D&D General Should Baldur's Gate 3 be turnbased or Real Time With Pause?

Sacrosanct said:

For me, it has to be turned based. Not another Sword Coast Legends disaster (going to real time essentially ruins the D&D experience for me as they aren't compatible). That's why I'm glad Larian is running the show. Divinity is a great turn based game.

Click to expand...

I haven't been able to finish SCL. I find the game to be poorly thought out in many areas, not just combat.

WaterRabbit said:

I haven't been able to finish SCL. I find the game to be poorly thought out in many areas, not just combat.

Click to expand...

Same here. I was about four hours in and that's about it. Haven't touched it since

People saying turn-based replicates D&D are being a little short-sighted, I think. It's technically, true, but there are two issues with that here.

First off, stuff that works well on the tabletop doesn't necessarily work well here. Reactions are a prime example. On the tabletop, you're playing one PC with one Reaction per round and it's likely you get 0 to 2 potential triggers for it each round, and you naturally decide whether to trigger it and so on. In a game, with a 6 person party, each of whom has a Reaction, if you go turn-based and replicate 5E, this would mean you'd very often have "trigger Reaction Y/N?" pop ups between your turns. Some turns you might have an awful lot of them. Sure you can only say yes once, but if you're aiming to use a Reaction in a specific way that might mean clicking through a lot of Nos.

XCom doesn't have this issue as it is a purpose designed turn-based computer game, and reactions are triggered automatically to avoid breaking the flow.

Secondly, BG3 is not using the actual 5E system. They're not even using a close variant like say Pathfinder: Kingmaker uses for PF. They're using a system inspired by 5E. Literally the first interview with them had Vincke saying he didn't think D&D's model of missing a lot worked well with computer games (I can't say he's entirely wrong, despite enjoying PF:KF recently).

So that means BG3 will have a purpose-designed system inspired by 5E. Which in turn means Larian have a choice to design towards RtwP, which the mass market expects from a "Baldur's Gate" game, or design towards turn-based. I think either could work, but saying that tabletop is turn-based so the game inspired by it must be is a non-starter.

I'd also question how good the TB gameplay in DOS1 and DOS2 actually is. Both games have deep gameplay flaws. DOS2 is particularly problematic in that mediocre tactics and good gear works better than good tactics and mediocre gear.

Ruin Explorer said:

I'd also question how good the TB gameplay in DOS1 and DOS2 actually is. Both games have deep gameplay flaws. DOS2 is particularly problematic in that mediocre tactics and good gear works better than good tactics and mediocre gear.

Click to expand...

I don't know, those games are fun.

Ruin Explorer said:

People saying turn-based replicates D&D are being a little short-sighted, I think. It's technically, true, but there are two issues with that here.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is actually what anyone is saying. What they are saying is that if the game is going to be true to the 5e ruleset, then RTwP doesn't do that.

First off, stuff that works well on the tabletop doesn't necessarily work well here. Reactions are a prime example. On the tabletop, you're playing one PC with one Reaction per round and it's likely you get 0 to 2 potential triggers for it each round, and you naturally decide whether to trigger it and so on. In a game, with a 6 person party, each of whom has a Reaction, if you go turn-based and replicate 5E, this would mean you'd very often have "trigger Reaction Y/N?" pop ups between your turns. Some turns you might have an awful lot of them. Sure you can only say yes once, but if you're aiming to use a Reaction in a specific way that might mean clicking through a lot of Nos.

XCom doesn't have this issue as it is a purpose designed turn-based computer game, and reactions are triggered automatically to avoid breaking the flow.

Click to expand...

First in X-Com, overwatch isn't the same as a reaction in 5e. It is also a big problem with X-Com because the player cannot determine when the overwatch shot takes place so most of the time they are suboptimal at best. One has to really work on positioning and tricks to make overwatch superior to just taking your normal shot. The mimic beacon makes this much easier.

Overwatch in X-Com is more like reserving your action on a trigger. Finally, just like X-Com, reactions could be automatically set to go against the first trigger. There are only a few spells that use reactions with Counterspell being the most difficult to set the trigger correctly on.

Secondly, BG3 is not using the actual 5E system. They're not even using a close variant like say Pathfinder: Kingmaker uses for PF. They're using a system inspired by 5E. Literally the first interview with them had Vincke saying he didn't think D&D's model of missing a lot worked well with computer games (I can't say he's entirely wrong, despite enjoying PF:KF recently).

So that means BG3 will have a purpose-designed system inspired by 5E. Which in turn means Larian have a choice to design towards RtwP, which the mass market expects from a "Baldur's Gate" game, or design towards turn-based. I think either could work, but saying that tabletop is turn-based so the game inspired by it must be is a non-starter.

I'd also question how good the TB gameplay in DOS1 and DOS2 actually is. Both games have deep gameplay flaws. DOS2 is particularly problematic in that mediocre tactics and good gear works better than good tactics and mediocre gear.

Click to expand...

Good gear is almost always better than good tactics in most games not just DOS2. In PF:KM without good gear the party cannot compete at all.

If they are not using the 5e system, then the game will fail. No one that is interested in this game wants another Sword Coast Legends. The fact that their design is having an impact on the TT Ranger seems to indicate they are going to strive to be close to the 5e ruleset.

SkidAce said:

I don't know, those games are fun.

Click to expand...

