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

That would mean that every real time game is chaotic (even more so with no pause!) but that is not the case. Starcraft isn't chaotic. Played Desperados 3 recently and it definitely isn't chaotic - it's actually very deliberate.

No, the origin of this is that whenever I (or others as well) ask a TB fan to provide some specifics about why they dislike RTwP combat, a very common reason they cite is that things are "chaotic" and "messy" in RTwP combat. I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing myself. I'm merely saying this is what TB fans often say.

For me, it's the constant micromanaging. Exemple: in BG, you either auto-attack and then have each of your characters use their weapons, a situation in wich the bards/mages/sorcerers etc contribute little. Or, you constantly issue commands (spells, songs, anilities,etc) to your non-fighter classes if you want the fight to be optimal. Thats why I used to just bull rush nearly every encounter except the tougher ones. Trying to do that on the fly was a no for me. Maybe I'm not good enough, but it does become chaotic if I try to do it without pause and I would just fall a step behind, not fast enough.

The EEs brought some improved AI but most times it just wastes your ressources on even the most trivial encounters. There is no middle ground.

And I'm no fanboy or cheerleader. I really liked Rtwp for the last 20+ years, but since i've played D:OS and D:OS2, I've taken a liking to TB and I thinkTB I is where it's at now for a DnD game. Makes more sense.

Yes, amazingly, when I'm playing a game with highly tactical or strategic combat, I do, in fact, want the fireball spell to go in an ideal location. Is that wrong?




You just said that what you like about RTwP is messy and chaotic combat.

No, I haven't said anything to the effect that it is wrong. 'Wrong' ('right') implies an objective absolute. I'm merely saying we (meaning fans of RTwP v. TB) seem to have very different expectations of how combat should happen. You want that fireball spell to be placed ideally. I don't have any such expectation, and the challenge (and fun) of combat for me is to have that placement not be ideal and still find a way to win the encounter.

I've heard good things about POE2. As someone who (I assume) has played both games, from a story viewpoint is it alright to just jump into POE2, or do you have to play the 1st game first? I'm not too sold on the first game. From what I've seen in reviews and videos etc it was kinda average.

I think so, as long as you power through the intro island - it does little to hook the new player as it relies on already established conncections, and straight away dives into metaphysics of the universe.

However, most of the game after revolves around new environment to the point I felt that the game would benefit more of a new protagonist, rather then finding contrived reasons to drag our old hero all the way from Dyrwood. You will also not be disappointed by retconning that happens to old companions.

I am a PoE junky so I might be missing some vital points.

POE2 has a significant number of drawbacks, but its implementation of RTwP combat is actually incredibly solid. It isn't innovative by any means, but it is refined.

Yes I've played both games and I do like the 2nd one better because it was more polished, beautiful, better music and I really liked the exploration aspect. The whole pirate setting and naval fights, not so much.

The first was also very good, with a nice fantasy setting and a better story. The balance and mechanics were a little cluncky at first as this was a brand new game with rules created from scratch. I also recommend the expensions (White march part 1 and 2)

As for if you have to play the first one, I would say yes, if you want to learn the lore. Plus, some characters and events tie very closely/carry over from the first game. And, you can import your character, a la Baldur's Gate.

I also am a huge PoE fan, and am confident in saying you do NOT have to have played the first game to be able to follow the second game. But, having said that, I would very much recommend playing the first game. PoE2 is definitely better in mechanics and rules, and also the combat--both how combat works as well as combat encounter design. However, PoE1 is better, imo, on story and atmosphere, and improves hugely when you add in the DLCs because those are extremely well-made.

This game would be far more interesting with RtWP. I can really imagine how good it would be. Just saying.

TB feels like solving a puzzle, and makes me execute good tactics and plan ahead.

RtWP feels like having to pause because i am losing control. Even if it is a contest of tactics, it feels like a contest of reflexes where i have to cheat. It makes me ignore a lot of options, use autoattacks and typically focus on just a single character.

RTwP results in me not even adding anyone else to the party.

Your choices and preferences are not indicative of the quality of capabilities of the RTwP system.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

I didn't say anything of the kind, did I (I am assuming your are responding to my post, since your post is in reply to the very first poster in this thread.)? Now, I'm sure you can sift through my posts to find where I made a more scathing argument against RTwP, but I doubt you will find me having made absolute judgements about which is right/wrong, good/bad, etc. Which one I think is better or worse? Sure. Reasons why? Sure.

