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

Then hit the damn space bar to pause the combat and issue new orders to change/counter whatever you think the ai is mucking up. Pretty simple.

We aren't talking about DAI here. We are talking about how the D&D games have done and blended RT/RTwP and TB. Have you ever played the Icewind Dale series? Did you ever play the Temple of Elemental Evil? Did you ever play Baldur's Gate? Did you ever play Baldur's Gate 2? Have you EVER played a D&D PC video game with a full party of six where you could pause the action at any time to control what your characters are doing by giving them new orders, at ANY time? AND on top of that have the action automatically pause when any character on either side cast a spell so you could have a chance to issue new orders if appropriate? And/or have the action automatically pause when any spell cast by either side activates so you could have a chance to issue new orders if appropriate? And/or have the action automatically pause when any of your characters took damage or died so you could have a chance to issue new orders if appropriate? And/or have the action automatically pause when a new turn (technically a round) begins? Good luck surviving any large scale encounter in those games without taking advantage of being able to pause things and issue new orders on the fly as the situation changes and evolves. Or if one prefers to not micromanage the characters in their party, don't pause at all and let whatever is going to happen happen. Of if one prefers turn based then just select the option to pause at the beginning of each round so it will only pause exactly like a TB game.

Then there are the other times the game can automatically pause that I had forgotten to mention. I just briefly booted up BG Enhanced Edition to double check the pause options. The game can also be set to pause whenever a trap is found - that one has saved my butt hundreds of times - and when a weapon breaks. In RT that character with the broken weapon is stuck with that broken weapon until the end of the turn, and hopefully the player doesn't forget to change weapons during the turn break. But in RTwP I can order a character to change weapons at that time, and then the weapon change will happen when the action/initiative delay permits that action, and that could happen BEFORE the end of the current turn. I think there are still some pause options I have not mentioned.

I prefer to have more control over what my characters are doing, not less. This issue boils down to players having CHOICES, and preferably more choices not fewer choices. In other words, ideally the developers will permit the players to choose whichever mode they prefer. We should have the choice to play pure TB, OR pure RT, OR pure RTwP, OR ideally any combination of those choices like we could do in the older full party D&D games.

Then as kanisatha implies, which is another advantage of RTwP that I had completely forgotten about, there is the huge advantage of being able to pause the action in the middle of a major encounter to: Answer the door; Answer the phone; Take a snack break; Take a dog out for an outside break; Make some coffee or tea or something else to drink; Take a head break, or latrine/bathroom break for you land lubbers, without having to wait for a full turn to end.

As I said, AI can fuck things up very quickly. Sometimes, too quick to hit the damn space bar.


Yes, I have played them. All that pausing to prevent the AI from fucking it up makes the game become something that isn't RT or TB. It becomes something I think is pretty shitty, whatever label it can be given. You like that kind of play? Fine. I'm just saying I don't.


I'm all for more choice. If the developers could make the game work with both RT and TB or whatever, then great. But, as the argument goes, that might be resources that could have been spent elsewhere. As for more control over characters, I find TB to be far superior.


This shouldn't even be an issue. In I don't know how many hundreds of hours in DOS I never encountered a situation where I couldn't get up and walk away. Neither systems have a problem with this. So just drop it.

Real Time games are real-times games, because timed physical imput is core part of gamplay design. Adding pause to a good real-time game makes as little sense as adding pause to Doom - it defeats pace and bypasses intended systems. Add pause to something like Starcraft and entire game falls apart. Sure add different speeds, but never a pause.

@Emrikol is absolutely 100% right on target, no matter if one enjoys STwP or not.

