Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Um, I did respond to his page 4 post, I even presented it in RPG-o-Vision.

Should we just let the rest of the rant slide now?

Seems I missed it amongst all the one-liners and rest of the nonsense. Oh well, given the 6 more pages we've had I still think you deserve it, so the tag can stay. You'll just have to learn to live with my opinion, and that's a fact.

Btw, who I respond to and when is up to me.

Yes and no. If you'd only posted once or twice I could understand that. The problem is, you've responded to every single other person who's posted. The one or two people that posted more in-depth responses that really challenged or questioned your position, you ignored before eventually answering only out of protest. Even then, you continue to selectively ignore points and respond with the "don't care" and "my opinion" lines. But what happens when MountainWest raises some good points? You fold. But only after telling us how much you don't care about your opinion.

And as I said, of your now 115 posts, most of them have been in this thread. For someone who doesn't have the time to answer the tough questions, you sure do spend a lot of time responding. If you really wanted to debate the points you're making (which is the only reason you'd keep posting all the crap you are, unless you're a troll) you would've leapt at the chance to answer them instead of dismissing them as "too hard". All it proves is you're not really here for the discussion, you're just here to stir the pot. And that deserves a dumbfuck tag.

I don't owe anybody here anything, other than the chance to express their opinions and views. I, however, don't owe everybody here a response to thier opinions and views.

Again, this attitude comes out that "it's only my opinion" and "I don't care". Everyone knows it's your opinion. Of course it's your opinion. You don't need to keep re-iterating that fact again and again whenever someone questions you about something. The problem is you then continue to rant on and on about your right to express an opinion and do what you want while then saying that you don't care and at the same time, trying to defend your opinion. That's hypocrisy.

If you have an opinion, make it and stick to it. And if someone asks you why you have that opinion or asks you to justify that opinion, don't keep FLIP-FLOPPING about it and saying "lulz I haev rights to opinyuns!" or "I not need to answar u!". Just answer the fucking question in an intelligent manner. If you'd spent even half the effort you have actually talking about why you have that opinion, we might've gotten an intelligent conversation and you might've avoided the tags.

It's not like we're discussing whether or not making fallout RT or TB is the best way to deflect an asteroid on a collision course with earth here.

Given the stakes, I don't feel an overwhelming need to respond to every contrary post to my opinion when what I would say I've already said in response to something else.

For a man who doesn't care, you sure seem to be spending an awful lot of time camping this thread for responses and then replying as soon as you can.

... but only to the easy stuff.

Thing is, this is an RPG forum. Of course we come here for RPG discussion about game mechanics. It's what we like to spend our time doing because let's face it, there are other more qualified people out there who can deal with the asteroid. Let them deal with that.

Once again though, you're stating the bleeding obvious as some sort of attempt to dismiss any critiscism. "It's my opinion", "It doesn't matter", "I don't care". Good for you. If any of those were even moderately true however, you would've stopped posting on page 3. And yet you're still here.

Now can you actually stop that crap and address the actual points here?

To summarise:

• You say you don't care, yet you keep posting and responding to most people.
  
• You say you don't have the time to address the "hard" stuff yet continue to post replies to everyone else.
  
• When you eventually do reply to the hard stuff under pressure, you do so while stating your right to ignore whomever you want. This is in direct contrast to your original statement that you'd "get to the hard stuff later". IE: You FLIP-FLOP.
  
• You continually express "your opinion" in the most "this is a fact" way possible.
  
  [*]When asked to justify your opinion, you ignore the question and state your right to hold an opinion (a right which no-one here has ever called into question).
  
• You eventually re-state your original opinion as fact in another response, and the cycle repeats.
  
• When called on it, you say "You got me" as if this were some kind of fun game. It's true that, in essence, this is a game but if you're not interested in addressing the points, you get tagged. Just think of that as being part of the game.