This latest post was in response to and in concurrence with the poster I quoted, and is no more or less than a basic and honest comment about the result of my experience with RTwP.

My impression so far after reading more than a few comments is that not everyone necessarily means the same thing when they use the term "turn based." From a lot of experience playing a lot of tactical war games and strategic war games I have learned "turn based" can mean a variety of things. The possibilities include:
* IGoUGo without reaction - I go, you go, I go, you go, etc. etc. Neither side gets to react to what the other side does until the next turn. No changes to any orders except at the start of each player's turn.
* IGoUGo with reaction - I go & you get to react; you go & I get to react; I go & you get to react; you go and I get to react; etc. etc. No changes to any orders except at the start of each player's turn. Reactions are typically firing and returning fire, maybe stopping movement for the side that is on its turn.
* IGoUGo in phases with reaction - I go in phases (typically a function of unit speed and/or firing rate) & you get to react with firing to each of my actions; you go in phases & I get to react to each of your actions. Typically the player on turn gets to move, fire, stop movement at any phase, and return fire. Reactions for the other side are firing and returning fire. No other changes to orders except at the start of each player's turn. For D&D purposes phases are the 10 initiative segments during a turn. But then is the current rule set 10 minute turns with 1 minute segments broken down into 6 second initiative segments? Or are is it now 1 minute turns with 10 6 second segments? I've lost track.
* WEGO without reaction - I go and you go (aka wego) at the same time after we both issue all of our orders. No reaction to what the other side does.
* WEGO with reaction - I go and you go at the same time after we both issue all of our orders. We both get to react, typically by firing and returning fire, to what the other side does, and maybe have the option to stop movement.
* WEGO in phases with reaction. We both issue orders at the same, we both go/execute our orders at the same time once the turn beings, and at each phase of the turn we can both react by stopping movement, firing, and/or returning fire.

Consequently, when people here refer to "Turn Based," I'm not 100% sure what they mean. If "turn based" for BGIII means IGoUGo then I would hate that. IGoUGo turn based playing is fine for chess or checkers or cards, but a terrible idea in an RPG that is trying to simulate what we might be able to do in a real world. If I were really fighting someone in a dungeon or field or street I wouldn't have to stand there helplessly and watch and wait while the other side does whatever the other side is going to do. I would be simultaneously doing my thing and reacting to what my opponent is doing. Therefore, in an RPG, I think the two best ways to simulate real activity is either by doing RTwP or by doing a turn based phased WEGO with reaction approach. Ideally, the best option would be to do or permit both. One of the wonderful things about the Icewind Dale series, BG, & BG II (just to name a few) was that they were RTwP plus the option to select a variety of auto pause triggers that include but are not limited to: End of each turn; spell is cast; any member of the party takes damage; any member of the party dies. We need to have the ability to react whenever necessary to what the other side does during the dynamic ebb and flow of a hectic battle. The thing is, they were also turn based. It's just that the turns happened transparently behind the scenes as the computer dealt with the mechanics and timing of each turn.

Now, I can see some kind of turn based RPG working if the only character I'm controlling is my own player character, plus maybe one henchman. But a full party of six, or what looks like will only be four for BGIII? No way. Too much happens when a party of six, or four, is fighting as many if not more opponents. If I start to do one thing, say move to the other side of a room to flank someone, I need the option to instead stop and fire an arrow when I see a Mage in the back starting to cast a spell because tactically stopping that spell caster suddenly became more important than moving to flank someone. Forcing me to helplessly continue moving just because that was the last order I gave instead of being able to react to dynamic changes in the flow of battle and changes to the other side's tactics would be terribly frustrating. I would hate it and I can't see me standing that for more than a few hours of play. Often in all of those old D&D games I mentioned my party of six was seriously outnumbered. Proper tactics, and the ability to pause and change orders in reaction to the dynamic changes of combat, was what made survival possible. Proper tactics and reactively changing tactics on the fly by using RTwP were the keys to success in those old full party D&D games. At least that was the case for anyone who wanted to micromanage the whole party instead of controlling only our player character.

