Goldschmidt
Learned
Any decent rpg-gamer plays their rtwp-games with companion A.I. disabled. And yes, it does take more skill than turn-based.
That one has simultaneous resolution:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Squad_NemesisHowever, AFAIK no digital game has implemented PB combat with individual initiative in resolution and tactical/free movement with a map.
I think this might fit the criteria
About the first questions - pretty much, yeah. Not intentionally, but it wouldn't matter either way because of the aforementioned ease of repositioning. The only exception being when you are extremely low level and a stray arrow can kill your mage. It's not so much that positioning doesn't matter, but that the ease of repositioning is what makes it a non-issue.Ah, do you put your mages in front of your fighters when you play RTwP? Do you keep your entire party bunched up even if you suppose the enemy might have a mage with fireball? Do you run everyone straight into a room without scouting ahead and then find yourself in a clusterfuck of kobolds and flaming arrows?
You still haven’t responded to the fact that, in TB, actions progress in discrete steps and so the information with which you make decisions is fundamentally different than in RTwP.
So does controlling the game with your anus rather than with your hand - so fucking what?And yes, it does take more skill than turn-based.
Except that's just arbitrary gamey shit if not backed up by some solid reason (which was flaky even in Vancian) and also reduces depth.Another alternative is that you set up your active abilities(or part of them) for a fight which then are locked in. This gives you strategic maneuverability while maintaining tactical control. This is kind of like the Vancian system with spells.
Focus on prebuffing is likely to devolve the game into quickload-and-prebuff shitfest. It doesn't have to - it worked well in first Witcher, but only because you had your opportunities to research what laid ahead, it can at least be expected to disallow some storytelling elements - ambush anyone?Furthermore, another variation of this solution could be to do the opposite to what Sawyer did for Deadfire and focus much more on "pre-buffing". You have tons of abilities but most of the work of using them is setting them up for the fight rather than using them in the fight, with the actual fight playing more like an RTS, albeit still more complex.
That because RTWP simply does not make any sense for an RPG. In an RTS you have mechanically shallow, expendable units. Tactical depth comes from managing huge mass of them and precision is not needed because death of a few is nonissue.Yeah that's a serious issue.
For acceptable RTwP rather than Continuous Pause, you need to not have to pause every milisecond, it can't be the optimal strategy. The system should be designed so that you'd want to pause a couple of times a fight at most, for big decisions or to setup a coordinated course of action for the whole party, for example drawing fire with some guys while the rogue sneaks behind for the killing blow. But that doesn't work for D&D, or most RPGs for that matter, since they have too many abilities/effects to choose from and activate manually. The problem is compounded when you play a full party instead of a single character.
Except that simply gives up depth for... what exactly?If one were to design a system for RTwP, it would have to have a limited amount of activable effects/abilities.
RTwP also progresses in discrete steps, just faster, due to the 6 second turns. I don't really know what you mean here tbh, it sounds very abstract. What different information that isn't present in TB?
Unless you mean an options menu, there are many games even among RPGs. Might & Magic and other RT blobbers, for example.My pedantry is so annoyed because I've never seen a real-time game without pause. Seems like we're talking "real-time with queue".
BG & BG2 were quite popular. Not sure it's a good idea to mess with the formula. If Rtwp is so bad then why did you all play the series? Don't you like playing different styles of games? Or would you rather every RPG just be a carbon copy of eachother?
For me personally, I've only enjoyed the actual Infinity Engine games as far as RTWP goes. Every incarnation of the system after that has always played less and less like an RTS and more like a chore with all the different mechanics like attacks of opportunity/disengagement/character turning speed/numerous activated abilities.BG & BG2 were quite popular. Not sure it's a good idea to mess with the formula. If Rtwp is so bad then why did you all play the series? Don't you like playing different styles of games? Or would you rather every RPG just be a carbon copy of eachother?
A different type of depth made for RT. Such as but not limited to, positioning, active dodging, kiting... Also you can have more depth put into combat planning, techning/preparing the active abilities you're going to use in the fight, putting down traps, perparing persistent buffs. In RTS terms, micro and macro. You might say that you can do those in RTwP already, but it's really not optimal and designed for things like that. This type of "depth" is different and maybe not your cup of tea, but it's suited for RT with or without occasional pause.Except that simply gives up depth for... what exactly?If one were to design a system for RTwP, it would have to have a limited amount of activable effects/abilities.
No, I'm highlighting the fact that pausing is a tacked-on mechanic to what is fundamentally a RT system, and suggesting in response that if paused mode is what you'll spend most of your combat time in, maybe it should be designed with paused mode at the core instead of RT. Obviously the designers of RTwP mean for you to pause regularly and maybe often -- or not since they implement automation, slomo time, etc. -- but the game design itself isn't tailor-made for spending most of your combat time out of RT.wouldn't you say that it sounds faintly ridiculous to claim "it should be PwRT not RTwP"? Either way, pausing is integral to the system. I'm not saying you can't criticise how the system works while paused - I'm saying the insinuation that the system is not meant to have you pause often is weird and counterintuitive.
What he means is that the number of abilities and tactical decisions to be made to play optimally are too great to be played in RT with a reasonable amount of pausing. So we have auto-pausing, and auto-attacks, and auto-tactical-choices (AI) to take care of that. The system is so shoddy that the designers keep feeling like they have to figure out additional ways to make the game play itself for it to be manageable. Doesn't that raise any alarms for you? That every possible improvement to the RTwP system is one that automates part of the gameplay? This is exactly what Lacrymas is saying: the fact that we need such amount of automation to play the game is what makes it "inhuman". Humans need help to play it, this is by design, the designers know it and spend a lot of dev time on it. Instead, why not design a system tailored for non-automated and non-autistic-pauser play?Same with Lacrymas claiming that RTwP is "inhuman" because it has 6 characters moving at different timeflows. I think that's a legit claim for why someone prefers TB, but it's also a bit melodramatic, isn't it?
The argument is about good design, not simply about being bothered. I don't dispute that one can tolerate and make do with RTwP, I do so myself when the rest of the game is good and I even go all out on tactics and pausing, but that doesn't change the fact that RTwP as applied to complex cRPGs is a badly designed system, a tentative to hack in a character system made for TB into RT.Now, I can appreciate that the clusterfucky nature of RTwP will bother some players more than myself, so I can imagine that it is such an offensive sight that you think, why does it even exist? Why can't we just have TB? - even if it never bothers me enough to really feel exactly the same way.
This kind of depth, along with RT is best suited for controlling single protagonist, preferably in direct, action-y mode.A different type of depth made for RT. Such as but not limited to, positioning, active dodging, kiting... Also you can have more depth put into combat planning, techning/preparing the active abilities you're going to use in the fight, putting down traps, perparing persistent buffs. In RTS terms, micro and macro. You might say that you can do those in RTwP already, but it's really not optimal and designed for things like that. This type of "depth" is different and maybe not your cup of tea, but it's suited for RT with or without occasional pause.
I think from the fact that people actually want to have fun and fighting well made encounters while understanding what's going on is inherently more fun than clicking on an enemy when the one you clicked on before is dead.I have a real question about all this. While reading reddit and the different forums, I realize that the turn-based is really popular. And I'm reading this from people who aren't really into RPGs. Where does this sudden popularity come from ?
I have a real question about all this. While reading reddit and the different forums, I realize that the turn-based is really popular. And I'm reading this from people who aren't really into RPGs. Where does this sudden popularity come from ?
I have a real question about all this. While reading reddit and the different forums, I realize that the turn-based is really popular. And I'm reading this from people who aren't really into RPGs. Where does this sudden popularity come from ?