Interestingly, shift between rtwp and a more active system is reversed for jrpgs. They are moving away from tb while western ones are moving towards.
Even funnier, my preference also flips between the two genres. I actually prefer tb the way jrpgs implement it, and real time the way western games implement it.
My problem is when JRPGs go from turn based to action they usually lose the unqiue stuff that differentiates them in the TB space and become kinda spammy action. I played FF7 Remake pretty much the same way I played FFXV.
For the big Turn Based Western rpgs right now I have the same feeling where a lot of them play similar, more like a strategy game. If there was a fantasy Western rpg that tried a different kind of TB combat that maybe doesn't emphasis movement, positioning behind cover and spending turns running up to enemies or sctions like reloading too much I'd be all for it. I am way more interested in The Bards Tale and Banner Saga than I am Wasteland 3 for instance cause they sre just a little different from the status quo right now.
Its kinda hard for me to explain, because they do have nuances from each other, but after Wasteland 2 which I loved I started seeing that DNA in lots of the new crpgs.
For me it's a bit different. I like the maneuvering and approach aspects of games. But I'm an old wargamer, brought up on such things. That's probably also why I prefer TB, it's just how learned to play from the beginning. Position, terrain, who to move where and when, are critical aspects of battle. Though not necessarily of games. Balancing tactical flexibility with smooth and adequately paced gameplay seems to be problematic for a lot of developers. RTwP doesn't speed things up really, but it does keep the player engaged. Either issuing commands, or watching them carried out. Waiting for the ai in TB can be boring to watch, but keeps things organized for the player. What I mean is that it's easier to time the movements and actions of each character without having them waste a round because an order was a heartbeat late.
Owlcat and Larian praising other's projects is because SP RPG's are different than mmos. With mmos, wow players or only plays wow or only eso BUT with CRPG, people generally plays a large catalog of CRPG's.
I'd pretty much ignore developers praising each other games. It's just the pragmatic thing to do, after all you never knew in what studio you are going to work tomorrow. More instructive to see what they name as their favorite games if you ask them.
I prefer (and will only play) rtwp. Turn based is fine for strategy games like Civ and Total War but not for RPGs.
I am not going to hate on anyone who prefers turn-based but one argument which I see frequently drives me nuts, which is that turn-based is the right way to do it because the tabletop / PnP game is turn-based.
The only reason that tabletop is turn-based is because you have a bunch of people who need to talk to each other about what is happening and what they are doing. You can't do that in real-time because how would that work? Is everybody meant to shout at each other simultaneously? So nothing happens because no-one has a clue about what is going on?
That's why it's turn based, and even then, that turn based system is meant to represent what is happening in real time. A combat round in tabletop is really happening real time - it's just the instructions that need to be issued by turn so the players and DM can translate what is happening.
If humans were capable of telepathy (or in the future we all become androids with computer chips for brains) even tabletop will be a real-time game.
Real-time is therefore the natural translation of the tabletop game applied to its full intention with computers. And the pause element enables the tactical instructions to be implemented at each player's own pace. It's the perfect means of implementation IMO and that's why Owlcat are now basically the last (current) hope. Once they start pandering to turn-based tyrants the genre will be dead until another developer picks up the reins again.
I agree, and I'd add that I think the entire aim of bringing the tabletop experience to the computer screen is misguided. Tabletop is more limited in many ways (e.g. can't be real-time, calculations need to be manageable) and much more free in other ways.
The DM can create stories, monsters, and items of his own while reacting directly to even the most out-of-the-box ideas of the players. No PC game can do that, even with a GM mode.
I had a discussion on reddit about the throwing of the boots that happened in the gameplay demo that is sort of indicative this difference to me. In a very specific situation where you do not have a real weapon at hand, throwing your boots can be a good idea in tabletop and feel very satisfying if you succeed. In a computer games it becomes a gimmick, especially if it is a free action and your best course of action is to both throw your boots and shoot arrows each turn.
And in a wider sense this is how I feel about the entire D:OS design. It feels like they are trying to bring all the creative and wacky ideas players have in PnP to a computer game, but what is a once-in-a-campaign highlight of electrifying an enemy standing in water now becomes a staple of the combat design you use every single damn fight.
Now I am becoming speculative and just a very bit unkind: I think many D:OS fans love the combat system since it makes them feel smart when they pull of those elemental surfaces combos and find them rewarding (which is fine), while not seeing that the game is designed so they do this every single fight and that due to the game design of being both turn-based and having multiple actions setting up those combos is rather easy. The combats feel like a puzzle where you have to press your buttons in the right order.