Sure but why and when? DOS1 was basically a matter of just CCing enemies to death and it was fun, but not very deep and not very D&D-like. DOS2 on the normal difficulty is fun if you either have some sort of hilarious barrel or environment-related trick to essentially insta-win, or if you have been paying studious attention to keeping your gear up to date, but it's rather tedious in combat otherwise, and again is pretty shallow. Personally I think DOS2s non-combat stuff is vastly better handled and more fun than the combat.

WaterRabbit said:

Good gear is almost always better than good tactics in most games not just DOS2. In PF:KM without good gear the party cannot compete at all.

If they are not using the 5e system, then the game will fail. No one that is interested in this game wants another Sword Coast Legends. The fact that their design is having an impact on the TT Ranger seems to indicate they are going to strive to be close to the 5e ruleset.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, comparing DOS2 and PFKF here just isn't reasonable because the mechanics are fundamentally different, and DOS2 is vastly more dependent on constant gear upgrades as a matter of simple mechanical fact. Valerie has been using the same sword from L3 to L9 in my current PFKF game, and is fine, whereas that would make her totally incapable in DOS2 because of the steep scaling. No D&D-based game scales anything like that.

As for "not using the 5E rulset", again I point you to Vincke's comments. He has been quite clear it's inspired by 5E, not 5E. This isn't a PFKF situation, let alone a BG1 or BG2 one. If you think that will make the game "fail" I think you are being pretty silly. Most people playing BG3 will never have actually played 5E, and many of those who have played 5E won't actually care about major changes.

Ruin Explorer said:

People saying turn-based replicates D&D are being a little short-sighted, I think. It's technically, true, but there are two issues with that here.

Click to expand...

I don't think people are arguing that making it turned based replicated D&D. What people (like myself) are saying, is that between turn based and real time, turn based is much closer to D&D, and would make it feel a lot more like D&D than real time does. Real time makes it like Sword Coast Legends, or Neverwinter MMO, and neither of those feel anything like D&D mechanically. Not even close.

First off, stuff that works well on the tabletop doesn't necessarily work well here. Reactions are a prime example. On the tabletop, you're playing one PC with one Reaction per round and it's likely you get 0 to 2 potential triggers for it each round, and you naturally decide whether to trigger it and so on. In a game, with a 6 person party, each of whom has a Reaction, if you go turn-based and replicate 5E, this would mean you'd very often have "trigger Reaction Y/N?" pop ups between your turns. Some turns you might have an awful lot of them. Sure you can only say yes once, but if you're aiming to use a Reaction in a specific way that might mean clicking through a lot of Nos..

Click to expand...

I think you're way overestimating the number of reactions that happen in the game. For example, one of the most common reactions is the shield spell. And if the PC doesn't have that spell prepared, or doesn't have an available slot, then you wouldn't have to worry about that prompting. AoO are another common one, but games have been handling that for years without additional prompts. Having a few prompts per combat wouldn't be all that disrupting either, IMO, considering everything else that's going on.

Ruin Explorer said:

I'm sorry, comparing DOS2 and PFKF here just isn't reasonable because the mechanics are fundamentally different, and DOS2 is vastly more dependent on constant gear upgrades as a matter of simple mechanical fact. Valerie has been using the same sword from L3 to L9 in my current PFKF game, and is fine, whereas that would make her totally incapable in DOS2 because of the steep scaling. No D&D-based game scales anything like that.

Click to expand...

But I bet you haven't been wearing the same armor, rings, and necklaces since level 3. Also talk about it at level 18. If you don't improve Valerie's AC continuously she get killed very quickly. At Level 3 I had her AC around 25. By level 18 it was around 40. At level 3-4 I was facing enemies with +17 to hit. So yes the game is definitely depending on gear. It is odd that you are arguing against this as the biggest complaint about D&D 3.x/Pathfinder is how gear dependent it is.

Enemy AC doesn't increase as quickly as enemy to hit in PF:KM which is why you are still using the same sword. That is your choice as well and completely depends on the difficulty level you are playing on. On more difficult levels you aren't going to keep the same weapon. By level 9, you will need to have some sort of +2-3 equivalent weapon to be competitive on all but story mode difficulty.

As for "not using the 5E rulset", again I point you to Vincke's comments. He has been quite clear it's inspired by 5E, not 5E. This isn't a PFKF situation, let alone a BG1 or BG2 one. If you think that will make the game "fail" I think you are being pretty silly. Most people playing BG3 will never have actually played 5E, and many of those who have played 5E won't actually care about major changes.

Click to expand...

Sword Coast Legends should be sufficient to make my point here. The game will fail if it falls into the same mindset that SCL did.

Ruin Explorer said:

First off, stuff that works well on the tabletop doesn't necessarily work well here. Reactions are a prime example. On the tabletop, you're playing one PC with one Reaction per round and it's likely you get 0 to 2 potential triggers for it each round, and you naturally decide whether to trigger it and so on. In a game, with a 6 person party, each of whom has a Reaction, if you go turn-based and replicate 5E, this would mean you'd very often have "trigger Reaction Y/N?" pop ups between your turns. Some turns you might have an awful lot of them. Sure you can only say yes once, but if you're aiming to use a Reaction in a specific way that might mean clicking through a lot of Nos.

Click to expand...

So get rid of the "only one reaction per turn" limitation. Let characters use as many reactions as they have different types of reaction available, but only let each category trigger once.

So, your basic Opportunity Attack triggers on the first enemy to leave your threat range. Your Shield spell triggers the first time you're hit by an attack that would have missed with Shield activated. Etc.