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

Yes this is exactly right. And its logic is something easily understood. So when TB fans refuse to acknowledge this fact, there's no point to any further discussion because obviously there is an agenda at work.

Maybe Bioware believed that's how D&D was supposed to be played (source?). Or maybe they thought that RTwP would sell better in the market as it was in the late 90s? Both?

And just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done (that's logic)

And agenda you say? Be careful The Freemasons have nothing on us.

RtWP looks obvious as soon as you read the rules and try to understand what feelings D&D try to convey through it's rules.

I read everywhere that GMs always adapt the rules, hear everywhere something like : "an ennemy is running to you : what are you doing?", "He try to hit your head : what are you doing ?"
,... things that gives the feeling of chaos and reality during battles.
Can we conclude saying that the rules can be modified by players also to look a little bit more "real time" ? What are 6 "seconds" if it's not about (real) time ?

Whatever you like TB or RTWP, it's done so it's not important to argue about what is Baldur's Gate 3... But it looks obvious to me that RTWP suits the philosophy and the feeling D&D players are supposed to experience, while TB suits more the way it's played for convenience.
They chose their way to translate D&D on a computer, such as the first owner of the licence did 20 years ago.

If it looks obvious to you, that's fine. But that is a completely subjective opinion.


Yes, and they handle each player one at a time with such questions, not at the same time like it was an auction or a session at the NY Stock Exchange.


The six second interval is not really important. A DM may give a player a short period of time to respond to this or that, but turns are generally not timed at all. The six seconds is more a barometer to get an idea of how much a person might be able to do in a given turn (e.g how far one might be able to run). Sometimes a turn consists of nothing more than one swing of a weapon, which would take on second to do. But so what?


Okay. It doesn't look that way at all to me.

How strange then, that WotC saw Divinities and said: "Yes, those are the guys who can do justice to our IP. Let's have them over an pitch BG3 to us". Maybe, just maybe: projecting your own preferences on the source material a bit much?

To be fair there is so much of this going around, particularly in regards to this discussion.... but the point you make is one that is overlooked WAY too often. I don't think anyone is better qualified to determine what makes the most sense other than WotC. But I'm sure someone will disagree with that, too.

Whatever my own preferences, Larian is probably one of the best partners for many reasons, I never said anything else.
But do you really think WotC chose the studio because of the combat system they use in their game...? It suits well, such as other systems but don't be naive... They did different choices 20 years ago but TB was in video games 20 years ago.

Whatever I read or I look about P&P, it's always done to look like real scenes and it always feel like real scenes.... Like a book you read in which you have a line that introduce the action of Drizzt, then another one that introduce the action of Bruenor, then Wulfgar, then the demon, then,... When I read a book, I don't see things in TB whatever we're talking about combats or any other actions.

RT is the way they introduce combats in the rules what else do you want ? What are reactions if it's not a "real time" mecanic ?

I personnaly think that a great part of BG's sucess is that it feels like a story you can imagine and read in a book in many ways... But I know books aren't what's sold the most today.

Anyway I don't play P&P, that's maybe why I'm way more interrested in the flow of the entire story telling (combats included) than in the mecanics used for convenience arround the table

In a way. I think Larian's approach to RPG multiplayer design is pretty fresh and I think it could have attracted WorC to them. Also: overall passion, quality, great critical and public reception (whatever my personal feelings on D:OS2 it's good qualities are unquestionable). And Larian's coop design revolves around turn based system, just as DnD's does. And while it technically would be possible to make Larian style BG3 in RTwP I think it would kill a lot of elegance it has.


I never played P&P nor did I had any encounter with DnD outside it's PC adaptations. Where you loose me is RT being "real". At least nowadays, I am not capable of seeing games as simulations - there are game mechanics and the theme. Storytelling can and should be done in mechanics, but whenever it is done in RTwP or TB really doesn't matter to me. Whenever the game limits amount of actions our character can make via "per turn" action economy, or time based action economy doesn't really make a difference to me.