In response to Emirkol's previous comment: Then we must have been playing different games because I never found the ai to be messing up nearly as much as what you seem to describe. My characters always fought the target I told them to fight with with weapon I told them to use, except or until they killed a target and switched to a new one. They always cast the spell I told them cast at the target I gave them. Then when their target died they switched to the next closest target and used the weapon I had told them to use. Characters that had ranged weapons set as their priority always used ranged weapons when there was no enemy within melee range, just like I wanted them to do. The only time they might do something I think qualifies as messing up is when they killed one opponent and then moved to the next. Sometimes I might prefer to have them attack a different target, and sometimes I might prefer to have them fall back and switch to a ranged weapon on a different target. Making those changes ONLY at the end of a turn is no different than making exactly the same changes during a turn by being able to pause. The only real difference is WHEN those changes are made but not IF those changes are made. My characters had as much or as little autonomy as I wanted them to have by choosing how much they had.

The thing is, IF the ai is going to mess things up it is going to mess up in exactly the same ways regardless of whether it is messing up in a TB mode or in a RTwP mode. If the ai is going to mess up the ai is going to mess up. Whether the ai is messing up in TB mode or RTwP mode is irrelevant. In both cases the player can still fix whatever the ai does or doesn't do. The only real difference between the two modes is WHEN the player can respond to what the ai is doing.

So yeah, frankly I don't get it. You seem to be describing different games from the ones I played. More importantly, you are implying that the ai messes up in RTwP mode but doesn't mess up in TB mode. But that is far from reality. The ONLY real difference between the two modes is the interval between the times when the player can respond to what the ai is doing. In RT mode both the game turns and the functional turns are exactly the same length of time every time. In RTwP mode each game turn is exactly the same length of time with the computer handling that transparently in the background, and the functional turns of when the player can issue new orders is variable depending upon when the player chooses to end the previous functional turn and then begin the next functional turn. In BOTH modes the ai is going to do what the ai is going to do.

That really all depends upon what a game is trying to simulate. There is a HUGE difference between trying to simulate RT combat of dozens or hundreds of units from the perspective of a platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corps, army, squadron, task force, or fleet commander versus trying to simulate what 1-6 individual persons are doing. You are making apples to oranges, apples to walnuts, and apples to peanuts comparisons.

What? There is no AI in TB, since you, the player, control every single action each and every character makes.


Yes, trying to manage hundreds in real time vs trying to manage six in real time is different. But it's not an apples to peanuts comparison; more like a big apple to little apple comparison.

I am not comparing anything. Just replying to a post claiming that RT game should always come with a pause.

Thats an absurd and over exaggerated statements, to which I replied.

If cRPGs were designed for RT combat (which they are not, they are turn-based games crammed into real time, or as Emrikol said: simultaneous turn) they wouldn't need pause. And therefore cRPG have pause, because they systems those games use were not designed to be played in such a way. It's a compensation rather then a deliberate design.

One would think big army game would need pause more then managing 6 characters. And yet, real-times games don't need pause, because they were designed as real-time games. cRPG using turn-based systems were not.

I recall reading something about how Bioware, when making BG, was trying to compete with the success and popularity of games like Diablo, and thus, came up with the "RTwP" method, which, as you said, is an attempt to make a turn-based system (D&D) compatible with the new, shiny capabilities of computers. But I think we have gotten to a point where we're no longer fascinated by the new thing (RT) and can appreciate how the older method still has a lot, if not more, to offer. As a musician, I am reminded of how much better the older recording methods were over the more modern, computer driven methods; but that was not apparent at first, nor for a long while after. But I digress.

This is not at all true for all RT games. Witcher 3 is a RT game, but has no timed physical input as a core part of its gameplay. The only timed inputs are in dialogue choices, not at all in combat. If that game had included pausing during combat, nothing would've been lost or changed in terms of gameplay. Yes one could argue it didn't need pausing in combat, and that is fine as an argument, but the core mechanics of the game would not in any way have been adversely affected by including pausing.

Uuuu. What kind of musician? I am a classical violinist myself.


That would be an argument I would make. I think it also very much depends how important the combat is important to the whole experience. I mentioned SC as this is a classic real-time game, but in there combat is the centre and focus so adding a pause would got against it's best interest. Same with something like Dark Souls.

