The Battle System I Wish RPGs Would Stop Using

[Kaanyrvhok]

A fireball in all versions of D&D hits friendlies. A game failing to implement that does not change what the proper implementation of the rules is. In a game that properly implements the rules, all the tactical options are there, just without the arcade-y targetting, AI pathfinding shepperding and randomness./

As much D&D as I’ve played I didn’t know it had friendly fire. I did a net search and all I could find was reference to a fireball spell which stated that

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

This is true with any D&D CRPG. The IE engine gives you a little extra and an rtwp game with the AI of a shooter would give you more still if it avoided an AOE spell like a grenade or mortar fire.

In an action game yes. In a TB game it was called a saving throw (in the case of AD&D) for half damage. And no the Shaman was never a sure hit because if he is close to friendlies I have to target him with the edge of the fireball and not the center.

In that example with the Shaman it’s still a definite hit in the sense that you can pause the game and you aren’t going to miss. If you are aiming past the Shaman to avoid friendly fire then sure the AI has a better chance of moving. You could also move the friendlies. I don’t see what is wrong with that. It seems like an example of how realtime AI is more efficient for a developer. I don’t know how you would replicate this in a TB game and if you don’t you are dumbing down the AI otherwise you are suggesting that AoE spells travel so fast that even someone that is in the path of the edge of its effect cant step out of the way when they see it burst from the casters hands from many feet away. The best solution for a TB game is probably a realtime simulation in which everyone that makes a saving throw is instantly moved out of the path.

I am with you there. I prefer TRwP than pure action, when it comes to medieval settings, mostly because I hate action melee combat. On modern settings though, I would much rather play a first or third person shooter, than an action RPG.

Maybe RTwP needs runoff voting

To me the combat system in the IE was a huge dissapointment and the beginning of the end for decent RPG combat in major titles. I enjoy the simplistic TB combat of Spiderweb games more than AAA RTwP games (although I do enjoy other aspects of such games).

You could certainly argue that the IE was the beginning of the end of high profile big budget strategic RPGs. I might have different reasons and we know prolific strategic RPGs will surely resurface. My assessment is that to the gen public the IE had enough strategy. To the casual PC gamer Baldur’s Gate and IWD played out like simple RTS games. For an RPG they were strong on strategy so developers made their inroads in other areas like roleplaying, story, graphics, and romance.

Exactly. If you want your tabletop combat system into a game, like I do, it is a complete failure.

Understandable especially if you feel the IE was a decline from the Gold Box or Darksun. That’s where I can certainly agree to disagree. I want a simulation of a D&D setting. The rules are just a tool to get there and if they interfere then you break them.

 

[Shemar]

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

I put in bold the part that matters.

This is true with any D&D CRPG. The IE engine gives you a little extra and an rtwp game with the AI of a shooter would give you more still if it avoided an AOE spell like a grenade or mortar fire.

What you see as "gives you a little extra" to me is "takes away the entire point".

In that example with the Shaman it’s still a definite hit in the sense that you can pause the game and you aren’t going to miss. If you are aiming past the Shaman to avoid friendly fire then sure the AI has a better chance of moving. You could also move the friendlies. I don’t see what is wrong with that.

I do. Even with the completely unreasonable assumption that somehow tracking AI movement and having to move all of my own units is the same as just aiming my fireball, moving my units would negate all the advantage of positioning making it not only a ridiculous hassle but also tactically pointless to even use the fireball in that way.

It seems like an example of how realtime AI is more efficient for a developer. I don’t know how you would replicate this in a TB game and if you don’t you are dumbing down the AI otherwise you are suggesting that AoE spells travel so fast that even someone that is in the path of the edge of its effect cant step out of the way when they see it burst from the casters hands from many feet away. The best solution for a TB game is probably a realtime simulation in which everyone that makes a saving throw is instantly moved out of the path.

You are making a lot of false assumptions there. The major one is assuming RTwP AI is any good. It is not. It is exactly because RT AI considerations are so much more complex than TB that RT/RTwP AI and pathfinding suck so badly on every game that uses them. TB AI and pathfinding are far superior, as a general rule, exactly because the amount of data analysis required is much more manageable. You are also making the assumtpion that emulating the action elements of a battle, like dodging a fireball, is better done in an action sequence rather than with a skill roll, which is also completely false. There is nothing preventing a TB combat system from allowing creatures to dodge attacks or even make AoE attacks less effective closer to the edges of the effect. Just because the D&D fireball does not work like that does not mean TB systems have to (although a system attempting to emulate DnD on the computer should).

