Warming to the notion of TB for BG3, although satisfying single player experience remains a must
Lemernis
Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
(tl;dr: Please share what you think might be good about TB play in SP mode, if indeed BG3 will be that.)
Swen Vinke ad Mike Mearles have both said consistently that with BG3 they would like to capture the experience of tabletop play with other players and a DM. It may therefore be a fairly safe assumption that the game will be turn based rather than real time with pause.
I've been thinking about the controversy among the player base regarding TB vs. RTwP, and it reminds me that my real life in-person tabletop experience is extremely limited. Very sporadically for short periods of time, and many decades ago.
I did however for a while back during the mid 00s enjoy an extended forum based game with a DM and party of four or five set in Athkatla circa the BG game series, and it was an absolute blast. (Forum based is great because you just check in regularly and post, according to your own daily schedule.) It was on par with my most favorite experiences playing the BG games. In the early 00s I played a BG MP game, loosely roleplayed, with a group at the old PlanetBaldursGate forums--and that was also right up there among the very best experiences I've ever had playing D&D. I also toolsetted and written extensive lore material for NWN and NWN2 persistent worlds, but rarely played with others due to time constraints. The community we had loved it though.
The problem with any sort of MP gameplay is that it is difficult to corrodinate and keep going. At least in my experience. People are typically pretty darned tired when they get home from a hard day's work. If married with families, their spouses and children need attention, etc. Sometimes folks work off hours shifts, which makes coordinating game sessions difficult. In my experience the players usually dropped out one by one. And not because they weren't enjoying it! But rather because it's just too demanding in terms of time.
I would think that any sort of D&D based game engine that tries to approximate the experience of playing with a DM and other players, needs to have some damn good AI. Hopefully Larian and WotC can push this through to the next level for BG3. This means that the NPCs will have to behave relatively independently--and at times surprisingly. It means inherently less control over the party than we have with BG1 and 2.
And don't get me wrong. I dearly love the RTwP that the Infinity engine (and EE engine) games have given us. It's fantastic. There's a part of me that feels please don't fix what ain't broken.
But there is another part of me that has always wanted to enjoy tabletop... or a CRPG that approximates it well enough via AI... and I may now finally get a chance to play a game that really does that.
So I'm not necessarily opposed to TB. It might be a great experience. I have yet to try D:OS 2, but I kind of feel that now I really have to in order to get a flavor.
Anyway, this is just one man's take... and I guess you could tag me as a centrist or moderate on this hotly debated issue of TB vs. RTwP. We have some folks here that are ardently opposed to TB, and I do get why. Their reasons for opposing TB have been discussed in great detail in a lot of other threads. In this thread I think I'm more interested in hearing from folks that are not inherently opposed to TB and can explain what's attractive and satisfying about it--but for a single player D&D based computer game.
Swen Vinke ad Mike Mearles have both said consistently that with BG3 they would like to capture the experience of tabletop play with other players and a DM. It may therefore be a fairly safe assumption that the game will be turn based rather than real time with pause.
I've been thinking about the controversy among the player base regarding TB vs. RTwP, and it reminds me that my real life in-person tabletop experience is extremely limited. Very sporadically for short periods of time, and many decades ago.
I did however for a while back during the mid 00s enjoy an extended forum based game with a DM and party of four or five set in Athkatla circa the BG game series, and it was an absolute blast. (Forum based is great because you just check in regularly and post, according to your own daily schedule.) It was on par with my most favorite experiences playing the BG games. In the early 00s I played a BG MP game, loosely roleplayed, with a group at the old PlanetBaldursGate forums--and that was also right up there among the very best experiences I've ever had playing D&D. I also toolsetted and written extensive lore material for NWN and NWN2 persistent worlds, but rarely played with others due to time constraints. The community we had loved it though.
The problem with any sort of MP gameplay is that it is difficult to corrodinate and keep going. At least in my experience. People are typically pretty darned tired when they get home from a hard day's work. If married with families, their spouses and children need attention, etc. Sometimes folks work off hours shifts, which makes coordinating game sessions difficult. In my experience the players usually dropped out one by one. And not because they weren't enjoying it! But rather because it's just too demanding in terms of time.