In short, you've done nothing to disprove you're a troll. I'm even willing to bet your response to this (if you ever get around to it), is going to include lots of "I don't care", "It's my opinion" followed up with a final "You got me" before you then repeat your opinion, presented in the most "this is a fact" way possible. The fact that that process has already repeated itself at least twice in this thread is of itself, worthy of a dumbfuck tag.

i guess as long as you steer clear of what vd considers a 'true roleplaying experience'(tm) since he's been given his thimbleful of power, you're fine.

sad day when the mods here are on par with those at the bethesda forums.

Bullshit. You tried your best to piss people off since your first day. Do you have a tag?

*cough* There are some of us who think mister lamat should've gotten a tag a long time ago, given all he does is throw one liners in from the peanut gallery as if he's somehow made some miraculous point. Like MVB, he doesn't ever get into the real meat of the matter or address any of the points. He simply continually states the same one line over and over again ("u disagree wiht teh COdex hievmind lols!") and never justifies it.

This is the Codex. If you're here, it's because you want to have a decent debate about RPG related issues. If all you can manage is one liners without ever addressing the points raised, expect to get tagged sooner or later. More to the point, if you keep FLIP-FLOPPING, you'll be called on it and tagged so that we know to ignore you in future discussions.

Also...

PAGE NINETEEN MOTHERFUCKERS!

Wow, and the fairness just keeps on coming. Man I love this place.

I've had one-liners to be sure. But, my response to section 8 was overflowing with multi-liners alone.

Just becuase I've said all I really have to say on the subject doesn't really jive with me as, Dumbfuckery.

So people have raised good points, are you telling me the people I have responded to haven't raised good points? What VD's had no good points? This isn't the special olympics, not everybody's going to get a chance to be a winner.

I've made over 80 posts JUST replying to the weakest links?

Get the fuck outta my face with that stupid shit.

On no other forum on the planet is somebody expected to respond to every single reply, with a deadline, especially not under threat of force.

A lot of people have made good points, and I've responded to a lot of people. To say that I have to respond to everybody with a point is rediculous. Especially since you're the one judging the values.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I really don't like this relativism bullshit, it is the same type of people that think you can do anything with any RPG ruleset. They disregard the importance of system and design and just rely on "artistic expression" assuming that if an artist tries hard enough they can somehow overcome human nature. That real-time can do everything TB can, they don't say how but just have to believe it in their hearts.

We really can't argue design with people that don't believe design is important or is all synonymous since it is all 'artist expression'. I guess they just don't believe it effects gameplay despite a pretty clear history. People here would like Fallout 3 to be TB because such a design is part of a gameplay style that they liked from Fallout 1; they want gameplay to be true to the series. We don't talk about TB because of nostalgia but because we feel that TB matches RPG design, that is what you would have to debate not this obsolete insanity which is saying that a gameplay style is obsolete.

And don't forget to read this:

A Guide to Gracefully Losing an Internet Argument

But i've illustrated how on different topics.

I did one illustration with perception, and I did another with locational targeting. I may have done others that I've forgotten about.

 

[Fez]

On no other forum on the planet is somebody expected to respond to every single reply, with a deadline, especially not under threat of force.

It's nice to feel unique.

 

[garfield_hsieh]

I'm just in favor of, after over 20 years of playing TB RPGs in all shapes and sizes and formats, going with RT for reasons I've stated at length.

I don't mean this is a biting way, but because I'm lazy: are you basically tired of having to think too much so you prefer that combat be dumbed down?

Well, it seems quite stupid to jump in now, but I don't really think more mouse clicking contributes much to "thinking".

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

In turn-based/TOEE-like combat, I must move the fighter to the ogre myself, and select melee attack every round/turn. I also need to manually control my archers for every arrows to shoot, until the ogre falls.

While this is an extreme(simple) scenario, I really don't think the turn-based combat provides more thinking than real-time one here, just more clicking and time.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

On the topic of " not trying to prove my points" I've got pages and pages of just that.

I guess you missed it all when you were missing the section 8 reply.

I'm seeing just what I want to see? Maybe, but it doesn't appear that I'm alone, now does it?

