Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Turn based vs Real time with pause

Hello everyone,

I know this is a point of contention for a lot of people (or at least it was when the game was announced) and I am not here to try to start one of the typical flame wars that could be seen on reddit some months ago. I just want to leave my feedback regarding this topic and make some points as to why I believe the game would be considerably better in rtwp.

A bit of context on my part (skip this paragraph if you're not interested in my motivations or background): I've been a long time fan of the original BGs, being my all time favourite games in the genre, and have always kept an eye on cRPGs that come out. I played many hours of the originals and still do as I always find it fun to replay them every so often with different builds, parties, etc. Played several other games of the style, such as torment, NWN, pathfinder, etc. common denominator of interest for this discussion is that they were all rtwp. Then came Divinity: Original Sin. When I first saw that it was turn based it didn't appeal to me very much as I just thought "oh, must be some sort of XCOM game". And then I tried them. DOS1 I don't like for other reasons, but DOS2 I absolutely loved. DOS2 is a game I was genuinely surprised with, enjoyed the hell out of my several playthroughs and made a spot in one of my all time favourites. It's awesome. It's well done, the combat is really good and I can honestly say I wouldn't want it in any other way other than turn based.

When BG3 was announced and later confirmed that it would be a turn based game my first reaction was to pretty much give up on the idea of this ever becoming a good game. My second reaction was to realize that it came from Larian, and that I had loved DOS2, wanted more of that style of game and thought maybe it's not so bad that it will be turn-based, might be cool. And then I played the game.

I feel that Baldur's Gate 3 should be rtwp (or, since turn based is already implemented, should have an option to be rtwp) because turn based combat breaks the flow of the game. Combat encounters take too long. Not so much that it takes too long but more so that it is barely active. This problem becomes even more exacerbated the more enemies are in the encounter. Another factor to take into account is that many of the encounters are trivial and not challenging. This shouldn't be a problem by itself, it's expected to fight some fodder every now and then and it actually feels good to give them a beating in these types of game but the fact that I already know it's gonna take a long time and it's going to be very passive turns something that should make the player feel good for quickly and effectively disposing of the monster scum into a yawn fest and alt-tab galore. Are you seriously expecting me to sit idly and wait for 6 goblins to throw their boots and bottles at my party before I can actually play the game again? No. In my case thankfully I have two monitors so I can just browse the web, watch a stream or whatever in the meanwhile while waiting. It's boring. The combat should feel exciting and rewarding, not tedious. I should be casting spells and hacking pieces off of goblins, not scrolling reddit and every so often swapping to the game for some mouse clicks.

I get why Larian did it. D&D pen and paper is turn based and Divinity was a success, why not apply the same here? My thoughts on to why it shouldn't:

1. DOS had it so that all our characters could have an abundance of actions, action point gain abilities, several incredibly efficient movement skills for very little cost and the ability to chain a lot of stuff in a single turn. This made it so that your turns felt incredibly active and you could get a lot of stuff done. In D&D this is not so much the case. If we're talking about a caster, most of your turns are composed of doing a little bit of movement and casting a single spell. If we're talking about let's say a fighter, then you're gonna move and strike (and many a time you're gonna spend your entire turn just moving somewhere). It doesn't make for very action-packed turns. Couple this with the fact that after a particularly uneventful turn you need to wait for each of the AI turns, one at a time... As an example, try to imagine if the originals were turn based. Every time you spotted gibberlings people would be hospitalized.

2. DOS had a much more forgiving hit ratio. Not only you had more actions per turn as you also had much better chances of actually hitting the target than you do in BG3. More misses = more uneventful turns passed = more wait time.
Note: don't take this as me wanting to change the way hit chance works in the game for it to be higher. I don't! In fact I think it is already dumb the way it is with all the advantages available. I merely dislike the consequence of the system existing in the style of play that is turn-based.

