The Battle System I Wish RPGs Would Stop Using

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Once again the big difference is that you can plan the tactics of the active character with the knowledge that the rest of the battlefield stays the same as your character acts. In IE or any other RTwP abomination, everything moves around simultaneously, making it more of an arcade game than a strategy one.

Do you realise that both strategy and tactics were created for world where shit not only moves around but also most of time you have no idea where it is?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

You don' get the fact that I would prefer if my fireball targets stay in place so I have the tactical option of who to hit instead of the arcade option of aiming for a moving target?

I can understand having a preference for the more "gamey" turn-based style that has plenty of artificial elements. Sometimes simulationism doesn't equate to fun. I can dig it. But calling the Infinity Engine style play an arcade option? For real?

Once again the big difference is that you can plan the tactics of the active character with the knowledge that the rest of the battlefield stays the same as your character acts.

That's exactly the difference you get with turn-based versus RTWP. Precision versus more fluid timekeeping. Do you want the ability to make plays such as "surgical fireball strikes" or would you prefer a combat that is less gamey and allows for more player reactivity? It's a preference thing, given both engines do their job well.

In IE or any other RTwP abomination, everything moves around simultaneously, making it more of an arcade game than a strategy one. The IE engine (and any RTwP implementation) stands somewhere in the middle of the distance from real DnD to Diablo, as far as I am concerned.

And this is where you completely lose me. Simultaneous action equates to arcade? What? Would a hypothetical simultaneous phase-based system be arcade because it lacks the precision afforded by the artificiality of turn-based combat? Despite the lack of dependence on player's reflex and manual dexterity? Those two things are, roughly, the defining features of arcade to me...things not present in the hypothetical system and present in the Infinity Engine in only the smallest amount.

And I've never bought the "Infinity Engine is halfway between Diablo and real cRPGs" bullshit when it was trotted around the old Codex, and I still don't. There is no D&D to Diablo continuum...both come from radically different design philosophies with very little overlap. To say that the IE games and RTWP cRPGs are on their way to being Diablo because they make actions simultaneous while sharing almost every other core design principle with a turn-based RPG is absurd.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Personally, I have hated IE games for how wooden the action felt. I'm surprised that people complain that it was too dynamic.

 

[J1M]

You don' get the fact that I would prefer if my fireball targets stay in place so I have the tactical option of who to hit instead of the arcade option of aiming for a moving target?

I can understand having a preference for the more "gamey" turn-based style that has plenty of artificial elements. Sometimes simulationism doesn't equate to fun. I can dig it. But calling the Infinity Engine style play an arcade option? For real?

Once again the big difference is that you can plan the tactics of the active character with the knowledge that the rest of the battlefield stays the same as your character acts.

That's exactly the difference you get with turn-based versus RTWP. Precision versus more fluid timekeeping. Do you want the ability to make plays such as "surgical fireball strikes" or would you prefer a combat that is less gamey and allows for more player reactivity? It's a preference thing, given both engines do their job well.

In IE or any other RTwP abomination, everything moves around simultaneously, making it more of an arcade game than a strategy one. The IE engine (and any RTwP implementation) stands somewhere in the middle of the distance from real DnD to Diablo, as far as I am concerned.

And this is where you completely lose me. Simultaneous action equates to arcade? What? Would a hypothetical simultaneous phase-based system be arcade because it lacks the precision afforded by the artificiality of turn-based combat? Despite the lack of dependence on player's reflex and manual dexterity? Those two things are, roughly, the defining features of arcade to me...things not present in the hypothetical system and present in the Infinity Engine in only the smallest amount.

And I've never bought the "Infinity Engine is halfway between Diablo and real cRPGs" bullshit when it was trotted around the old Codex, and I still don't. There is no D&D to Diablo continuum...both come from radically different design philosophies with very little overlap. To say that the IE games and RTWP cRPGs are on their way to being Diablo because they make actions simultaneous while sharing almost every other core design principle with a turn-based RPG is absurd.

The action rpg legacy of balder's gate dark alliance et al would say otherwise.