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I'm just in favor of, after over 20 years of playing TB RPGs in all shapes and sizes and formats, going with RT for reasons I've stated at length.

I don't mean this is a biting way, but because I'm lazy: are you basically tired of having to think too much so you prefer that combat be dumbed down?

I don't stop thinking in realtime.

I play medieval II all the time, even though I can pause if I choose I generally try to conduct my tactics and stategy in realtime. I don't think that's a game you can call a button mashing twitch fest.

Good reflexes in that game just means you lose faster if your tactics and strategy are poor.

 

[Fez]

Bad reflexes means you can lose even if your tactics and strategy were good though. Good micro is very important in real time strategy games.

 

[Volourn]

"On no other forum on the planet is somebody expected to respond to every single reply, with a deadline, especially not under threat of force."

Not to mention it has never been that way on the Codex. Seriously, it's perhaps the lamest thing *ever* on the internet and consideirng I exist on the internet that says A LOT.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

Bad reflexes means you can lose even if your tactics and strategy were good though. Good micro is very important in real time strategy games.

Sometimes good micro is important, and sometimes you just gotta be able to set the table in the house of pain, and get somebody to walk in and sit down.

That may sound simple, but it isn't.

One good ploy is aggravating ground troops with longbows, another is sending your calvary to the rear to draw off some troops for an easy slaughter.

If done right an inferior force can defeat a marginally superior force with patience and cunning. If the force is vastly superior it may take several full turns of the clock running out because you will run out of arrows or your calvary will be too tired to be effective.

anyways, yes you will have to have some kind of reflexes. But, I've already tapped on latency.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I'm just in favor of, after over 20 years of playing TB RPGs in all shapes and sizes and formats, going with RT for reasons I've stated at length.

I don't mean this is a biting way, but because I'm lazy: are you basically tired of having to think too much so you prefer that combat be dumbed down?

Well, it seems quite stupid to jump in now, but I don't really think more mouse clicking contributes much to "thinking".

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

In turn-based/TOEE-like combat, I must move the fighter to the ogre myself, and select melee attack every round/turn. I also need to manually control my archers for every arrows to shoot, until the ogre falls.

While this is an extreme(simple) scenario, I really don't think the turn-based combat provides more thinking than real-time one here, just more clicking and time.

Don't bring up BG. I did once, just abstractly, and I saw torches being lit in the distance and heard the rattling of pitchforks echo in the night.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

This thread is now Retardolanded, thank you and come again.

 

[Fez]

If only it was so. :pooper:

 

[Section8]

"On no other forum on the planet is somebody expected to respond to every single reply, with a deadline, especially not under threat of force."

Not to mention it has never been that way on the Codex. Seriously, it's perhaps the lamest thing *ever* on the internet and consideirng I exist on the internet that says A LOT.

I've tried to stay out of the whole dumbfuckery debate here but - read between the lines people! Or let me paraphrase for you:

"Mr. Van Buren, your posts are indicative of trolling. You've proven yourself willing to make sweeping statements likely to get a response, and when you get that response, you're ignoring those with any substance, and instead fueling the fires. You can show in good faith that you're not doing such, or you can get branded. Your choice."

Well, it seems quite stupid to jump in now, but I don't really think more mouse clicking contributes much to "thinking".

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

In turn-based/TOEE-like combat, I must move the fighter to the ogre myself, and select melee attack every round/turn. I also need to manually control my archers for every arrows to shoot, until the ogre falls.

While this is an extreme(simple) scenario, I really don't think the turn-based combat provides more thinking than real-time one here, just more clicking and time.

All you've done is illustrate an example where neither system presents interesting gameplay. When I get back from work, I'll try to buff up the example to make either side more interesting, and hopefully demonstrate some solid differences in what each does well.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

"On no other forum on the planet is somebody expected to respond to every single reply, with a deadline, especially not under threat of force."

Not to mention it has never been that way on the Codex. Seriously, it's perhaps the lamest thing *ever* on the internet and consideirng I exist on the internet that says A LOT.

I've tried to stay out of the whole dumbfuckery debate here but - read between the lines people! Or let me paraphrase for you:

"Mr. Van Buren, your posts are indicative of trolling. You've proven yourself willing to make sweeping statements likely to get a response, and when you get that response, you're ignoring those with any substance, and instead fueling the fires. You can show in good faith that you're not doing such, or you can get branded. Your choice."

Well, it seems quite stupid to jump in now, but I don't really think more mouse clicking contributes much to "thinking".

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

In turn-based/TOEE-like combat, I must move the fighter to the ogre myself, and select melee attack every round/turn. I also need to manually control my archers for every arrows to shoot, until the ogre falls.

While this is an extreme(simple) scenario, I really don't think the turn-based combat provides more thinking than real-time one here, just more clicking and time.

All you've done is illustrate and example where neither system presents interesting gameplay. When I get back from work, I'll try to buff up the example to make either side more interesting, and hopefully demonstrate some solid differences in what each does well.

Fine, somebody make a list of points that I have to respond to according to the powahs that be in order to rinse off the "ignoring us" stigma.

 

[Human Shield]

But i've illustrated how on different topics.

I did one illustration with perception, and I did another with locational targeting. I may have done others that I've forgotten about.

I'm sorry I missed some points but you have focused on very minute details and ignored overall gameplay impact (managing resources over time gameplay), and the fact that RPG has always been and will always be defined in terms of mental skills and not physical.

Agility/Speed, most often used to determine how far a PC can move or how much can be done in a given span of time or turn. This has been translated well to several RT games, not just RT RPGs.

I strongly disagree here. Movement and speed has always been terribly designed in RT with pause games. With BG's crazy running around during combat to NWN's sit and watch gameplay.

How effective can the player be managing time in terms of seconds compared to managing in terms of discrete actions? Being able to manage in simplified units is more effective and more importantly allows easier planning for the future in terms of strategy. Thinking in terms of X turns ahead instead of looking at timer bars to fill up or some such, this is why RT leads itself directly to a more reactive gameplay style. And don't be a jerk and say that it is more "realistic" to hanicap the player, we are taking about a gameplay style and I feel that it better relicates results both in terms of reality and fiction (that you win based on smart tactics and accumlating enough efficient moves to over power the enemy instead of a drawn out stamina battle).

It isn't enough that stats effect outcome (in which you really miss the point bringing up ways to hanicap physical skills as being the same thing). Stats are a way in which the player interacts with the world, how they are used (from a interaction mechanics point of view) is just as important. Do you interact based on physical skills? Is the interaction low contact (Dungeon Siege)? It has been the conclusion of many on this forum that decrete interaction can model deeper options and present more fullfilling decisions that challenge the player in terms of character design and use; and RT games have been limited to click and watch.

A standard feature of RPGs is currency (number units that the player can interact with such as HP etc..). RT removes currency from combat elements, removing a way the player can use the system and replacing it with arcade action. Currency has dynamic interactions can be used by the system for effects greater then their sum, action points in combat can be used to effect dialog, dialog can effect action points. RT is just a huge mess to get any interdepence, that is why it is bad for RPGs it really is its own seperate thing. Is is crazy to think you can integrate a moving timeline as easily as discrete units, interacting with system is what RPGs are all about and RT dillutes system.

 

[garfield_hsieh]

Well, it seems quite stupid to jump in now, but I don't really think more mouse clicking contributes much to "thinking".

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

In turn-based/TOEE-like combat, I must move the fighter to the ogre myself, and select melee attack every round/turn. I also need to manually control my archers for every arrows to shoot, until the ogre falls.

While this is an extreme(simple) scenario, I really don't think the turn-based combat provides more thinking than real-time one here, just more clicking and time.

All you've done is illustrate an example where neither system presents interesting gameplay. When I get back from work, I'll try to buff up the example to make either side more interesting, and hopefully demonstrate some solid differences in what each does well.

I'm looking forward to your case study.

As to whether my scenario uninteresting. Maybe, maybe not. Such scenario happens often in low-level, where characters and enemies don't have much skill other than "attack" to use. If the ogre is powerful enougn to beat the fighter to 30% HP before it falls, and the overall pace is fast enough. It can be quite intense/thrilling in real-time. Also, if you made some smart character development decisions before the combat (buying plate-mail for the fighter/giving him more HP or Constitution when level-up ), they can all pay off in a strictly "character-based" way.

 

[Excrément]

wow, is it the longest debate with one people the rpgcodex ever have?

 

[sqeecoo]

Science must be shit out luck then. At some point on a matter of fact or opinion it must be yeilded that there is enough valid proof presented to except one's findings as a fact.

Not that it can't be invalidated later should new facts arrise, but that at the time of consideration the burden was met with valid findings and the item in question should be considered a fact.

On observable items, it's easy to judge a position as fact or unsubstantiated opinion based on the proof presented. On matters of math, one system of solution, is forming a "proof."

Somethings can be proven, just not often matters of taste and raw opinion.

Science is out of luck if you want it to give you definite knowledge. So you are saying that there is a magical treshold of evidence for a theory after which everyone must agree with the theory, but they can later find out that the theory was completely wrong?

Or are you saying that one must accept just the *findings* (i.e. the experiments, but not the theory they are "proving") as facts?

Well, what would that magical amount of evidence be? If we are trying to figure out if all seagulls are white, do we have to find 100 white gulls? 200? More?

Evidence can never rule out *other* possibilities (that there is a black gull somewhere), but what it can show (sometimes conclusively) is that the theory in question is *wrong* (if we find a black gull). The ideal situation in science is having one theory (that explains a certain thing, for instance the color of seagulls) surviving all tests while all others are eliminated. This does not make the theory correct, but it should be accepted as the currently best available. This just means that it is silly to ignore it in favor of disproven theories, but not that it can't be criticized, or that it is somehow "proven".

This means we are all free to form our own opinions (they can never be forced upon us by evidence), but also shows how important criticism is, be it criticism of theories (opinions, if you like) supported or unsupported by evidence.

 

[elander_]

wow, is it the longest debate with one people the rpgcodex ever have?

jealous?

 

[Excrément]

wow, is it the longest debate with one people the rpgcodex ever have?

jealous?

no as you may notice I can't stand a read in english longer than two sentences.

 

[merry andrew]

are you basically tired of having to think too much so you prefer that combat be dumbed down?

Well, it seems quite stupid to jump in now, but I don't really think more mouse clicking contributes much to "thinking".

See, this boggles my mind. How does a greater amount of combat detail equate to nothing more than additional mouse clicks?

 

[Section8]

"On no other forum on the planet is somebody expected to respond to every single reply, with a deadline, especially not under threat of force."

Not to mention it has never been that way on the Codex. Seriously, it's perhaps the lamest thing *ever* on the internet and consideirng I exist on the internet that says A LOT.

I've tried to stay out of the whole dumbfuckery debate here but - read between the lines people! Or let me paraphrase for you:

"Mr. Van Buren, your posts are indicative of trolling. You've proven yourself willing to make sweeping statements likely to get a response, and when you get that response, you're ignoring those with any substance, and instead fueling the fires. You can show in good faith that you're not doing such, or you can get branded. Your choice."

Well, it seems quite stupid to jump in now, but I don't really think more mouse clicking contributes much to "thinking".

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

In turn-based/TOEE-like combat, I must move the fighter to the ogre myself, and select melee attack every round/turn. I also need to manually control my archers for every arrows to shoot, until the ogre falls.

While this is an extreme(simple) scenario, I really don't think the turn-based combat provides more thinking than real-time one here, just more clicking and time.

All you've done is illustrate and example where neither system presents interesting gameplay. When I get back from work, I'll try to buff up the example to make either side more interesting, and hopefully demonstrate some solid differences in what each does well.

Fine, somebody make a list of points that I have to respond to according to the powahs that be in order to rinse off the "ignoring us" stigma.

Whoops, I didn't mean that to be the way it turned out. I wasn't saying you had to respond to anything, I was trying to better explain "the ultimatum" - which wasn't "respond or else" but "here's what makes you look like a troll. Here's what you can do to convince us otherwise."

My bad.

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

Okay first of all, here is why this sucks. If the entire extent of the gameplay is making a singular tactical decision and then watching until it (inevitably) succeeds, then you spend more time watching than actually playing, especially if you have a system such as Baldur's Gate's where there's an enforced six second delay between all actions.

The only real-difference between this an the turn based example is automation, which isn't exclusive to real-time. In fact, a mechanism as simple as making the default action in each round a repetition of the last would do exactly the same, with the added advantage that turn-based resolution does not have to be slow enough for a player to keep up.

However, if you're making the assumption that no tactics beyond those you initiate the fight with are necessary, why even bother with extending the combat? Auto-resolve it based on the initial tactics. Ideal for a game where combat is a minor, but necessary component, or if you have a game where you can't prevent forcing the player into riskless combat by more reasonable means then you have a reasonably intelligent auto-resolution option.

But there's also the option to spice things up. To do that, simply make the assertion that (in the case of turn based) no progressive turn should ever require the repetition of a successful action for a single character dynamic. If you have a party-based system, then set a threshold, something like - no turn should require repetition of a successful action for half the party or more. And allow automation of whatever repetition you deem acceptable.

For a real-time system, as long as you ensure regular, non-repetitive player input you can go in any number of directions, but you have various caveats attached to different mechanics. If you go for a tactical dynamic with a party, you should be aiming for a need to alter your tactics as regularly as the interface permits, but seldom require concurrent changes between separate units. Games like Warcraft 3 do this farily simply by giving characters special abilities on recast timers, though as long as there's plenty of time vested in balancing a line that gets thinner with additional complexity, there are more interesting things you could do.

Alternately, if you're assuming simple tactics like in the original example, then to avoid the game becoming passive, you can easily introduce timing challenges. The simplest example I can think off would be a timer that allows a player to manually hit a "sweet spot" (much like a rhythm game) each time the selected unit attacks. Without player input, an average result is automatically given. With player input they can either hit the sweet spot for a boost in effectiveness, or miss it for a decrease. Or you could have a skill challenge, such as allowing the player to manually aim each archer's shot. As long as there's some interactive element to break up a passive experience.

If you're going with a single character real-time system, then there's no reason to shy away from direct character control and all-out action gaming.

In the end, there is still a lot of crossover between the two systems. You could add a rhythm challenge to a turn-based system, but that decreases the value of good tactics. Likewise, you can extend the tactical complexity of a real-time system, but that can become frustrating for a player in much the same way parsers in interactive fiction can frustrate a player who knows exactly what they want to do, but has to battle the interface to achieve their goal.

That's hardly any kind of "case-study", but I think it passes as a quick and dirty ponderance.

As to whether my scenario uninteresting. Maybe, maybe not. Such scenario happens often in low-level, where characters and enemies don't have much skill other than "attack" to use.

Well, why assume that characters must start without a variety of skills? It does make it more significant when you gain more skills, but a system where there are very few tactical tools to employ might as well be auto-resolved, if the manner in which the fight is initiated is the only critical factor.

If the ogre is powerful enougn to beat the fighter to 30% HP before it falls, and the overall pace is fast enough. It can be quite intense/thrilling in real-time.

The same could be argued of turn-based. If I know two ogre attacks have taken my fighter down to 30% health, then I also know that a third may kill him/her. I'm going to be gritting my teeth and crossing my fingers every time the ogre gets an attack, hoping he misses, and doing the same for every attack of mine that could be the killing blow on the ogre.

Also, if you made some smart character development decisions before the combat (buying plate-mail for the fighter/giving him more HP or Constitution when level-up ), they can all pay off in a strictly "character-based" way.

Ah yes, and that's a point I've been arguing. Since character development is part "player-directed narrative" and part strategy, tactical combat is a logical extension of this, whereas timing or skill based challenges are unrelated. If you have a player who enjoys agonising over the strategic elements of creating/developing a character, then it's pretty likely they're going to enjoy agonising over tactical decisions.

On the flipside, would anyone argue that imposing time limitations on character development is a worthwhile alternative to traditional systems?

 

[garfield_hsieh]

For example, in a combat, my tactical decision is to sent my fighter/tank to the huge ogre to hold it off while my archers rain arrows on it.

In realtime/BG-like combat, I just select the fighter and assign the ogre as his target and do the same with my archers, then my tactical decision is carried out.

Okay first of all, here is why this sucks. If the entire extent of the gameplay is making a singular tactical decision and then watching until it (inevitably) succeeds, then you spend more time watching than actually playing, especially if you have a system such as Baldur's Gate's where there's an enforced six second delay between all actions

The only real-difference between this an the turn based example is automation, which isn't exclusive to real-time. In fact, a mechanism as simple as making the default action in each round a repetition of the last would do exactly the same, with the added advantage that turn-based resolution does not have to be slow enough for a player to keep up.

However, if you're making the assumption that no tactics beyond those you initiate the fight with are necessary, why even bother with extending the combat? Auto-resolve it based on the initial tactics. Ideal for a game where combat is a minor, but necessary component, or if you have a game where you can't prevent forcing the player into riskless combat by more reasonable means then you have a reasonably intelligent auto-resolution option.

Well, it's not that you need no more tactic, but that your initial tactic is carried out with minimun clicks. After that, the initial tactic may still go wrong, and there's always the luck to consider. If the ogre get a lucky critical hit and KOed my fighter, I may need to change one of my archers to melee as a second tank and send him to the ogre, in just 1~2 clicks of course.

Also, the vision that serveral arrows flying through the air to penertrate and kill the ogre can be quite satisifying. It works as an award/bonus/consquence as the previous tactic dicision(s) you make. As long as the time span per combat is well controlled (30~90 seconds), most players should accept it. The combat playout also serve as a feedback. You can learn from it and apply what you learn in next combat, or character development in the future. It's not like everyone just watch, they also observe and think.

Third, real-time combat usually happens on the same world map/scene, in the same time-scale of non-combat situation. Auto-resolution usually needs an extra page/window for the numbers/records, and certain time-jump happens (a combat in 1 second). The latter may disrupt the game flow/immersion.

I don't deny the automation thing as a speed-up/click-down solution in turn-base. Can you provide any examples that use such mechnism well?

But there's also the option to spice things up. To do that, simply make the assertion that (in the case of turn based) no progressive turn should ever require the repetition of a successful action for a single character dynamic. If you have a party-based system, then set a threshold, something like - no turn should require repetition of a successful action for half the party or more. And allow automation of whatever repetition you deem acceptable.

Sorry, I can't really understand you here. Can you use the ogre case to illustrate the "no more than half the party" idea?

For a real-time system, as long as you ensure regular, non-repetitive player input you can go in any number of directions, but you have various caveats attached to different mechanics. If you go for a tactical dynamic with a party, you should be aiming for a need to alter your tactics as regularly as the interface permits, but seldom require concurrent changes between separate units. Games like Warcraft 3 do this farily simply by giving characters special abilities on recast timers, though as long as there's plenty of time vested in balancing a line that gets thinner with additional complexity, there are more interesting things you could do.

Alternately, if you're assuming simple tactics like in the original example, then to avoid the game becoming passive, you can easily introduce timing challenges. The simplest example I can think off would be a timer that allows a player to manually hit a "sweet spot" (much like a rhythm game) each time the selected unit attacks. Without player input, an average result is automatically given. With player input they can either hit the sweet spot for a boost in effectiveness, or miss it for a decrease. Or you could have a skill challenge, such as allowing the player to manually aim each archer's shot. As long as there's some interactive element to break up a passive experience.

