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

Original title: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn

Hello, as a BG fan I would like an active pause to stay, but your Divinity Original Sin fans think turn per turn is better.People argue turn per turn feels closer to DnD games. On the other hand, when there are many enemies, turn per turn can give the impression fights are slow. I am truly hoping active pause will remain, or that both choices will be there.

Edited to add:
Polite notice from the old fat surly goth adminatrix

Please put your turn-based/real-time-with-pause/general chaos/whatevs commentary, speculation, likes, dislikes, love, hate and general adoration of any of the former in this topic please. That would be terribly lovely of you all.

Thank you.

-v

I wish they would show a gameplay video and be done with the debate so we can all move forward. We know they are using the same turn based engine just the next generation of it.

The forums all over the internet are a mess right now because people are torn without knowing exactly the game style. I hope the delay isn't going to do more harm than good.

D&D players are very vocal about thier game and rightly so as a lot of us have been playing for decades.

Here's to hoping to see a gameplay video this week so we can get on with the hype!

Play Temple of Elemental Evil with the patches/fixes available from the modding folks over at Circle of Eight. Turn based combat in a D&D game does not have to feel slow at all, if it is implemented with the appropriate mechanics and gives players the options they can get at a PnP table as much as possible. RtwP would honestly feel more appropriate if they are going to continue the Baldur's Gate franchise/naming convention, but as a fan of PnP and the mechanical side of D&D I find turn based combat to be great fun when it's done right. I've never actually played Divinity 2: Original Sin, though I did play a bit of Divine Divinity. I am just commenting on the fact that good and bad D&D games have been made with real time with pause as well as turn based combat. Combat can be fun in either system, it is more a matter of making it fun, challenging and engaging.

As was already mentioned, turn-based combat doesn't necessarily mean it's slow. Temple of Elemental Evil has an option called "Concurrent Turns", which makes it so that everytime two or more enemies have consecutive turns they'll all act at the same time, not one by one.

Temple of Elemental Evil presented solutions to traditional problems that were never adopted by other developers, sadly, despite being a greatly innovative game in the turn-based realm, I think if that game were to have a remaster today that improved a lot of its issues (none of them combat related) it'd be hailed as a modern master piece.

So I have been playing Pillars of Eternity 2, which I consider to be the closest spiritual successor of the BGate franchise. It’s newly released turn based mode actually manages to not betray everything I love about infinity engine gameplay. Its core feels intact, I even recommend playing that way for extra tactical space, especially on higher difficulty. The pacing does take a dip, and that is the main problem. Baldur’s Gate typically navigates complex encounters with ease, and if you don’t pause at the right time you might be screwed. It’s a lot snappier that way but can get hectic especially with epic mage battles. All said if the game tries to be cinematic in the way of Dragon Age or the Witcher, I think real time with pause will keep cinematic pacing better. So I’m waiting to see how far they lean in which direction. If it’s isometric I’ll be down for turn based, but 3rd person id prefer real time

The whole argument is really making me worried. Worried for Larian's future. We D&D fans can be horrible and unforgiving at times. Me personally would prefer turn based, as I struggle with RTwP in multiplayer as there tends to be no pausing and I struggle with the pace. On saying that, I still really enjoy my multiplayer RP sessions either way. So I'm not going to get too worked up over which method is used. Some of the arguments for and against seem a bit superficial and petty in my own opinion. My main concern is that the player base will react negatively to something that isn't that important overall(again my own opinion) and the game fails unnecessarily. A lot of my fears are based on the player reactions to Sword Coast Legends and how that led to N-Space's demise. Sure there were what was perceived to be a lot of failings in that game. I myself thought it failed in a few places, but I still had a lot of fun with what we were given.

My advice to players?
We are being given a gift, sure one we pay money for, but a gift nonetheless. Have fun with what we are given, don't let something like game mechanics overshadow the potential fun to be had, and most importantly don't forget D&D is about the imagination and the wonderful stories we can tell. Any tool that lets us tell stories(even stories with a story) is a wonderful thing I think.

Love and sausages people.

I'm a Divinity fan (check my badges) and strongly believe that Baldur's Gate should stay RTwP-based. I'd actually be disconcerted if Larian attempted to fix the Baldur's Gate series by making the sequel turn-based.

Thank you @dlux. As someone who is not a fan of the D:OS games but is a passionate fan of the BG games, I truly appreciate your stance.

