Real Time with Pause/Headscratchers

Deuxhero:How on earth is this popular enough to be so widely used? It carries none of the tactical benefits of turn based (no management allowed) none of the benefits of real time (no player skill allowed, even if making player skill matter is a bad idea for an RPG, but that is another entry) has none of it's own, and all fights in games with it basically devolve into spamming an ability or attack.

Eric DVH: Because it's superior to both systems (except in multiplayer.) 'You think the other systems are perfect? How about realtime? Controlling multiple characters is an exercise in futility, selecting and configuring more than a handful of abilities is near impossible, and digging in your inventory is guaranteed suicide. For deep strategy, RT SUCKS ROCK HARD. Even for shallow strategy and advanced tactics, RT is almost always intensely frustrating unless the game's user interface was built by God Almighty Himself born in mortal game designer flesh.

Turn-based? Allowing multiple entities to act at different times creates opportunities for every imaginable kind of cheezy cheat and exploit: Ten troops filing through a doorway at the same time using quantum entanglement or something, a sniper gaining total invincibility by popping out from behind cover for each shot and then ducking back behind it before his turn is over, a thief becoming invisible by zipping from cover to cover on their turn during the instant a guard isn't looking, a large group fully encircling a warrior before they can twitch, an assassin weaving through a loose group of enemies without letting them close together, a wizard using most of their turn to complete a lengthy incantation that can't be interruptedâ€¦ I could go on forever. Not to mention that watching large numbers of entities move takes an eternity in a TB system, and that if you want to solo one or a few entities, you usually have to hit â€œskip turnâ€\x9D over and over each turn. Oh, plus the system used during combat is almost never the one used out of combat, so you have two conflicting systems to switch between, and generally end up being forced into â€œcombat modeâ€\x9D whenever ANYTHING on the map fights anything else. TB is just too broken, and too clunky during heavy action.

In comparison, pauseable realtime inherits NONE of the flaws from either system, wiping them out with the strengths of both systems: Lots of complex stuff you need to do or watch? Pause the game. Lots of conflicting events happening at the same time? They'll interact continuously. Lots of things you don't care about? Ignore them. Something really important happen? You can probably configure the game to auto-pause and zoom focus to it.

PRT's flaws in solo play? None. You can do all the picomanagement you want, without any penalties. The game NEVER takes control from your hands. You can also go the other way and play it like an action game during more straightforward sections, even quickbind combos all over your keyboard and leave other characters under AI control. Worried about â€œskillâ€\x9D? If you're a masochist, you can play the WHOLE GAME like that.

PRT is better than TB in all but the very most involved 4X games (and maybe even there. I've never seen a PRT 4X title, so who knows,) and is the first, best defense against the dumbing down that RT gameplay typically causes. Unless you're doing multiplayer, there's no practical reason NOT to do PRT.


 * Deuxhero:Lulzs, "a large group fully encircling a warrior before they can twitch" strange, that only seems to happene to me in RTWP games (quite likly due to the stuid encounter choices it forces, were the player is pited agaisnt endless mooks, rather then decently skilled foes) in a TB any fighter who is in range to be sorounded by enemys has a moran for a player. "an assassin weaving through a loose group of enemies without letting them close together" 1.Is that a bad thing? It seems like a thing a fantasy ninja inspired class would be able to do 2. and again, anyone who would send a skirmisher right threw melee is a moran. 3.under the d20 rules doing that would provoke an AoOs from each unless you made a lot of good tumble rolls. "a sniper gaining total invincibility by popping out from behind cover", aside from that fact that someone who opperates at such a distance would more be a marksmen (but lots of games gets that wrong), cover IS an imporant part of real combat, and useing it like that is valid idea, not to mention that in the core d20 rules, such a thing is imposible IIRC (spring attack only works for melee attacks IIRC, may not) but even if it can be done, you used a feat on it, you should be able to do something special. The "become invisible" thing is also flawed, if a guard can only detect though direct sight (not to mention guards who would turn away from the point of entry), you have issues unrelated to your combat system. "a wizard using most of their turn to complete a lengthy incantation that can't be interruptedâ€¦" I am pretty sure that casting provokes an AoO, that attack can be used to interrupt him. "The game NEVER takes control from your hands." no the brain dead AI present in every RTWP games was TOTALY under my control when they rushed to their death before I gave them a command... "You can do all the picomanagement you want" lulz, even if you were somehow playing a RTWP game that isn't dumbed down to the point it is worthless to think (good luck finding one) and simply easier to rush the orcs, inform me so that I may play it, and I can then assess how it works for mangement (because unlike some people, I don't bash things I haven't tried)