My assessment is that to the gen public the IE had enough strategy.

My tastes and needs in terms of strategy are far more advanced than those of the general public, somethig that really does not say much as the general public are on the level of clueless morons when it comes to RPG combat strategy.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It seems like an example of how realtime AI is more efficient for a developer. I don’t know how you would replicate this in a TB game and if you don’t you are dumbing down the AI otherwise you are suggesting that AoE spells travel so fast that even someone that is in the path of the edge of its effect cant step out of the way when they see it burst from the casters hands from many feet away. The best solution for a TB game is probably a realtime simulation in which everyone that makes a saving throw is instantly moved out of the path.

You are making a lot of false assumptions there. The major one is assuming RTwP AI is any good. It is not. It is exactly because RT AI considerations are so much more complex than TB that RT/RTwP AI and pathfinding suck so badly on every game that uses them. TB AI and pathfinding are far superior, as a general rule, exactly because the amount of data analysis required is much more manageable. You are also making the assumtpion that emulating the action elements of a battle, like dodging a fireball, is better done in an action sequence rather than with a skill roll, which is also completely false. There is nothing preventing a TB combat system from allowing creatures to dodge attacks or even make AoE attacks less effective closer to the edges of the effect. Just because the D&D fireball does not work like that does not mean TB systems have to (although a system attempting to emulate DnD on the computer should).

Now you are starting to use arguments that make sense.

 

[Volourn]

"TB AI and pathfinding are far superior"

No. Have you fukkin' played tb games? FFS L0LZ

 

[Shemar]

"TB AI and pathfinding are far superior"

No. Have you fukkin' played tb games? FFS L0LZ

For the not so bright:

Using the same ruleset, the same technology level and the same amount of time and resourses the resulting AI for a TB version os a game would be far superior to the resulting AI for a RT/RTwP version of that same game.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

I put in bold the part that matters.

How are you going to have unintended targets when you have a shaded grid that tells you where the spell is going unless you are willing to sacrifice someone? My point was that I would rather estimate than be given a shaded grid while facing enemies that can’t avoid the spell even when they are barely in its path.

I do. Even with the completely unreasonable assumption that somehow tracking AI movement and having to move all of my own units is the same as just aiming my fireball, moving my units would negate all the advantage of positioning making it not only a ridiculous hassle but also tactically pointless to even use the fireball in that way.

I’m not sure what you mean by tracking AI. I’m just talking about how most realtime games have stuff built in more so than the IE games and just about any novice programmer can code the awareness to avoid a frag grenade. So its easier to create a scenario where AI bots avoid spells in a somewhat realistic way instead of just relying on D&D rules ie saving throws.

And...How is it ridiculous to yell “incoming!!” or draw enemies near explosive magic before spreading out? That seems sensible to me and even with a large party it wouldn’t take more than 10 seconds to move them away from friendly spell.

You are making a lot of false assumptions there. The major one is assuming RTwP AI is any good. It is not. It is exactly because RT AI considerations are so much more complex than TB that RT/RTwP AI and pathfinding suck so badly on every game that uses them. TB AI and pathfinding are far superior, as a general rule, exactly because the amount of data analysis required is much more manageable. You are also making the assumtpion that emulating the action elements of a battle, like dodging a fireball, is better done in an action sequence rather than with a skill roll, which is also completely false. There is nothing preventing a TB combat system from allowing creatures to dodge attacks or even make AoE attacks less effective closer to the edges of the effect. Just because the D&D fireball does not work like that does not mean TB systems have to (although a system attempting to emulate DnD on the computer should).

Yes there is some assumption. I’d say its more idealism. Compared to today’s shooters the IE had lousy AI especially with it’s pathfinding. Where I’m being idealistic is in my assumption that if, a developer wants a strategic RPG where you control more than one party member then they should take advantage of the industries progress and build from a pillar of strength which is the AI in all these shooters out there. I’m not saying these games have great AI just that they have the basics. For example you cant herd them as consistently because they flank, delay their approach, mix up their tactics, or use high ground. Also there is a lot more programing talent available that is familiar with simple realtime AI functions that RPGs didn’t incorporate and still don’t today. Mass Effect kinda does but that’s it. Fallout 3 is an example of an RPG that looks like a shooter but doesn’t have today’s shooter AI.