Arcade-like is a perfect description of BG combat. It's mostly a jumbled mess that you inject special moves into.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

I don't remember having any issues whatsoever having my fireballs blast exactly the way I want them. In fact the choice was what to include in the blast. I never had an issue with having to guess the placement for the effect I wanted.

I vaguely remember flubbing spells in the Gold Box games. You had to learn certain patterns. A stinking cloud was a four by four square that started in the top left. In Pool there were no graphics for it. A fireball was similar just much larger. The only difference from that and the IE is that you had an actual round (relatively) circumference and you had to hit moving targets.

You don' get the fact that I would prefer if my fireball targets stay in place so I have the tactical option of who to hit instead of the arcade option of aiming for a moving target?

If that’s it then yes I don’t get it. Why does the spell have to line up perfectly? If anything you gain depth. If you have two scenarios where one a Fireball spell will hit 7/7 enemies the other where it will hit 4 to 7 and possibly one or two allies. The second scenario has more depth. You decide on the 4 that you definitely want to hit, who can you afford to miss, and who can or cant absorb friendly fire. Gameplay is all about decisions.

Once again the big difference is that you can plan the tactics of the active character with the knowledge that the rest of the battlefield stays the same as your character acts. In IE or any other RTwP abomination, everything moves around simultaneously, making it more of an arcade game than a strategy one. The IE engine (and any RTwP implementation) stands somewhere in the middle of the distance from real DnD to Diablo, as far as I am concerned.

Why is it that RTS or other RTwP games like Freedom Force are never accused of being arcade games? You always have knowledge of the battlefield. You can select six characters with knowledge of the current battlefield. That gives an RTwP system an advantage. Moving as a team lets you skirmish or fall back in ranks.

Give me a Diablo, Zelda, or Dungeon Siege game where you can pause and control characters and I'm there. As it stands I never liked Diablo.

 

[Volourn]

"Arcade-like is a perfect description of BG combat."

r u dum!

 

[Shemar]

Once again the big difference is that you can plan the tactics of the active character with the knowledge that the rest of the battlefield stays the same as your character acts. In IE or any other RTwP abomination, everything moves around simultaneously, making it more of an arcade game than a strategy one.

Do you realise that both strategy and tactics were created for world where shit not only moves around but also most of time you have no idea where it is?

And there is a place for that. DnD is not that place. RPG combat is not that place. At least regarding actiony simultaneous movement. Nobody implied LOS and fog of war should be removed; in fact they are perfectly supported and integral to the best tactical turn based games.

 

[Mastermind]

The action rpg legacy of balder's gate dark alliance et al would say otherwise.

The legacy of what? Dark alliance was a shitty d2 clone that has no discernible legacy. No ARPG developer goes "man, I sure hope I can replicate even a fraction of the influence and success of Dark Alliance".

 

[Mastermind]

RPG combat is not that place.

Dumbfuck detected.

 

[Shemar]

I can understand having a preference for the more "gamey" turn-based style that has plenty of artificial elements. Sometimes simulationism doesn't equate to fun. I can dig it. But calling the Infinity Engine style play an arcade option? For real?

Like I said, if pure tabletop DnD is on one end and Diablo on the other, IE and NWN type games stand in the exact middle.

That's exactly the difference you get with turn-based versus RTWP. Precision versus more fluid timekeeping. Do you want the ability to make plays such as "surgical fireball strikes" or would you prefer a combat that is less gamey and allows for more player reactivity? It's a preference thing, given both engines do their job well.

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.

And this is where you completely lose me. Simultaneous action equates to arcade? What? Would a hypothetical simultaneous phase-based system be arcade because it lacks the precision afforded by the artificiality of turn-based combat? Despite the lack of dependence on player's reflex and manual dexterity? Those two things are, roughly, the defining features of arcade to me...things not present in the hypothetical system and present in the Infinity Engine in only the smallest amount.

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.

And I've never bought the "Infinity Engine is halfway between Diablo and real cRPGs" bullshit when it was trotted around the old Codex, and I still don't. There is no D&D to Diablo continuum...both come from radically different design philosophies with very little overlap. To say that the IE games and RTWP cRPGs are on their way to being Diablo because they make actions simultaneous while sharing almost every other core design principle with a turn-based RPG is absurd.

