Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 449
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 449
This is Baldur's Gate. It should obviously be RTwP-based.

I can also imagine that real-time (without pause?) would be intense and a real blast in multiplayer. smile

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
Two things I want to chime in on:

1. RTwP will necessarily wreck the rules

this is mostly due to initiative concerns. There was a game (with many other flaws) Called "Drakensang: The Dark Eye" (NOT Drakensang Online) that had accurate initiative and turn based combat in a RTwP game. When there were more enemies the turns became a bit longer, but all in all it was still very fluid and kept the order of actions correct at the same time. The only "flaw" was, that all actions had to be locked in at the start of the combat, and movement was obviously a bit skewed because run speed did not align at all with the duration of a round of combat. But for the base game (DSA in german TBE in English) the part about locking in all actions for the round was actually true to the rules.

Point is: RTwP can be pulled off in a Manner that does not necessarily destroy all other rules. The movement issue would be funny, D&D allows a nice amount of movement per Combat round.

2. AI for companions

I liked the gambit system of FF12. 'nuff said.

okay, not 'nuff said, here a little bit of explanation: FF12 had the usual ATB thing from Final fantasy going on, but they did remove the option of putting in all commands by hand, instead giving you some scant few slots of "Gambit" that you could fill with a trigger (ally below x%, leaders target enemy, highest magic power foe, etc.) and an action (cast heal, use item, attack, use special skill, etc.) and the AI always did the first thing whose trigger and action were available on the list.

It was a bit clunky, the limit on actions was always an issue as you needed to swap around the ailments you clear for some zones. And I'd like some more triggers (e.g. Friend has skill available for combo and is not occupied by healing) and ifs and essentially run my party entirely on some selfmade(!) programming. I know that is not everyones cup of tea, but it is mine.

ah one third thing: I lean more to the turn based approach myself.

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 266
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 266
All of my favourite RPGs have RTWP Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Age Origins and Pathfinder Kingmaker. Larian already made RTWP games so I hope they continue BGs tradition.

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
No it is not true at all that RTwP "wreck" D&D rules. Core rules were not changed for combat in the original BG games. In that RTwP system you still had rounds and turns and weapon speed and casting time. All that happened was that time was running continuously unless and until you, the player, decided to stop it rather than the game forcing it to stop for you. Also, rather than assigning orders strictly sequentially to your characters, you can give out orders all at once and then watch as those orders got resolved over time.

P:K also follows this same system and is very much true to Pathfinder rules. It is EVERYTHING like Pathfinder.

This argument that if the pnp version of a game is TB then the computer version of the game should also be TB is a completely fake and ridiculous argument that has no logic to it whatsoever. Personally I think it is a way for people who want every damn RPG to be TB to make such a demand without also appearing to be selfish.

Last edited by kanisatha; 15/06/19 02:07 PM. Reason: clarity
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 7
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by dlux
This is Baldur's Gate. It should obviously be RTwP-based.

I can also imagine that real-time (without pause?) would be intense and a real blast in multiplayer. smile


^

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by kanisatha
No it is not true at all that RTwP "wreck" D&D rules. Core rules were not changed for combat in the original BG games. In that RTwP system you still had rounds and turns and weapon speed and casting time. All that happened was that time was running continuously unless and until you, the player, decided to stop it rather than the game forcing it to stop for you. Also, rather than assigning orders strictly sequentially to your characters, you can give out orders all at once and then watch as those orders got resolved over time.

P:K also follows this same system and is very much true to Pathfinder rules. It is EVERYTHING like Pathfinder.

This argument that if the pnp version of a game is TB then the computer version of the game should also be TB is a completely fake and ridiculous argument that has no logic to it whatsoever. Personally I think it is a way for people who want every damn RPG to be TB to make such a demand without also appearing to be selfish.


You're objectively wrong when it comes to Pathfinder. Its half-assed aborted implementation of flanking, for example, is a direct result of the Real Time with Pause system.

As P:K also demonstrates, action types in a Real-Time with Pause system become very difficult to understand, particularly when it comes to movement. What the hell is a 5ft Step in a RTwP game, for example? The concept of rounds/turns becomes completely lost in the system.
Then you have other issues like UI text spam because of the speed of the action. Just go into P:K, throw out an entangle at a group of enemies and watch your screen get filled with barely readable overlapping text "Saving throw Failed!" in the middle of all the chaos. Hell, just try the turn-based mod for P:K, suddenly combat is actually readable and enjoyable.