I would think that any sort of D&D based game engine that tries to approximate the experience of playing with a DM and other players, needs to have some damn good AI. Hopefully Larian and WotC can push this through to the next level for BG3. This means that the NPCs will have to behave relatively independently--and at times surprisingly. It means inherently less control over the party than we have with BG1 and 2.
And don't get me wrong. I dearly love the RTwP that the Infinity engine (and EE engine) games have given us. It's fantastic. There's a part of me that feels please don't fix what ain't broken.
But there is another part of me that has always wanted to enjoy tabletop... or a CRPG that approximates it well enough via AI... and I may now finally get a chance to play a game that really does that.
So I'm not necessarily opposed to TB. It might be a great experience. I have yet to try D:OS 2, but I kind of feel that now I really have to in order to get a flavor.
Anyway, this is just one man's take... and I guess you could tag me as a centrist or moderate on this hotly debated issue of TB vs. RTwP. We have some folks here that are ardently opposed to TB, and I do get why. Their reasons for opposing TB have been discussed in great detail in a lot of other threads. In this thread I think I'm more interested in hearing from folks that are not inherently opposed to TB and can explain what's attractive and satisfying about it--but for a single player D&D based computer game.
Post edited by Lemernis on
1
Comments
In TB combat there's no spare time - it's a bit like an autopause on spell cast/action taken/end of a round in BG in a battle between high-level casters in BG with SCS.
I was against an idea TB combat can be fast/not boring, but decided to give it a try when DOS2 was released, and was impressed.
For me: Nothing good at all about it!
As a rule of thumb: people who grew up with TB tend to stick with this style. Or at least have a soft spot for it. Nostalgia and all that, I suppose. Whenever the TB is tied to D&D or not plays a more tangential role.
TB with grid movement= slow, tedous and boring. Only really works for games like Xcom, where its not about levels so much as positioning.
TB in a BG game= heresy
On the other hand, I was not that happy with TB in ToEE and DOS1 because I constantly get annoyed with walking in turns.
I grew up with RT but once I noticed TB (first in Strategy games, later in RPGs) I noticed that I actually prefer a calm and slow game. Or in other words, I like TB because my RL initiative is too bad for RT..
Also, aren't the infinity engine games technically TB themselves?
Just with "auto-end turn" as standard setting - and cosmetic attacks to disguise it..
When battles are TB, you have all the time in the world to make a good tactical decision.
Real Time with Pause can be the best of two worlds:
Plan your battletactics and prepare the battlefield calmy as if it where turn based,
let your plan work out semi-cineastic and rush through mini-battles like a real time game.
But in the end, if the choice boils down between classic RT and classic TB I would prefer the latter.
I rather slog through the mopping up phase than to lose myself in hectic.
I just hope they adhere as faithfully as other games to the ruleset. They do that and I fill find practically nothing to complain about. I enjoy the DnD ruleset and the setting enough that I even enjoyed the NWN2 OC.
Larian was chosen to make this game NOT because WotC saw them as being masters of TB games or masters of games with "environmental reactivity" or because they are "passionate D&D fans." They were chosen because WotC saw them as masters of co-op multiplayer games. Co-op multiplayer is THE defining feature of the D:OS games and what truly drove sales of those games. As such, co-op multiplayer will be THE defining feature of BG3, and while Larian will happily take the money of anyone wanting to play the game single-player, the single-player experience will be an inferior after-thought in this game.
I fully agree with your sentiment!
One of my fondest memories was the final boss battle of Persona 3 on PS2, it took quite some time so I took a break in the middle of the battle and went for a walk..
Long, drawn out and epic battles can be fun in turn based combat, but if they are done in real time I get more annoyed by them..
On @kanisatha I kinda disagree with you there..
Multiplayer is the current big thing (as far as I know) and Larian found a way to allow for limited multiplayer and still tell a story without the player feeling like a random schmuck that has a dozen clones running around.
The opinion of Larians storytelling qualities vary, but I never got the feeling the story truly took a backseat.
If you are right and the DOS games give us an indication about BG3 (which Larian officially denies) then it will be this:
You will have a party and not a single chosen one, so that people can join the party without being reduced to sidekicks.
BG always had multiplayer, BioWare just found a way to ease our lack of real members with their banter system. So Larian does not really need fundamentally change the spirit of BG to have it co-op friendly..