Real-time is therefore the natural translation of the tabletop game applied to its full intention with computers. And the pause element enables the tactical instructions to be implemented at each player's own pace. It's the perfect means of implementation IMO and that's why Owlcat are now basically the last (current) hope. Once they start pandering to turn-based tyrants the genre will be dead until another developer picks up the reins again.
Speaking as a tabletop RPG designer, this is nonsense. Real time with pause is certainly an option available to computers, consoles, etc. that isn't nearly as available to tabletop games, but your claim that real time with pause reflects the "true intentions" behind tabletop game design is completely false. There is no such "true intention." People set out to design games that are fun and use the tools available for them in the media they work with. Not all the tools in every case, but TB is just as valid a design choice as real time with pause.
Also, I can name two tabletop (not RPGs) games that have simultaneous turns for all players and another game that doesn't have distinct turns for anyone, in which you can react in real time to what your opponent is doing.
Shadowrift and Spirit Island have a distinct "turn" for players, but all players act in the same turn. Federation Commander allows for real time responses to opponent actions and doesn't have distinct player turns at all.
This is all a false dichotomy, and there is no platonic ideal of a tabletop game in which everything would ideally be "real time." It's fine to want real time CRPGs but to assert that anyone who is fine with turn-based or even prefers it is some nefarious "tyrant" trying to destroy an authentic CRPG experience is some pretty weird stuff to say out loud.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The intention I was talking about is how to translate a real time combat round into a system. In tabletop you have to do it turn-based so people can speak in turns rather than altogether. In a CRPG you can do it in real time because you don't need to ask a load of different people what they want to do.
There's a lot of "TB tyrants" and "War on RTwP" kind of talk in here that doesnt contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
That is coming from someone who likes TB, but prefers RTwP.
I also agree @BelleSorciere that there is no "true intention" or correct combat style for replicating tabletop. There are arguments for both, but no objective standard by which to judge them.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The intention I was talking about is how to translate a real time combat round into a system. In tabletop you have to do it turn-based so people can speak in turns rather than altogether. In a CRPG you can do it in real time because you don't need to ask a load of different people what they want to do.
I meant this, the paragraph I quoted from your post:
Real-time is therefore the natural translation of the tabletop game applied to its full intention with computers. And the pause element enables the tactical instructions to be implemented at each player's own pace. It's the perfect means of implementation IMO and that's why Owlcat are now basically the last (current) hope. Once they start pandering to turn-based tyrants the genre will be dead until another developer picks up the reins again.
There's no such thing as a "natural translation of the tabletop game applied to its full intention with computers."
How about, tabletop RPG design reflects what the designers intended (hopefully modified through playtesting) and CRPG design reflects what those designers intended (hopefully modified through beta testing). A translation from one medium to another does not necessarily reflect anyone's "full intentions."
RTwP isn't objectively the superior option and trying to create an experience closer to the tabletop isn't inherently inauthentic or inferior. It's simply a different philosophy in game design. Turn-based and real-time with pause are both valid design choices, and both have benefits and drawbacks.
It seems the biggest concern is mode x. I haven't seen a comment about the latest info and gossip in some days.
Have I mentioned that I'm just going wait and see. Either I'll be blown away or I threw away few bucks.
Uhm.. What browbeating? Why are you quoting things that weren't actually said here? Julius was just commenting on the inevitable thread drift. Or, more exactly, how it has focused on the singular aspect of TB v. RTwP. Which, by the way, you opened the door to in your OP Julius.
Also, if I've " TB bullied" anyone, I apologize. I can get a bit emotional about silly things on occasion, no bullying was ever intended.
Reading a few last comments here, I urge to reread my OP. It seems the discussion sooner or later again comes down to the "x mode" is better subject.
You should consider whether you might simply not be appreciating the point of view of the people who have a strong preference. That's why I suggest you might try to adjust your perspective to see it as more a a difference between "mode x" and "mode y," but rather as a difference between game genres. It is not a small detail, but a major difference in the structure of gameplay. You may not care but others do. I don't see the point of browbeating people for "not supporting each other" just because they have a preference when you do not.
I can and I have a preference, it's TB games. I enjoy RtwP games as well. But my preference is not allowing people to go war on each other because they think their favourite genre is not getting games. Not only it IS getting games, it will also get more games in the future. Eg. RtwP demands are quite clear, and I'm sure P:WotR won't be the last game which tries to provide a fun RtwP game.
