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

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

Idly musing on TB vs RTwP ...

gurugeorge

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,435
Location
London, UK
Strap Yourselves In
... off the back of the ToEE thread. Hardy perennial topic, I know, but it is quite interesting after all.

I love turn-based games with lots of quasi-simulationist options, the more the better as far as I'm concerned. But on the other hand, the more options, the more interdependent variables you have to juggle in your mind to make an optimal next move. So there's two aspects to it, or two filters: one is the sheer IQ test, but then even if you're like a pig in shit with the IQ test, when story enters the picture, there's the intersection between patience (or wanting to see a story unfold) and the puzzle of the present encounter (its good or bad design) holding your interest (or not).

There's definitely a tension at the heart of the very idea of the CRPG as soon as you bring story into the game. Bracketing character development and progression as their own things, story can be a fantastic element in a game, especially on the first run through - it can be really absorbing, and put you right into the virtual world, give you a sense of presence and immersion. But it can also become a chore you have to go through to get from one encounter to another.

In a tabletop context, the fun of warm human interaction takes up a lot of mindshare, and that can function to glue the two elements of story and encounter together in an organic way, such that the immersion you build up in the story isn't lost in the encounter, and vice-versa (e.g. your friends are there with you in the fight, egging you on in your victories or laughing at your pratfalls, and the same friends are with you as you explore the scary dungeon or tentatively query the Lich). And even good multiplayer games (NWN PWs or good MMOs) can do that too, to an extent.

But when you're sitting alone in front of a computer, all you've got is these two seemingly disparate elements of story and encounter, with one constantly in danger of interfering with the enjoyment of the other.

I think the one great advantage of RTwP is that it's a bit easier to join the two together. IOW, while turn-based gameplay is strictly better as absorbing combat gameplay, RTwP gameplay is very suited to the CRPG context in the sense that you can stay immersed in the virtual world through most fights (by letting your wee guys do their thing most of the time and letting the dice roll, just keeping an eye on things to make sure they don't get too out of hand), only slowing down into more intricate and interesting combat gameplay at points where the story reaches some kind of mini-climax or climax, and there's a hard fight that's well designed. (And RTwP played this way is even better if you have good AI conditionals that you can fiddle with to see how they play out in trash fights - it's a micro-hobby in itself.)

I won't say it's impossible to have deep turn-based combat with a good story, but the natural home of it does seem to be more in games that just have a cursory story that joins well-designed encounters together in some passably logical way. Now, having had PFK with the option to switch between either at will, it seems obvious that that is actually the ideal - but I guess it puts a lot of extra burden on developers (to the point that they're almost having to make 2 games concurrently), which is why we haven't seen much of it.

The funny thing about it is that it's all pretty accidental. As we all know (or should know :) ) the only reason anyone ever thought of RTwP in CRGPs was to copy the amazing success of Command & Conquer in transforming a formerly turn-based style of gameplay into quasi-action gameplay. It was a fad - and ironically, a fad for casuals at that.

But it just turns out that RTwP does have its own place and integrity, and works well with more story-heavy games.
 

Mustawd

Guest
You make a statement that RTwP is better for immersion, but it’s just that: A statement.

What are your reasons for saying that? I wholeheartedly disagree ofc, but curious to hear your rationale.
 

Nortar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,407
Pathfinder: Wrath
But it just turns out that RTwP does have its own place and integrity, and works well with more story-heavy games.

The final conclusion - RTwP has it's own place - is hard to deny.
But the way you get there is pretty moot because what you saying, is basically that RTwP is storyfag mode.

There is a number of TB games with pretty interesting stories, from BAK to Fallouts.
On the other hand, the plot for games such as IWD is a bare-bones excuse for killing everything that moves.

And if the only reason for you to justify the existence of RTwP is that you have to pay less attention to the actual gameplay
that is kind of dubious advantage, while we're talking about games, not movies.
 

gurugeorge

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,435
Location
London, UK
Strap Yourselves In
You make a statement that RTwP is better for immersion, but it’s just that: A statement.