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.

 

[Shemar]

If that’s it then yes I don’t get it. Why does the spell have to line up perfectly? If anything you gain depth. If you have two scenarios where one a Fireball spell will hit 7/7 enemies the other where it will hit 4 to 7 and possibly one or two allies. The second scenario has more depth. You decide on the 4 that you definitely want to hit, who can you afford to miss, and who can or cant absorb friendly fire. Gameplay is all about decisions.

Yes, clearly you do not get it. From my point of view the interesting scenario above is what you get with turn based. With RTwP all you get is "i'll fire somewhere over there and hope the enemies will keep walking towards it as it hurls to its currently empty target spot, and we'll see what happens". That is as far removed from 'depth' as possible.

And that is just the most basic of examples. One of the most interesting things about turn based combat is positioning and manouvering. In RTwP positioning and manouvering is a just a jumbled random mess, partly because of the lack of a grid (square or hex) and partly because everything moves together so trying to control a whole party at the same time as every enemy moves about is more an exercise in frustration than anything interesting or stimulating.

You have every right to like RTwP more than turn based but any notion that RTwP can give me what I get out of turn based combat is simply ridiculous.

 

[Mastermind]

Yes, clearly you do not get it. From my point of view the interesting scenario above is what you get with turn based. With RTwP all you get is "i'll fire somewhere over there and hope the enemies will keep walking towards it as it hurls to its currently empty target spot, and we'll see what happens". That is as far removed from 'depth' as possible.

Your lack of imagination is the problem. I made heavy use of invisibility in BG2 precisely so I could position characters and fire off the first shot at my leisure. Usually, if I had a good plan, the enemy did not get much chance to react.

And that is just the most basic of examples. One of the most interesting things about turn based combat is positioning and manouvering. In RTwP positioning and manouvering is a just a jumbled random mess, partly because of the lack of a grid (square or hex)

Turn based does not necessarily require a grid. Likewise, some real time games are also grid based, though most people don't really notice (diablo movement was grid based for example).

You can play one here:
http://www.randomthoughts.net/games/diib/

and partly because everything moves together so trying to control a whole party at the same time as every enemy moves about is more an exercise in frustration than anything interesting or stimulating.

I've never had this problem in a rtwp game. Especially a fairly slow-paced game like BG2.

You have every right to like RTwP more than turn based but any notion that RTwP can give me what I get out of turn based combat is simply ridiculous.

No disagreement here. Most turn based games give you all the time in the world to react, so if they're not particularly complex (and no TB RPG is) even someone of your clearly inferior intellect will be able to play it and eventually stumble their way to victory. Whereas a complex, spreadsheet RPG like BG2 smug, which requires you to keep track of multiple actors at times, will likely be well above your pay grade.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

RPG combat is not that place.

Dumbfuck detected.

 

[Shemar]

Your lack of imagination is the problem. I made heavy use of invisibility in BG2 precisely so I could position characters and fire off the first shot at my leisure. Usually, if I had a good plan, the enemy did not get much chance to react.

I did the same thing in a multitude of games. I fail to see how that is tactical or interesting. Most RTwP systems I have played from BG all the way to DA:O had this easy win scenario of fireballing the enemies and then mow them down as they come to you.

Turn based does not necessarily require a grid. Likewise, some real time games are also grid based, though most people don't really notice (diablo movement was grid based for example).

Never played a TB without a grid, but I probably would avoid playing it just for that 'feature'. And I agree, RT/RTwP systems that do have a grid do not use it in any way that matters or is noticeable.

I've never had this problem in a rtwp game. Especially a fairly slow-paced game like BG2.

I never had this problem either, since positioning is near pointless (unless you play the usual blockade the doorway/choke point tactic). That is actually the problem, that positioning does not matter.

No disagreement here. Most turn based games give you all the time in the world to react, so if they're not particularly complex (and no TB RPG is) even someone of your clearly inferior intellect will be able to play it and eventually stumble their way to victory. Whereas a complex, spreadsheet RPG like BG2 smug, which requires you to keep track of multiple actors at times, will likely be well above your pay grade.

Ah, here comes the old "TB is easy" argument. Yes, I can clearly see you are a fan of that moron that they interviewed the other day that said all RPGs should be action based and they only reason they are not is because technology was not capable...

BG2 was actually quite simplistic, as was the AD&D system that was more of a freeform combat system on paper than a tactical one. More tailored to the munchkin builders that try to build the "I win" characters" than the tactical players who actually enjoy combat, rather than character build min-maxing. I can see why you would like it, given your clear incapability to grasp the difference between tactical options and character build options. Personally I found the BG games quite easy to beat in the Hardcore level (or whatever the accurate DnD ruleset level was), I actually remember playing one of them while chatting on ICQ with the woman I later married, and she had no clue I was playing a game as I was chatting with her. 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.

I always find it hilarious when people think the TB preference is about 'easy'. The ignorance is strong with you.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

AD&D isn't turn-based. It's phase based. Everyone declares their actions and then they are resolved basing on initiative.

 

[Mastermind]

I did the same thing in a multitude of games. I fail to see how that is tactical or interesting.

I too fail to see how using your abilities to create an ambush is not tactical or interesting compared to just running into combat and crying that you can't keep track of everybody.

Most RTwP systems I have played from BG all the way to DA:O had this easy win scenario of fireballing the enemies and then mow them down as they come to you.

This only worked on trash to mediocre mobs in BG2 (which was fairly light on them to begin with).

I never had this problem either, since positioning is near pointless (unless you play the usual blockade the doorway/choke point tactic). That is actually the problem, that positioning does not matter.

You find it pointless. I don't. I've won many battles easily on positioning alone. There is a world of difference between 4 confused characters and 1 confused character.

Ah, here comes the old "TB is easy" argument.

I did not say TB is easy. I said TB RPGs are easy. There's a difference.

Yes, I can clearly see you are a fan of that moron that they interviewed the other day that said all RPGs should be action based and they only reason they are not is because technology was not capable...

You seem to be under the fatally ignorant impression that I do not play or enjoy TB games at all.

BG2 was actually quite simplistic, as was the AD&D system that was more of a freeform combat system on paper than a tactical one.

It was. It also managed to be considerably more complex than the overwhelming majority of TB RPGs.

More tailored to the munchkin builders that try to build the "I win" characters" than the tactical players who actually enjoy combat, rather than character build min-maxing.

People who enjoy tactical combat don't play RPGs to get their fix because RPG combat is usually shit.

I can see why you would like it, given your clear incapability to grasp the difference between tactical options and character build options.

In a real RPG the tactical options available depend on your character build. The two are intimately related.

Personally I found the BG games quite easy to beat in the Hardcore level (or whatever the accurate DnD ruleset level was), I actually remember playing one of them while chatting on ICQ with the woman I later married, and she had no clue I was playing a game as I was chatting with her. 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.

I have no way to confirm how easy you found (or even if you played it for any significant amount of time) BG2. I have no intention of playing any gold box games because I can get better TB combat elsewhere and judging by guides I look at online they just use a shittier ad&d system than BG2 so in all likelihood you're lying about the tactical brilliance necessary.

edit: actually fuck it, I played fallout just so I can shit on it in detail, I guess I can do a goldbox game. I have curse of the azure bonds laying around here, I'll give that one a try.

I always find it hilarious when people think the TB preference is about 'easy'. The ignorance is strong with you.

I always find it hilarious when people are too stupid to detect satire of their own posts. I don't think TB preference is about easy (though it probably is in your case), I simply despise morons who think TB = tactical and RT = "arcade".

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Yes, clearly you do not get it. From my point of view the interesting scenario above is what you get with turn based. With RTwP all you get is "i'll fire somewhere over there and hope the enemies will keep walking towards it as it hurls to its currently empty target spot, and we'll see what happens". That is as far removed from 'depth' as possible.

And that is just the most basic of examples. One of the most interesting things about turn based combat is positioning and manouvering. In RTwP positioning and manouvering is a just a jumbled random mess, partly because of the lack of a grid (square or hex) and partly because everything moves together so trying to control a whole party at the same time as every enemy moves about is more an exercise in frustration than anything interesting or stimulating.

You have every right to like RTwP more than turn based but any notion that RTwP can give me what I get out of turn based combat is simply ridiculous.

You lost me when you said you get the same experience with TB games. What TB games are you talking about? I know ToEE has friendly fire with arrows but not spells (from what I remember) So you have a target in an AoE spell and nothing varies.

You make it seem like casting AoE magic in the IE games was purely a matter of hit or miss like you were playing a shooter. The reality is that you couldn’t miss any one target. You only missed in the peripheral. If you wanted to hit a Goblin Shaman with a fireball there was no missing the Shaman but if you wanted the Shaman and an archer that was near the edge of the spell circumference there was a chance the archer could move out of the way while the spell was in the air. Isnt that a good thing? Shouldn’t a creature be able to evade an AoE when they are only targeted by the edge of its effect? It could be done in TB combat but I cant name a game that does that. And I would rather a RTwP game attempt that than a TB. I’ll explain why.

Personally I like both systems I’m just miffed as to why the codex so rejects RTwP to the point where it loses in polls to pure action which almost always has repetitive melee combat to say the least about how shitty it can be. I can only name maybe two Action RPGs with decent combat.

So back on the subject. Since nobody really does more than defend RTwP and its rarely lauded as a solution here Its time someone made the point as to why RTwP is a great system and the IE games had better combat than the Gold Box games. If they improved as much as TB D&D did going from the Gold Box to ToEE there would be no rival.

I didn’t play BG 1 until 2001. I just didn’t have a PC. So for years I wondered how this wasn’t a decline from the Gold Box games. I heard it was realtime and nobody told me I could pause the damn game. I spent almost ten hours playing it before I learned I could pause the game like Darklands. It wasn’t until I was about six hours from finishing that game before I started to appreciate its combat. If I played the game like D&D which was what I was used to having played all the FR and Dragonlane Gold Box games then BG was lacking. However if I played the game like a character in an FR novel then it opened up. It paid to think like a real fantasy character come to life instead of board game D&D.

To thrive in BG you had to use realtime strategy methods

-Arm everyone with ranged weapons and stay far away from enemies unless its an enemy that is outstanding from range

-You use stealth whenever possible. Always scout with Imoen

-Kite

- Lead to ambushes and traps



It ties into the point I made earlier about why I rather use a realtime to factor a miss/hit from AoE spell. Realtime games simply have more complex AI. The reason why they suck is the input and the way developers want you to fight hordes or huge numbers of anything. So knowing a horde of anything would kick your ass they dumb down the AI so you have five creatures surround your character taking turns with slow pathetic attacks then they let you beat them with simple combos like XXXXX. That’s why I can only stomach action games like Ninja Gaiden because as their designer said the enemies are not there for you to kill they are there to kill you. Ignore the AI that is put there for you to kill and you will see realtime games have much better AI.

Recently, I was able to look at the AI code from a major 3rd person shooter and its so much more complex than a TB game. In realtime games each character has every hostile in sense distance logged with an estimation of their location and trigonometry of their movement which also factors speed and possible momentum. That’s at a very base level I was surprised at how much more they are aware of. TB characters are not aware of that much. If a fireball goes up in a realtime game then all you have to do is treat it like a grenade. I know you have played shooters where if an enemy has its back to you or is getting shot at they wont move out of the way of a grenade because they don’t see it.

Position in BG was based on a realtime stream for each hostile. Kiting one to six characters is positioning. Its just mobile positioning. You just have to constantly reposition when someone is trying to take an advantageous location. At times you have to pause and dance with a fighter that is trying to cross your ranks. That’s the dance of battle. That isn’t chaos. And seeing how the game did give you the chance to be creative and attack first at times with nasty spells before luring enemies into a arrows, rocks and, bolts you could avoid a dangerous melee for maybe 7 of 10 encounters. That’s realism and it keeps the repetitive kiting fresh enough.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

More tailored to the munchkin builders that try to build the "I win" characters" than the tactical players who actually enjoy combat, rather than character build min-maxing.