Warcraft3 is fun, but it is still too twitchy/fast for me.To win a combat against a human opponent, you need to keep clicking for the whole combat in a 100 clicks/minute pace. Not exaclt my previous idea of few clicks to carry out your tactic. But this is the difference of RPG and strategy games.

Tactic/stategic combat is about all you do in an SLG, so keep controlling for the whole combat is a default, whether turn-based or real-time. In RPGs, while combat can be inportant, but not the whole focus as in SLGs. Strangely, there are usually more combats in RPG than in SLGs (random encounters and such). And as a result, those combats are usually not as well designed/balanced as in SLGs. Thus, it is very possible that many RPG players don't want that much control. For most of the 100~500 combats in the whole game, they may just want to make one or two right dicision per combat, and see the result.

I personally don't like the sweet-spot thing since it seems like a more click method. It also takes more time since you need to wait for the "icon" to come to the right spot and to hit it.

If you're going with a single character real-time system, then there's no reason to shy away from direct character control and all-out action gaming.

Agreed.

But how about single character real-time system with followers you can't control (since you're not role-playing the followers)?

In the end, there is still a lot of crossover between the two systems. You could add a rhythm challenge to a turn-based system, but that decreases the value of good tactics. Likewise, you can extend the tactical complexity of a real-time system, but that can become frustrating for a player in much the same way parsers in interactive fiction can frustrate a player who knows exactly what they want to do, but has to battle the interface to achieve their goal.

That's hardly any kind of "case-study", but I think it passes as a quick and dirty ponderance. ?

Yes, I think interface is the key to any solid combat design, turn-based or real-time. And for me, the interface need least clicks for the same amount of user-input is the best.

Thanks for the response. I think it is well-thought and not as scaring as many posts here.

As to whether my scenario uninteresting. Maybe, maybe not. Such scenario happens often in low-level, where characters and enemies don't have much skill other than "attack" to use.

Well, why assume that characters must start without a variety of skills? It does make it more significant when you gain more skills, but a system where there are very few tactical tools to employ might as well be auto-resolved, if the manner in which the fight is initiated is the only critical factor.

Well, you don't have to. It's just that such design are often used, and I don't see much people complaining that "low-levels are boring". Maybe it's not that boring afterall.

If the ogre is powerful enougn to beat the fighter to 30% HP before it falls, and the overall pace is fast enough. It can be quite intense/thrilling in real-time.

The same could be argued of turn-based. If I know two ogre attacks have taken my fighter down to 30% health, then I also know that a third may kill him/her. I'm going to be gritting my teeth and crossing my fingers every time the ogre gets an attack, hoping he misses, and doing the same for every attack of mine that could be the killing blow on the ogre.

I agree. But that doesn't prove the real-time version to be less interesting, just that both systems can be fun even in very simple scenario.

Also, if you made some smart character development decisions before the combat (buying plate-mail for the fighter/giving him more HP or Constitution when level-up ), they can all pay off in a strictly "character-based" way.

Ah yes, and that's a point I've been arguing. Since character development is part "player-directed narrative" and part strategy, tactical combat is a logical extension of this, whereas timing or skill based challenges are unrelated. If you have a player who enjoys agonising over the strategic elements of creating/developing a character, then it's pretty likely they're going to enjoy agonising over tactical decisions.

On the flipside, would anyone argue that imposing time limitations on character development is a worthwhile alternative to traditional systems?

No, I don't think that to be a good idea.

But since character development happens far less than combat in most RPGs, and it usually needs far less clicks, I don't really think they can be compared.

 

[Hazelnut]

On the flipside, would anyone argue that imposing time limitations on character development is a worthwhile alternative to traditional systems?

Another sig worthy classic!

 

[Jinxed]

I think this picture sums up real time combat pretty well: