Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Crispy™ Controversial opinions about RPGs that you know deep down are true.

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,428
Location
Grand Chien
The writing is adequate to quite good. Again, set Deadfire in the actual Forgotten Realms with all that vast lore to draw upon, and you got yourself a stew goin'.
:nocountryforshitposters:
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,428
Location
Grand Chien
Fairfax why do you believe Phase-based is more tactical than turn-based?
Well, I didn't say that. Being 'more tactical' or not (whatever you mean by that) still depends on implementation, encounter design, etc. Anyway, PB x TB would be a long argument, but in short:

TB RPGs heavily encourage and reward metagaming, due to the large amount of meta knowledge that players have/acquire before making decisions. This is significantly worse in CRPGs, where there's no human on the other side to control the enemies, and the AI always sucks. In PB RPGs, player have much more limited information available. They can't rely on the turn order, don't get to see other actions being resolved before a character's turn, and don't have abundant time to reconsider their plans every time a PC's turn comes up.
What would, for example, POE look like with phase-based turns?
 

smaug

Secular Koranism with Israeli Characteristics
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
6,438
Location
Texas
Insert Title Here
Fairfax why do you believe Phase-based is more tactical than turn-based?
Well, I didn't say that. Being 'more tactical' or not (whatever you mean by that) still depends on implementation, encounter design, etc. Anyway, PB x TB would be a long argument, but in short:

TB RPGs heavily encourage and reward metagaming, due to the large amount of meta knowledge that players have/acquire before making decisions. This is significantly worse in CRPGs, where there's no human on the other side to control the enemies, and the AI always sucks. In PB RPGs, player have much more limited information available. They can't rely on the turn order, don't get to see other actions being resolved before a character's turn, and don't have abundant time to reconsider their plans every time a PC's turn comes up.
But doesn’t that make it more chaotic and random? TB as seen in something, for example, KOTC has smart AI which makes fighting enemies harder. But I’d prefer a flawed tactical turn-based system then a clusterfuck RTWP (as seen in BG/Kingmaker), phases work in like Wizardry though. Even Wizardry has a fuck tons of RNG already.
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
What would, for example, POE look like with phase-based turns?
Depends on how you want to handle initiative. Side x individual, modifiers, phases for each action type or not, etc. It could be something like: Declaration Phase -> d10+modifiers for each character -> lower roll goes first, ties are resolved simultaneously. Modifiers could be things like weapon speed, DEX, magical effects, and casting time.

It could also be as complex as 1E initiative by RAW:

ogTIwm2.png
27tA3cD.png

But doesn’t that make it more chaotic and random? TB as seen in something, for example, KOTC has smart AI which makes fighting enemies harder. But I’d prefer a flawed tactical turn-based system then a clusterfuck RTWP (as seen in BG/Kingmaker), phases work in like Wizardry though. Even Wizardry has a fuck tons of RNG already.
It's less predictable and punishes poor decision-making more harshly, but that doesn't mean it's chaotic and/or random. And the amount of RNG depends on a lot more than the combat procedure.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
Fairfax why do you believe Phase-based is more tactical than turn-based?
Well, I didn't say that. Being 'more tactical' or not (whatever you mean by that) still depends on implementation, encounter design, etc. Anyway, PB x TB would be a long argument, but in short:

TB RPGs heavily encourage and reward metagaming, due to the large amount of meta knowledge that players have/acquire before making decisions. This is significantly worse in CRPGs, where there's no human on the other side to control the enemies, and the AI always sucks. In PB RPGs, player have much more limited information available. They can't rely on the turn order, don't get to see other actions being resolved before a character's turn, and don't have abundant time to reconsider their plans every time a PC's turn comes up.

Pretty good argument, never considered it this way. TB can still be quite fun to play with, though.

Edit: It should also be noted that how exploitable turns are depend a lot still in how much time they encompass. Aces and Eights had turns so short they worked as an approximation of real time.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Fairfax why do you believe Phase-based is more tactical than turn-based?
Well, I didn't say that. Being 'more tactical' or not (whatever you mean by that) still depends on implementation, encounter design, etc. Anyway, PB x TB would be a long argument, but in short:

TB RPGs heavily encourage and reward metagaming, due to the large amount of meta knowledge that players have/acquire before making decisions. This is significantly worse in CRPGs, where there's no human on the other side to control the enemies, and the AI always sucks. In PB RPGs, player have much more limited information available. They can't rely on the turn order, don't get to see other actions being resolved before a character's turn, and don't have abundant time to reconsider their plans every time a PC's turn comes up.
Give examples.
 