So, for me, the bottom line is my overwhelming first choice is RTwP. IF we do get stuck with turn based game I pray that it will be a phased WEGO with reaction. That is the next best thing to RTwP when it comes to being able to react to the dynamic changes and ebb and flow of intense combat.

Why? RTwP makes it possible to effectively manage a full party of six because of how we can pause at ANY time to change orders and issue as many new orders as we might need to issue in response to what the other side is doing. RTwP makes it easy to micromage a full party of six. This is especially true if we also have the ability to check auto-pause conditions such as at the tend of every turn, every time ANY character on either side begins casting a spell, whenever any spell activates, when any member of the player's party takes damage, whenever any member of the player's party dies. RTwP is basically exactly like turn based, except the turns can be of any variable length as needed. A turn might last five minutes, five seconds, or half a second depending upon whether we need to react to something, anything, that is happening. One turn might be five seconds, then the next turn one second, then the next 12 seconds, then the next five turns are only 0.7 seconds each because a lot is happening that we need to react to. Each interval between each pause is a turn of whatever length we need it to be. And NEVER are we just standing by helplessly watching as the other side does what it wants without being able to do anything about it until the next turn.

In just every single battle my party was in against a hostile party in any of the D&D full party games I've played (IWD series, BG, and BG2 for starters) I needed to and was easily able to change first orders given once contact was made. 'No tactical plan survives first contact with the enemy.' RTwP makes it easy to make as many changes as I want and need to make as often as I want and need to make them. Turn based on the other hand significantly limits when and how often I can change orders to adjust to the dynamic ebb and flow of the action during combat. Turn based means having to idly stand by helplessly during the other sides turn (unless it's a phased WEGO system). That may be fine for a party of one, as in only me running my one player character and so a minimum of things are happening. But not if I'm trying to control a party of four or five or six.

And please, please, please eventually let us control a full and ideal party of six. Limiting us to four in the party necessarily means we can't have any redundancy unless some in the party are multiclassing. Having the one Cleric go down without a multiclass backup or a 2nd cleric for backup in a party of six really sucks. Ditto if the one MU or one legit tank goes down. A party of four doesn't permit much flexibility and makes it very vulnerable to one bad roll that cause the early loss of a key member.

Two reasons

(1) AI fucks it up. For example, I was playing DAI the other day, soloing on the highest difficulty. I do have two companions (one warrior, one mage - I'm playing a rogue), but I never applied any skill points or gear and have their AI turned off (I have them trail me to open doors when needed; they die very quickly in combat, if not right away, and never attack). A minute or two into the battle, rolling along without any real danger, I accidentally switched to one of the companions in combat, which then made my character operate by AI (this companion usually survives in combat because of a ring that turns her invisible at the start of combat, and since she doesn't attack, she just stands there doing nothing and not getting attacked). It took a couple of seconds before I realized and reacted to regain control. In those two seconds of having the AI in control, my character almost died, because "AI" is anything but "Intelligent." One way or another, AI finds a way to do something stupid, be it cause a train, squander a potion or scroll, or any number of things.

(2) RTwP feels like a bad hybrid. RT and TB are both standard methods that work well for what they are, but having to rely on the "P" makes RTwP feel neither here nor there. In fact, it shouldn't even be called RTwP, because real time doesn't stop. Call it what it is, STwP (Simultaneous Turns with Pause), or maybe even HART or HATB (half-assed real-time or half-assed turn-based). Yeah, I know, plenty of people like it, and that's cool. I don't. It's an attempt to get the best of both worlds and, as usual, ends up getting the best of neither.

This makes no sense and I disagree with it categorically. In fact, as far as I am concerned, there is no meaningful difference at all between RT and RTwP. RTwP is merely adding in a QoL convenience into RT combat. It's giving people more choice, where that choice is entirely optional. That's all. Anyone who wants to play the game in a purely RT way can absolutely do so. As such, I believe there should not be such a thing as RT, and all RT games should come with pausability. Furthermore, even TB games should include the ability to pause the game during RT exploration (and the D:OS games not including this is a HUGE strike against them). There are no meaningful reasons to ever not include the ability to pause a game and walk away from your computer, and not including such pausability I always interpret as just plain cussedness on the part of a developer.

Actual real time not having a pause makes no sense? Okay.

Being able to pause is one thing (and I agree, in single-player, at least). But relying on pausing to cover for game mechanics is another.