Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by etonbears
I don't think either TB or RT really capture the tabletop ideal. To do that you would pause at the start of a combat round, wait for all actors to enter their orders ( so it works with either single or multi-player ) then run the round with all 5e reactions being offered as they occur ( with auto-pause or maybe a temporary UI button ).

In tabletop if you're 60ft away from an enemy and they use their turn to move 30ft towards you - then you can move 30 feet towards them and attack them on your turn. In the system you described, they would both (or neither) be able to attack.

Well, that depends on how you relay your intent to the DM / videogame. If both combatants are moving to melee attack each other from 60ft apart, each with 30ft movement in a six second round, neither would know what the other intended to do, so each would simply express their intent to attack the other, and it is up to the DM / videogame to resolve the outcome.

In this case, by the end of the round, the combatants would have closed the gap to melee distance, and both would therefore attack, in initiative order. Had one combatant not decided to close the gap, then neither combatant would be in a position to melee attack, as they are still 30ft apart. Depending on the rules being followed, and how the DM / videogame choose to operate, the moving combatant unable to attack may be offered some alternative action instead, or just lose the attack for that round.

Interestingly, in the 5e strict turn order case where the same two combatants are closing to attack each other, the combatant with the higher initiative that goes first will never be able to attack, since it can only just reach the lower initiative party with a double-distance movement. The lower initiative party, however, then gets a free attack, which does not seem to be an ideal resolution.

Originally Posted by Brent2410

Additionally, and perhaps my biggest gripe about the system you describe, say combat just started. I rolled max for initiative, I go first. I cast fireball at the grouped up enemies and they all get hit. In the system you describe, I cast fireball at a set spot and during the animation they get to simultaneously use their move to walk out of the AoE that they WOULD have been in on PnP.

I suppose that depends on how you view resolution of multiple actions within a bounded time. It is generally up to the DM in PnP to decide how to resolve the actions in a time period. Earlier PnP versions used 60 second bounds with action resolution suggested to be at the end, after all movement, but in initiative order. Later versions reduced the bounds to 6 seconds and removed all possibility of simultaneous actions ( no tied initiative ), to the point where 5e actually uses the notion of turns based on initiative. But ultimately, it is still up to the DM to decide how that 6 second bound is resolved because PnP was always deliberately loosely defined, with rules and interpretations chosen by the playing partners.

If I were to act as DM to encode the situation you describe above in a 5e videogame, in accordance with my suggested notions of resolution, your fireball would happen immediately, because you did not indicate movement prior to action, you have highest initiative, and 5e actions are not specified to take any time. Had you also specified movement before the spell cast, the position of the other combatants may, of course, change according to their orders/intent. To me, that would seem to be more reasonable than destroying temporal continuity, but opinions differ.

Originally Posted by Brent2410

I realize that, in regard to immersion, the entire round happens in the same 6 seconds for everyone - but that simply isn't how it plays. Nobody should know that better than a PnP veteran that has ever tried casting an AOE spell in a RTwP game.

I suppose I'm trying to point out that there are multiple ways to consider and to implement the spirit of a rule-set in a medium for which they were not designed. RTwP was one way selected in the original BG to try to benefit from the videogame medium. As this thread shows, some people thought it a masterstroke, and some thought it garbage. I thought it was a decent effort, for the time, but hardly perfect.

In my view, the best attempt to give a D&D game adequate control without losing the fluidity offered by the computer medium was NWN2. The AI for non selected party members, and the ability to queue orders for multiple rounds made for an acceptable experience. It could have been better, as I sometimes still needed to pause, but learning from that experience, a modern attempt at something similar could do a good job.

Plus, of course, there are NWN2 modules that are fan-made versions of IWD, BG/ToSC, and SoA/ToB, which are fun re-runs of the originals.

Originally Posted by Brent2410

Originally Posted by etonbears

Larian do seem to be spending a lot of money on the game, so I suspect they will need to appeal to a wider audience than DOS to break even, which may also indicate significant differences to their recent games.

The D&D branding itself will bring in the wider audience, regardless of the system they use. It has been polled anyway. Only 8.5% or 9.5% wouldn't play the game due to the system. Turn Based wins in polls - both in "prefer but will play regardless" AND in "won't play unless turn based"

Well, maybe. The estimated PnP player base is 15 million, with 10 million 5e players. Obviously, not all are also computer gamers, but there are also quite a few million computer gamers that like party-based fantasy RPGs that don't like PnP. But, unless Larian seek to offer an experience that appeals to those that prefer real-time RPGs, I doubt they can expect more than 5-10 million sales, even with the BG and D&D names. Purely speculation, of course, and ultimately the game quality and reviews will likely determine reach.

If they don't spend more in game creation and marketing for BG3 than their profits from D:OS2 they will be fine, but we really don't know what their budget calculations are; the flashes we have seen just looks high-ish budget. They definitely have not kept up their promise of frequent communication!

Last edited by etonbears; 30/01/20 11:08 PM.