My problem with using skill rolls for everything is that it adds up. So now you have a saving throw that factors where the fireball lands. Where do you stop? Its possible to reach a break point where you are trying to mimic realtime AI that would be better coded as such.

My tastes and needs in terms of strategy are far more advanced than those of the general public, somethig that really does not say much as the general public are on the level of clueless morons when it comes to RPG combat strategy.

You are preaching to the choir here. The problem with the RPG genre is the turnover or at least the perception of turnover. Unlike the Sports genre where the hardcore gamer dictates, with RPGs its all about new fan and new fan found plenty strategy in the IE games but not enough roleplaying and T & A.

 

[J1M]

And...How is it ridiculous to yell “incoming!!” or draw enemies near explosive magic before spreading out? That seems sensible to me and even with a large party it wouldn’t take more than 10 seconds to move them away from friendly spell.

An entire round in D&D is 6 seconds...

 

[Volourn]

"Using the same ruleset, the same technology level and the same amount of time and resourses the resulting AI for a TB version os a game would be far superior to the resulting AI for a RT/RTwP version of that same game."

No. Just no. Hella no.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

An entire round in D&D is 6 seconds...

I'm talking about while the game is paused. Havent you moved people out of the way of a spell in NWN 2 or the IE games? Its a few mouse selections. 10 seconds tops.

 

[Shemar]

How are you going to have unintended targets when you have a shaded grid that tells you where the spell is going unless you are willing to sacrifice someone?

That is exactly the point. You have the tactical option of hitting one or more friendlies in order to hit a lot more enemies (and it happens a lot more often than you think), instead of the arcade option of hit or miss based on real time movement.

My point was that I would rather estimate than be given a shaded grid while facing enemies that can’t avoid the spell even when they are barely in its path.

So you prefere to play action combat rather than actual DnD. Nothing wrong with that just don't tell me it is the same or that it is universally 'better'.

I’m not sure what you mean by tracking AI.

I said tracking AI movement. All creatures, enemies and friendlies, move about by themselves (or alternatively stand perpetually idle) in a RTwP system unless I shepperd them.

I’m just talking about how most realtime games have stuff built in more so than the IE games and just about any novice programmer can code the awareness to avoid a frag grenade. So its easier to create a scenario where AI bots avoid spells in a somewhat realistic way instead of just relying on D&D rules ie saving throws.

Realistic is not very often 'better'. If it was we would prefer to go out and fight real wars instead of doing it on the computer screen. We have already established that we have different views on which method is 'better'. Attempting to imply that the RT method if better because it is more 'realistic' holds no water as an argument, as far as I am concerned.

And...How is it ridiculous to yell “incoming!!” or draw enemies near explosive magic before spreading out? That seems sensible to me and even with a large party it wouldn’t take more than 10 seconds to move them away from friendly spell.

It is ridiculous because I don't yell 'incoming', I pause and manually move my units one by one, often fighting the AI that tries to make them re-engage, while at the same time suffering opportunity attacks, since the system does not properly support orderly falling back. Totally useless hassle.

Compared to today’s shooters the IE had lousy AI especially with it’s pathfinding. Where I’m being idealistic is in my assumption that if, a developer wants a strategic RPG where you control more than one party member then they should take advantage of the industries progress and build from a pillar of strength which is the AI in all these shooters out there. I’m not saying these games have great AI just that they have the basics. For example you cant herd them as consistently because they flank, delay their approach, mix up their tactics, or use high ground. Also there is a lot more programing talent available that is familiar with simple realtime AI functions that RPGs didn’t incorporate and still don’t today. Mass Effect kinda does but that’s it. Fallout 3 is an example of an RPG that looks like a shooter but doesn’t have today’s shooter AI.

That is also an incorrect assumption because the tactics and other considerations of a shooter are very different from those of an RPG. In fact if you could observe AI of a shooter from above, instead of from the limited perspective an FPS gives you, I bet you would be quite surprised of how horrible it is on the tactical level.

My problem with using skill rolls for everything is that it adds up. So now you have a saving throw that factors where the fireball lands. Where do you stop? Its possible to reach a break point where you are trying to mimic realtime AI that would be better coded as such.

No. You never try to mimic RT AI. That is just utter failure. There are plenty of TB combat systems with perfectly good balance and interest. The need to mimic anything RT is non-existent.

