Brahs, I want to Arcanum and Planescape

[DraQ]

Let's see AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook on page 122:

The Combat Sequence

<...> These steps are:

1. The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells (if any).
2. The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting spells (if any).
3. Initiative is determined.
4. Attacks are made in order of initiative.

Now let's see how two game engines - the GoldBoxes and the infinity engine - handle this. In GoldBoxes, initiative is rolled and THEN characters move, cast spells, or attack. This clearly swaps 2 and 3 phases of a combat round. On the other hand, in the Infinity Engine, you direct your characters, and THEN actions happen according to their initiative. The conclusion: Infinity Engine games do a better job implementing AD&D 2nd Edition rules than GoldBoxes. Real-time combat clearly is more in accord with the combat sequence quoted above than turn-based combat.

It is not. For starters I don't think roll for initiative is even involved in IE games, only modifiers, so it's already qualitatively different from base rules. Then there is the issue of turns being asynchronous in IE which is again different from D&D AFAIK. Finally, movement is unrestricted by initiative or turn succession.

OTOH from mechanical point of view the relative order of 2. and 3. makes no difference, because within the context of the mechanics neither affects the other and both are needed for 4. The difference exists in metagame layer as swapping 2. and 3. allows player to act upon information he shouldn't have, but it's still much closer to the original than IE implementation, and, if IE allows for no initiative roll, the uncertainty is removed even more radically in IE.

In any case, this discussion cannot continue until you GTFO, play Wizardry 8, meditate on general idea of phase based combat that is close to the ideal implementation of TB in a cRPG while also being the closest to PnP D&D rules when it comes to initiative, then come back with your insights.

As in Knights of the Chalice, when your mage gets a turn, you pinpoint the fireball precisely to hurt only enemies and do your devastating click. In the Infinity Engine, you must evaluate enemy movement while your mage is casting and aim optimally as not to hurt your characters. The later is an obviously more challenging and realistic combat mechanic.

Really? BG allows you to move your party out of the way before the fireball is already cast and leading the enemy with it isn't terribly hard either. Besides, again, phase based system accomplishes all that without ceasing being TB.

 

[Revenant]

Yes, on the matter of phase based combat I agree with you completely. I would like to see a good phase based RPG someday. I just think IE with correctly set-up auto-pause is quite close to phase based combat system. And AD&D2 is really more phase based than turn based.

As for 2 and 3, I think the order is very important. If a wizard knows his initiative, he might choose a completely different spell that round. Moreover, during a combat round all participants should move simultaneously - for example, fighters should meet in the middle field, rather than a fighter with a higher initiative crossing the whole field and attacking the other fighter still in his starting place.

 

[DraQ]

Yes, on the matter of phase based combat I agree with you completely. I would like to see a good phase based RPG someday. I just think IE with correctly set-up auto-pause is quite close to phase based combat system.

Yes, but not quite there. It's still spoiled by non-phase movement and retarded pathfinding making its use necessary, which completely alters the gameplay and makes it very different from actual phase based.

And it's still quite distant from the original D&D, while its autopause is stupid, frequently pausing multiple times on the same event as it is experienced by multiple characters, not offering potentially useful autopause options and so on.

As for 2 and 3, I think the order is very important. If a wizard knows his initiative, he might choose a completely different spell that round.

That's what I said - it makes no difference mechanically as same command combined with same roll results for same characters will result in the exact same outcomes in both cases, but may make all the difference when it comes to decision making which occurs outside the game mechanics.

Still, does BG even use random initiative? Because I don't think so, and if it doesn't a wizard always knows his initiative in BG.

Moreover, during a combat round all participants should move simultaneously - for example, fighters should meet in the middle field, rather than a fighter with a higher initiative crossing the whole field and attacking the other fighter still in his starting place.

Yes, but that's one of the many undesirable artefacts of a TB system that require elaborate workarounds to be eliminated - initiative should only affect when action starts, it shouldn't affect continuing previous action - for example it's bizarre that when you pursue someone who moves slower but has higher initiative there will be a ping-pong effect where you chase him down, then he rockets forward before you get the chance of continuing your pursuit and the situation repeats several times, while realistically, any sort of initiative should play no role after the pursuit starts, no matter if it lasts one or one hundred turns as both participants simply continue the action they started earlier.

I fully agree that TB is shit due to the gameplay artefacts it introduces, but the problem is that with party based game you can't avoid TB. It's only matter of difference between 'native', mechanically enforced TB and TB enforced by player constantly mashing spacebar while cursing under his breath.

If one were to invent phase-based interface that would transparently overlay completely RT mechanics, while also cutting off player input outside of orders phase it would be close to the holy grail of TB combat.

THE holy grail of TB combat would be above, except with synchronous phases replaced with genuinely intelligent purely event-triggered order phase.

 

[Skittles]

Still, does BG even use random initiative?

Yeah, it does, BG just processes it as path finding. You order your fighter to attack a charging ogre and the game tries to path find for them. The one that stops to rub himself up against some trees loses the initiative.

DraQ, aren't you just getting at a phase-based TB with 'smart' constraints on round length? That could be cool or absolutely atrocious, but do you know of any game that even attempts that?

 

[CappenVarra]

Yeah, it does, BG just processes it as path finding. You order your fighter to attack a charging ogre and the game tries to path find for them. The one that stops to rub himself up against some trees loses the initiative.

pretty accurate explanation But they seem to have changed the initiative roll to use 1d32768, because the range of idiotic pathfinding decisions seems to span a very large range.

 

[Xor]

PERSONAL INITIATIVE ROUNDS, SPEED FACTORS, AND CASTING TIMES
In Baldur’ s Gate II, to allow for the realtime based combat and movement, each character and monster is on an independent personal initiative round, which is six seconds long. Within the personal initiative round, all of the rules of the AD&D game are used, including speed factors for weapons and casting time for spells. For higher level characters who can attack more than once per round with a given weapon, the speed factor of the weapon determines when exactly in the six second round the attacks will occur.

Speed Factors are numbers between 1 and 10 (indicating 1/10 of a round and 10/ 10ths of a round respectively for a character that can attack once per round with a weapon).

Casting Times for priests and wizards are exactly the same as speed factors of weapons – the casting times are between 1 and 10 and represent how quickly a mage or priest can release a spell (the lower the number, the faster the cast, just as for speed factors).

Initiative is determined by a combination of ability, situation and chance. In Baldur’ s Gate II initiative is used as a random variation on how quickly characters can initiate their attacks or spells. It adjusts the speed factor of a spell or weapon slightly.

So it's not initiative per say, it's a modification to the speed factor of the action you're taking. AD&D 2E did have speed factors for weapons, and (if I'm remembering correctly; it's been quite a while since I played 2E) that was used as a modifier to initiative rather than the other way around. I seem to recall spells had casting times that modified initiative as well, but I almost never played a caster in 2E so I could easily be wrong about that.

I actually think the adaption of 2E mechanics to real-time is pretty good in BG. Initiative goes from being a flat roll to decide which side acts first to modifying when your action takes place in real time. The only thing that's really lost is positioning, which is something that I don't remember ever being that important in 2E games outside of aiming spells, and honestly that's not very difficult in IE games anyway; memorize the radius of a fireball and you'll almost never hit your party.

3E, on the other hand, is best represented as a turn-based system because attacks of opportunity, movement speed, and positioning are all huge parts of the 3E system, and those are all things that would be very hard to reproduce in real time. NWN doesn't really feel like 3E to me because so much is missing.


Also, the pathfinding in IE games wasn't that bad. The only time it ever really fucked up is if you tried to move across a complicated map, or if you tried to move to a nearby area that was blocked off by a convoluted path. When you and your enemies are a screen length away, it works fine.

 

[CappenVarra]

Speed Factors are numbers between 1 and 10 (indicating 1/10 of a round and 10/ 10ths of a round respectively for a character that can attack once per round with a weapon).

So, they used a segment variant? I'm forgetting 2nd edition rules at the moment, but 1st edition AD&D had such ridiculous combat sequence rules it could only be loved by masochists (PDF link). Btw, I'm a bit of a masochist (when it comes to liking PnP AD&D).

The only thing that's really lost is positioning,

That's all well and fine, but I'm a bit of a simpleton and think that "no positioning" implies "no tactics worth mentioning". It's so simple I don't even feel the need to elaborate

Also, the pathfinding in IE games wasn't that bad.

I'm sure there are loads of games with worse pathfinding; it's just that I can't for the life of me remember ever playing one. Seriously: worst pathfinding ever implemented by man or manboon.

On topic, I'm one of those strange people who could replay BG1 (vanilla) tomorrow and have fun (a lot of it dependent on intentional handicapping and non-intuitive playstyle adjustments, but still), but would prefer filling out tax forms to replaying BG2. And this is the 6th or 7th thread reiterating the same old BG discussion in the last year or so I've been hanging around

 

[DraQ]

Still, does BG even use random initiative?

Yeah, it does, BG just processes it as path finding. You order your fighter to attack a charging ogre and the game tries to path find for them. The one that stops to rub himself up against some trees loses the initiative.

DraQ, aren't you just getting at a phase-based TB with 'smart' constraints on round length? That could be cool or absolutely atrocious, but do you know of any game that even attempts that?

Quoting random Daggerfall NPC:
I don't know of any.

 

[Johannes]

I got ninja'd by DraQ with the TB explanation, but I mostly support it. I don't feel that RtwP can ably handle basics like positioning and movement speeds well.

I think it might, but it requires very specific (and difficult) approach. First, the underlying mechanics must be completely smooth RT. Second, the game needs very sophisticated autopause and notification system that can detect any event you might want to pause upon, and no, not the crude clusterfuck IE games had.

See any good RTS for combat that's RT and handles positioning and movement speeds totally fine. Now add pause to eliminate the need for practice/dexterity (if you want).
Don't see why the pausing must absolutely be triggered by the program itself, good gosh if you lose a fraction of a second when you're not paying attention. In a big difficult battle you constantly pause to think and reorder, ok, nice to have that sort of precision available, in another you can just make some adjustments in real time if it's a simple enough encounter.