I disagree with the idea that we should accept whatever game Larian gives us and be happy with it. I have very strong feelings about any game that carries the "Baldur's Gate" name, and that means there are some red lines for me:

1) In translating tabletop rules to a video game, yes it will be necessary to make some modifications to make a game work. But beware of gutting entire systems of rules that are fundamental to D&D, for example the system of spell slots, spell memorization, and resting to renew spells. Replacing this system with cool-downs, for instance, would nullify the game as a true D&D game.

2) The game must stay true to D&D and Forgotten Realms lore. Period.

3) The game must be party-based.

4) The single-player side of the game cannot be secondary to the co-op side of the game. The game's systems and content must be built from the ground up equally for single-player as for co-op.

i just like to chime in to cast my vote.. please don't make this turn-based. the first and second baldur's gate game has never been turn-based. i know larian possibly have so much of turn-based experiences that their success (both DOS and DOS2 were turn-based). I really hope that they dont be so eager to slap a DOS clone with Baldur's Gate title. I don't mind if they can come out with a hybrid system but essentially still the RTwP system.

They said they are using the same engine as the last two Divinity games plus an updrade. I highly doubt they are just going to scrap the whole turnbased side that has made them so famous over the last few years. If anything they will add stuff to the DM mode and maybe, just maybe create some kind of RTwP side. But Turn Based is definitely in as Wizards of the Coast hired them based on that sucess.

RTwP just failed a few years ago with Swords Coast Legends and no one batted an eye.

D&D tries to get as close to reality in a simulated world as possible!

It relies entirely upon internal consistency.

PnP can only do Turn based play, but with computers we can move forward to a more realistic type of game play. How is taking turns to have a go realistic? It isn't! RTwP is by far more realistic and in the vein of true D&D IMO.

I do hope that their engine 4.0 allows RTwP!
How realistic is it for a bunch of characters to move around and do stuff before another character has a chance to do anything? Next thing you know they are dead! It is so unrealistic!! It does lead to some interesting tactics, but nothing that can't be done on RTwP.

Also TB takes a lot longer to play. Not every fight should be extremely risky or hard... Again that isn't realistic. Having some harder fights and some easier fights is what it would be like if forgotten realms was real.... TB would make such fights tedious, but RTwP means you can just let them have a good old hit, so you sit back and watch, and the fight is done for you. Misses with D&D?? No issue, just sit back and pause when you need specific things done. Harder fights? Micromanage as you need too.... It is not an issue!

RTwP does require some AI and "programming" of the characters that you use, but it just saves time in the long run!

Please if people are going to argue TB versus RTwP please describe why they prefer one over the other rather than just using "I prefer" or "TB rules" etc...

I'm totally happy with either one really.

the baldur's gate i grew to love wasn't really about co-op or multiplayer but single-player. it seems their motto of 'gathering a party' is all about multiplayer or co-op this time. which in my eyes a wrong approach. they might as well make a new title but don't call it baldur's gate 3. but baldur's gate online?

How is pausing in the middle of the action any more realistic than TB? If anything TB is more realistic because the pace is even throughout the encounter, instead of being constantly interrupted by pauses.

"Also TB takes a lot longer to play."
Not necessarily true.

"Not every fight should be extremely risky or hard"
Doesn't have anything to do with TB.

Swen has said the game will be both single player and co-op, but I very much share your concern too. Playing the D:OS games it is very obvious the focus for the devs was the co-op game. The games could still be played single player if someone wanted to do so, and as such they marketed them as single player too, but the truth is they were not BUILT for the enjoyment of the single player preferring people. Is this how they will approach BG3 as well? Or will the single player experience be a conscious and equal focus of the devs in building the game? This is a huge question for me.

I'm a conservative gamer - slapping the space bar to manage the combat in the original BG games while keeping an eye on the status box still seems exhilarating to me.

Yeah I feel the same way. That combat is too "chaotic" is the criticism of RTwP that I especially just cannot relate to. For me combat being chaotic is precisely what makes it interesting and entertaining and realistic and yes, exhilarating. A good combat system should be sub-optimal, messy, chaotic, and imperfect in terms of battle results.

Baldur's Gate had both RTwP and Turn based. While RTwP was the default setting, it was possible to change it to pause after each turn. They should implement both ways of playing like the Baldur's Gates games offered.

Also Sword Coast Legends did not fail because of it being RTwP, but because it didn't follow the rules of D&D.

The "pause after each turn" option in BG isn't equivalent to a turn-based solution, because it doesn't offer any of the commodities a turn-based game would give you - most notably clear Initiative information which is critical for strategical planning in a battle.