 

[Shemar]

And...How is it ridiculous to yell “incoming!!” or draw enemies near explosive magic before spreading out? That seems sensible to me and even with a large party it wouldn’t take more than 10 seconds to move them away from friendly spell.

An entire round in D&D is 6 seconds...

In AD&D 2ed Ed it was actually a minute, but that combat system is really a bad one to try to translate to the computer as it is a lot more freeform than what a computer combat system supports. Later verions of DnD that use a combat grid and more sensible rounds are much more computer friendly.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So, you were playing IE games with party AI on ?

 

[Shemar]

So, you were playing IE games with party AI on ?

I have no actual memory of playing them, except specific images, it was way too long ago, but standrad practice for me is to turn all AI functions off if possible in all games I play. However many RTwP games (like Drakensang for example) do not let you turn AI completely off.

 

[J1M]

An entire round in D&D is 6 seconds...

I'm talking about while the game is paused. Havent you moved people out of the way of a spell in NWN 2 or the IE games? Its a few mouse selections. 10 seconds tops.

If the game is paused, how are you interacting with it?

Oh. You like real-time with pause...

I could go on a rant here, but basically real-time and turn-based have their merits. One is good for action games. The other is good for group combat seen in RPGs. Real-time with pause is an abomination caused by trying to make terrible real-time systems playable. It should not exist and you are a dumb fucker for evangelizing it.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

That is exactly the point. You have the tactical option of hitting one or more friendlies in order to hit a lot more enemies (and it happens a lot more often than you think), instead of the arcade option of hit or miss based on real time movement.

You are dismissing common sense AI as an arcade option when the targeting takes place while the game is paused. You arent trying to hit a moving target, you are trying to hit a target that has the common sense to move. There is no way you can sensibly define that as an ‘arcade option’.

So you prefere to play action combat rather than actual DnD. Nothing wrong with that just don't tell me it is the same or that it is universally 'better'.

Stat based rtwp combat is not action combat. Total War, and Freedom Force are not in the same category as God of War or Fallout 3.

Realistic is not very often 'better'. If it was we would prefer to go out and fight real wars instead of doing it on the computer screen. We have already established that we have different views on which method is 'better'. Attempting to imply that the RT method if better because it is more 'realistic' holds no water as an argument, as far as I am concerned.

Realism is a kind of a meaty term in game design. I define it as being inane in a vacuum and valuable in relation and context which is just a lot of blab for saying that it works if you know how to use it and it a lack of it can really mess things up. DA:O was undone by a lack of realism. The encounters made no sense and neither did the stats.

Compare DA:O to realistic fantasy combat and you can see just whats wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9zJrKPMXjY

A few well placed dart attacks can drop a solid warrior. It creates tension and unique builds/enemies at the same time which is something DA:O didn’t have.

I’ll admit my standard for fantasy combat is idealistic.

I say take the most realistic or believable combat and build from it much like sports games emulate real sports.

Take the battle at Balin’s tomb. Great fight to watch. Let me pause and control that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxbkf6PSKSg

I studied it and this is what I took.

-Used ranged weapons whenever possible
-high damage less landing blows.
-Wizards should be able to use swords or anything they want
-opponents that are engaged in melee should move/dance like boxers or fencers
- Huge creatures should be able to knock you prone
- Swords/axes can be thrown in desperation. This is rarely encouraged in any game.
-enemies should be able to friendly fire each other
-Even makeshift weapons like skillets should do damage if they crack someone in the head
-Huge creatures should be grapple-able.
-counter attacks should be viable
-The Japanese might be on to something with limit breaks and adrenalin surges.
-Spinning attacks should be moving. A player should not stay still when engaged in melee
-Huge creatures should be grapple-able by multiples especially when they are hobbit size
-weaken/ low hp creatures should inflict less damage and be easier to avoid.

Its like the opposite of DA:O

It is ridiculous because I don't yell 'incoming', I pause and manually move my units one by one, often fighting the AI that tries to make them re-engage, while at the same time suffering opportunity attacks, since the system does not properly support orderly falling back. Totally useless hassle.

Sounds like you been playing console KOTOR. You can use such a strategy in the IE games and NWN 2 with the right settings. AoO might discourage it some in NWN 2. Depends on the spell and what/who you are engaged with.

That is also an incorrect assumption because the tactics and other considerations of a shooter are very different from those of an RPG. In fact if you could observe AI of a shooter from above, instead of from the limited perspective an FPS gives you, I bet you would be quite surprised of how horrible it is on the tactical level.