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
Thanks Kanisatha, that sparked a thought in me.

In P&P Combat is where you lean back, wait for your turn (and maybe chat with your friends - depending on your personal play style) while glorifying all hit and dmg rolls and especially the crits while imagining just how awesome those blows all land and maybe describing to each other how and where exactly you want to cut the Enemy up, or just how nonchalant you look while decapitating hordes of lesser beings with each swing of your sword.

this can not be recreated in a single player game. some of the tactical stuff yes, but all the cheering for a crit or random explanation of where you want to hit the enemy are almost impossible to put into any game that is less than full SAO style VR.

Or in other words: Combat with automatic rolls that are not announced by a genuinely happy (or dejected) player is inherently less interesting than P&P combat.

usually the only goal of such combat is to survive and make sure the enemy is no longer willing to mess with the characters (make enemies with weak agency to fight to the death flee!) and just rolling that out is... boring. I'ts why i like automation in my single player combat, after i created my AI in my likeness (only better) i can sit back and enjoy watching the fight and continue on with the things where my agency really lies: exploring a bit, looting every nook and cranny (or not, if i were ever given incentive for not doing that like the D:OS cities.) and solving my own problems (the quest)

If the goal of the combat directly aligns with my own goal (normally named enemies) i am much more willing to play that whole combat subgame, but that is it. I am not that much of a combat kinda guy and I'd prefer it if combat was not the first, last and only otion in too many cases or the main way to gain experience.

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
You're just giving another reason for BG3 to be Turn-Based, since a big focus of it will be the campaign playable in co-op with your friends.

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
Originally Posted by Phi 42
Thanks Kanisatha, that sparked a thought in me.

In P&P Combat is where you lean back, wait for your turn (and maybe chat with your friends - depending on your personal play style) while glorifying all hit and dmg rolls and especially the crits while imagining just how awesome those blows all land and maybe describing to each other how and where exactly you want to cut the Enemy up, or just how nonchalant you look while decapitating hordes of lesser beings with each swing of your sword.

this can not be recreated in a single player game. some of the tactical stuff yes, but all the cheering for a crit or random explanation of where you want to hit the enemy are almost impossible to put into any game that is less than full SAO style VR.

Or in other words: Combat with automatic rolls that are not announced by a genuinely happy (or dejected) player is inherently less interesting than P&P combat.

usually the only goal of such combat is to survive and make sure the enemy is no longer willing to mess with the characters (make enemies with weak agency to fight to the death flee!) and just rolling that out is... boring. I'ts why i like automation in my single player combat, after i created my AI in my likeness (only better) i can sit back and enjoy watching the fight and continue on with the things where my agency really lies: exploring a bit, looting every nook and cranny (or not, if i were ever given incentive for not doing that like the D:OS cities.) and solving my own problems (the quest)

If the goal of the combat directly aligns with my own goal (normally named enemies) i am much more willing to play that whole combat subgame, but that is it. I am not that much of a combat kinda guy and I'd prefer it if combat was not the first, last and only otion in too many cases or the main way to gain experience.

Well put. And I think this is precisely where the dividing line is between TB and RTwP. The reason tabletop games are ALL TB (not just D&D and Pathfinder but also Monopoly and Scrabble etc.) is because when you have a group of people around a table playing a game, it HAS to be TB. There is no other possible mechanic. And if you then take that game to the computer medium and retain having a group of people playing it (co-op/multiplayer), it would continue to make sense to have the game be TB. But the moment that game on the computer medium becomes a single-player game, TB no longer makes any sense and in fact becomes EXTREMELY boring, tedious, annoying and frustrating.

So I think this debate is less about TB v. RTwP and more about co-op v. single-player. And because of the D:OS games, the co-op preferring gamers now take it for granted that RPGs should be all about co-op play and if someone (stupidly) wants to play the game single-player they can, but the game should be built and optimized for co-op play. This is where my reference to selfishness comes in. The people who are interested only in co-op play are being selfishly dismissive of the single-player side of the game.

