To answer the question in the thread title, I don't care if it's TB or RT, as long as it's 3.5e. 3.0 was a mess, a sort of PnP open beta(weird), with 3.5 being the final release IMO. I glanced at 4e on the shelf and instantly said no. I've not really looked into 5e, but it seems to be well received, i just don't want to learn yet another system.
It's interesting you say this, because all of us in the tabletop group I used to play with back in grad school a long time ago were constantly trying to find ways to "fix" the immersion-breaking and even logic-breaking nature of taking turns in our game. So we always allowed players to go simultaneously with others if they wished, and "initiative" was determined not by luck but by character-specific attributes and positioning. And most importantly, if you try to coordinate your actions with your party mates by calling out actions to one another, it was assumed the enemy also knew what you were intending to do.
So everybody talked all at once? All rolled dice simultaneously? Or did each announce their actions one by one, and then dice rolls, and then the results of all actions applied? Or some other version of these? I'm confused how this would be any different regarding immersion.
'Coordinate actions by calling out actions to one another"? Weren't you telling the DM your actions? Couldn't the other players hear that and determine their actions from that? I'm really not seeing how this system aided gameplay, let alone immersion. Also, it's verisimilitude...simulated truth aka the suspension of disbelief. This does not come from the game mechanic but from the DM. A good story told properly by a DM who is comfortable with the rules and can keep the game flowing at a natural pace, well it just sucks you in. Computers are amazingly inferior at this, what with no imagination and all.
EDIT: It was really late when I wrote this. If it seems overly confrontational, just blame exhaustion and please accept my apology. However you enjoy playing is fine, as long as you're having fun. Which I assume you are, or you wouldn't be playing.
Yeah actions were announced by the players and then everything got resolved collectively rather than sequentially by the DM taking into account the time needed for each action to happen. And players announcing to the DM is not the same as coordinating among players.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem very different. The DM deciding initiative based on stats,position,and actions etc., does make a bit of sense though. I don't see it aiding immersion to great degree, that is mostly in each players head, I think. IMO, turn based isn't that different from real time. This is for DnD type games, many games wouldn't play well or at all turn based (Command and Conquer or starcraft types e.g.) My view has certainly been colored by tabletop experiences, I'd been playing for over a decade before any kind of true CRPG even existed. Many players today grew up with them, and their expectations and opinions will probably be different. Most definitely so, now that I think about it. If I'm remembering correctly, original BG had the option to play turn based. Either way, as long as there are good games for us...
Comments
i kinda disagree i think hordes of the under dark is on par with the ie games.
It doesn't even compare in terms of party banter and control.
Yeah actions were announced by the players and then everything got resolved collectively rather than sequentially by the DM taking into account the time needed for each action to happen. And players announcing to the DM is not the same as coordinating among players.