I’ve done just what you said often and recently. I’m not bullshitting when I said I work in the game industry. I’m somewhere between a tester and a developer. I have panned the camera back in a shooter and watched bots do battle with the invisible hp activated in the console commands while recording AI logs running.

No. You never try to mimic RT AI. That is just utter failure. There are plenty of TB combat systems with perfectly good balance and interest. The need to mimic anything RT is non-existent.

TB combat is a simulation of realtime combat. When you cast confusion on a group and all of them get saving throws out of turn the game is mimicking a realtime scenario. An AoO is an attempt to mimic realtime combat.

 

[Shemar]

You arent trying to hit a moving target, you are trying to hit a target that has the common sense to move.

...

I think in general terms your failure to understand why TB combat fans dismiss RTwP lies here:

TB combat is a simulation of realtime combat

It is not. It is an emulation of combat. Realtime combat is action-y and chaotic and out of control. TB combat is the opposite of all that. TB combat takes all the elements that would play a part in realtime combat and turns them into stats, percentages and dice rolls. Moving away from that towards the action elements of 'realistic' combat is not an improvement, it is a step back that defeats the purpose.

Your failure to understand is compounded by:

Realism is a kind of a meaty term in game design. I define it as being inane in a vacuum and valuable in relation and context which is just a lot of blab for saying that it works if you know how to use it and it a lack of it can really mess things up

which basically boils down to the fact that some forms or elements of realism are positive to the game experience and some are negative. What you fail to see is that there is a whole bunch of 'realism' that you see as positive but TB fans like me see as negative.

The fireball is a clear example of what I am trying to say. I say I don't like how fireballs work in RTwP, I like how they work in TB and all of your responses are an attempt to 'explain' how fireballs in RTwP are 'better' because they are more 'realistic', which completely misses the point.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

You arent trying to hit a moving target, you are trying to hit a target that has the common sense to move.

...

I think in general terms your failure to understand why TB combat fans dismiss RTwP lies here:

TB combat is a simulation of realtime combat

It is not. It is an emulation of combat. Realtime combat is action-y and chaotic and out of control. TB combat is the opposite of all that. TB combat takes all the elements that would play a part in realtime combat and turns them into stats, percentages and dice rolls. Moving away from that towards the action elements of 'realistic' combat is not an improvement, it is a step back that defeats the purpose.

You just said it. Well really you said it a while ago I just been too lazy/sick/busy to respond. Its an emulation of combat which obviously is realtime. Period. Realtime combat is not inherently chaotic. It can be chaotic but it can also be slow, organized, tactical, and efficient.

As mentioned earlier it is true D&D is phased based. That’s how 2nd edition was played when I was in school. The DM would pull initiative before every round and if anyone wants to time a simultaneous action whoever pulls a faster initiative has to delay their actions or skip a turn to time it. Pen and paper is in a ‘D&D time’ like Baldur’s Gate, which is linear. Its just very very slow.

which basically boils down to the fact that some forms or elements of realism are positive to the game experience and some are negative. What you fail to see is that there is a whole bunch of 'realism' that you see as positive but TB fans like me see as negative.

The fireball is a clear example of what I am trying to say. I say I don't like how fireballs work in RTwP, I like how they work in TB and all of your responses are an attempt to 'explain' how fireballs in RTwP are 'better' because they are more 'realistic', which completely misses the point.

Its not that the fireball is more realistic its that is has more depth when comparing the Gold Box games to the IE, if it just comes down to one game featuring enemies that avoid a fireball and the other not. Incidentally I don’t think the AI even attempts to avoid fireballs in the IE games. If they are already moving then they arent going to stop but they don’t scatter. Thats what I was considering while juxtaposing the improvements of ToEE from the Gold Box games to how rtwp could have improved. Instead we have Dragon…Age which I would agree is a step backwards from the GB games and is unrealistic.

I almost feel like an idiot because I want to argue that realism and depth are inborn. I will go as far as stating it certainly seems like it because when designers nail realism it always works but when they diverge its hit and miss.

 

[Shemar]

It can be chaotic but it can also be slow, organized, tactical, and efficient.

No, it can't. Not if you are talking about 'real' combat and not a game simulation of combat. Real combat is always chaotic.