Books are "real". Films aren't "real". They are forms of expression that have ways of telling stories. TB ambush can be just as effective as RT if done well. Books have paragrapths for clearer organisation and expression. TB have turns for the same thing. I don't see TB nor RTwP as better or worse - they are just a bit different.

D&D is a simulation, every books, films or video games are simulations in our heads or in front of our eyes... Every stories are simulations.
Every media use mecanics and rules to simulate his story but TB games completely transform the first of all real things : time.
TB leads you from a totally realistic system to another reality in which time management, movements, actions and reactions,...everything become different and totally unrealistic.

That's the exact same thing with the lack of D/N cycle to give another exemple of totally unrealistic things involved by time management...
The last exemple that comes in my head is that you can engage a battle, then wait your companions till they cross the map to ambush your ennemy.

Turn based video games always leads to impossible things you won't ever read/see/experience/imagine in any other stories whatever it's support...

It looks like that's exactly why : For it's story to look a little bit more realistic when it's your turn to write your line in the story.

I like many TB games but according to me, in a Baldur's Gate game you live the story of an adventure... And RTwP is more accurate to stories than TB.

You know what's impossible and inaccurate to stories? One person controlling six people at once. Actual people are individuals who control their own actions and reactions independently. In order to allow a human player to control 4-6 people at once, pausing is put in. Pausing is not possible. Pausing is not accurate to stories. Why is pausing a horrible, terrible, awful, immersion-breaking, worst, most unrealistic thing in the entire multiverse... only when it's in a turn-based game? Why is pausing in a perfectly immersive and wonderful and the best thing ever in a "real-time" game?

EXACTLY how the frak was I supposed to catch onto anything? Someone merely saying that a game will be TB doesn't really mean anything specifically because there are at least SIX different ways to do a TB game. Ergo the questions so I could understand EXACTLY which kind of turn based game we are talking about. I don't give a damn how Larian did their other games because we are not discussion their other games. We are discussing BG3 so that's the ONLY game with which I care about being familiar.

The only asinine person here is the one who resorted to that childish ad hominem attack. There isn't a damn thing asinine about the possibility of characters, or units, in a TB game continuing to execute the last order given from turn to turn UNLESS orders don't last more than one turn and so the player has to keep issuing the same orders or new orders every single turn over and over and over again. Those are NOT mutually exclusive options. You seem to be wrongly assuming that every single TB game works that same way and that is far from accurate. I'm not assuming anything about how BG3 might work. Just because a game uses some kind of TB system that does NOT preclude persistent orders. I've played plenty of TB games where orders were persistent so the units keep following the last order given. It is POSSIBLE in a TB game for the characters/units to continue following the last order given. Just because the games YOU are familiar with don't do that doesn't meant that isn't possible.

So, now that we have established that BG3 will basically be IGoUGo then exactly what is it that you think players can do other than watch while the turn executes after the player is done with the player's turn? I have never played any "pure IGoUGo" game as you put it where I did anything other than sit there and watch while the computer executed the turn after I gave all of my units their orders. You keep insisting that I'm supposedly wrong about being only a passive observer while the turn executes. Well then, again, if BG3 is going to be "pure IGoUGo" then what else can I/we do beside sit there and watch while the computer executes the orders we gave to our characters? You are making ZERO sense about this because you are making two mutually exclusive claims.



