But I disagree in certain aspects. Many of the "convoluted rules" you say are still present on the RtwP system. Overwatch is gone, sure, and interruptions are handle by the player, but initiative and AoO are still very much a thing in RtwP, as well as many other things from PnP and TB systems.
None of the mentioned rules should be present RTwP, since they double on what RT already simulates and including them in RTwP is a result of mixing two systems into some frankenstein abomination. Just one example, AoO shouldn't be present in RTwP at all, either default ai, or player can order to attack an enemy that is passing by and hit him in the back, but if your unit is already engaged with another enemy, then it shouldn't get any free attacks, it should be a tactical choice, to either let enemy pass unperturbed, or engage him and expose yourself to the previously engaged enemy. With no rule at all, the very nature of RT simulation, creates an opportunity for a tactical decision. Awkward free AoO are patched on TB, since you can't react to a unit passing by and going for a mage in TB, so it poorly replaces something that is better handled by RT itself with no extra rules.
I cannot say I agree 100%, but I cannot denied that I myself have think that adapting TB system to RtwP creates quite a lot of problem or inconsistencies. I still think that the games still gain much for many of the rules of PnP, but I cannot say you are entirely wrong.
This takes me to my next point; I think you are equating simulation with complexity. What many people enjoy of RPGs are not only the "simulationist" aspect of them, but also the fact that they are games with a series of rules that are fun to learn and use to win "combats", almost like puzzles with multiple solutions. It is not only about making it realistic, but also fun.
No, it's you who equates abstract rules with fun and complexity. I find being able to choose whether to engage passing enemy, or not, both more fun and complex, then just getting free AoO hit.
RTwP in itself creates possibility for creating complex tactics with no additional rules, for example you can make fighters step aside, make a mage throw a cone spell at charging enemies, then make fighters step back and let the mage hide behind them before enemies can reach him.
Actually not, never implied that, but perhaps the way I wrote it may have cause misunderstanding. I'm not saying a more realistic system, or a more precise simulation makes a game automatically bad, but that if you take out the rules of a game and change them, it becomes a completely different game. Not better or worse, but different. While it may seem that having more options is always a plus, I'll say it is not always so. Being limited on what you can do or forced into certain actions by the rules can actually be itself fun and encourage thinking well your next moves, as you cannot always have an easy escape from a situation. Of course, being given more options is, more than not, better, but I think there is value too on limiting what you can do, and that when it comes to game design it is not as straight forward as it may seem.
In turn based, either enemies will be too far, or already reach the line of fighters before mage's turn come, or their turns will be mixed in between your units and the enemy group would spread out, you would also have to introduce a "wait" order to be able move your units up the turn order and split your action points between few separate moves within a round of combat, if you have time units in your turn based system at all, to be able to synchronise anything. To simulate an extremely basic tactics in TB you have to create rules so convulted, that they would become way more pain in the ass to deal with, than pausing and issuing orders in RTwP, to the point where it's pointless and most TB games are way more basic and significantly limit tactical possibilities compared to what is possible in RTwP.
Actually, what you describes is an example on how rules forces the player to think tactically. They cannot do what they want all the time, RNG plush the flow of combat dictates what are the best and worst decision they can make. They have to account for different factors and have different options, with situations that wouldn't happen if you didn't use those rules. Is like a puzzle which each piece of it being the rules that forms it. If you change the pieces or straight up take them away,you don't have the same puzzle anymore. You may like the new puzzle more or less, but what can't be denied is that it is not the same.
Also, the next is more of a subjective thing, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think you are overstating the complexity of certain TB systems like D&D. They are usually easy to understand and while they may see daunting at first, they kind of follow a certain logic that makes remember them easier. As you yourself said, it is played by young kids, it really cannot be that complex. Furthermore, I say you may mixed up a bit TB with the system of rules of the game. Pokemon is TB, but its rules are really simple. There are few stats, what each stats do is self explanatory, and each move and attack has a simple effect. What I mean with this is that TB isn't convoluted per se, that is a issue that concerns the system of rules that is implemented in the game. So a D&D RtwP game will be as "convoluted" as an TB game, as they use the exact same rules.
Finally, I too think that both system are really close to the same complexity. After all, the quality of the game play in an RPG doesn't come from it being RtpW or TB, but rather from the systems they decide to use. RtwP didn't make PoE bad nor Pathfinder good, it was the rest of their systems that determined their quality. Sure, TB brings things that RtwP doesn't, but so is true the other way. I disagree on this. A game quality is on its limitation as much as in what they let you do. D&D is fun because its rules are fun, independently of it being TB or RtwP, limitations have nothing to do with this. Take out all of this rules for crpg and relay on the computer for a completely realistic simulation, and you will find that you are not playing the same game anymore as the rules are gone. Again, RtwP uses almost all of the same limitations of PnP because those rules are what make the games what they are.
I'd say if anything RTwP only adds possibilities, but even if you don't value tactical possibilities it adds, the very fact shit happens simultaneously and packs all unrelated to RT vs TB dichotomy rules into shorter timeframe and doesn't waste your time, makes RTwP more fun.
In most RtwP actions do not really happen simultaneously. They actually follow the initiative rules of PnP and have rounds systems. Certain things like movement is free, deviating from PnP, but all other actions aren't. I'll say though, what you suggest does make me think that it would be interesting to have a rules light, "simulationist" CRPG, one that discard rounds and AoO, uses physics and hitboxes, and tries to make a combat system that tries to simulate "realistic" fantasy combat. I think maybe Total War kind of do this, but it is a RTSwP, and maybe Spellforce offers a gameplay similar to what you suggest (although it looks too light on the RPG side of things). None of them are proper RPGs though, so maybe someone has a better example than those.
