Why the dislike for RTWP combat?

[JarlFrank]

Still don't understand your point. It's as much of a feature as RTwP. It would be a way to make RT combat actually workable.

My point is, choosing your game speed is not a part from the game system. Under game system I consider the basic rules of the game, the combat rules, if it is turn based or real-time, how many actions your character may do in one turn, and all that gameplay-affecting stuff.

Chosing your own gaming speed is not directly a feature of the system. The game can be hellishly slow or fast as shit, the system is still the same. Setting your own pace for the game is just a small gameplay gimmick, not a big part of the system.

For example, if IWD had adjustable speed [which it doesn't, but whatever] and BG had it not, they would still have the same system.

 

[doctor_kaz]

Reading the Codex, it would seem RTWP (real-time with pause) combat in RPGs is often looked down upon. I'm wondering why this is the case.

In my experience RTWP offers the same tactical choices as turn-based combat with the addictional possibility of a more fluid gameplay if one so chose. "Real-time" in this case doesn't mean action- or twich-based combat. The order in which actions are carried out still depends on character stats or intiative rolls or whatever system is used.

A good recent example being UFO: Afterlight. The game can be fully customized to anything ranging from interrupts after every action, new enemy sightings or other critical events, to fully real-time with zero interrupts. Such a system is, imo, optimal for RPGs. Developers can leave it up to the players how they wish to play the game - from supervising every turn to watching it play out like a movie with very little interaction.

So my question is still, why the hate for RTWP?

Because turn-based is still much more eloquent and tactical. Much more. RTWP is not the equivalent of turn-based. It's not even close. Anyone who thinks so clearly has never played Temple of Elemental Evil and compared it to Icewind Dale.

 

[Crichton]

Because turn-based is still much more eloquent and tactical. Much more. RTWP is not the equivalent of turn-based. It's not even close. Anyone who thinks so clearly has never played Temple of Elemental Evil and compared it to Icewind Dale.

Appeal to obviousness?

As someone who's played both, I'd probably give ToEE the nod strictly in terms of combat system, setting aside things like encounter design, AI and troop type balance. But it's hardly clear cut, in addition to the aforementioned AoE issues, the movement/action balance in 3rd edition D&D is pretty screwy, take the moathouse courtyard;

A swordsman rushes in and takes a swing at a crossbowman, miss. The crossbowman takes ~2-3 paces back (5') puts the crossbow down, braces it with his foot, pulls up to cock it, shoulders it, loads another bolt and pulls the trigger (hit, 3 pts of damage), the swordsman just stood there and watched all that. Swordsman's turn again, he leaps 5' forward and takes another swing (hit, 5 pts). Xbowman backs up again, loads again, shoots again (miss). Swordsman rushes forward again, swing and a miss. Xbowman steps back.... (hit, 6 points) Swordsman calmly takes 2 steps forward and cuts the xbowman down (hit, 7 points).

This "fight" has exhausted both combatants, the crossbowman has taken three "shots" after the swordsman first closed to melee range, and the fight has moved 15 feet across the courtyard. Just what the heck is this supposed to represent?

The "charge" move presented a similar range of weirdness. The charge move itself absolutely must be in a line, no grade whatsoever. But the subsequent attack can be in any direction you like, so you can "charge" some empty space in front of a side door, turn 90 degrees and poke someone 5" back from the door with your spear.

The IE engine movement/combat balance is hardly ideal, particularly in conjunction with crummy pathfinding, but a lot of ToEE's effort to be true to 3rd edition D&D was wasted because it's just not that good a ruleset and the final effect, even setting aside all the AI problems and lack of enemy variety isn't all that impressive.

 

[suibhne]

Chosing your own gaming speed is not directly a feature of the system. The game can be hellishly slow or fast as shit, the system is still the same. Setting your own pace for the game is just a small gameplay gimmick, not a big part of the system.

For example, if IWD had adjustable speed [which it doesn't, but whatever] and BG had it not, they would still have the same system.

Well. Yes, that's correct in your example, which focuses on a RTwP system - but it wouldn't be correct in a fully RT combat system, where time actually carries meaning (because there is no option for pausing). A RT combat system (again, without pause) that allows speed to be scaled down to 50% is radically different from even the exact same system at 100%, because one of the major considerations is the latency of player input - how long it takes for the player to assess the game's feedback, choose a response, and then implement that response through the (fully real-time) interface.

sheek has played a lot of Myth, as have I, so I'm betting we're on the same page: Myth and Myth 2 singleplayer, where you could dynamically change the gamespeed to make interface control much easier, is a totally different animal than multiplayer, where there's no speed adjustment possible (but where you can divide troops among teammates, a totally different approach to solving the control issues).

 

[dagorkan]

Well. Yes, that's correct in your example, which focuses on a RTwP system - but it wouldn't be correct in a fully RT combat system, where time actually carries meaning (because there is no option for pausing). A RT combat system (again, without pause) that allows speed to be scaled down to 50% is radically different from even the exact same system at 100%, because one of the major considerations is the latency of player input - how long it takes for the player to assess the game's feedback, choose a response, and then implement that response through the (fully real-time) interface.

Exactly, well explained. Having a time constraint can make for good gameplay. When you put it into an RPG there's the problem of player vs character skill of course - that's where the speed control would come in, so each person can scale the difficulty to their individual ability (coordination, reflexes, game experience, quick wits etc). Forcing everybody into the same mould is where there's a problem.

The other problem is that the speed in most of these RT RPGs is just too fast for the larger, complex battles. The impression I get is they haven't taken into account the average user. I doubt there are many people who can properly control a party of four in real time (without pausing - given needing the pause function is bad design) each with his own role and abilities (eg a spellcaster, an archer, a tank/fighter, and a roguish character sneaking behind). Whereas during the smaller, starting battles you don't have anything to do except watch.

A speed control system would fix that.

[a note on unit types, in a well designed Myth level you would not be expected to control more than two or three different categories of units simultaneously - simply because the average person mentally/physically can't. RPG designers seem to have missed that and expect you to control much more complex units (mages with dozens of specialized spells, fighters with multiple attack modes) without any adjustable time scale!]

 

[Crichton]

The other problem is that the speed in most of these RT RPGs is just too fast for the larger, complex battles.

The speed of battle is (almost) irrelevant if the engine has any kind of decent autopause system, the fact there was no autopause is the primary reason I could never stand myth. Well that and the gimicky, repeat the following simple pattern to kill 1 opposing sap (like the exploding undead) at no damage to yourself; I didn't like that in IWDII either, just plain bad design.

In any case, if the autopause kicks in at the start of a battle and prompts you whenever you're able to give fresh orders, then there's no latency and no need for adjustable speed.

 

[dagorkan]

OK so you like BG combat? You don't think it's annoying to have combat interrupted every three seconds? You have the wrong question: why would you need autopause at the end of each round if you didn't need to constantly pause to catch up with what's happening?

 

[Crichton]

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject:
OK so you like BG combat? You don't think it's annoying to have combat interrupted every three seconds? You have the wrong question: why would you need autopause at the end of each round if you didn't need to constantly pause to catch up with what's happening?

Because it'll always take me much longer to input orders to a computer than would be permissible in real life. If I want my magician to cast a spell, he probably knows more 20 of them, I need to click the cast spell icon, scroll through the find the spell I want, sort through whatever options it allows and carefully line up it's 3d trajectory through my 2d monitor interface, if I can actually do that without latency issues than combat isn't slow, it's stopped. Given the complexity of any decent tactical system, the only way using tactics on the time scale of a skirmish is going to be possible is through time stopping, not just so you have time to think, but so you have time to give detailed instructions.

 

[dagorkan]

The problem there doesn't necessarily require pause it requires a better interface to adjust your tactics. The BG/NWN shit obviously has been designed with the use pause in mind and that is why they have all those awful radial menus.

In a proper RT game you would be able to get a spell or change attack mode by pressing a series of buttons - eg "3" for 'cast spell', "2" for 'conjuration domain', "5" for '5th level spell' and "7" for 'fireball'. So press 3257 (you would see the list of options at each menu in the corner of the screen. Pressing "0" at any time would take you back a level and "Esc" back to the beginning.

Even better would be the additional ability to program different characters, giving them different automated preset behaviors - which you could activiate or switch between with the press of a button. Eg a preset for melee defence (only attack when you have a definite advantage like knocked down/flanked/flatfooted opponent), for spell casting (low-level combat spells / healing / combat support, casting haste/protections), or anything else. A bit like the custom BG system but more advanced.

And of course if you really need to pause you can, adjustable speed includes right down to 0x speed.

 

[Crichton]

The problem there doesn't necessarily require pause it requires a better interface to adjust your tactics. The BG/NWN shit obviously has been designed with the use pause in mind and that is why they have all those awful radial menus.

The interface really couldn't matter less, no keyboard and mouse interface is going have the flexibility of the spoken word and the spoken word isn't fast enough, no one can verbalize orders for 10 people in different situations fast enough for them to be relevant. Computer games give the player complete control over the entire range of actions of groups of people, there is no real life equivalent to this, if it's to happen on the time scale of sword blows than time is simply going to have to stop, there's point in bothering with some super-slow-mo molasses in janurary compromise, it won't look any better and it will never solve all latency issues.

 

[dagorkan]

Well obviously when you have that level of complexity turn-based is your only real option but I thought we were talking about RT systems. I'm sorry, I just don't see why a RT system with two settings (full-time and pause) would be better than one with both those and everything in between. Why would you cut out an option like that which would allow every individual to adjust the game to their ability or preference?

 

[Crichton]

Well obviously when you have that level of complexity turn-based is your only real option but I thought we were talking about RT systems. I'm sorry, I just don't see why a RT system with two settings (full-time and pause) would be better than one with both those and everything in between. Why would you cut out an option like that which would allow every individual to adjust the game to their ability or preference?

Whether there's a speed slider is irrelevant so long as that game pauses automatically at orders time; forcing the human to keep track of when each of 10 units comes up for orders and yank a slider to the left is untenable.

As for simultaneity being impossible if there are lots of different orders to be given, that's why you need the autopause. So long as the game stops and prompts you for orders, it doesn't matter how many units there are or how complicated the orders are. This process can be sped up by forcing everyone into the same "round" to make it phase based, but it's hardly necessary. So long as time is frozen when you're giving orders, it makes absolutely no difference (in terms of how difficult it is to imput information) if these orders are going to be carried out simultaneously or consecutively.

Edit: typo

 

[Blacklung]

I only prefer entirely turn based games when combat is continually a challenge. For instance, I can't even count the number of times that I just wanted to fast forward through many of the easy or random battles in FO. Move a few spaces...paused, each enemy moves one at a time. Unpause and now I take a few more steps. Blah.

RTwP is nice if is highly tweakable and allows you to take full command when things are tough, or sit back and let the AI take over when fighting lower level enemies. However, to my knowledge, no game has been able to truly achieve an extremely good balance here. Even the Black Isle games like BG1-2, and IWD1-2, while pretty easy to get the hang of, the RTwP was still a bit strange since you couldn't really tell when your turn or round was up for who or what. Lot of guess work. Extremely playable, but not perfect.

 

[dagorkan]

Whether there's a speed slider is irrelevant so long as that game pauses automatically at orders time; forcing the human to keep track of when each of 10 units comes up for orders and yank a slider to the left is untenable.

As for simultaneity being impossible if there are lots of different orders to be given, that's why you need the autopause. So long as the game stops and prompts you for orders, it doesn't matter how many units there are or how complicated the orders are. This process can be sped up by forcing everyone into the same "round" to make it phase based, but it's hardly necessary. So long as time is frozen when you're giving orders, it makes absolutely no difference (in terms of how difficult it is to imput information) if these orders are going to be carried out simultaneously or consecutively.

Edit: typo

OK, we were talking about different things. You are talking about a visually real-time system but using kind of 'phase-based' mechanics (eg 'adapted D&D') - every character gets a fixed number actions every six seconds. I am thinking about completely non-turn based mechanics like an RTS or FPS where any action is determined at that specific moment and you can change action at any moment. I think this is more consistent.

Eg in NWN where apparently you can be in combat and run away half way through. Visually you will not be in combat any more but if your opponent 'rolls to hit' successfully before the round is over you will take damage because the game still has you noted down as 'engaged' for that turn - or at least that's how I understand it.

If you're going real-time you may as well simulate reality. Otherwise, frankly what's the point?

 

[Jed]

Whether there's a speed slider is irrelevant so long as that game pauses automatically at orders time; forcing the human to keep track of when each of 10 units comes up for orders and yank a slider to the left is untenable.

What, again, is your objection to a Turn-Based system? Because if you're wanting to pause to issue orders every round, what is the qualitative difference? Honestly it sounds like either you don't know what you want, or you're just being contradictory for the sake of being contradictory.

 

[Crichton]

What, again, is your objection to a Turn-Based system? Because if you're wanting to pause to issue orders every round, what is the qualitative difference?

There is a difference in terms of what you know when you issue your orders, in a turn based system you know the order of execution (and in some cases even the outcome of some actions) when you issue your orders. That's less "realistic" than giving all your orders before any are executed, but I don't have much of a preference either way, I didn't issue any objection to a turn-based system, I (helpfully) pointed out that TB isn't our "only real option".

 

[Crichton]

If you're going real-time you may as well simulate reality. Otherwise, frankly what's the point?

See above, what you know when you issue your orders is vitally important to what orders you give, something that's always problematic for a turn-based system because at the very least, you always know the order of execution when you issue your orders, the outcome of any actions that came before the current unit and in some cases even more than that (solvable to a certain extent with overwatch and reaction moves, or "interrupts").

 

[obediah]

There are some good criticisms of RTwP combat in the thread, but since I'd rather fight than get all faggy, I'm going to pick on the more ludicrous criticisms. I speak of RTwP in it's capacity to TB systems rather than it's ability to dumb down CRPGs. So don't waste my time with "but in NWN...blah" responses.

Real time is not conductive of resource management gameplay. TB and Phase-based is about effective using limited actions which is good for tactics. RT promotes reaction which is good for action

EU and the other Paradox games, a few space battle games that I can't recall the name of at the moment, and even UFO After*. The latter, I found myself struggling with the pause functionaly, but it wasn't about uber-micro.

RTWP just is a complete and total failure. AI design in every RT game is so shitty that playing against(or with) computer A"I" controlled players is a joke.

The paradox games show that AI for a RTwP game is tricky, but certainly possible. They've made countless improvements on their model over the years. The UFO people have made improvements each game as well. Your NWN follower stuck in a corner is not reason to damn RTwP forever.

You can't pause a real fight either. My opinion is either play it TB or play it RT. There's no middle man that can do better than both in their domain.

RTwP is a competitor of TB, not a compromise of RT and TB. The main benefits of RTwP over TB are:

* actions occur smoothly on a single timeline, and are affected by all earlier actions
* actions take as long as they should rather than always 1 turn.
* with good time management tools, you have more control over actions than in TB

The main challenge to RTwP is usability. There are plenty of improvements to be made in time management, macroing, ai.

TB trains your strategical thinking and planning and RT trains your reflexes and conditioning.

A good RTwP system is just as strategical as TB. RTwP is more "natural" than a TB game, in that there are fewer artifacts to manipulate. Read through strategy hints for your favorite TB games, how many of the tips are specific to their TB implementation? I hesitate to consider this a benefit, because I enjoy learning the quirks of each new ruleset. But tactics in say JA2 don't carry over to FA:T in the same way tactics from UFO game carry over to E5.

If RT combat is so great for party-based cRPGs, why does it need the crutch of pause?

See my previous response. RTwP isn't about giving you a breather from mayhem, it's about being able to exercise tactics/strategy without TB artifacts.

I either want to play tactically or not, but not a bit of both. If I am playing tactically then I want to control everything, which means I will be pausing a lot, which means the real-time element is kind of pointless.

Only because you don't get the point or RTwP. Playing a RTwP game using lots of pausing and slowed time is a gaming style closer to TB than RT. Tedius in different ways than TB, but both require strategy and planning.

Because turn-based is still much more eloquent and tactical. Much more. RTWP is not the equivalent of turn-based. It's not even close.

I strongly suspect that if you sampled real special forces training, you would see much more in common with E5 than JA2. E5 can't compete in eloquence, but we are comparing a very mature mechanic to one in it's infancy. Comparing JA2 to some of the 70's TB rulesets might offer some insight into just how much improvement can be made.

Anyone who thinks so clearly has never played Temple of Elemental Evil and compared it to Icewind Dale.

Anyone that believes TB to be as complex as RTwP clearly has never played EU III and compared it to Risk.

Later tonight, I'll post some thoughts on RTwP RPGs I've played.

 

[Veracity]

One point that's been rehashed countless times, but I don't think explicitly restated this time round: the argument in favour of real-time that it makes uninteresting combat flash by more quickly is witless because (a) ensuring combat is interesting when it occurs is so obviously a better solution, and (b) turn-based can do auto-resolve, anyway, if some non-threatening combat is unavoidable.

RT with extensive autopause can allow for a great deal of detailed control (as in Brigade E5), so it's certainly not unavoidably less complex. Such systems seem to me to end up feeling rather clumsy and disjointed, flowing less comfortably than an otherwise roughly equivalent TB alternative, but that's probably at least as much a symptom of implementation quirks in the systems I've played with as anything.

I would ask the original poster, though (if you're still here by now): what's actually inherently desirable about real-time systems? The only standard argument that seems to hold up quite frequently in practice, if not in theory, is that it helps avoid some highly unrealistic situations. Since games are pretty much all obviously very abstract on a more than cursory examination, this has never struck me as terribly important, but I can at least see why it bothers some people.

 

[obediah]

Here are some of my thoughts on RTwP games we've seen in RPGs. I don't think most of these are what the OP wanted us to judge RTwP as a system on, but I think they are the reason we see so much hatred on the codex.

What a rollercoaster ride. BG was such a shock of shit after the gold box games. But I had more fun with BGII, and the icewind dales. Combat doesn't stand up to ToEE, or even the SSI games. Using the standard codex-definitions, I could consider it a phase-based/RTwP mashup. It is essentially phase-based with some RT elements that probably stemmed from poor design or programming rather than anything intentional.

Fuck if I know. I think I accidently clicked on RT combat once and some guy killed me in a few seconds. Twitch-suck.

Terrible. Who the fuck thought you could build a D&D game on a foundation of diablo and a pause button.

Even worse. NWN was a horrible compromise between twitch action rpg and tactical rpg. NWN2 unexpectedly and boldy blazed a difficult path deeper into crapville. How? you might ask. By replacing the compromise with an random amalgamation that makes Frankenstein look seemless.

Ah, the next step on Biowares trip to retardo-gaming. Boring, featureless. It felt like playing one of the early FF games with your 3 guys spamming attacks and the occasional cookie cutter force power. Combat wasn't fun, but it was easy enough for me to suffer through it to finish the story.

I liked Freedom Force. It was embarassingly shallow in tactics, but they hit the target they were aiming for. It was a fun diversion. The sequel was a letdown, not because it was a step back, but because it didn't have enough meat on the bones to warrant more of the same.

I hardly ever played in RT mode. I think to get past a bug, or an easy fight. I remember reading there was some serious balance issues that could be exploited by switching modes. Like all hybrids, neither system turned out excellent.

Promising. Rich tactical control. I found myself fighting with the autopause too often. A simple fix of having a pause only button in addition to the toggle. The biggest problem was the tedium of micromanaging each mission. To keep everyone proceeding with best tactics was time consuming, but surviving a tough mission was very rewarding. Slumming through an easy mission went quickly, but was less satisfying.

This is a game that makes me think RTwP might work for tactical level skirmishes. If developers can address the tedium without sacrificing the feeling of control. Better use of slow motion, some high level macros (e.g. "rush to nearest cover, and focus on closest target"), and some more advanced formations and movement types (e.g.being able to lasso 3-4 people and in one command causing them to work as a team to move on one position, using all available cover and proceeding two at a time while the others provide cover).

 

[Jed]

* actions occur smoothly on a single timeline, and are affected by all earlier actions

How are actions in TB not affected by all earlier actions?

See my previous response. RTwP isn't about giving you a breather from mayhem, it's about being able to exercise tactics/strategy without TB artifacts.

Having to pause every round to issue orders sounds like a "TB artifact" if there ever was one.

So far the only advantage RTwP has over TB is that you can passively resolve combat in low risk situations. But this is again, this is an issue of game design, rather than something inherent to one combat model vs. the other.

 

[Human Shield]

Real time is not conductive of resource management gameplay. TB and Phase-based is about effective using limited actions which is good for tactics. RT promotes reaction which is good for action

EU and the other Paradox games, a few space battle games that I can't recall the name of at the moment, and even UFO After*. The latter, I found myself struggling with the pause functionaly, but it wasn't about uber-micro.

It is still not management. In JA2 you have to debate weather to go prone around a corner or run, changing the amount of AP you are left with. You can call it artificial but it makes planning more important. In RT you can crawl prone around every corner. When you aren't given limited actions to maximize you are left with a stream of reactions. Reaction vs. management.

 

[obediah]

* actions occur smoothly on a single timeline, and are affected by all earlier actions

How are actions in TB not affected by all earlier actions?

Hmm 30 second turns, I have 10 ap. I win initiative and use 8 ap to move behind you and 2 ap to blow the back of your head off. My action is not affected by anything you were going to do for the first 4/5 of the turn.

See my previous response. RTwP isn't about giving you a breather from mayhem, it's about being able to exercise tactics/strategy without TB artifacts.

Having to pause every round to issue orders sounds like a "TB artifact" if there ever was one.

A TB artifact is something like above. Pausing a RTwP game doesn't change the in-game state at all. It won't make people die from a gunshot 6 seconds in the future, or allow one character to run around while all the others are frozen. All you can do is tell your characters what to do. A good RtwP engine will use their current action, the new action and maybe some character stats to determine how long it takes for the character to pursue the new action.

It is still not management. In JA2 you have to debate weather to go prone around a corner or run, changing the amount of AP you are left with. You can call it artificial but it makes planning more important. In RT you can crawl prone around every corner. When you aren't given limited actions to maximize you are left with a stream of reactions. Reaction vs. management.

I don't get it. You can crawl prone around every corner in JA2 or in UFO After*. It's a bit safer in each game, and it's slower in each game. In JA2 it might be the difference between getting there with enough AP to fire a shot, but in After* time itself is the resource you are managing. You can crawl around every corner, but the battle will probably be over by the time you get there.

The advantage of the JA2 method, is that turning a corner becomes it's own little AP management mini-game. It doesn't have anything to do with how delta force handles a corner, but it is a fun system to work to your advantage. A fun abstraction.

The advantage of the UFO method, is that you pause the game look at everyone else's situation and decide which is the best tactical way to take the corner. You don't look at an AP counter, or see who has already moved this turn, or try to remember the specific games opportunity fire rules. You just think "I'm here, armed with this gun, my team mates are over there heading this way. Hostiles are over there. What do I need to do?"

I think the second is more natural, but not necessarily more fun. The most realistic rpg isn't always the most fun to play, and the same for these games. There are many wickedly-abstract systems based on cards and all sorts of crap that unrealistic but fun.

 

[doctor_kaz]

Real time with pause still does a piss poor job of simulating turn-based because real-time with pause is actually simulataneous turns. In a true turn-based system, you can cast a fireball at a group of enemies without those enemies moving. In a RTWP system, you cannot. With a true turn-based system, you can take a five foot step backwards to avoid an enemy's threat range before firing an arrow or casting a spell. With RTWP, you cannot. For this reason, big RTWP battles ironically move at a slower pace than big turn-based battles, because with everyone acting simultaneously, you have to pause the game every half second in order to make sure that your orders are being carried out. Good tactical games always require extensive micromanagement, and that requires a turn-based system to be good. I enjoyed combat in the old Gold Box D&D games better than the shitty combat of the Bioware Infinity Engine. RTWP is only marginally better than real-time, and I think that you could argue that it's worse in many ways.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Real time with pause still does a piss poor job of simulating turn-based because real-time with pause is actually simulataneous turns. In a true turn-based system, you can cast a fireball at a group of enemies without those enemies moving. In a RTWP system, you cannot. With a true turn-based system, you can take a five foot step backwards to avoid an enemy's threat range before firing an arrow or casting a spell. With RTWP, you cannot. For this reason, big RTWP battles ironically move at a slower pace than big turn-based battles, because with everyone acting simultaneously, you have to pause the game every half second in order to make sure that your orders are being carried out. Good tactical games always require extensive micromanagement, and that requires a turn-based system to be good. I enjoyed combat in the old Gold Box D&D games better than the shitty combat of the Bioware Infinity Engine. RTWP is only marginally better than real-time, and I think that you could argue that it's worse in many ways.

Not only that, but in the cases of BG, NWN, KotOR, etc. where the round time is fixed at 6 seconds based on the original rulesystem definition of a round, you have to just sit there and wait for things to be executed after the orders given. There's some noticable down time between your orders and waiting for the resolution where all you do is wait for that timer to be finished.

In turn based, you can speed up the animations so that the results of orders is nigh instantaneous. Order, result, order, result, order, result.. It's a much faster system than RTwP a la BG and by far more interactive to boot. How often do you have to interact with a tank class in BG, IWD, etc? You just pick a target, wait for it to take enough damage and then issue an order again.

I've said before that RTwP generally has the feel of watching a friend play a game and occationally giving him some advice on how to play it. When you favor tank style classes, this is even more the case because the only time you interact with those classes is at the point of victory over an enemy or if the enemy is beating you. If you have wizards, you have spells to cast occationally, but at lower levels.. Well, once they burn up their spells, it's just watch and wait.

In attempting to eek some enjoyment out of IWD, I set up the game to pause after every round. The problem I ran in to was I noticed I spent most of the combat just hitting the spacebar because I generally had nothing that really needed done during that round.