smaug

Secular Koranism with Israeli Characteristics
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
6,438
Location
Texas
Insert Title Here
So, does that mean a turn-based combat system with 2 human players is automatically superior to phase-based theoretically, Fairfax not talking in the context of single player RPGs.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Fairfax why do you believe Phase-based is more tactical than turn-based?
Well, I didn't say that. Being 'more tactical' or not (whatever you mean by that) still depends on implementation, encounter design, etc. Anyway, PB x TB would be a long argument, but in short:

TB RPGs heavily encourage and reward metagaming, due to the large amount of meta knowledge that players have/acquire before making decisions. This is significantly worse in CRPGs, where there's no human on the other side to control the enemies, and the AI always sucks. In PB RPGs, player have much more limited information available. They can't rely on the turn order, don't get to see other actions being resolved before a character's turn, and don't have abundant time to reconsider their plans every time a PC's turn comes up.
But doesn’t that make it more chaotic and random? TB as seen in something, for example, KOTC has smart AI which makes fighting enemies harder. But I’d prefer a flawed tactical turn-based system then a clusterfuck RTWP (as seen in BG/Kingmaker), phases work in like Wizardry though. Even Wizardry has a fuck tons of RNG already.

Get some friends together and play Diplomacy if you want to understand the virtues of a phase based system—probably the simplest, most straightforward implementation. https://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf

Phase based really shines when you’re playing against multiple other humans. When you declare your turn, you need to anticipate what everyone else is going to do. Every round is a collective action problem. It requires some ingenuity.

Turn based systems don’t really have this. When your turn comes, there’s usually an optimal course of action that’s clear to anyone who’s read the rulebook. Sure, whether you succeed or fail comes down to the dice, but you’ve already baked those odds into your decision making. People are pretty good at accounting for randomness when they know the percentages.

Your DM can still throw unexpected shit at you, but in a phase based system unexpected shit happens organically. There’s a whole additional layer you need to game.

I don’t think it matters as much in a CRPG, aside from being more punishing for players who don’t like to think ahead.
 

Monkeyfinger

Cipher
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
778
Most RPGs are improved by implementing quest compasses. Very few dev teams have what it takes to make do with just conversations, journal entries and environmental clues to guide the player.
 
Last edited:

ProphetSword

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
1,755
Location
Monkey Island
The problem with a phase-based system is that it doesn't account for reacting to situations very well. If your action is already baked in, then there's no option to change it based upon situational modifiers.

Example: You planned to rush toward a target standing behind a wall and jump over the wall and attack them. In a phase based system, this will happen regardless of anything you didn't anticipate, which isn't very realistic. In real life, if I intended to rush in and attack, but the opponent suddenly charges away from the wall toward one of my weaker allies (say a wizard), it would do me little good to rush toward that wall and jump over it since my target will no longer be there. Despite my initial intention, my reaction would likely be to change course and try to cut them off before they reached the wizard. In combat with heightened senses, you would be quick enough to change tactics on the fly. You're not a robot with one set of directions that are unalterable until they complete.

This is something that turn-based better reflects...because I may know what I wanted to do, but when that character's turn actually comes about, I can react to things I didn't anticipate.

So, I don't agree that phase based is better than turn-based.
 

smaug

Secular Koranism with Israeli Characteristics
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
6,438
Location
Texas
Insert Title Here
But it all boils down to implementation.

Having easily identifiable optimal ways for a turn-based tactical game is just bad design, however, occasionally having an optimal solution as a reward for being smart.

But I’m not buying the arguement, because I refuse to suppor RTWP.
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
There's a big overlap between New Vegas fanboys and people who think Skyrim is "good for what it is".

Planescape Torment is a great game, not just a game with great writing. People who think it would have been better off as a visual novel have shit taste in games or are just plain ignorant.

The clunkyness of interfaces of old games is vastly exagerrated. Atleast since the mid 90s most of them were quite functional while also usually being designed to visulally fit the theme of the game.

"Nostalgia" argument is a very, very overused in gaming discussions of any kind.

Avellone is underrated as a designer, if focused and willing, he has more to offer to a given project than just his capabilities as a writer.
 

Urthor

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
1,872
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Most of the 90s games are actually awful to play because they were designed 25 years ago and the user interfaces are actually torture.