3. Number of enemies. DOS2 usually kept the enemy numbers even(ish) so that the player didn't have to wait too long before being able to get a turn in. But even in DOS2 there are a few examples that come to mind where they failed in this regard and the same problem could be felt in that game. Take for instance the oil field fight (god, waiting for 72 goos to finish their turn, kill me now) or that one instance with 20 silent monks coupled with a bunch of magisters. This is what I felt near the start of the game in the goblin encounter at the gates of the druid grove. And later in many of the other goblin encounters or the multiplying imps in the swamp, or the numerous spiderlings in the matriarch encounter just as a few examples. The time spent waiting for AI to go through their turns is too damn high <insert meme pic here>.

4. During a pen & paper session, banter is the name of the game. A lot of the fun comes from listening to the DM describe the scenario or telling a story and the banter between the players. This makes it so that even though it is turn based and not a lot may happen mechanically during each turn, people are having fun and entertaining each other during that time. Even the fact that you are casting the dice yourself makes it more entertaining and exciting. None of this exists in the computer game.

5. Lack of thrill. A combat encounter should provoke feelings of tension, excitement and fun. In rtwp there is constant activity, the sounds of battle and spells going off, friend of foe being slain and falling to the ground, war cries and/or taunts "Let's see what yer guts be lookin' like!". BG3 has some fun moments during combat, for me they're mostly due to some happy combination of spells connecting for a bunch of damage, or throwing 3 goblins off a cliff, but they're few and far between, mostly it feels like I'm playing desk-job dungeons since it's so uneventful and devoid of life. The tensest moment in a combat encounter is when you finish a fight with one of your companions downed and the player has to struggle with the commands and action delays in order to actually get another party member to get him up before dying... (Also something that would be a non-issue with rtwp)


To be completely honest I don't believe that Larian will give this any thought given the state of the game thus far, but they wanted feedback, so here is mine.

At most, I think this should be an option. Real time with pause is one of the things I hate the most about original games, I was so happy when it turned out this was going to be turned based. I don't care if real-time-with-pause is something you can turn on in options, but forcing me to use it is going to ruin a lot of the fun I've been having.

It really is a "what you like" sort of thing. I keep saying that the only reason this is even a topic is the name of the game, and people viewing Baldur's Gate as a genre of games, not a game franchise.
It's not uncommon for franchises to change genres after decades of no development. Fallout is a good example.

But here's the problem
Anyone who bought the game BECAUSE it's turn based would have been cheated if it was taken away.
Anyone who bough it knowing it was turn based, but hoping they can convince Larian to change their mind, at least made a conscious choice.

I wouldn't mind if they put "real time with pause" as an option, I would never ever play that way. What I would mind though is if they took time out of development to implement it. Time they could spend on making the actual game they have planned better.


What I would rather see happening was them bringing back the "one side goes, then the other" that they originally showcased. As well as implement the enemy actually acting at the same time, with faster AI.
Currently I find most of the "not exciting" parts is watching the enemy "plan their next move" while doing nothing, and watching the enemy run.
This could be sped up by moving at the same time, and also adding a "2x speed" option between turns.

I didn't bother reading this, because whatever I think isn't important. The CEO of Larian commented on RTwP in this interview. Skip to 29:24 for the relevant question.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/763351879

30:03: "There's much more tactical depth that we are able to put in there, that we wouldn't have been able to do in real-time-with-pause. Which, ends up, if you want to have that tactial depth [in Real-Time-with-Pause], being pausing continuously."

30:30: "Actions, bonus actions, movement, manipulation of your actions, manipulation of your bonus actions, getting an extra action - all these things are lost when you make it real time."

Ok.. the set is staged.


Eh, people don't even played the game, but they already had a negative vibes because someone dare to change something that they love in the original games.

