Interesting, thanks. What I said there was just something I threw together in a few minutes to answer a post. I haven’t actually thought about it much. Not sure why you’d need to get rid of rolls though. Couldn’t it all still be dice based?
I suppose trying to guess what’s going to happen would be the point. How much fun that would be to play is another question.
Dice rolls were purely my thoughts. I don't remember how his systems worked. I have been doing theorycrafting around this idea. I am big fan of Frozen Synapse and I wondered if such planning phase followed by real time execution could be a valid way of make an RPG. The problem I see that could emerge is, that such planning phase revolves around "what will happen", and If you add a healthy dose of RNG, we start talking in "what could happen" not only in terms what enemy could do, but also if he or I will succeed. I just think that could be a bit too much. While if you have full-turn based you mainly focus on what kind of damage you can do, and what are you chances to do it.
Originally Posted by Dagless
Yes, thank you. I’m happy to debate it. That’s why I’m here where this topic was banished to. My main reason for participating in this thread in the first place was to try to explain that turn based games can be fun and some things work better in them than real time. As I’ve said before, it’s just different, not fundamentally inferior.
I think the problem we will run into here, is that different people played BG1&2 in different ways. Here or on another thread someone expressed an opinion that it will be detrimental to the game having to manually control all units. Custom AI scripts were praised in PoE2, and I know some people play those games rarely using the pause. There are players who try to solo runs from the get go, and don't bother with companions at all.
I would argue that those playstyles are a result of the game being badly balanced - to me those are negative side effects, not a feature. If one can beat a party based RPG with a solo character that means that either the content is too easy, or character builds way to unbalanced. If one can play with a party based RPG and not control what 5 out of 6 characters are doing then something is very wrong - it should be about party interactions after all. Still, that's my opinion, and one that many people who played BG1&2 seem not to share.
As a micromanaging player, I don't have a big problem with using turn-based system. I set up a generous auto-pause in my IE games and manually pause on top of that - analyse rolls, make sure everyone does what I want them to do. All AI scripts are off of course. Making the game turn-based doesn't slow the game to me that much, and makes it far easier to follow. On top of that, I believe that with that pace Larian can expect players to engage with systems more, and design a better balanced and challenging encounters. Still, players who enjoyed those games in other playstyles might not be served by BG3. Even if solo runs will be possible for BG3, I doubt they would be enjoyable.