Honestly though with Pathfinder WotR there was an outcry at the announcement that it 'must' be turn based. Fact that it's a selectable mode is great but with the current trends I'd be very suprised if any devs wanting to make a RtwP game don't get 'encouraged' to make it Turn Based instead.
Here on out RtwP games are going to be relegated to indies or heavy on the action side ala FFVII returns. Genre seems dead no one wants it or at least that's the way it seems.
Honestly though with Pathfinder WotR there was an outcry at the announcement that it 'must' be turn based. Fact that it's a selectable mode is great but with the current trends I'd be very suprised if any devs wanting to make a RtwP game don't get 'encouraged' to make it Turn Based instead.
Precisely. And this is what I have on occasion referred to as TB bullying. Strong language? Yes absolutely. But entirely appropriate and justified imho.
Mostly agree with @subtledoctor , his overarching point about the game being fundamentally different is true, but I wouldn't call BG1/2 RTS games. The rtwp mechanic definitely borrowed from the RTS genre, but I'd argue they are still solidly rpgs. I'd have a hard time arguing that any game that doesn't have base building or army control as its main mechanic. Not to mention that no rts lets you issue orders while the game is paused.
I've tried to steer clear of the BG3 controversy but thought I'd share my pov. I really enjoyed the Gold Box games and ToEE back in the day but I also really enjoyed the entire BG & IWD series and NWN/NWN2. I don't particularly care whether BG3 is TB or RTwP. As long as it's well-done and gives me replayability (ie: lots of NPC/Charname choices), I'll be happy.
Honestly though with Pathfinder WotR there was an outcry at the announcement that it 'must' be turn based. Fact that it's a selectable mode is great but with the current trends I'd be very suprised if any devs wanting to make a RtwP game don't get 'encouraged' to make it Turn Based instead.
Precisely. And this is what I have on occasion referred to as TB bullying. Strong language? Yes absolutely. But entirely appropriate and justified imho.
How is that different from the outcry that Baldur's Gate 3 must be RTwP?
Honestly though with Pathfinder WotR there was an outcry at the announcement that it 'must' be turn based. Fact that it's a selectable mode is great but with the current trends I'd be very suprised if any devs wanting to make a RtwP game don't get 'encouraged' to make it Turn Based instead.
Precisely. And this is what I have on occasion referred to as TB bullying. Strong language? Yes absolutely. But entirely appropriate and justified imho.
How is that different from the outcry that Baldur's Gate 3 must be RTwP?
Because rtwp games are the minority. Also, BG 1 and 2 were rtwp, so a non rtwp game will be fundamentally different and not feel like the same series.
I can understand how some people feel cheated. They've waited a l-o-o-o-ng time for BG3, get excited about it happening, then learn that it will be essentially a different kind of rpg with the BG name only. I think if it was called BG: *witty subtitle*, there would less anger over it being TB.
Honestly though with Pathfinder WotR there was an outcry at the announcement that it 'must' be turn based. Fact that it's a selectable mode is great but with the current trends I'd be very suprised if any devs wanting to make a RtwP game don't get 'encouraged' to make it Turn Based instead.
Precisely. And this is what I have on occasion referred to as TB bullying. Strong language? Yes absolutely. But entirely appropriate and justified imho.
How is that different from the outcry that Baldur's Gate 3 must be RTwP?
IS different because BG1/2 was RTWP. I don't expect DOS3 to be turn based nor if someone decides to make ToEE 2 to be real time with pause.
So it's bullying if it's TB but it's only good natured advice when it's RTwP? I don't buy it. Precedent doesn't make bullying okay, but maybe - just maybe - it's not bullying unless it involves actual harassment and not just, you know, disagreement over a game mechanic.
No, is not. Is just the idea the a game needs to follow the footsteps of the predecessor. My first gaming disappointment was when i played Heretic 1 as a child, loved the agme and when i purchased Heretic 2, it become a third person game more focused on platforming ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heretic_II ) I loved crash as a child(Despite being awful) but when i play heretic, i wanna play a "doom with magic" game...
Why not give the option? To choose between RTWP and TB?
If Gothic 3 was launched in first person only, the game would be more hated than he already is due being unfinished exactly because G1/2 are third person games. G3 gave the OPTION to play in first person. And that is how a game should be. Offers more than the predecessor, not different things or less. Imagine if Blizzard announces a world of warcraft 2 game who is extremely similar to ultima online...