I have read your post from top to bottom - and I get you - I understand that BG I and II are your favorite gamess and you would like to BG3 follow the footstep with rtwp - but its just sound like "I want to be like that!".
To be honest I completely disagree with your points, like

or


First of all: turn based combat don't break the flow of the game - this is how you play d&d - your party don't shout to your DM at once everything, and he don't shout to you what enamy is doing. everytningh is turnbased.
Lack of thrill? I understand that modern gamers want everything to be quick, flashy and feel like chaos vibe - but this is not how D&D is played. Fight are tatcial, you can plan, adapt or do a all in move - tactict is thrilling.

I strongly believe that post about RTWP will appear to the end of the days - maybe someone will create a mod for it (I'm sure they will).

Funny story. I was huge fan of Fallout 1 and then 2 - when they announced 3 i was super excited, but then it tourns out that its full 3d, no isometric view like 1 and 2 - i didnt like it,
but I was super chill about it - I have never play another Fallout game - they were just not my taste, not my esthetic with isometric view. If lack of RTWP is bodering you so much, maybe you don't need to force yourself to play? Its about to have a good time - not to be frustrated about something you don't like.

Hell, no.

You know there is whole big thread pinned at the top of the main forum for this subject, right? Or are you narcissistic enough to believe that your views on the matter are too superior to be added to the long existing list of the unwashed masses?

I've also posted in the main feedback thread about more general feedback I have of the game. Just felt this topic deserved to be detailed a bit more in depth, hence why I made this thread.

One of the things I really like about pathfinder is that you can switch between both systems now, but doing so makes it so apparent that you do indeed lose these things, or at least in many cases they become nearly invisible and much harder to use in more meaningful ways.

So in other words...

Yes.


[Moderators] Please can you merge this with the main RTWP vs TB thread?

No, not yes.

I was referring to this thread: Early Access gameplay feedback compendium.

I did not find a pinned thread for RTWP vs TB. Can you link it to me please? And in that case yes, mr. moderator please merge.


edit: I guess you're referring to this: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=652913&page=74 ? I didn't find it before as I was only using the feedback forum.

I would have to agree with others here. Making it real time, with or without pausing, you would lose so much tactical depth to it. The point even in pen and paper d&d is to be able to use all the skill at your disposal, and I don't think that would be achieved in real time. Plus you would have to set into account cool down counters for spell and skills which is more programming that would need to be done. I think if Larian did this, it would have to be done after release as an option.

I'd very much prefer RTwP but it's not going to happen.
If they can make it so battles cover less ground, remove "Plotting next move" and overall speed things up, I'd like combat in this game much more.
The way it is now, many battles are annoying, boring, drag on and when they're over, I'm just happy it's over. I don't hate turn based but they can do and have done better.

Yeah, same here. I don't believe that it's gonna happen, but the fact remains that it is a problem (at least to me and other people who voiced similar opinions).
And I agree with you, at least make some effort to have combat flow faster and smoother. As I said before I am not completely opposed to turn based, but the way it exists in its current implementation is really really poor.

I for one is glad it's turn based. I played BG 1 and 2 in spite of it being RtwP, not because it was RtwP.

Hell no!




This.

If I may add my 2 cents, without being crucified for it. I would like to have the option of either playing turn based or real time. As I played both previous Baldur's Gates and loved it being real time. I have never been a big fan of turn based games although I do play them on occasion. However being turn based does make the combat slow and the overall experience of combat boring to me. Please give players the option of using turn based or not. You can't lose, it's a win win for both those players who live and die by turn based gameplay, as well as those who live and die by real time. It really can't hurt anybody giving the option of choice on how you want to play your game and enjoy it

Pathfinder is not the same system. There are multiple differences.

P:K had turn-based mode after fans demanded it for very long time, and when it was proven that TB mod was most popular.
Majority of fans picks TB over RT. And latest P:K and PoE RT is... just... not... fun.

Can we PLEASE stop arguing about this? Larian has clearly stated that the game will be turn based, no matter what players think of it. The engine is probably not even cut out for RTwP, so get over it.