Whatever my own preferences, Larian is probably one of the best partners for many reasons, I never said anything else. But do you really think WotC chose the studio because of the combat system they use in their game...? It suits well, such as other systems but don't be naive... They did different choices 20 years ago but TB was in video games 20 years ago.
In a way. I think Larian's approach to RPG multiplayer design is pretty fresh and I think it could have attracted WorC to them. Also: overall passion, quality, great critical and public reception (whatever my personal feelings on D:OS2 it's good qualities are unquestionable). And Larian's coop design revolves around turn based system, just as DnD's does. And while it technically would be possible to make Larian style BG3 in RTwP I think it would kill a lot of elegance it has.
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Whatever I read or I look about P&P, it's always done to look like real scenes and it always feel like real scenes.... Like a book you read in which you have a line that introduce the action of Drizzt, then another one that introduce the action of Bruenor, then Wulfgar, then the demon, then,... When I read a book, I don't see things in TB whatever we're talking about combats or any other actions.
RT is the way they introduce combats in the rules what else do you want ? What are reactions if it's not a "real time" mecanic ?
I personnaly think that a great part of BG's sucess is that it feels like a story you can imagine and read in a book in many ways... But I know books aren't what's sold the most today.
I never played P&P nor did I had any encounter with DnD outside it's PC adaptations. Where you loose me is RT being "real". At least nowadays, I am not capable of seeing games as simulations - there are game mechanics and the theme. Storytelling can and should be done in mechanics, but whenever it is done in RTwP or TB really doesn't matter to me. Whenever the game limits amount of actions our character can make via "per turn" action economy, or time based action economy doesn't really make a difference to me.
Books are "real". Films aren't "real". They are forms of expression that have ways of telling stories. TB ambush can be just as effective as RT if done well. Books have paragrapths for clearer organisation and expression. TB have turns for the same thing. I don't see TB nor RTwP as better or worse - they are just a bit different.
D&D is a simulation, every books, films or video games are simulations in our heads or in front of our eyes... Every stories are simulations. Every media use mecanics and rules to simulate his story but TB games completely transform the first of all real things : time. TB leads you from a totally realistic system to another reality in which time management, movements, actions and reactions,...everything become different and totally unrealistic.
That's the exact same thing with the lack of D/N cycle to give another exemple of totally unrealistic things involved by time management... The last exemple that comes in my head is that you can engage a battle, then wait your companions till they cross the map to ambush your ennemy.
Turn based video games always leads to impossible things you won't ever read/see/experience/imagine in any other stories whatever it's support...
It looks like that's exactly why :
Originally Posted by Emrikol
"GMs handle each player one at a time with such questions"...
For it's story to look a little bit more realistic when it's your turn to write your line in the story.
I like many TB games but according to me, in a Baldur's Gate game you live the story of an adventure... And RTwP is more accurate to stories than TB.