I don't wanna create a topic only for this but i an really curious. Lv 20 hellfire warlock on D&D 3.5e vs lv 20 Winter Witch on Pathfinder. Who would win?
Some very good points here. I can enjoy both types of games just fine, I had a lot of fun with XCOM and the banner saga games on the turn based side, and Baldur's gate and PoE on the other.
But I have to agree that turn based rpg's can start feeling like a slog, especially the modern ones like @megamike15 said above.
And as @Ammar pointed out, the continuous setting up of (environmental) combos just becomes something you do every single battle, rather than having it be a fun and memorable opportunity that arises every once in a while.
One thing I'm missing in this debate is sort of the middle ground between turn based and rtwp, but it's hardly ever been done in a game; simultaneous turns. So the game pauses at regular intervals, and both sides get to plan their actions, but you can't be exactly certain of what the other side is going to do.
It eliminates a lot of the weirdness of turn based games, still gives you time to think and plan your actions, and every time you commit your plan there is an exciting moment where you can only sit back and watch to see if your plan pays off, and if you anticipated correctly what the enemy would do.
I'd love to see some games implementing that, but like I said it's hardly ever been done.
Comments
My problem is when JRPGs go from turn based to action they usually lose the unqiue stuff that differentiates them in the TB space and become kinda spammy action. I played FF7 Remake pretty much the same way I played FFXV.
For the big Turn Based Western rpgs right now I have the same feeling where a lot of them play similar, more like a strategy game. If there was a fantasy Western rpg that tried a different kind of TB combat that maybe doesn't emphasis movement, positioning behind cover and spending turns running up to enemies or sctions like reloading too much I'd be all for it. I am way more interested in The Bards Tale and Banner Saga than I am Wasteland 3 for instance cause they sre just a little different from the status quo right now.
Its kinda hard for me to explain, because they do have nuances from each other, but after Wasteland 2 which I loved I started seeing that DNA in lots of the new crpgs.
RPG codex has a list with the top 100 RPG's https://rpgcodex.net/article.php?id=11193
About rtwp vs tb, i prefer rtwp for large scale battles and tb for small scales battle.
I am not going to hate on anyone who prefers turn-based but one argument which I see frequently drives me nuts, which is that turn-based is the right way to do it because the tabletop / PnP game is turn-based.
The only reason that tabletop is turn-based is because you have a bunch of people who need to talk to each other about what is happening and what they are doing. You can't do that in real-time because how would that work? Is everybody meant to shout at each other simultaneously? So nothing happens because no-one has a clue about what is going on?
That's why it's turn based, and even then, that turn based system is meant to represent what is happening in real time. A combat round in tabletop is really happening real time - it's just the instructions that need to be issued by turn so the players and DM can translate what is happening.
If humans were capable of telepathy (or in the future we all become androids with computer chips for brains) even tabletop will be a real-time game.
Real-time is therefore the natural translation of the tabletop game applied to its full intention with computers. And the pause element enables the tactical instructions to be implemented at each player's own pace. It's the perfect means of implementation IMO and that's why Owlcat are now basically the last (current) hope. Once they start pandering to turn-based tyrants the genre will be dead until another developer picks up the reins again.
The DM can create stories, monsters, and items of his own while reacting directly to even the most out-of-the-box ideas of the players. No PC game can do that, even with a GM mode.
I had a discussion on reddit about the throwing of the boots that happened in the gameplay demo that is sort of indicative this difference to me. In a very specific situation where you do not have a real weapon at hand, throwing your boots can be a good idea in tabletop and feel very satisfying if you succeed. In a computer games it becomes a gimmick, especially if it is a free action and your best course of action is to both throw your boots and shoot arrows each turn.
And in a wider sense this is how I feel about the entire D:OS design. It feels like they are trying to bring all the creative and wacky ideas players have in PnP to a computer game, but what is a once-in-a-campaign highlight of electrifying an enemy standing in water now becomes a staple of the combat design you use every single damn fight.
Now I am becoming speculative and just a very bit unkind: I think many D:OS fans love the combat system since it makes them feel smart when they pull of those elemental surfaces combos and find them rewarding (which is fine), while not seeing that the game is designed so they do this every single fight and that due to the game design of being both turn-based and having multiple actions setting up those combos is rather easy. The combats feel like a puzzle where you have to press your buttons in the right order.
Speaking as a tabletop RPG designer, this is nonsense. Real time with pause is certainly an option available to computers, consoles, etc. that isn't nearly as available to tabletop games, but your claim that real time with pause reflects the "true intentions" behind tabletop game design is completely false. There is no such "true intention." People set out to design games that are fun and use the tools available for them in the media they work with. Not all the tools in every case, but TB is just as valid a design choice as real time with pause.