As mentioned earlier it is true D&D is phased based. That’s how 2nd edition was played when I was in school. The DM would pull initiative before every round and if anyone wants to time a simultaneous action whoever pulls a faster initiative has to delay their actions or skip a turn to time it. Pen and paper is in a ‘D&D time’ like Baldur’s Gate, which is linear. Its just very very slow.

That is wrong in multiple ways. First of all, DnD is turn based not phase based. 2nd Ed could be played as phase based with a horrible interpretation of initiative rules that I never saw a DM use is 10+ years of playing with the system. Every DM I played with used initiative as a start delay, so when your turn was up you declared an action, then added the time modifier to see at what segment it resolves, at which time you declared targets. That is turn based. It would only be phase based if players had to declare actions at the very start of the round and also designate targets at that time without the ability to switch when their turn actually comes. That would be a horrible horrible way to play DnD 2nd Ed. All subsequent verions of DnD do away with this mess anyway and the combat system is clearly turn based without room for dodgy interpretations.

Also your notions about simultaneous actions are strange. Firstly because I am having a hard time coming up with any actions that would or could happen 'simultaneously' in a way that it mattered that are simultaneous, and second because when two players want to coordinate and do something simultaneously, they simply do it at the slowest of their two initiative rolls.

Its not that the fireball is more realistic its that is has more depth when comparing the Gold Box games to the IE

No it is not. You are just substituting realistic with depth but your argument is still the same. And it still does nothing to address the fact that I like turn based combat because of the fact that enemies don't move while I cast spells on them. RTwP will always be far inferior to turn based for me because that is what I like. That cannot change no matter how many different labels you try to slap on it.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

No, it can't. Not if you are talking about 'real' combat and not a game simulation of combat. Real combat is always chaotic.

Just flat out not true. I don’t care if we are talking about MMA, Judo, Boxing, or a dogfight with vehicles chaos is not the nature of combat, chaos is an undesirable feeling or state that combatants seek to and often avoid.

That is wrong in multiple ways. First of all, DnD is turn based not phase based. 2nd Ed could be played as phase based with a horrible interpretation of initiative rules that I never saw a DM use is 10+ years of playing with the system. Every DM I played with used initiative as a start delay, so when your turn was up you declared an action, then added the time modifier to see at what segment it resolves, at which time you declared targets. That is turn based. It would only be phase based if players had to declare actions at the very start of the round and also designate targets at that time without the ability to switch when their turn actually comes. That would be a horrible horrible way to play DnD 2nd Ed. All subsequent verions of DnD do away with this mess anyway and the combat system is clearly turn based without room for dodgy interpretations.

Agreed in principle. I don’t know a DM that played it phased based either though technically 2nd edition’s cannon rules were phase base. Its not a horrible interpretation its a literal interpretation. The players declared their actions then rolled for initiative either as a group or individually. My overall point was that it was linear though yeah true not many DMs played the game phase based unless players were timing simultaneous acts like a two vs one grapple.

Also your notions about simultaneous actions are strange. Firstly because I am having a hard time coming up with any actions that would or could happen 'simultaneously' in a way that it mattered that are simultaneous, and second because when two players want to coordinate and do something simultaneously, they simply do it at the slowest of their two initiative rolls.

Well the DMG was clear in how it worked and even gave an example to quote.

If both (or all) sides roll the same number for initiative, everything happens simultaneously-all attack rolls, damage spells, and other actions are completed before any results are applied. Its is possible for a mage to be slain by goblins who collapsed from his sleep spell at the end of the round.

That is linear. If you add phased movement as the cannon rules suggest, and the optional rule of individual initiatives instead of party based (which most DMs used) then you have a slow infinity engine. When you really break it down Baldur’s Gate didn’t depart from its pnp roots it just sped things up and added a lot of optional rules that were optional because they took up time to calculate like rolling initiatives for every combatant and factoring weapon speed.

No it is not. You are just substituting realistic with depth but your argument is still the same. And it still does nothing to address the fact that I like turn based combat because of the fact that enemies don't move while I cast spells on them. RTwP will always be far inferior to turn based for me because that is what I like. That cannot change no matter how many different labels you try to slap on it.

I’m not arguing against your opinion. If you prefer TB combat then I can certainly respect that seeing how I can name many TB games that piss on realtime and rtwp. My argument is that when AI scatters to avoid an AoE spell it adds more to the experience in depth and realism. I would also argue that its easier and more efficient to design something like that with rtwp than TB while maintaining that typical saving throws do not constitute the same experience.