What are your reasons for saying that? I wholeheartedly disagree ofc, but curious to hear your rationale.

Bearing in mind that I'm using the sense of "immersion" that puts it close to "presence," the sense of "being there," immersion in a virtual world and story can be interrupted by bouts of intricate turn-based gameplay - or vice-versa. One can find one is falling between two stools: either the story becomes a chore to get through to experience the next encounter puzzle, or the encounters become chores to get through to see the next bit of story.

Because RTwP can afford to be looser in terms of encounter design (more trash fights), there can be more of a sense of continuity of immersion - instead of popping from one mental mode to another (from puzzle solving to story following), one can feel more of a sense of continuity, one can stay more present in the virtual world itself, with the encounter feeling more like a natural obstacle in that virtual world (as opposed to something special that requires your brain to switch modes).
 

gurugeorge

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,435
Location
London, UK
Strap Yourselves In
But it just turns out that RTwP does have its own place and integrity, and works well with more story-heavy games.

The final conclusion - RTwP has it's own place - is hard to deny.
But the way you get there is pretty moot because what you saying, is basically that RTwP is storyfag mode.

There is a number of TB games with pretty interesting stories, from BAK to Fallouts.
On the other hand, the plot for games such as IWD is a bare-bones excuse for killing everything that moves.

And if the only reason for you to justify the existence of RTwP is that you have to pay less attention to the actual gameplay
that is kind of dubious advantage, while we're talking about games, not movies.

Yeah, as I say, it's not impossible, but I think the general tendency, the natural home of TB is with barebones stories, and the natural home of RTwP is more epic, involved stories. With something like IWD, of course anything can become "art for art's sake" and the pecularities and constraints of RTwP can become interesting in themselves. Bear in mind, although I'm saying that TB is the best gameplay in terms of intricacy and absorption, that doesn't mean RTwP is just some dumb, negligible thing.

But due to the nature of design (since you're spending less time engaged in intricate combat, more time exploring, following the story), it's more friendly to having a lot of lighter encounters (which would be tedious in a TB context) that can be part of the flow of feeling like you're in the virtual world, pursuing a questline, etc.

Also, I think one has to be careful with the term "gameplay" - although the convention is to use the term to refer to gameplay in encounters, the insinuation that sometimes comes along with that - that gameplay in a broader sense only exists in the encounters - is wrong. You literally are playing the game also when you're making choices in a story, etc. - you're trying to get the best outcome, outwit x, y, z, etc.
 

Pink Eye

Monk
Patron
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
5,793
Location
Space Refrigerator
I'm very into cock and ball torture
>RTwP gameplay is very suited to the CRPG context in the sense that you can stay immersed in the virtual world through most fights.
>I think the general tendency, the natural home of TB is with barebones stories, and the natural home of RTwP is more epic, involved stories.
wut
 

gurugeorge

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,435
Location
London, UK
Strap Yourselves In
>RTwP gameplay is very suited to the CRPG context in the sense that you can stay immersed in the virtual world through most fights.
>I think the general tendency, the natural home of TB is with barebones stories, and the natural home of RTwP is more epic, involved stories.
wut

Because more of the fights are (necessarily, to fill out the time) less intricate and involved, feel more like natural events in the world.
 

Mustawd

Guest
>RTwP gameplay is very suited to the CRPG context in the sense that you can stay immersed in the virtual world through most fights.
>I think the general tendency, the natural home of TB is with barebones stories, and the natural home of RTwP is more epic, involved stories.
wut

Because more of the fights are (necessarily, to fill out the time) less intricate and involved, feel more like natural events in the world.


Yes, but that’s an encounter design issue. Of course if you design a plethora of trash mob fights, RTwP will be superior just to get through that slog.

It seems to me what you’re saying is that RTwP is easier and less mentally taxing than TB. Which I agree. But in that case the game dev needs to tailor encounter design to game mechanics. It’s not an inherent characteristic of a combat mechanic to be less/more immersive than the other. Anyone who has played TB games with heavy atmosphere (eg X-com) can attest to that.

EDIT: Also, there’s nothing stopping a game having AI mode for companions in a TB mode. Just because it’s not the norm doesn’t mean there is an inherent monopoly on RTwP to have AI combat for companions.
 

Jigby

Augur
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
332
RT and RTwP being in the continuous realm are better at creating guerilla warfare setups, the kind where you push and pull, commit 52.3% and then pull back, then commit again at a different place 55.7% and pull back avoiding head-on confrontation. Turn based is all discrete so depending on the granularity or the size of the timesteps it's rather about commiting 100% or 50% or not at all. That said I can't think of an RPG that focused on that kind of gameplay and no, JA isn't one.
 
Last edited:

Pink Eye

Monk
Patron
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
5,793
Location
Space Refrigerator
I'm very into cock and ball torture
Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree at all. Real Time based games are much more involved mechanically than Turn Based - there's a lot more going in the background besides watching your goons hit an enemy, unless you're playing on an easy difficulty; or have the AI do all the work for you; or the game has crap encounters. Take for example, Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession. The final sequence against Count Strahd. Has you dodging fireballs left and right, all the while weaving your attacks in between. There is no pause either. So if you wanted to browse your spells or use the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind against the Count. You had to be quick or face certain doom by the Count. Quite difficult.

Then there's Pillars of Eternity where you're microing six individual units at a time. In intense fights, things get ridiculous. You have to pay attention to your units positioning; making adjustments if necessary. Their spells. At times you will need to micro a spell caster to aim a fireball in a direction that won't hurt your allies. All the while you need to micro your durable melee combatants to either flank the enemy, or rush them down depending on the situation. So no. Real Time based gameplay isn't about watching units whack an enemy so you can immerse yourself to the story - unless it's a bad game, in which case, I'd rather play Tetris.

That's besides the point anyways. Good story telling can be done through either gameplay mode. Both Age of Decadence and Colony Ship use Turn Based gameplay, yet are able deliver an extraordinary narrative that keeps you invested throughout the experience. Your statement that Turn Based is only reserved for games with barebones stories - is incorrect.
 

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
If you are really interested in this topic, you should read some of the old posts of Edward_R_Murrow on it. As far as I'm concerned, they are still the most insightful analyses of the question in here. Some samples:

Shemar said:
Clearly it is a preference. I do not object to anybody preferring the RTwP system. However anyone claiming that RTwP is in any shape or form similar or equivalent to true turn based, or that it offers about the same gameplay is either ignorant, or a moron.

It depends on the system. I honestly don't see a huge difference between turn-based (A)D&D and the real time with pause version. You generally employ the same tactics. The differences aren't that huge.

The need to monitor and adjust to multiple simultaneous events and the need to time actions make RTwP be half way from tactical turn based to arcade. In a phase based system you are not expected or have the capability to react in real time as battle conditions change (even if the raction is just to hit the pause button). That is clearly a requirement of arcade games, not turn based ones.

The auto-pause wasn't perfect, but you could have it set up to pause on practically any sort of event, eliminating the need for any sort of reflex (though auto-pause could get pretty cumbersome at times). I really don't think something like Baldur's Gate is "arcade" in any way, shape, or form.

That is beacuse you see as 'core principles' things like classes and spells and combat calculations, whereas I see the turn based aspect as 'the' core principle. To me there is a clear continuum of preference that goes "Any turn based comabt system" >> "Any RTwP system" >> "Any action system". Maybe you are trying to see it as a scale of feaures. I see it as a scale of what I want, with turn based being what I want, Diablo being what I would not play even if it was the only game on earth and IE/NWN somewhere in the 'I will tolerate it because that's as good as I can get' middle.

Alright, that makes a bit more sense. It's not about design principles to you, but about preference. I can dig it.

That's the problem with RTwP games. They are by default much easier to beat, because they are targetted to the players too lazy to micromanage, more used to letting their uber-builds win the fights for them, rather than their actual playing skill, so those that do have skill have an easy time with them. The Gold Box series games on the other hand, they took some doing to beat.

Bro, I know this is kind of sniping at you, seeing as this is in a post with another dude, but I can't really let this one lie. It's kind of an open challenge to anyone else as well.

Really, what is the huge tactical gulf between games like Pool of Radiance or Temple of Elemental Evil and games like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? I hear a lot of people praise the tactical nature of the Gold Box/ToEE while dumping on Baldur's Gate and it's ilk and it doesn't make much sense.

Some claim positioning is the big deal. I can't agree with this. D&D is not XCOM or Jagged Alliance 2. I don't need to set up overlapping fields of fire, get into cover, flank enemies, change from crouched to prone to avoid getting sniped, climb up on roofs to set up sniper/spotter teams, or position units to perfectly storm a bunker after using a stun grenade, flashbang, or blowing a hole in it with RDX. All I do is put my fighters up front in melee, and leave the squishier dudes out of it. That's pretty much the extent of positioning in D&D (and most fantasy CRPGs as well). Occasionally, you get to use higher ground and chokepoints something that both turn-based and real time with pause both do about equally well in a D&D CRPG, which is to say rather poorly, as your fighters just sit there are play Thermopylae all day while your mages' spells blot out the sun. Sure, there are some minuscule corner cases like spears in Temple of Elemental Evil, and a few encounters early in Knights of the Chalice where being pushed into fires was an actual danger/tactic, but for the most part positioning in D&D is not some highly tactical affair that necessitates the precision of turn-based; it's actually really simple.

Similar encounters are also played out in a relatively similar manner across the two systems, given a D&D substrate.

-Compare dealing with early mobs of goblinoids in Pool of Radiance versus BG or Icewind Dale. In both, your characters are probably low level, and any hits on them could be fatal. You can roll the dice, quite literally, and hope they prevail in melee/ranged, or you call on every low level adventurer's best friend, the Sleep spell to make encounters like this a breeze whether you're clearing Phlan, or the mines of Nashkel.

-Consider a staple D&D encounter: the big, scary melee-brute. Examples being the ogre early in BG1 and the hill giant in ToEE. You're going to deal with them in a similar way in both games; your tactics will be almost identical. You'll want to immobilize it, probably with Entangle, and then pelt it from afar until it dies (but...in ToEE's case, I think it actually gives up after taking a beating; tho' that's kind of ancillary to the point at hand). Or hit it with penalizing spells like Blindness, Doom, etc to give your crew a chance at fighting it head on. Or have a couple of thieves simultaneously backstab it after sneaking up behind it. Or kite the thing, if movement rates permit. The point being, both systems will offer similar tactical choices.

I could go on, but I'm pretty sure my point has been pretty much sketched out. I don't see any huge tactical difference between a turn-based D&D game and a real-time-with-pause one. I like turn-based, and I tend to like turn-based D&D games too (as long as they have good encounter design; D&D lives and dies on encounter design). But I don't really see the enormous difference others claim. D&D is pretty much D&D as long as it remains wed to dice determining outcomes. Don't get me wrong, some types of games I would find extraordinarily changed by going from TB to RTWP, games that require lots of precision, like squad tactics games (JA2, XCOM, Silent Storm). But D&D? Not so much.

Kaanyrvhok said:
Spell placement in the Gold Box games was a lot like the infinity engine. You didn’t see the grid so you had to estimate unless you were some power gamer who could remember multiple invisible circumferences and conelike patterns. Guesstimating was fun so I was cool with it.