And don't bring pure stratagy games into this, the ability to pause a game and que commands isn't what we are talking about, it is about the faux turnbase system used in "rpgs" (if you can even call any of what is released nowdays RPGS, wheres the roleplaying? All the opptions given nowdays are generaly cosmetic or minor (or stupid), and I got over trains when I was what... 6? (incase you can't figure it out, Railroading)
 * Lessee...you control a hero and take the role of a player. Not happy? Well go back to playing a D&D game or Free-form roleplaying, preferably with a dungeon master who is literally making the game up as he goes along. You must have a killer game master if they enable you to do that, because then that means they should have no qualms whatsoever with you deciding "Screw the plot" and live out the rest of your day making skill checks on baking bread and sweetrolls.


 * Eric DVH: I notice that all of your retorts to what I said rely upon rules in tabletop D20 (especially AoO,) and that all of your own arguments against PRT revolve around (supposed) criticisms of the scenarios designers tend to put in PRT games, which both has nothing to do with PRT itself and applies equally to TB games with sucky scenarios. I myself am speaking of games that actually exist, RT games like Diablo and Deus Ex(although DX has a bit of PRT too, now that I think about it,) TB games like Fallout and ToEE, PRT games like Baldur's Gate and NWN (all six of those are awesome, highly recommended.) Can you name these TB C[=RPGs =] with extensive AoO rules? Are there any systems that give AoOs for targets in non-adjacent tiles? AoO is only relevant to the examples I gave within melee range. While immobilizing characters that perform an action for the remainder of their turn, and readying conditional actions for next round (â€œI shoot anyone that starts casting a spellâ€\x9D) like D20 solves some of the problems, it just creates even more new problems as a result, unlike PRT. As for the encircled warrior and juking assassin, PRT allows the warrior at the edge of a group of enemies to start retreating (even cancelling an action he was performing) the moment he sees them trying to mob him, and allows the assassin's impediments to form up properly before he can reach them. A TB system, on the other hand, allows the battlefield to change enormously while someone is arbitrarily paralyzed just because â€œit's not your turn,â€\x9D and forces you to commit to carrying out all of an action whether or not you still want to by the time it's completed. Also, how can a character â€œrush to their deathâ€\x9D if you can just pause it and give them new orders (and, what a thought, set them to a less aggressive script beforehand?) How does PRT â€œforceâ€\x9D designers to use human wave attacks in lieu of satisfyingly skilled foes, while TB allows it?
 * Deuxhero: Because the system is too clunky too allow for the presices moment and tactics that are a decideing factor for takeing down a single foe (as otherwise it will just come down to character build). As for the rush to the death, you are likely too busy with your own character to notice that the NPC has run to the other side of the map to die (not to mention as far as I can tell, the only option for "not suicidal" I get is "don't attack", I can set how close they stay out of combat, but that seems to be about it in the core game) and wait, did you just say Deus Ex is RTWP? Please tell me you are jokeing, only Todd Howard can be so stupid.
 * Eric DVH: Most PRT games are more precise, since they tend to use coordinates instead of a tilebased system. As for orders to keep NPCs from killing themselves, I recall setting KoTOR for one to have NPCs ask for a new target every time they kill the last one I ordered them to attack (many games also have â€œranged onlyâ€\x9D scripts as well.) If you're complaining about solo duels being shallow in PRT titles, consider the Infinity Engine games: Curses, countercurses, special damage, protective spells, dispellingâ€¦ The magic system all by itself had tons of depth, KoTOR's problem wasn't PRT, it was just the fact that KoTOR was a very linear game based on the dumbed-down Star Wars RPG: Saga Edition ruleset (truly great in spite of that though.) Oh, and Deus Ex being PRT? It is, but just slightly: Combat is completely realtime, but DX pauses the game while you're futzing around with your inventory/augs/etc (This seems a subtle point, but try DX Multiplayer, it plays a LOT differently since it lacks this behavior.)
 * Korval: Small point. The Saga Edition rules for Star Wars did not come out until 3 years after KotOR. KotOR isn't even really based on the precursor to Saga Edition; it's more like a D20 style system that Bio Ware made up.
 * Eric DVH: Oopâ€¦ You're right. I read a little about it and the rules changes just sounded so much like KotOR. Either way, KotOR had a far too heavily streamlined system, especially given its AFGNCAAP protagonist.