 

[SCO]

I don't see why a interrupt system couldn't work with groups as well as with individuals.

Just give a chance of scattering out of the range of the area spell based on interrupts based on some kind of statistic, with the normal penalties if the AI choses to go for it.

TB has been neglected as a system for a while now.

 

[Mangoose]

If both (or all) sides roll the same number for initiative, everything happens simultaneously-all attack rolls, damage spells, and other actions are completed before any results are applied. Its is possible for a mage to be slain by goblins who collapsed from his sleep spell at the end of the round.

Uh so what happens if a Wizard casts a Fireball at the floor beneath a bunch of Goblins, and the Goblins move? Do the Goblins dodge it or does the Fireball hit first?

IIRC Infinity Engine just plays out the casting and movement animations in real time and lets real time determine the results, which probably does not work the same way as one simultaneous turnn.

 

[GarfunkeL]

That's why a Reflex save halves the damage from fireball.

And IE's animations are only thinly connected with the mechanics. Play with "show all rolls" and you'll see.

 

[SCO]

He's mad that reflex saves don't take into amount the time&movement a spell takes as real movement&time, but as a abstraction.

After all, the tumbling roll is for jumping up or away or whatever.

I'm partial to this argument, but i simply do not see why the reflex interrupts couldn't model this stuff as real ingame movement (automatic animation or manual), even for multiple targets spells.
It worked for JA after all.

 

[felicity]

Also your notions about simultaneous actions are strange. Firstly because I am having a hard time coming up with any actions that would or could happen 'simultaneously' in a way that it mattered that are simultaneous

A few instances where simultaneous matters:

If 2 units' attacks carry debuff or status inflict, and the debuff/status is applied first.

Conditioned injection like contingency in DND.

Interjections that affect actions in pending. For example an interrupt action that affects the next or previous action. Example: buff/debuff, Counterspell, Giant Growth etc. in MTG; interrupts in your typical tactical wargame.

Uh so what happens if a Wizard casts a Fireball at the floor beneath a bunch of Goblins, and the Goblins move? Do the Goblins dodge it or does the Fireball hit first?

More importantly, what happens when say a magic missile capable of doing 5 damage hits a player with 5/5 HP who uses a healing potion which heals for 10 HP in the same turn?

If result is applied last, then the player will end up with full health as if nothing has happened.

Another scenario: a rogue used a invis potion the previous Turn. Now the logical choice is to use see invis but then what's the point? He can still backstab me anyway since the backstabing and see invis casting happened simultaneously, he will still get the backstab bonus.

 

[Shemar]

My argument is that when AI scatters to avoid an AoE spell it adds more to the experience in depth and realism.

I'll give you realism, but under no circumstances depth. Depth implies tactical decision making not arcade-y aiming at moving targets.

I would also argue that its easier and more efficient to design something like that with rtwp than TB while maintaining that typical saving throws do not constitute the same experience.

True, it is easier, if that was the goal. But from a TB fan's perspective that is certainly not the goal. 100% agree, not the same experience, which is why I will keep saying that anyone that claims RTwP can provide the same experience as TB is either ignorant or a moron (or a gaming industry exec which means he is probably both).

A few instances where simultaneous matters:

If 2 units' attacks carry debuff or status inflict, and the debuff/status is applied first.

Conditioned injection like contingency in DND.

Interjections that affect actions in pending. For example an interrupt action that affects the next or previous action. Example: buff/debuff, Counterspell, Giant Growth etc. in MTG; interrupts in your typical tactical wargame.

...

More importantly, what happens when say a magic missile capable of doing 5 damage hits a player with 5/5 HP who uses a healing potion which heals for 10 HP in the same turn?

If result is applied last, then the player will end up with full health as if nothing has happened.

Another scenario: a rogue used a invis potion the previous Turn. Now the logical choice is to use see invis but then what's the point? He can still backstab me anyway since the backstabing and see invis casting happened simultaneously, he will still get the backstab bonus.

Well, that is making my point. There is no true simultaneous effects. That leads to a whole world of unresolved loopholes. Which is why such rulings and mechanics have been abandoned. All modern turn based systems have rules that break simultaneous actions into a sequence of actions. The rule can be as simple as 'defender decides order effects are applied' or as complicated as the MtG instant/interrupt/stack system (I have not played MtG for many years so I refer to the pre-11th edition system).