On the other hand Desperados3 added an ability to pause, which I believe is counter to the genre, where executing plan in real-time is part of experience, but I don't mind it as game is still works just fine in RT with transparent binary ruleset which doesn't require pause. Or at least it would be so, if they didn't break real time showdown mode in the process of implimenting the time-stopping, but they are working on it

The argument against RTwP isn't that it has pause, but that I don't believe it can be played to the fullest without pausing the game due to importance of stats and rolls. Honestly, sometimes I find Kingmaker difficult to follow even in turn-based mode.

What? There is no AI in TB, since you, the player, control every single action each and every character makes.

Ah, wrong, as in not necessarily. That really all depends upon the kind of TB we are talking about. Are we talking TB in the sense of the characters don't do anything at all in any turn until and unless specifically told each and every turn to do something? Or are we talking TB in the sense that a character keeps executing the last order given, such as a thief in the rear of the party continuously firing arrows at the nearest target until ordered to do something different? RTwP can accomplish exactly the same things as any version of TB depending upon how often the player chooses to pause to issue new orders.

So, that also really all depends upon whether, how often, and when one chooses to pause to issue new orders to exert control over the characters in your party, which in RTwP is as often as you the player wants. Every single time the player hits to space bar to pause that is the functional equivalent of ending the previous functional turn. Hitting the space bar again after issuing new orders begins the next turn. Then the player can end that next turn to issue new orders in 0.5 seconds, or 0.8 seconds, or 3 seconds, or five minutes, or whatever the player wants. In RTwP the ai has no more and no less control than what the player wants it to have according to the auto pause settings and when the player chooses to manually pause. Functional turns (i.e. issuing new orders) are turns regardless of their length and any variability to their length.

Bass guitar (e.g. Claypool, Butler, Harris), electric guitar (e.g Lee, Mustaine, Dimebag), and classical guitar (e.g Williams, De Lucia). I do love classical, though. I played (i.e attempted) a good deal of Bach, Paganini, Chopin, etc. on my instruments. Exquisite stuff.

I don't know what you mean by TB, but if a character in the party can keep doing anything, it isn't TB. In fact, I don't think there is any such thing as an auto attack in turn based systems. Just think of how DOS operates to get an idea of TB. Have you played DOS1 and/or 2?

Here is another perspective to consider that may or may not be helpful to the discussion about this issue. I have never ever played any kind of turn based computer game in any genre in which I felt immersed in the game. To me every turn based computer game I've ever played felt like some variation of a tactical or strategic wargame and not much different than playing chess or checkers or cards or Risk. I have never felt any sense of urgency when playing a turn based game. It never feels like when I make a decision matters in the least. But all of the RTwP D&D games I have played felt immersive to varying degrees, especially during a challenging combat encounter when my party was outnumbered or outgunned by a higher level boss. RTwP D&D games feel I'm a fireteam leader or squad leader trying to lead my fireteam or squad while I find the balance between managing them enough instead of micromanaging them too much.

So, at least for me, if BG3 is turn based it will not feel like an immersive RPG. It will instead feel like an isometric fireteam level tactical wargame with RPG elements. It will not feel like any D&D game I've ever played before. It won't feel like D&D or AD&D. It will feel more like isometric Squad Leader with great graphics and role playing elements for icing on the cake.

That's fine. I feel almost the exact opposite. All the pausing in STwP destroys anything like "immersion" (I think I hate that word). TB feels much more strategic (yes, kind of like chess). And conversely, every last action matters, however minute. Lastly, TB feel much more like D&D, because that's what D&D does.

TB = Turn Based
But "Turn Based" can mean several different things. I go through some of the possibilities, six possibilities if memory serves, in an earlier post.

When I see "DOS" I think "Disc Operating System." So no, I doubt I played DOS1 or DOS2 because I don't recognize those as game names. Probably my only relevant experiences game wise are playing "Betrayal at Krondor" and "XCom" which have turn based combat systems. The former is an RPG and the latter is more of an isometric squad level tactical wargame. I think both combat systems fall into the "IGoUGo with reaction" category of TB systems. The vase majority of my experience with TB combat systems is with tactical and strategic wargames.

While not an RPG "Steel Panthers" (and the much more recent Panzer Corps and Panzer Corps 2 series of TB games) is and example a phased Turn Based with reaction tactical wargame that permits units to act independently by firing when an enemy unit comes within range. So, for example, tanks, self propelled AT guns, towed AT guns, and towed field artillery can have their engagement ranges set to fire at any target that moves into its field of fire within that range. Thus when the other side moves during its turn my units can react if the right conditions are met).

Baldur's Gate and BG2, and if memory serves also in the "Icewind Dale" series and the "Temple of Elemental Evil," can play like a TB game by setting auto pause only for rounds and then not manually pausing at any other time. The characters then follow the last order given each turn until they die or are given a new order. That includes automatically engaging in melee combat if any enemy gets close enough, or ranged combat at any enemy within range and a LOS. I don't remember if that version of the D&D rules had 1 minute combat turns with 10 six second action/initiative rounds per turn, or if a six second round and turn were functionally the same thing. I don't remember how combat worked in the Neverwinter Nights games or D&D Daggerdale. I think they were RTwP, but I'm not sure because it has been too long since I've played them. Also, Daggerdale is more of D&D as an isometric FPS with RPG elements.

That depends upon the group you're playing with and how much they are role playing instead of cross talking out of character.

When I'm playing a turn based game I don't feel like I'm playing a character. When I play RTwP I feel more like I'm a character leading a party. That's why I wasn't much of a fan of the Neverwinter Nights games, because there's no party to lead. Only one henchman, maybe two sometimes.

Now, granted, playing an RPG with a group of other players in the party might feel different even if it is turn based, as long as the other players believe in teamwork and at least some role playing instead of zerging through everything.

As you have played XCOM, its easiest to say that BG3 switches from RT exploration/interaction to an XCOM-like combat mode.

Like XCOM, the BG3 combat will probably be OK, but potentially rather drawn-out.

Historically, most physical games ( os opposed to sports ) have been turn based because of issues of practicality. A non-moderated game means each player needs to watch other players to ensure rules are followed, and to know what has happened.

In the physical world, it is actually quite hard to devise games that operate well in simultaneous modes. Even early computer-based games were mostly turn-based, simply because the hardware wasn't good enough to consider anything else.

From my viewpoint ( or preference, if you prefer ), games that don't operate in RT while trying to portray a RT environment/situation are less interesting. So I prefer computer-RPGs to find some way of making the game flow.

Unfortunately, it is not always possible ( not yet, anyway ) to produce an adequate mechanism for giving players control that everyone will like. Games that need to follow rules converted from physical games ( such as DnD ) can be particularly difficult, as they cannot readily choose to make wholesale rules changes to better suit the computer environment.

Fortunately, most activities other than combat in BG3 are RT, and will probably work well.

Fair enough, though that's a viewpoint I have trouble empathising with. I played too many games to be immersed in them. I remember times when I was scared of them, or would shudder when character would drop into a water in Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine, but that's been years ago. A bit like with movies - they can still affect me if they are really really good, but I see through the illusion far too easily and far to quickly. Real time game be it top-down, FP or TP is just as artificial for me, as a turn based game or a card game.

I can't think of a single game with turn-based gameplay where you control multiple characters, but they explicitly carry out the last order given until ordered to do something different. That is RTwP gameplay. The vast majority of turn-based gameplay has you issue fresh commands each turn, even if it is just to confirm "keep doing what you were doing".

Also, I am amazed at how many people *pause* are trying to say, *pause* with a straight face, how *pause* "immersive" or "cinematic" *pause* real-time with pause gameplay *pause* *pause* is.