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
You're just giving another reason for BG3 to be Turn-Based, since a big focus of it will be the campaign playable in co-op with your friends.

Why? If the game is being sold as both single-player and co-op, then both those are equal. Why should the people wanting co-op play be entitled to a superior gaming experience?

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 7
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 7
[quote=Phi 42] Two things I want to chime in on:

1. RTwP will necessarily wreck the rules

this is mostly due to initiative concerns. There was a game (with many other flaws) Called "Drakensang: The Dark Eye" (NOT Drakensang Online) that had accurate initiative and turn based combat in a RTwP game. When there were more enemies the turns became a bit longer, but all in all it was still very fluid and kept the order of actions correct at the same time. The only "flaw" was, that all actions had to be locked in at the start of the combat, and movement was obviously a bit skewed because run speed did not align at all with the duration of a round of combat. But for the base game (DSA in german TBE in English) the part about locking in all actions for the round was actually true to the rules.

Point is: RTwP can be pulled off in a Manner that does not necessarily destroy all other rules. The movement issue would be funny, D&D allows a nice amount of movement per Combat round.

2. AI for companions

I liked the gambit system of FF12. 'nuff said.

okay, not 'nuff said, here a little bit of explanation: FF12 had the usual ATB thing from Final fantasy going on, but they did remove the option of putting in all commands by hand, instead giving you some scant few slots of "Gambit" that you could fill with a trigger (ally below x%, leaders target enemy, highest magic power foe, etc.) and an action (cast heal, use item, attack, use special skill, etc.) and the AI always did the first thing whose trigger and action were available on the list.

It was a bit clunky, the limit on actions was always an issue as you needed to swap around the ailments you clear for some zones. And I'd like some more triggers (e.g. Friend has skill available for combo and is not occupied by healing) and ifs and essentially run my party entirely on some selfmade(!) programming. I know that is not everyones cup of tea, but it is mine.

ah one third thing: I lean more to the turn based approach myself.
[/quote]



1). Have you read Players Handbook? it states that its just a guide to be followed losely and that you should certanly change the rules to what you like ( making the game your own) And if you are a true DnD fan that actually played it with pen and paper, you should know that this is probably the most important rule in Players Handbook and of pen and paper.

EDIT : Why is my "Quote" looking wrong?

Last edited by Halfling Rogue; 16/06/19 11:10 AM.
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
I've never played a cRPG in co-op in my life and even selfish people should prefer turn-based - it's more tactical, easier to read, easier to follow, can be faster than RTwP, and most importantly allows for straight porting of P&P rules.

The "I like automation" isn't even an argument. Party AI systems can be implemented in turn-based games if you like just watching people do stuff instead of actually playing out the encounters.

Seems like the people who defend RTwP simply like to breeze past combat encounters as fast as possible, and as such prefer the system because it doesn't force them to interact with the combat mechanics. Your average joe can breeze through BG1, 2, IWD, and PoE on core rules without really knowing what the fuck is going on mechanics wise.

Personally, none of the defining features of Baldur's Gate II were the real-time with pause system, so I'd welcome a change to a system that allows more depth, better pacing and faithful recreation of the ruleset.

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Halfling Rogue

Originally Posted by Phi 42

Two things I want to chime in on:

1. RTwP will necessarily wreck the rules

this is mostly due to initiative concerns. There was a game (with many other flaws) Called "Drakensang: The Dark Eye" (NOT Drakensang Online) that had accurate initiative and turn based combat in a RTwP game. When there were more enemies the turns became a bit longer, but all in all it was still very fluid and kept the order of actions correct at the same time. The only "flaw" was, that all actions had to be locked in at the start of the combat, and movement was obviously a bit skewed because run speed did not align at all with the duration of a round of combat. But for the base game (DSA in german TBE in English) the part about locking in all actions for the round was actually true to the rules.

Point is: RTwP can be pulled off in a Manner that does not necessarily destroy all other rules. The movement issue would be funny, D&D allows a nice amount of movement per Combat round.

2. AI for companions

I liked the gambit system of FF12. 'nuff said.

okay, not 'nuff said, here a little bit of explanation: FF12 had the usual ATB thing from Final fantasy going on, but they did remove the option of putting in all commands by hand, instead giving you some scant few slots of "Gambit" that you could fill with a trigger (ally below x%, leaders target enemy, highest magic power foe, etc.) and an action (cast heal, use item, attack, use special skill, etc.) and the AI always did the first thing whose trigger and action were available on the list.

It was a bit clunky, the limit on actions was always an issue as you needed to swap around the ailments you clear for some zones. And I'd like some more triggers (e.g. Friend has skill available for combo and is not occupied by healing) and ifs and essentially run my party entirely on some selfmade(!) programming. I know that is not everyones cup of tea, but it is mine.

ah one third thing: I lean more to the turn based approach myself.




1). Have you read Players Handbook? it states that its just a guide to be followed losely and that you should certanly change the rules to what you like ( making the game your own) And if you are a true DnD fan that actually played it with pen and paper, you should know that this is probably the most important rule in Players Handbook and of pen and paper.

EDIT : Why is my "Quote" looking wrong?


D&D is not my main system, so i have personally only skimmed over the rules. mostly character creation and advancement, DM and Party were nice enough to explain the rest to me. It is all very intuitive and/or i have seen most of the rules before somewhere.
It is nice to know that the Players Handbook explicitly states that. We mostly use D&D if we want to be very creative with the setting and don't want to deal with iffy specific lore formatted into rules, because the D&D rules support that type of playing really well. I ran multiple campaigns as the DM and as a player, my most important tidbit of wisdom is, that everyone at the table should have fun. Modifying the base rules might help some to achieve that, so always nice to see the rule written out.

your "Quote" might look wrong because of spacing. try putting all [/quote] tags in their own line maybe? Not that it matters too much.

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I've never played a cRPG in co-op in my life and even selfish people should prefer turn-based - it's more tactical, easier to read, easier to follow, can be faster than RTwP, and most importantly allows for straight porting of P&P rules.

Dont tell me what I prefer. yes, yes, yes, CAN be faster. Ok. should use a hexgrid then I guess.
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
The "I like automation" isn't even an argument.

You are correct, it is not. It is not even meant to be. Just wanted to say that automation is a nice thing for some people, maybe just me.
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Party AI systems can be implemented in turn-based games if you like just watching people do stuff instead of actually playing out the encounters.

Yes, my agency is rarely in the fighting part of games.
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Seems like the people who defend RTwP simply like to breeze past combat encounters as fast as possible, and as such prefer the system because it doesn't force them to interact with the combat mechanics. Your average joe can breeze through BG1, 2, IWD, and PoE on core rules without really knowing what the fuck is going on mechanics wise.

again: Yes, my agency is rarely in the fighting part of games. also I have had enough players at the table incapable of understanding what the fuck was going on mechanics wise. Great players most of them.
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Personally, none of the defining features of Baldur's Gate II were the real-time with pause system,

true. combat mechanics make beat em ups and spectacle fighter games great (maybe some others) for a story driven RPG the fighting system should not be a liability to the story. It can even be great in and of itself, but its role is to challenge you mechanically while the game challenges you morally with its quests.
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
so I'd welcome a change to a system that allows more depth, better pacing and faithful recreation of the ruleset.

as i just said, i don't think the depth of a cRPG is defined by how you go about clobbering the enemy mechanically. when Swen said that part about missing a lot being frustrating - imagine it in a turn based combat. it is infuriating enough to make you savescum. I have had players at the table totally frustrated by missing twice in a row with 80% + hit chance (iirc the worst streak was 5 misses at 90% hit chance, one being critical and losing the weapon, losing horribly to an objectively weaker foe in the process) in RTwP the high miss chance is mitigated by the fact that everything is moving so quickly. that is an argument. an actual argument why it might be TB (it wouldn't have been a problem elsewise) and what is tangibly better about RTwP. this doesn't mean I am on board for RTwP > TB. I'm not. I hated it in DA and SCL. it's just a counterpoint. quote from a totally diffent discussion: "If a counterpoint exists then the original point can't unilaterally disprove the argument." (Mekronid) and my counterpoint is exactly regarding to "keep true to the rules" because TB is very tempting for savescumming, which is totally not the rules. how about every targeting effect pauses the game until the effect is resolved for the movement vs. AoE discussion. Why always talk problems and not solutions?

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
I don't see how TB vs RTwP is any more or less savescummy... make it so you can't save during combat in both. That's how almost every other game is.

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
P
stranger
Offline
stranger
P
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Brent2410
I don't see how TB vs RTwP is any more or less savescummy... make it so you can't save during combat in both. That's how almost every other game is.

well... okay, got me there. if you can't save mid combat you can't savescum combat.
But if you can save mid combat then RTwP has so many things going on and pausing on reload is such a pain that scumming is mostly not worthwhile. in TB you can make every attack of your team hit or even crit when you can save (though critting is also a drag to pull off each time, hitting is not. depending on the loading time a bit here)

Last edited by Phi 42; 15/06/19 11:26 PM. Reason: grammar
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Well, we seem to disagree on a fundamental level.
I don't find it excusable for RPGs to have poor combat, and sadly the big majority of them do. Coincidentally, the only ones that don't, use turn-based systems. Now, you might think that's a coincidence, but I don't think so.

"TB is very tempting for save scumming"
What does combat system have to do with the save system? Most games don't allow saving in combat at all. Other games that do allow it implement a rolling seed system that mitigates save scumming (see new XCOM games).

"when Swen said that part about missing a lot being frustrating - imagine it in a turn based combat. it is infuriating enough to make you savescum. I have had players at the table totally frustrated by missing twice in a row with 80% + hit chance (iirc the worst streak was 5 misses at 90% hit chance, one being critical and losing the weapon, losing horribly to an objectively weaker foe in the process) in RTwP the high miss chance is mitigated by the fact that everything is moving so quickly."
I don't think your example of the tabletop experience is very relevant without knowing classes, party level, buffs, creature being fought. I can have my players fight a dragon at 5th level and they'll miss every attack - that doesn't mean turn based is worse because they're missing, it just means my encounter is shit or they're terrible at the game.

It's true that RtWP might mitigate the "miss" situation by masking it through the quick pace of combat, but it does nothing to address it. This leads to players not even realizing they're missing, which in turn promotes designers creating encounters that don't even require any brain to get past to save players the frustration (like most of BG2). Again that goes back to my earlier point - players who defend RtWP don't actually care about the combat and just want to skip it and all mechanics. Are these the people that should be deciding the combat system of a game? If they just want to skip it, there's combat-system independent ways of doing so (difficulty settings). If a game has a combat system its normal difficulty should force players to interact with its systems to solve problems - and that's exactly why Turn-Based is the preferred choice, its slower pace of information allows for much more organized and premeditated encounters that make players use strategy to overcome them. It's why the Original Sin games aren't RtWP, it's why ToEE isn't RtWP.

If you don't like the possibility of missing you can just reduce the difficulty, there's nothing wrong with that. Alternatively, you can get better at the game - either by yourself or simply asking for help online if you're having trouble. It's a rewarding process!

Last edited by Iuris Tantum; 15/06/19 11:32 PM.
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Well, we seem to disagree on a fundamental level.
I don't find it excusable for RPGs to have poor combat, and sadly the big majority of them do. Coincidentally, the only ones that don't, use turn-based systems. Now, you might think that's a coincidence, but I don't think so.

No, it's called subjective opinion. There's nothing objective about your selection of which games have good combat. I'm sure all those games you think have good combat I see as having crappy combat. For example, the D:OS games have the worst combat system I have ever seen in a video game. ToEE's combat system is pretty shitty too.

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
You can objectively assess the quality of a game's combat using multiple criteria.

But as I said, we disagree on a fundamental level. Again, at risk of repeating myself, it goes back to my point - you don't particularly care about the combat, you want to effectively skip and get it over with. I don't.

Since the disagreement is on a fundamental level and the interests are diametrically opposed, the discussion is pointless. Doesn't mean one is right or wrong, we just have underlying differences when it comes to what a role-playing game should provide.

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1,076
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum

But as I said, we disagree on a fundamental level. Again, at risk of repeating myself, it goes back to my point - you don't particularly care about the combat, you want to effectively skip and get it over with. I don't.

Please refrain from trying to tell me what I want. Only I get to say what I want.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5