Very little of it has aged appreciably to actually make it more enjoyable than many B list titles of today. There's no way I can recommend so many RPGs for anything other than writing compared to slightly modern shit that's a lot more compromised on the writing front.
 

smaug

Secular Koranism with Israeli Characteristics
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
6,438
Location
Texas
Insert Title Here
I played Wiz1 for DOS and it’s UI took maybe an hour to get used to? Most of them aren’t bad at all, from what I’ve tried.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
The problem with a phase-based system is that it doesn't account for reacting to situations very well. If your action is already baked in, then there's no option to change it based upon situational modifiers.

Example: You planned to rush toward a target standing behind a wall and jump over the wall and attack them. In a phase based system, this will happen regardless of anything you didn't anticipate, which isn't very realistic. In real life, if I intended to rush in and attack, but the opponent suddenly charges away from the wall toward one of my weaker allies (say a wizard), it would do me little good to rush toward that wall and jump over it since my target will no longer be there. Despite my initial intention, my reaction would likely be to change course and try to cut them off before they reached the wizard. In combat with heightened senses, you would be quick enough to change tactics on the fly. You're not a robot with one set of directions that are unalterable until they complete.

This is something that turn-based better reflects...because I may know what I wanted to do, but when that character's turn actually comes about, I can react to things I didn't anticipate.

So, I don't agree that phase based is better than turn-based.

Depends on the system. If everyone declares at the same time, you have a point, but that’s rarely how RPGs do it. More often, you declare in ascending order of initiative and then resolve in descending order of initiative. So you can absolutely adjust to your opponents’ actions if you get a good roll and/or have good modifiers. Meanwhile, the guy with the worst initiative—the slowest, clumsiest motherfucker—has to declare his intentions before he knows what anyone else will do, and he acts after everyone else.

Long story short, your ability to adjust on the fly depends on your initiative, which makes a lot of sense to me.

I don’t know if that’s RAW for second edition, but it’s how my friends did it. IIRC it used to be the rules for Vampire and Mage, too.

You can also divide combat into several different phases, often it’s: movement, missiles, melee, magic. In each phase you offer new orders. If you don’t move in the movement phase, some systems let you use your movement in the later phases, too. So that also helps avoid the above problems.

Also, smaug RTWP =/= phase based.
 

smaug

Secular Koranism with Israeli Characteristics
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
6,438
Location
Texas
Insert Title Here
I can’t go into specifics of RTwP, because I don’t give enough of a shit.

Feels awkward and stupid as hell controlling D&D in RT.
 

smaug

Secular Koranism with Israeli Characteristics
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
6,438
Location
Texas
Insert Title Here
This is Trigger Codex with a statement: Electric Boogaloo, but why not: Baldur's Gate fucking sucks. The "it's totally like real time but we'll still use rounds lmao" combat is retarded, characters are still written by Bioware, encounter design is absent, exploration is -boredom and trial-by-error based, you HAVE to roll stats when creating character (no, you don't get to pick low-strong preset, that'd make too much sense), and the antagonist has all the charisma of a limpet. Also, Charisma isn't needed for sorcerer, yay for effortless powergaming?
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
The problem with a phase-based system is that it doesn't account for reacting to situations very well. If your action is already baked in, then there's no option to change it based upon situational modifiers.

Example: You planned to rush toward a target standing behind a wall and jump over the wall and attack them. In a phase based system, this will happen regardless of anything you didn't anticipate, which isn't very realistic. In real life, if I intended to rush in and attack, but the opponent suddenly charges away from the wall toward one of my weaker allies (say a wizard), it would do me little good to rush toward that wall and jump over it since my target will no longer be there. Despite my initial intention, my reaction would likely be to change course and try to cut them off before they reached the wizard. In combat with heightened senses, you would be quick enough to change tactics on the fly. You're not a robot with one set of directions that are unalterable until they complete.

This is something that turn-based better reflects...because I may know what I wanted to do, but when that character's turn actually comes about, I can react to things I didn't anticipate.

So, I don't agree that phase based is better than turn-based.
You're assuming an odd implementation. Normally, you'd declare "move and attack" or "charge". You wouldn't commit to a specific direction/target and have to see it through. If you rolled to act before the enemy that wants to rush your wizard, you'd climb over the wall and attack him before they're able to do so. If the enemy acted first, you'd still able to move and attack him next to your wizard. Some systems do it segment by segment or have movement phases, but you'd still be able to react accordingly.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom