RTwP is the Same as TB the Only Difference Being You Pick The T

[BING XI LAO]

Of course I CAN move down the corridor, it's just tiresome and slow,

Similarly, I can play RTwP games, in fact I can pretty much guarantee by how clueless you are in general that I play them better.
However, I just think they're a mess and would be better in TB. But hey, I guess you're right because hurr

Basically all RPGs are easy because you can reload, pause etc whenever you want. For an actually challenging strategic or tactical experience, you need to be playing against another human.
Pretty sure that anyone who thinks 'RTSs are just about having 400 APM' is a massive casual that shits the bed when they're playing against anything cleverer than an AI script from 1996.

 

[fantadomat]

How do people play this it must be impossible?????

I do wonder that. How do they decide how many dudes had died in the skirmish? Also i do hope it is TB because it will have nothing in common with a real battle,after they are made represent real battles. It will be more logical if do phased based. You have moving phase where everyone is free to move all its units to its capability,maybe have the ability to put units in reserve mode where they get a moving point during the attack phase but not a chance to attack. Also an attack phase where everyone writes their targets and kind off do simultaneous die damage,like in a real battle.

 

[Shadowfang]

It's harder to do ambushes in TB and that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your expectations. Mines also work differently if you don't group up enemy turns in just one. You can blow up several enemies with a well placed mind in RT but probably only one in RTWP.

I prefer TB and I can't recall a RTWP with good combat. The kiting has to be the worst. Having your warrior running away in circles while your ranger and mage shoot at it is not exactly what I think of tactical combat.

 

[fantadomat]

good combat

Is subjective,maybe you are just bad at it.

kiting

Is a choice,if you had ended up using it just means that you not very good at the combat. It is like saying that quick loading every turn you get too much damage or miss is a TB flaw. Any game mechanic could used in cheap way,after all we are fucking humans and do have brains.

 

[Squid]

Is a choice,if you had ended up using it just means that you not very good at the combat. It is like saying that quick loading every turn you get too much damage or miss is a TB flaw. Any game mechanic could used in cheap way,after all we are fucking humans and do have brains.

Yeah, it's not like we don't exploit every system we see. We will find out the best builds, the best way to do things. Save scumming, kiting, glitches, min/maxing, OP builds, etc. Wasn't even strafe jumping in Quake a glitch that was not intended? That could be an example even.

 

[Shadowfang]

good combat

Is subjective,maybe you are just bad at it.

kiting

Is a choice,if you had ended up using it just means that you not very good at the combat. It is like saying that quick loading every turn you get too much damage or miss is a TB flaw. Any game mechanic could used in cheap way,after all we are fucking humans and do have brains.

RTWP games are usually easy and not very deep. I enjoy games regardless of my performance. Actually thats a lie. I like sucking at the game because i enjoy the work of getting better at it.
As a kid i liked RTWP more so i played a lot of them and looking back the combat sucks. IWD sucks, BG sucks, Kotor sucks, NWN sucks, even if i can take enjoyment out of them, which i did, i can still say it sucks. Saying oh no its good you are just bad its a crappy argument.

About kiting, its more a flaw of the AI than it is of the RTWP, but we can say the same about every single flaw.
I have yet to finish SiTS and i was enjoying its RTWP gameplay. I guess because its not a quick keys feast, which i don't mind. I mean how could i? I have all the time in the world to do it.
The complexity of RTWP D&D games gives a lot to desire specially when compared to TOEE. While i consider TOEE to be mechanically work of art i can barely power through it because of how boring it is. It has nothing to do with combat though.

But compare TOEE complexity with the other inferior RTWP D&D variants. They are so shallow that crab couldn't hide under them.

 

[infidel]

The reason TB and P&P don't feature large combats is simply because they can't. It's not a good thing, it's a flaw and a limitation. It's very common for fantasy adventures to involve large armies and fortresses, and it's nice to be able to spam summons too. If P&P could conveniently feature a battle with 100 mundane soldiers on one side and the party on the other, I would happily have that as an option for my players, especially if they decide to go full chaotic neutral murderhobo and anger the entire town guard or some shit.

Wrong again. Many P&P have mass combat rules in splats including D&D. The solutions are simple: group individual characters into units

So the grand TB solution for modelling large number of fighters is... to model them as a small number of larger units. Clearly an inferior fudge that's no longer necessary when you're doing things on a computer.

If you think about it a bit, even StarCraft has unit grouping for orders. Precisely because nobody except you wants to control them one by one. Also you've failed to notice that the solutions are not tied to RT/TB/RTwP argument. Grouping characters into units and units into armies is just common sense and has been a staple of game design forever. As others have already said, the problem of mass-scale combat is not in the chosen game time flow but in the uniqueness of its individual participants.