Technically yes, because the animations run simultaneously once the next turn begins all of the NPCs and player's characters would appear to be acting simultaneously because that is what happens in a real fight. However, they would only do something that actually counts as an action - i.e. move, attack, cast spell, or take some other kind of action - when their initiative permits them to do something per the rules. So, during a one minute turn with 10 six second combat rounds, or initiative rounds, every character/unit with an initiative of one would execute an eligible action after six seconds on the first initiative round. If memory serves, in the AD&D rules used for the IWD & BG games each six second initiative round was called a combat round, and then every minute of combat was a combat turn, which was different from game turns of 10 minutes. Anyway, in initiative round two every character with an initiative of two would take an eligible action per the order it was given. So if it was told to move and the distance takes more than 12 seconds to cover then that character would keep moving. If it was told to attack and its weapon is fast enough it would execute an attack. If it was told to cast a spell and the spell is fast enough it would cast a spell. The sequence continues until the end of the one minute turn. Thus, characters with one attack per turn would get their one attack on the initiative round corresponding to the speed of their weapon, and spells would cast according to the speed for casing the spell, and movement would stop if the distance they were told to move takes less than 60 seconds to cover. Since both sides are acting simultaneously in the IWD & BD games and TofEE (which was TB not RTwP) this is a phased WeGo without reaction system. All characters/units on both sides get their orders before the turn begins, then they simultaneously execute their orders and get to do their action the rules permit them to do during a turn on the round that corresponds to their initiative. So, speed 3 weapons would attack on round 3, speed 5 on round 5, and speed 8 on round 8. Speed 2 spells would get cast on round 2 and speed 7 spells would go off on round 7.

So, you are wrong about it not being TB at all if a RTwP game were set to pause only at the end of each round/turn because the only time any character would take an action that actually counts for anything would be when its initiative permits it to do something. Just because animations have all of the characters appearing active the only time they are doing anything that matters or counts is when they are physically moving (which uses up initiative and movement points) and when their initiative permits them to do something. Consequently, a character that has animations showing it swinging its sword five times during a one minute combat turn the only swing that actually counts as an attack is the one the one attack it gets when initiative permits it to make an attack.

There isn't a damn thing weird about anything I've described before. I get the impression that anything you don't understand or your not familiar with is weird to you.



For shits sake man, what you are describing is NOT pure IGoUGo. Clearly you don't really understand what you are talking about because you can't conceive of anything beyond your limited experience with Larian's other games because that seems to be the limit to the size of your box. What you are describing seems more like PHASED IGoUGo if all of the orders are not given before the execution of the turn and are instead issued during the turn. This means that during the turn each side issues an order to an eligible character on the initiative round that it is eligible to act. Again, that is NOT pure IGoUGo as you wrongly claimed earlier. You are confusing both sides alternating giving orders and taking action DURING a turn with both sides doing that BEFORE each turn. Just because the action/orders go back and forth between the two sides DURING a turn that does not make a TB game "pure TB" as you wrongly put it.

There isn't anything at all subjective about that sound conclusion because that is a very simple deductive argument combined with observation of the real world. The purpose of the D&D combat system was to provide a way to effectively simulate real world actions. That's why time passes simultaneously for both sides at the same time and same rate. That's why the players take their turns functionally at the same time the NPCs the DM is running are doing their actions during their turn. One minute of action is broken down into 10 six second initiative rounds so everyone on both sides eligible to do something on round one gets to act, then ditto for round two, then ditto for round three, etc. etc. etc. RTwP simulates real action in the real world because in real fights, in real combat, one side doesn't wait for the other side to finish the other side's turn before taking their own action. If one side is waiting to react to what the other side does that is not because of some artificial turn limitation. Just watch boxing or a fencing match some time. Both sides are acting and reacting simultaneously. RTwP can effectively simulate that AND provide a sense of urgency and immediacy. The next best thing is phased WeGo with reaction in which orders are not given in advance. That approach requires player action during the turn and permits the player to react during the turn to what the other side is doing. That also slows down the pace a tad, or a lot if a player takes their time deciding, by automatically pausing each initiative round so the player can decide to act or not. Both approaches can effectively simulate real world action, but RTwP also provides a greater sense of immediacy and urgency and tension and thus can achieve more emersion.

Actually, that is not exactly what my claim is. But that isn't important atm.

If BG3 automatically pauses each initiative round so the player then the computer gets to issue orders to eligible characters the result would be IDENTICAL to RTwP set to pause at the end of each six second round instead of at the end of each one minute turn. In BOTH cases each game would pause every six seconds, and in BOTH games the only characters eligible to do something would be the ones who are eligible because of their initiative. This of course assumes that the D&D rules BG3 will use still follow the same pattern of 10 six second initiative rounds every minute.

As I have already said: how about watching some footage of the combat in BG3


I didn't call you asinine.


I never said such a form of combat was asinine in and of itself. I said it was asinine to ask such a question in light of how the game actually is.


We're not really talking about 'games' in general here. We're talking about the kind that is in BG3. So, possible in general? Absolutely. Possible in BG3? No.


Any source to where Gygax said as much? I don't see D&D combat as a simulation, but a reduction of the complexities of real combat to a simple formula that achieves effective results.


What is it you claim is a deduction? And what is the real world observation?


Are you saying that, in the RTwP scenario of auto pauses after each turn, that on 'initiative one', only one of the (say six) characters on screen (players and enemies) would be given the chance to move, attack, etc while the other five remained motionless (idle animations notwithstanding) and unable to do anything? And that on 'initiative two', one of the other five that didn't go would then act, while the remaining four and the one who already went on 'initiative one' all remain motionless, and so for all the remaining characters until everyone has gone? Can you provide a link any footage of the this type of combat?

Are you serious ? Congratz, you just win a medal

Sure....

https://youtu.be/Tx-kB1KKLJ0

https://youtu.be/QJpRSf4q-hI

https://youtu.be/u-z5139CW1I

Pure simulation and realism.

Realistic films and books would be boring. Realistic games would be boring. It all comes down to what makes want to bring out.

Edit. Abstraction isn’t a problem if it’s consistent. It might not be to your liking and it’s fine. Theatre asks for a lot of suspension of disbelief, but it doesn’t make it inferior to films. TB might ask for more suspension of disbelief but gains and fleshes out other aspects.

You could, perhaps, try searching for "Baldur's Gate 3 gameplay".

Oh, would you look at that. 24 characters and you find actual footage of the gameplay. It's a hell of a lot less characters than you typed in to defend your inability to understand that you can type things into a search engine to find things.




You're the one putting forth a ludicrous argument that Real Time with Pause gameplay is realistic and accurate, even though it has unrealistic pausing in it. Pausing good for "real time" gameplay, pausing BAD for turn-based gameplay.

TB is NOT only a pause ! TB completely cut everything in... turns in which everything is frozen and out of time except the one whose turn it is...
Don't you really understand the obvious difference between TB and RTwp about the totally different way they approach the question of time... ...?




Keep in mind I was talking about stories and time management.
It looks like the word "simulation" leads you somewhere else but... I even don't understand why I have to explain why RT is way more accurate to reality than TB, especially in battles...

Whatever are our own preferences, it's a fact.

Games aren't accurate to reality. If they were, we probably wouldn't seek games for escapism. Let's be civil though guys, and remind ourselves that everyone has different preferences, likes and dislikes, and more importantly... That's absolutely fine 😊👍

In terms of games "simulation" leads me to immersive sim - with consistant systems which are simulated - so like items have weight that not only is part of inventory managemenet, but if put in ground will make pressure plate sink if appropriate. In that regards Larian is the most simulationist RPG designer I have seen in a long while.

As to what you mean, you do seem to have very selective application of "more like real life" which I don't quite follow. Personally, I would be more bothered by AC, which is highly illogical - I mean putting heavy armor someone makes you harder to hit? It's not like it's abstraction of damage reduction, which exists (or already existed). And "forgetting" spells until sitting on ones butt for a while to re-remember them.

As to stories - "shrug" devs have similar amount of tools at their disposal to create encounters that would contribute to the narrative. The hurdle to jump over is accepting turn order as "simulation" of character reflexes and speed. I don't personally find it it to be a big think to ask. That said, I played quite a lot of turn based games in my youth, like UFO or ADOM so I might be more inclined toward it as a valid system for an immersive RPG.