And yet there’s nothing infeasible I can see about what I said above. I don’t care if it’s “real time” or not. If really no one’s thought to make a system like that before, I recon I could do it.



Wrong. I enjoy both real time and turn based games. Either can be good or bad, depending on a whole bunch of factors. They are just different systems, with different styles of gameplay. But it just so happens that WOTC gave the BG license to Larian and they are making a turn based game. That’s not going to change.

Regardless of any of that though, your argument for original BG being closer to tabletop is still pretty funny.