Aren't these usually the same people? If you really enjoy combat you'll end up learning how to be efficient at it.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

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.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I don't remember having any issues whatsoever having my fireballs blast exactly the way I want them. In fact the choice was what to include in the blast. I never had an issue with having to guess the placement for the effect I wanted.

I vaguely remember flubbing spells in the Gold Box games. You had to learn certain patterns. A stinking cloud was a four by four square that started in the top left. In Pool there were no graphics for it. A fireball was similar just much larger. The only difference from that and the IE is that you had an actual round (relatively) circumference and you had to hit moving targets.

You don' get the fact that I would prefer if my fireball targets stay in place so I have the tactical option of who to hit instead of the arcade option of aiming for a moving target?

If that’s it then yes I don’t get it. Why does the spell have to line up perfectly? If anything you gain depth. If you have two scenarios where one a Fireball spell will hit 7/7 enemies the other where it will hit 4 to 7 and possibly one or two allies. The second scenario has more depth. You decide on the 4 that you definitely want to hit, who can you afford to miss, and who can or cant absorb friendly fire. Gameplay is all about decisions.

Once again the big difference is that you can plan the tactics of the active character with the knowledge that the rest of the battlefield stays the same as your character acts. In IE or any other RTwP abomination, everything moves around simultaneously, making it more of an arcade game than a strategy one. The IE engine (and any RTwP implementation) stands somewhere in the middle of the distance from real DnD to Diablo, as far as I am concerned.

Why is it that RTS or other RTwP games like Freedom Force are never accused of being arcade games? You always have knowledge of the battlefield. You can select six characters with knowledge of the current battlefield. That gives an RTwP system an advantage. Moving as a team lets you skirmish or fall back in ranks.

Give me a Diablo, Zelda, or Dungeon Siege game where you can pause and control characters and I'm there. As it stands I never liked Diablo.

Ideally I'd like turn-based with some form of auto-attack mechanic (i.e. the ability to set your front line fighters to do a given attack every turn until you choose otherwise, hence reducing the repetitive selection - can have the combat autoresolve that way for easy fights). But I don't really get the 'oh noes a moving target' mentality either. It isn't as though you had to meticulously time it arcade style. I'm not actually sure how you could even miss - the units all move very slowly and predictably, and you pretty much know exactly where to cast (given the generous range of the AoE spells).

And if in doubt, you can always just select an enemy to be at the centre of the spell, removing all need for aiming. But even if you are targeting a patch of ground, you aren't really 'aiming'. The spell will go exactly where you point, and there's no guesswork as to where an enemy will be when the spell goes off.

 

[Shemar]

I too fail to see how using your abilities to create an ambush is not tactical or interesting compared to just running into combat and crying that you can't keep track of everybody.

No surprises in your failure there. I am sure doing the same tactic over and over again across every game that uses a similar combat system is tactical and interesting to a limited mind...

This only worked on trash to mediocre mobs in BG2 (which was fairly light on them to begin with).

Not really. It works on everything. On harder enemies it just takes some HP off before they can engage instead of just killing them, but it still makes fights a lot easier.

You find it pointless. I don't. I've won many battles easily on positioning alone. There is a world of difference between 4 confused characters and 1 confused character.

I like fights where not doing the optimal strategy gets you in trouble. In RTwP there is no optimal, it is just shepperding the moronic AI pathfinding of your party and exploiting the moronic AI pathfinding of the enemy. When the difference between working hard to do the optimal strategy and just letting the AI duke it out is a couple of healing potions, I can't be bothered.

In a real RPG the tactical options available depend on your character build. The two are intimately related.

Not really. A good RPG should provide good tactical options for any reasonable build. Maybe which options are available depends on the build but how many should not.

you're lying about the tactical brilliance necessary.

I never said they required "tactical brilliance", just that I found them harder than BG games. In reality an RTwP system is made to account for the people that can't micromanage and therefore it is easy for those that do. A good TB system can be designed so that without optimal strategy the player suffers and some fights are unwinnable. A RTwP system has to make a lot more allowances, since the target audience is by default a much more simplistic one.

 

[Shemar]

You lost me when you said you get the same experience with TB games. What TB games are you talking about? I know ToEE has friendly fire with arrows but not spells (from what I remember) So you have a target in an AoE spell and nothing varies.

A fireball in all versions of D&D hits friendlies. A game failing to implement that does not change what the proper implementation of the rules is. In a game that properly implements the rules, all the tactical options are there, just without the arcade-y targetting, AI pathfinding shepperding and randomness.

You make it seem like casting AoE magic in the IE games was purely a matter of hit or miss like you were playing a shooter. The reality is that you couldn’t miss any one target. You only missed in the peripheral. If you wanted to hit a Goblin Shaman with a fireball there was no missing the Shaman but if you wanted the Shaman and an archer that was near the edge of the spell circumference there was a chance the archer could move out of the way while the spell was in the air. Isnt that a good thing? Shouldn’t a creature be able to evade an AoE when they are only targeted by the edge of its effect?

In an action game yes. In a TB game it was called a saving throw (in the case of AD&D) for half damage. And no the Shaman was never a sure hit because if he is close to friendlies I have to target him with the edge of the fireball and not the center.

Personally I like both systems I’m just miffed as to why the codex so rejects RTwP to the point where it loses in polls to pure action which almost always has repetitive melee combat to say the least about how shitty it can be. I can only name maybe two Action RPGs with decent combat.

I am with you there. I prefer TRwP than pure action, when it comes to medieval settings, mostly because I hate action melee combat. On modern settings though, I would much rather play a first or third person shooter, than an action RPG.

So back on the subject. Since nobody really does more than defend RTwP and its rarely lauded as a solution here Its time someone made the point as to why RTwP is a great system and the IE games had better combat than the Gold Box games. If they improved as much as TB D&D did going from the Gold Box to ToEE there would be no rival.

To me the combat system in the IE was a huge dissapointment and the beginning of the end for decent RPG combat in major titles. I enjoy the simplistic TB combat of Spiderweb games more than AAA RTwP games (although I do enjoy other aspects of such games).

If I played the game like D&D which was what I was used to having played all the FR and Dragonlane Gold Box games then BG was lacking. However if I played the game like a character in an FR novel then it opened up. It paid to think like a real fantasy character come to life instead of board game D&D.

Exactly. If you want your tabletop combat system into a game, like I do, it is a complete failure.

 

[Shemar]

More tailored to the munchkin builders that try to build the "I win" characters" than the tactical players who actually enjoy combat, rather than character build min-maxing.

Aren't these usually the same people? If you really enjoy combat you'll end up learning how to be efficient at it.

Not really. There is a difference between making a reasonable character that does not suck and planning several levels ahead while using multi-classing and every possible loophole and exploit for the sake of a more powerful character. Most games become way too easy if you do the latter anyway, which in turn makes the actual fighting pointless and boring.

 

[Shemar]

You generally employ the same tactics. The differences aren't that huge.
...

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.

Let me see if I can explain with an example. In TB combat I can deploy my party of diverse roles and characters so that any enemy would have to suffer through multiple opportunity attacks from my front line to get to my ranged strikers and at the same time maximize the number of enemies AoE spells hit. I have battlefield control in a way that is nearly impossible in RTwP withoiut some sort of choke point (the use of a grid rather than movement nodes is also a big part of that and a key advantage of TB vs. RTwP in most implementations). In TB if an enemy moves away from my melee fighter, I see that and I can react on my turn (either follow or let him go and get the figter to do something else). In RTwP either I set the fighter to auto-follow (breaking formation, walking into enemy lines and getting hit by all kinds of opportunity attacks as well as friendly AoE spells already airborne) or not auto-follow in which case he stays idle until I see than his target is no longer in range. Maybe you don't see it as a big deal, but I do. The level of control and micromanagement I have in TB is leagues away from what I have in RTwP both in terms of actual capabilities and in terms of how annoying it is to try to maintain in RTwP something what is simply inherent in the TB system.

 

[Volourn]

No.