I've personally never been a fan of the perfectly-aimed fireballs in D&D games, and though factoring player skill into the equation isn't the best choice in my mind, I'll take pretty much anything that avoids the stupidity that comes with perfect-aiming of fireballs in which they lose any danger, become way overpowered, and make no sense within the ruleset (why does a fighter need to role a die to shoot an arrow, but mages can perfectly aim a fireball in the heat of battle).

I don’t get why anyone would prefer the Gold Box games to the IE for their combat unless they just want standard tanks in front miss hit combat.

I think TB versus RTWP in D&D is a matter of choosing either precision and positioning or simultaneous play and the avoidance of clunky interrupt systems (D&D is not good with this). Given that D&D almost always becomes a caster-fest, I tend to have a preference for RTWP, because fighters and positioning quickly approach irrelevance in the face of AWSUM SPELLZ, which I find to play better in something that allows for a lot more reactivity due to simultaneous action.

Of course, turn-based D&D can be great fun, though I'm hesitant to use ToEE as an example, mostly due to the shitty idea of adopting a module instead of designing their own encounters. Knights of the Chalice is probably the posterboy here, though I feel it did degrade a bit once fighters stopped being as important and the spells started taking center stage.

A couple other interesting though not quite apropos posts here and here.

It should be noted that I still think that turn-based is probably the best way to go for 3E and other systems that are specifically tailored for TB play. However, 2E used a phase-based system, which means that in some ways turn-based implementations of the ruleset are as distant to its roots as the simultaneous/round-based hybrid resolution found in the Infinite Engine was. In fact, I'd say the latter is closer to the phase-based system of AD&D, and the biggest difference actually is the fact that you can change the commands issued to a character mid-resolution, something you cannot do in a phase based system, since those divide the declaration and resolution phases.

The best and most faithful implementation of early D&D play is by far that found in the unspoiled phase-based systems of the Wizardry games, but the Infinite Engine games are arguably not too far behind. TOEE is naturally still the best implementation of a 3E/3.5E-related ruleset, and ultimately, which you prefer will boil down to which edition you like better. In the case of the IE games, the relative imprecision and limitations to battlefield control are also bound to be a factor, as they are not everyone's cup of tea. As the quotes above show, though, they are not crippling flaws either.

I love turn-based games with lots of quasi-simulationist options, the more the better as far as I'm concerned.

You should try Mordheim.
 
Last edited:

Saduj

Arcane
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
2,547
To me, RPG combat is immersive if it requires my full attention as opposed to half-assing my way through 95% of encounters. "Immersion" in the sense of getting a feel for the game world comes through outside of combat, assuming the game handles that well.

But accepting the premise that for some people, continuous action makes them feel more a part of a game world: Doesn't pausing ruin that? It seems more like an argument for Real Time combat rather than Real Time With Pause combat. I don't play many RTWP games but when I do, I'm pausing all the time during any encounter that poses any kind of challenge because AI sucks and needs to be constantly corrected. And during easy encounters, I just let my group do their thing until everything is dead, which doesn't require my full attention and isn't immersive. I guess my main point is: RTWP by definition isn't anything close to continuous action and when it is, it is because the game is too easy.
 

RRRrrr

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
2,303
I have had way more fun with RTwP combat than with turn-based. How tactical a game is has 0 to do with whether it is turn-based or RTwP. If anything, turn-based combat is less realistic since all characters move simultaneously and can react to changes in the situation. Not to mention that playing easy encounters/killing trash mobs in turn-based games IS ABSOLUTELY IRREDEEMABLY BORING.

I know codex edgelords won't admit it, since liking an RPG that came out after 1992 is casual etc, but life is too short to pretend you are having fun playing an outdated design made for no-life tabletop cucks who have nothing better to do on weekends than play 10 hours of DnD with sad unsuccessful people and (if lucky) a bunch of ugly women.

The main reason codexers are starting to become more "casual" is because as time passes, even the most socially inept people start having friends, relationships, jobs, money and eventually happiness in real life. Having those things strongly corelates with not giving a fuck about being edgy enough on the 'dex.

And finally, I hate chess for the same reason I dislike turn-based combat. It's not dynamic enough. If chess could be RTwP, I'd probably like it better. :M

tl;dr chad RTwP vs virgin TB combat
 
Last edited:

RRRrrr

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
2,303
Full disclosure back when I was playing virgin Fallout 1 turn-based combat, a girl I was trying to get with started going out with a chad LoL player who smoked weed non-stop. This might have negatively affected my perception of wasting your life with TB combat games. :(
 

Ventidius

Arbiter
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
552
Why it is always turn-based vs RTWP?
Why phase-based always gets left out?
I'm guessing cause there isn't a lot of phased based combat games. I can't even think of any

The entirety of the Wizardry series - including many of its spin-offs - for one thing. Then there's the multitude of Wizardry-likes, and also a couple of Japanese franchises that have kept the tradition alive, like the SaGa games (Scarlet Grace and the Frontier games have it, at least), and the Dragon Quest series (at least before some of the more recent entries).


Why it is always turn-based vs RTWP?
Why phase-based always gets left out?
probably because its literally just turn based

Not really. Turn-based is IGOUGO, phase-based is WEGO. Being able to adapt to the change in the tactical situation after one unit moves is a luxury you have in turn-based, but not in phase-based. That fact alone arguably distinguishes phase-based and turn-based as much as being able to change orders on the fly distinguishes IE RTwP from phase-based, at the very least.
 
Last edited:

gurugeorge

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,435
Location
London, UK
Strap Yourselves In
Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree at all. Real Time based games are much more involved mechanically than Turn Based - there's a lot more going in the background besides watching your goons hit an enemy, unless you're playing on an easy difficulty; or have the AI do all the work for you; or the game has crap encounters. Take for example, Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession. The final sequence against Count Strahd. Has you dodging fireballs left and right, all the while weaving your attacks in between. There is no pause either. So if you wanted to browse your spells or use the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind against the Count. You had to be quick or face certain doom by the Count. Quite difficult.

Then there's Pillars of Eternity where you're microing six individual units at a time. In intense fights, things get ridiculous. You have to pay attention to your units positioning; making adjustments if necessary. Their spells. At times you will need to micro a spell caster to aim a fireball in a direction that won't hurt your allies. All the while you need to micro your durable melee combatants to either flank the enemy, or rush them down depending on the situation. So no. Real Time based gameplay isn't about watching units whack an enemy so you can immerse yourself to the story - unless it's a bad game, in which case, I'd rather play Tetris.

That's besides the point anyways. Good story telling can be done through either gameplay mode. Both Age of Decadence and Colony Ship use Turn Based gameplay, yet are able deliver an extraordinary narrative that keeps you invested throughout the experience. Your statement that Turn Based is only reserved for games with barebones stories - is incorrect.

I never said "reserved," or claimed that you can't have the opposite mix. I just think it's an overall tendency that fits the gameplay styles for understandable reasons.
 

Taka-Haradin puolipeikko

Filthy Kalinite
Patron
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
19,110
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Bubbles In Memoria
Maybe when I'm drunk enough for it, I should make a thread about RT vs RTwP vs TB vs WEGO and why only last of those prepares people for any sort of leadership position.
Maybe I'll have solidly built argument for that, that'll be shot to pieces by people more insightful than me.
Maybe.
 
Last edited:

Artyoan

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
632
I find myself agreeing with most of the criticism of RTwP in every thread on this subject and yet the conclusions that it is therefore terrible never match my in-game enjoyment of it. Its chaotic and more delicate as to how frequent pausing can run counter to the real time aspect, but its tactical and amusing. Sometimes I wonder if a simple 'replay' option to enjoy the spectacle of a recent victorious battle sans pausing wouldn't help clear up some of the hatred of it.
 

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