Also, I can name two tabletop (not RPGs) games that have simultaneous turns for all players and another game that doesn't have distinct turns for anyone, in which you can react in real time to what your opponent is doing.
Shadowrift and Spirit Island have a distinct "turn" for players, but all players act in the same turn. Federation Commander allows for real time responses to opponent actions and doesn't have distinct player turns at all.
This is all a false dichotomy, and there is no platonic ideal of a tabletop game in which everything would ideally be "real time." It's fine to want real time CRPGs but to assert that anyone who is fine with turn-based or even prefers it is some nefarious "tyrant" trying to destroy an authentic CRPG experience is some pretty weird stuff to say out loud.
That is coming from someone who likes TB, but prefers RTwP.
I also agree @BelleSorciere that there is no "true intention" or correct combat style for replicating tabletop. There are arguments for both, but no objective standard by which to judge them.
I meant this, the paragraph I quoted from your post:
There's no such thing as a "natural translation of the tabletop game applied to its full intention with computers."
How about, tabletop RPG design reflects what the designers intended (hopefully modified through playtesting) and CRPG design reflects what those designers intended (hopefully modified through beta testing). A translation from one medium to another does not necessarily reflect anyone's "full intentions."
RTwP isn't objectively the superior option and trying to create an experience closer to the tabletop isn't inherently inauthentic or inferior. It's simply a different philosophy in game design. Turn-based and real-time with pause are both valid design choices, and both have benefits and drawbacks.
Have I mentioned that I'm just going wait and see. Either I'll be blown away or I threw away few bucks.
Also, if I've " TB bullied" anyone, I apologize. I can get a bit emotional about silly things on occasion, no bullying was ever intended.
I can and I have a preference, it's TB games. I enjoy RtwP games as well. But my preference is not allowing people to go war on each other because they think their favourite genre is not getting games. Not only it IS getting games, it will also get more games in the future. Eg. RtwP demands are quite clear, and I'm sure P:WotR won't be the last game which tries to provide a fun RtwP game.
Here on out RtwP games are going to be relegated to indies or heavy on the action side ala FFVII returns. Genre seems dead no one wants it or at least that's the way it seems.
Precisely. And this is what I have on occasion referred to as TB bullying. Strong language? Yes absolutely. But entirely appropriate and justified imho.
How is that different from the outcry that Baldur's Gate 3 must be RTwP?
Because rtwp games are the minority. Also, BG 1 and 2 were rtwp, so a non rtwp game will be fundamentally different and not feel like the same series.
I don't see how those particular distinctions matter to what I asked, though?
Also, that second sentence is entirely subjective.
IS different because BG1/2 was RTWP. I don't expect DOS3 to be turn based nor if someone decides to make ToEE 2 to be real time with pause.
Anyway, here is a list of the best RPG of all times from RPG codex and i agree with most points https://rpgcodex.net/article.php?id=11193
I would prefer if BG3 followed the sequel(BG2) but i will not hate a game only because is real time, or turn based.
Why not give the option? To choose between RTWP and TB?
If Gothic 3 was launched in first person only, the game would be more hated than he already is due being unfinished exactly because G1/2 are third person games. G3 gave the OPTION to play in first person. And that is how a game should be. Offers more than the predecessor, not different things or less. Imagine if Blizzard announces a world of warcraft 2 game who is extremely similar to ultima online...
I don't wanna create a topic only for this but i an really curious. Lv 20 hellfire warlock on D&D 3.5e vs lv 20 Winter Witch on Pathfinder. Who would win?
But I have to agree that turn based rpg's can start feeling like a slog, especially the modern ones like @megamike15 said above.
And as @Ammar pointed out, the continuous setting up of (environmental) combos just becomes something you do every single battle, rather than having it be a fun and memorable opportunity that arises every once in a while.
One thing I'm missing in this debate is sort of the middle ground between turn based and rtwp, but it's hardly ever been done in a game; simultaneous turns. So the game pauses at regular intervals, and both sides get to plan their actions, but you can't be exactly certain of what the other side is going to do.
It eliminates a lot of the weirdness of turn based games, still gives you time to think and plan your actions, and every time you commit your plan there is an exciting moment where you can only sit back and watch to see if your plan pays off, and if you anticipated correctly what the enemy would do.
I'd love to see some games implementing that, but like I said it's hardly ever been done.