Here's a not-so-contrived D&D combat example. On one side you have 10 mages, 2 of them can cast fireball, 4 are weaker and can only do magic missile (while two of these already spent their spells and now can only use wands, one has a wand of let's say ghoul touch, the other has a wand of sleep), 3 are specializing in different illusions and the last one has arthritis and rheumatism but has to be protected for quest reasons while he opens up a portal or w/e. They are covered by 5 fighters of variying levels, hp and equipment. And these measly 15 individuals are fighting... who cares, that's already enough. I think it'll be a slog in any case but tell me how RTwP is clearly superior than TB in that scenario since D&D mages are not all about that auto-attack order that you rely on so much in RTwP/RT flow.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Disclaimer; I've been exaggerating my views until now because I am mad at the bigotry, hatred and bullying that RTWP zoomers like myself suffer at the hands of mean, old TB boomers. It's not nice And I wanted to have a spergout.
I do prefer RTWP, but not by that much.

If you think about it a bit, even StarCraft has unit grouping for orders. Precisely because nobody except you wants to control them one by one. Also you've failed to notice that the solutions are not tied to RT/TB/RTwP argument. Grouping characters into units and units into armies is just common sense and has been a staple of game design forever. As others have already said, the problem of mass-scale combat is not in the chosen game time flow but in the uniqueness of its individual participants.

If I group 12 dragoons together in Starcraft they are still modelled as individuals, it's simply they are now receiving duplicate commands; you can also give them individual order or reassign groupings at will. I think that's a UI element, more than a mechanic. Is a TB/P&P grouping similarly a mere UI convenience, or do they start sharing properties such as initiative?

Here's a not-so-contrived D&D combat example. On one side you have 10 mages, 2 of them can cast fireball, 4 are weaker and can only do magic missile (while two of these already spent their spells and now can only use wands, one has a wand of let's say ghoul touch, the other has a wand of sleep), 3 are specializing in different illusions and the last one has arthritis and rheumatism but has to be protected for quest reasons while he opens up a portal or w/e. They are covered by 5 fighters of variying levels, hp and equipment. And these measly 15 individuals are fighting... who cares, that's already enough. I think it'll be a slog in any case but tell me how RTwP is clearly superior than TB in that scenario since D&D mages are not all about that auto-attack order that you rely on so much in RTwP/RT flow.

1.) If I want to move one mage somewhere but another guy is standing in their way, I can tell them both to move. And in general if I see something going on and I want my guys to react, I can just do it, I don't have to wait, or keep track of who acts before or after other people. For example if there's a poison effect on someone, it's obvious when it ticks, because it does so every X seconds. In Turnbased, in order to know if I should use the curing potion or if I can afford to wait for the priest to cast a spell before it ticks next, I either have to keep track of when things happen or there has to be a powerful UI that makes it clear. The way TB wrangles everything though its sequential mechanism can be quite irritating.
2.) There's still 5 fighters with the very desirable autoattack property.
3.) Autoattack isn't the only RTWP convenience; 'spell completed' is another favourite. The idea of cycling through 10 mages in TB is a daunting prospect; that's why you call it a slog. But in RTWP? I issue 10 orders, then hit unpause and watch the fireballs bloom, and the game pauses only when it's time to issue a command, which I keep doing. My zoomer blood is pumping at the FUN FUN FUN to be had there. If only RTWP would work in multiplayer games. Maybe it actually could if it was limited to autopause.

Now that I'm no longer intentionally shitposting, I will say this; the sequential 'clunkiness' of TB also lends actions more meaning. Some people complain that in TB if it's not your turn you can't immediately move back when people run at you; instead you stand there like an idiot. But not being able to do that means you have to anticipate enemy actions and plan ahead more, which makes that RTWP complaint look dumb and casual. In RTWP things are continuous, in TB they are discrete. Continuous is to my taste, possibly because I played RTS games as a young child before I would've even understood wtf is going on in an rpg, but I can see the appeal of discrete actions too. Deciding whether to move 3 or 4 hexes is an explicit choice, but in BG you have a choice between ''moving a bit'' and ''moving a bit more''. That must be part of what people mean when they call RTWP a clusterfuck. Similarly in the poison scenario I thought of above, the potion and the spell take on a lot of meaning, and you have to make a plan, a decision. But in RTWP it's all go, all the time, you can even drink the potion and cast the spell at the same time! Wheee! Fuck, am I persuading myself to prefer TB now?

 

[Lycra Suit]

19 years later and codexers are still butthurt over the success of Baldur's Gate 2

 

[Puteo]

Pretty sure that anyone who thinks 'RTSs are just about having 400 APM' is a massive casual that shits the bed when they're playing against anything cleverer than an AI script from 1996.

Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that adding multiple building selection to Starcraft 2, the arch-RTS, was a massively controversial move that RTS fans and pros got super-butthurt over; because somehow that mindless tedium is in fact, 'skill'. Says everything you need to know about RT"S".

Disclaimer; I've been exaggerating my views until now because I am mad at the bigotry, hatred and bullying that RTWP zoomers like myself suffer at the hands of mean, old TB boomers. It's not nice And I wanted to have a spergout.

The anti-RTwP flamebait largely comes as revenge for all the gloating and mockery poor, oppressed TBS fans suffered from the RTwP crew back at the beginning of the decade when the Pillows of Eternity kickstarter revealed they would be going with said accursed combat style.

Now that the high-profile RTwP games from that era have all been failures and the TBS ones achieved middling to massive success; a balancing of the books is in order.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I prefer TB and I can't recall a RTWP with good combat. The kiting has to be the worst. Having your warrior running away in circles while your ranger and mage shoot at it is not exactly what I think of tactical combat.

this is a problem with AI, not the game's combat mode
An intelligent being should be capable of realizing what is happening and seek shelter behind obstacles to prevent it

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

19 years later and codexers are still butthurt over the success of Baldur's Gate 2

Bioware was decline from the start, and its RTwP system is an abomination.

 

[Lycra Suit]

It was fun and with mods probably more challenging than 90% of older tb games out there.

 

[Viata]

This whole thread is about how some people don't know the difference between phase-based and turn-based.

 

[cloudropis]

Newishfag question:
If people think the round system from tabletop translates poorly in RtwP (and I wholeheartedly agree, for the record), then why did everyone shit on PoE with its individual character action bar?

 

[Riddler]

good combat

Is subjective,maybe you are just bad at it.

kiting

Is a choice,if you had ended up using it just means that you not very good at the combat. It is like saying that quick loading every turn you get too much damage or miss is a TB flaw. Any game mechanic could used in cheap way,after all we are fucking humans and do have brains.

RTWP games are usually easy and not very deep. I enjoy games regardless of my performance. Actually thats a lie. I like sucking at the game because i enjoy the work of getting better at it.
As a kid i liked RTWP more so i played a lot of them and looking back the combat sucks. IWD sucks, BG sucks, Kotor sucks, NWN sucks, even if i can take enjoyment out of them, which i did, i can still say it sucks. Saying oh no its good you are just bad its a crappy argument.

About kiting, its more a flaw of the AI than it is of the RTWP, but we can say the same about every single flaw.
I have yet to finish SiTS and i was enjoying its RTWP gameplay. I guess because its not a quick keys feast, which i don't mind. I mean how could i? I have all the time in the world to do it.
The complexity of RTWP D&D games gives a lot to desire specially when compared to TOEE. While i consider TOEE to be mechanically work of art i can barely power through it because of how boring it is. It has nothing to do with combat though.

But compare TOEE complexity with the other inferior RTWP D&D variants. They are so shallow that crab couldn't hide under them.

TB games are usually easy and not very deep as well. Anyone who thinks any of the even slightly popular Tb games are difficult or deep has severe brain damage.

Also, kiting is prevalent in competitive RTSs as well. What did the recent Deepmind AI that beat pros do in StarCraft 2? It kited. This has very little to do with bad AI.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Pretty sure that anyone who thinks 'RTSs are just about having 400 APM' is a massive casual that shits the bed when they're playing against anything cleverer than an AI script from 1996.

Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that adding multiple building selection to Starcraft 2, the arch-RTS, was a massively controversial move that RTS fans and pros got super-butthurt over; because somehow that mindless tedium is in fact, 'skill'. Says everything you need to know about RT"S".

That's true, I hate those ''muh mechanical '''''skill''''' '' fags

 

[Elu]

OP is wasting his time, on the Codex it's a tradition that you prove your mettle through hating RWTP. At the same time, you ought to wax lyrical about TB. Or else.
In reality, both approaches have their own strengths. TB allows for incomparable granularity, one action can be given far more subtlety. We see this with things like aimed shots at body parts, spending action points for increased hit chances, very precise movement. TB lends itself very well to setting up intricate combos where several carefully planned actions can lead to a tide changing result.
RWTP, on the other hand, handles far better scenarios where improvisation and tempo are crucial. Simulatnaeous resolution and differing completion time of various actions allow for not only setting up your own plans but also for far more effective disruption of others. You don't need to implement specific hacks to allow for interruption (like 'ready vs' etc), it emerges naturally. As the numbers of enemies increase, the virtues of RWTP become more impactful. And vice versa, as the number of enemies decrease the subtleties of TB become more engaging.
Ultimately, the crucial difference lies in the fact that TB has far far longer history of design than RWTP. TB was being developed at tabletop, while RWTP could emerge only with ascent of computers. If we compare number of system and games that were developed with TB in mind vs TB, it's not a surprise that there are far more good TB games. Add to this the fact that many RWTPs are TB masquerading as RWTP and the already huge discrepancy grows. It doesn't mean that TB is inherently superior, just that it is easier to implement and more tried-and-tested solutions have been established for it.
In fact, I would argue that the only games that fully embraced the consequences of going RTWP are BG games.

It is in the IE games

Actually, it's not in BG games, just in IWD games. One of the reasons why IWDs are shit.

The kiting has to be the worst

Because it's much better when units just stand around waiting to be killed? Kiting is prevalent because it's a reasonable and natural tactic. The problem is not the fact that people attempt kiting, but the fact that logical mitigating factor are not implemented like different movement speed and ability to hobble or pind down opponents. And that makes kiting automaticaly succesful, no matter circumstances.

But compare TOEE complexity with the other inferior RTWP D&D variants

Can I dependably disrupt spellcasting in ToEE and build my tactics around it? No. Do I have to fear being disrupted by opponents? Not really.
Do I have to be wary of backstabbing enemies attacking from the shadows? Not really.
Do I have to first peel away magical defenses from spellcaster before turning him into pincushion? Not really.
Do I have to be wary of morale breaking points? Not really.
So where is this complexity in combat dynamics?

I have played through ToEE for the first time with one PC and few hirelings (and you're supposed to use a full party? A joke.) and the game was piss easy. Even a wizard with a reach weapon and familiar can solo initial areas, just cast obscuring mist and have familiar tank. In general, ability to trip and reach weapons allow for abuse of AoOs. Which is fun, but easy, far easier than BGs.

About kiting, its more a flaw of the AI than it is of the RTWP

As adressed before, kiting is a natural tactic that should be embrace by the system with the sensible countermeasures implemented.

As a kid i liked RTWP more so i played a lot of them and looking back the combat sucks

When you were a kid you played these games for the first time, now you know them by heart. It's obvious combat won't surprise or excite you. It's the same for TB games.

 

[JarlFrank]

In fact, I would argue that the only games that fully embraced the consequences of going RTWP are BG games.

No, the only ones who fully embraced it are 7.62 High Calibre, Brigade E5, and Marauder

 

[Elu]

In fact, I would argue that the only games that fully embraced the consequences of going RTWP are BG games.

No, the only ones who fully embraced it are 7.62 High Calibre, Brigade E5, and Marauder

One always learns something new on the Codex... and rarely there is no regret.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Ultimately, the crucial difference lies in the fact that TB has far far longer history of design than RWTP. TB was being developed at tabletop, while RWTP could emerge only with ascent of computers. If we compare number of system and games that were developed with TB in mind vs TB, it's not a surprise that there are far more good TB games. Add to this the fact that many RWTPs are TB masquerading as RWTP and the already huge discrepancy grows. It doesn't mean that TB is inherently superior, just that it is easier to implement and more tried-and-tested solutions have been established for it.

RTwP refers to a specific kind of implementation that is (somewhat humorously) not realtime at all but a realtime approximation of round-based combat.
It's a misnomer, but it stuck and it won't go away.

 

[Elu]

Ultimately, the crucial difference lies in the fact that TB has far far longer history of design than RWTP. TB was being developed at tabletop, while RWTP could emerge only with ascent of computers. If we compare number of system and games that were developed with TB in mind vs TB, it's not a surprise that there are far more good TB games. Add to this the fact that many RWTPs are TB masquerading as RWTP and the already huge discrepancy grows. It doesn't mean that TB is inherently superior, just that it is easier to implement and more tried-and-tested solutions have been established for it.

RTwP refers to a specific kind of implementation that is (somewhat humorously) not realtime at all but a realtime approximation of round-based combat.
It's a misnomer, but it stuck and it won't go away.

Is it really? In BG you can hold your action as long as you like and execute in a moment you like, every character is on a independent six second timer.
The autopause option in gameplay menu is misleading - it refers to character's individual round and only pauses after a character completes an action. If you don't initiate an action, you do not lose it.

That first DnD systems were more or less phase-based and that there's not that much of a difference between BG's RWTP implementation and phase-based is another matter altogether.

 

[JarlFrank]

every character is on a independent six second timer.

This six second timer is still some kind of personal "round", which has no place in a real time game.

 

[Elu]

every character is on a independent six second timer.

This six second timer is still some kind of personal "round", which has no place in a real time game.

If you're lookng at it like that, there's always some kind of personal 'round', even in real life ;p Either way, the personal 'round' of one character can and does intersect with personal round of other characters, plus movement is not restricted at all. It's all semantics. What remains is simulatneous resolution of actions vs ordered one. In IE games two characters can kill each other simulatneously (i.e one shoots an arrow another throws fireball. Can't happen in TB)

 

[Saduj]

If you're lookng at it like that, there's always some kind of personal 'round', even in real life ;p