And a big pro that might've not been mentioned of RT is that you can have combat blend seamlessly into rest of the game, without needing to start any combat mode or enter separate combat map.

 

[Skittles]

Counter demand: find me an RTS where six seconds and five feet matter. Find me an RTS that pays attention to AoO and flanking and precision casting. Find me an RTS where you have approximately six characters to micromanage during each six second round. Find me one that does it well and makes it fun.

'Cause that's what I'm talking about. Give me a specific and we can talk mechanics. If you don't think those things are important, say so. You're arguing primarily that players can effectively input commands in that last post, even in RTwP. I'm arguing that the system is too limited to generate satisfyingly complex combat.

I hear your last pro, but I'm personally pretty 'meh' on the issue outside of games that seek to simulate life. I wouldn't trade good combat for that, even in those, though.

 

[Johannes]

Counter demand: find me an RTS where six seconds and five feet matter. Find me an RTS that pays attention to AoO and flanking and precision casting.

SC:BW, as just 1 example. Well, almost any RTS really has those elements naturally occuring in some form. Timing and distance are of critical importance in any game, that's obvious - have you ever played an RTS competitively?
AoO is ofc not like it would be in a TB game, it just occurs that when a unit moves past another and receives a free hit or 2.
Flanking is just good because then you have more people hitting the enemy, you don't need special bonuses to encourage that though giving bonuses/maluses based on the directions you are attacking from would be pretty easy to implement.
And if there's casting in an RTS, of course precision matters.

Find me an RTS where you have approximately six characters to micromanage during each six second round. Find me one that does it well and makes it fun.

Eh, RTSs don't tend to do that, what with being strategy games and all.
But Myth games do fit the bill. Hmm, and sometimes WC3 games don't have many units too, but the micro is still complex.
Oh wait, six second rounds? I guess you win then

And really, convert the UI of any multiplayer realtime game where you control 1 character, to make it so that you control all of them from top down and you've got a squad game - be it a DOTA-like, Guild Wars, WoW, even suitable FPS's... Those mechanics are complex and realtime, pretty mindboggling.

You're arguing primarily that players can effectively input commands in that last post, even in RTwP. I'm arguing that the system is too limited to generate satisfyingly complex combat.

That's because the usual complaint about RT partybased RPGs is that they are annoying clusterfucks. Which is valid opinion of course.
Arguing that RT somehow limits the games complexity on the other hand, is pretty derp. Or, how about you give an example of a desirable mechanic that simply cannot be done in RT.


I kinda feel bad now, writing so much about so obvious issue... Real life is realtime, is it complex enough when compared to TB games?

 

[DraQ]

Another late reply on my part:

Counter demand: find me an RTS where six seconds and five feet matter. Find me an RTS that pays attention to AoO and flanking and precision casting.

SC:BW, as just 1 example. Well, almost any RTS really has those elements naturally occuring in some form. Timing and distance are of critical importance in any game, that's obvious - have you ever played an RTS competitively?
AoO is ofc not like it would be in a TB game, it just occurs that when a unit moves past another and receives a free hit or 2.
Flanking is just good because then you have more people hitting the enemy, you don't need special bonuses to encourage that though giving bonuses/maluses based on the directions you are attacking from would be pretty easy to implement.
And if there's casting in an RTS, of course precision matters.

The thing is none of those elements matter nearly as much in an RTS.

Even if you do control one special unit that has to do stuff absolutely perfectly, most of your forces still require just so-so precision. It doesn't really matter if one of your spazz mehreens bites it if you still have a few dozens identical mehreens that do identical stuff.

In an RPG if you're in a dungeon and thief bites it due to pathfinding fucking up, you're fucked, because you won't have recon and trap disarming capabilities.

Then there is issue of depth of control. In an RTS units generally move, shoot, sometimes have several special options, maybe some AI settings you change once in a while.

In an RPG your 'units' tend to have a bunch of different specialized weapons and types of ammo equipped, inventory, potions, often extensive spellbooks, and ability to interact with the environment.

I kinda feel bad now, writing so much about so obvious issue... Real life is realtime, is it complex enough when compared to TB games?

The problem isn't complexity of mechanics. The problem is interface. You can't control six characters doing different things at once using single viewport, single mouse and single KB. You need to cycle all the time. At this point any advantage of RT is lost.

Single character or single character+autonomous followers you can order around? Works best in RT, especially with direct control (personally I like FPS style), because interface allows player the fullest amount of control over their character this way, meaning extra mechanical complexity doesn't go to waste.

RT or RTWP full party based? Clusterfuck, because it's no longer actually RT. It's sort of broken, self imposed TB.

You don't really have this sort of problem in RTS games, because most of your forces don't require high frequency of commands issued, so you can effectively cycle in between individual actions most of the time, allowing you to always be in control when you're needed, so the effects of having to cycle are hidden from both you and the mechanics. RPGs tend to not give you such luxury.