Also, Larian got the rights probably because they are the only company with the money and success that asked WotC. Back in the day Trent said that Wizards does not want the game to be funded by kickstarter, so a company would either have a lot of cash reserves or a publisher and since Wizards seems to no longer want to hand out the publishing licenses for D&D..
Most big companies that could finance a game that may not be crucified for calling itself BG3 are not really interested to work in the notoriosly tight restraints of modern-day WotC.
So yeah, Larian got the game because they really wanted it and had success to convince the ever reluctend Wizards.
And for me it is exactly the opposite. Epic battles are awesome fun in RTwP (and I also play games for fun and relaxation and RTwP is what is fun and relaxing for me), whereas with TB I feel like wanting to drive an icepick into my skull.
Video games can present battles in a more realistic and exciting way using real time combat. It would be a shame if this potential was wasted. Movement in turn based scenarios can be really silly e.g. enemies who win initiative charge ahead of their group before you can fireball them. In reality the enemies would charge as a group and the fireball would hit them all. Real time combat makes this possible.
It's also about reactivity. A LOT can happen in turn based combats before you get any chance to react. One side can gang up on an enemy and stomp them before they know what's happening. Reactivity in real time battles is much better.
But most of all it's about the feeling the game has. Turn based feels much more like a board game while real time combat brings something more exciting to the game that only a CRPG can do. It's just much more immersive when it looks real. Storytelling benefits from immersion most of all.
I also don't want to experience turn based combat in 4-6 player multiplayer where most of your play time is spent waiting for your friends to finish their turns.
NWN proved long ago how real time multiplayer works really well - even without pause. I don't understand why that would need to be changed, unless it's the game director's personal preference. In which case turning BG that invented real time D&D combat into a turn based thing would be pretty outrageous.
Instead of the characters skill, it comes down to the reaction skill of the player.
An important part of Dexterity is the speed aspect, this aspect becomes meaningless if the speed of the player becomes the deciding factor.
That is actually a gripe I have with games like Skyrim: To hit something your own skill is mroe important that that of a character.
If I play a rpg I want to have the chance to play something completly different than me, but if I even lose the ability to pause and just have regular RT battles than I am forced to play characters similiar to myself: slow.
The greates benefit of TB is that it minimises the players skill and maximises the characters skills.
Your personal reaction speed should *never* be a deciding factor in a RPG, because it reduces the importance of the character and punishes those who are slower in their reaction.
I like RT personally, since I was also a huge fan of RTS games. But those old SSI DnD games show turned based can work just fine. And a huge number of older CRPG's fans still contend that turn-based is superior. I'm not of the camp that either mode is necessarily superior.
I've never played a turn based CRPG, but I'm actually okay with the notion of just thinking through one six second round at a time. Then it depends on 5e mechanics to make that a satisfying combat experience. And I'm unfamiliar with 5e. But looking over the 5e SRD I'm feeling pretty good about how this is going to work out.
Then it's just a matter of having really great looking graphics overall, and spell animations and whatnot. The look and feel of the world and how combat is brought to life through the game engine. And of course all the quality that we expect for NPCs, villains, attention to detail in the setting, and so forth, from the BG games. (Maybe done even better.)
I'm actually feeling pretty good about the potentials for this game. Initially I felt unsettled. But I think that was only because BG3 could not be what I already know and love. It was going to be significantly different. It's 20 years later in real life. Four D&D rulesets later. And 100 years later in the setting, after the world experienced a cataclysm. But these are also great opportunities. For now the glass is half full for me.
With BG the tactics are determined by the player and can be terrible even if you have Int 18.
In p&p your DM can stop you if your dumb character makes smart deductions, or if a socially inept character makes grandious speeches - the crpg are rather limited in that regard.
The DM can also warn you if you do things your character knows better..
In this vain I hope we will get a good ammount of skill-checks and such, if only to prevent Int/Wis/Cha from becoming dumpstats once again.. =/
That is actually one of the things that annoys me the most in BG1+2: Cha is useless, Wis and Int are very limited in their uses - but dex is the stat everyone needs. Maximal dexterity bonus for heavy armor is one of the best additions of later versions..