And yes, there are systems for AoO in non adjecent tiles, they are called reach weapons (and besides, if there is somehow a 15 foot gap between two groups of soldiers not armed with reach weapons, they SHOULD be run threw, as whoever placed them like that is stupid or planing something)

And the whole arbitrary paralyzed argument is older than Raptor Jesus and just as stupid. "arbitrarily paralyzed" works, RTWP doesn't

Eric DVH: Reach weapons, like whips and spears? Those are special cases with limited applications, and the â€œarbitrarily paralyzed argumentâ€\x9D may be old, but it's still valid. If a spellcaster at the back of a group in Baldur's Gate suddenly tries to pull something, they're gonna get pelted with slingstones and arrows (or a Wand of Magic Missile) from across the battlefield the moment they start casting a spell. These perfectly reasonable preventative attacks don't work in a TB system.
 * Korval: If that doesn't happen, it isn't because TB systems can't do it; it is because they choose not to. After all, D&D itself is a turn-based system, and it originated the "hit the Wizard while he's casting to make him stop" strategy. What prevents most TB games from doing that is simple: it's bad gameplay. Casting a spell is a big drain on resources, whether it is memorized spells or Mp or whatever. Hitting someone with an arrow or stone is a small drain on resources; you lose a arrow or whatever. If the enemy can disrupt my big gun with a small gun, why should I bother bringing along a big gun? Even if it isn't 100%, being able to disrupt a Wizard essentially for free isn't good gameplay.
 * Eric DVH: Not meant to, interesting. I still think it's more realistic (and fun) to allow long and short actions to interfere with each other, like a sniper drawing the bead on a jaw-clenchingly hard target (rollover action points FTW!), since it rewards concealment/defense/screening of such risky but awesome maneuvers instead of just letting them be spammed out in the open.

Eric DVH: The ability to do tactical combat well is ALL we're talking about, you're criticizing the scenarios the game takes place in, rather than the actual merits of the game's RT/TB/PRT combat system. I mean, Temple of Elemental Evil and Icewind Dale were both plotless, RP-less railroaded dungeon crawls. Fallout and Baldur's Gate were both wide open campaigns. The former were TB, the latter PRT, scenario and system are independent.
 * Deuxhero: Wait, you not only claim that Deus Ex is RTWP, but you claim that fallout is too... have you played either of them? And what the **** are you talking about, I never ONCE said that RTWP stops a game from being good in other areas (case in point MoTB, good when it doesn't come to combat) I am threw argueing with you if you are stupid enough to belive that Fallout and Deus Ex are RTWP, either you are a moran, or you haven't played them, either way you will never be able to put up a decent argument.
 * Eric DVH: Sighâ€¦ I suppose I phrased that somewhat indecipherably. I meant that ToEE is a TB hackfest, IWD is a PRT hackfest, Fallout is a TB campaign, and BG is a PRT campaign, sorry about that. ANYWAYS, what I'm talking about are certain comments about â€œ [=RPGs =],â€\x9D railroading, and endless mooks. All valid criticisms of many [=RPGs =], all equally valid between TB & PRT.
 * Finally. Mankind has discovered true art. Slowclap.

Korval: Personally, I see the advantages and disadvantages of the three as follows:

Pure Turn Based: Provides the greatest level of pure strategic play, with little player skill involved. Positioning can be exact, so rules based on positioning can be significant (see attacks of opportunity in D&D, tumble, or the inability to walk past units in Civilization). The player can have a huge array of options because there is no time pressure to just pick one and attack. On the minus side, the battle doesn't really have a feel to it. It's a game of chess, not a real battle.

Realtime, no Pause: Provides multiple dimensions of player improvement. Not only can you improve your strategic play, but you can improve your "actions per minute" to increase your ability to play the game well. The game's rule need to be quite streamlined. The game's AI needs to make reasonable assumptions about how to execute an action. This has the best battle feel to it, since it has time pressure.

Realtime, with Pause: Something of a middle ground. It retains much of the feel of battle from RTNP, but it requires much of the streamlining from there as well. The main thing it takes from Pure TB is the ability to increase the number of actions that the player can take. An RTNP system needs to limit the number of different possible actions, while an RTWP can expand on this quite a bit. Positioning, because it is less precise than Pure TB (the AI will be pathing for you), cannot have highly complex rules built on it (you don't want to make the player lose because the AI walked too close to something).

[RPG] gameplay is about exploring the character enhancement system and their uses in combat. If an RPG is to last for a good 40 hours, it needs lots of exploration possibilities. Realtime without Pause is just not an option; it would have to simplify gameplay too much (unless you make combat a full-fledged RTS game. Maybe if your party were all Summoners...) and leave precious little for you to explore. So that leaves two choices. If you want your battles to actually feel like a fight rather than having the "gamist" nature sitting naked for all to see, you use RTWP. Otherwise, you go with Pure TB.

Granted, there are other alternatives. You can do what the SNES Final Fantasy games did, where you introduce time pressure into a Pure TB environment. That helps a lot in creating tension during a battle, and it doesn't reduce the strategic component of the battle. However, it does require that the turn-based system not use any significant positioning rules.

Eric DVH: My main beef with realtime is that the interfaces are usually crippled and primitive. Whenever I play an RTS or RTT (Confession: While I find RTSs a lot of fun, I'm not very good at them, ALWAYS get steamrollered online) I can't help but think back to the first tactical FPS I played, Damage Inc., which had the ability to queue simple orders in advance on hotkeys.

Something as simple as the ability to hotkey queued orders like â€œGo here, then here, then attack here, on my signal.â€œ to different units and then launch combined maneuvers on two parts of the map, or maybe simple conditions like â€œIf the enemy steps here, you emerge from hiding and use these attacksâ€œ would make Starcraft and Myth inexpressibly deeper than they are for all levels of player. Jumping back and forth with hotpoints and macros helps a bit, but it's still too limiting.

Also, I suppose there's two other spins on TB, but they're limited and peculiar. One of them is to only allow a single action per turn, like what's used in roguelikes and other single-character [=RPGs =] (some of my favorite old shareware gems Shadowkeep, Odyssey (TWO games named that, one by David Larkin and another by Paranoid/Bungie,) TaskMaker, Cytheraâ€¦), it contributes to more relaxing dungeon crawl-type games. The other is to have everyone's moves â€œprogrammedâ€\x9D for the turn in advance and then â€œexecutedâ€\x9D step by step simultaneously in that turn, I haven't seen this outside a funny little assassin vs. assassin shareware game I played ages ago (tile-based overhead map, took place in hallways, funny hotseat multiplayer) and a few Artillery clones, but I think it has interesting possibilities for game design.

Guy: Actually, they don't have those systems in part to force micromanagement, as a form of Fake Difficulty. Except not really, because if you are playing multiplayer you are facing someone with the same constraints

Eric DVH: Oh, I just remembered a commercial game that does the â€œprogrammedâ€\x9D turns thing. Battlefront.com's Combat Mission, hopefully that'll make what I'm talking about a little clearer. And Guy, as for the micromanagement argument, the crippled interface doesn't force more micro, it limits the amount of micro that a player of any skill-level can do in a given amount of time. In other words, it cripples the depth of the game. Sort of like making an FPS gamepad-only, it makes the game shallower for everyone.

Master Inferno: Is is just me or does this read more like a Discussion page than a Just Bugs Me page?
 * It's not you. This page isn't an article, it's a conversation.