• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

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

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

  • Classic or Simultaneous Turn Based

    Votes: 46 52.9%
  • Something other then Turn Based or Real Time With Pause

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Real Time With Pause

    Votes: 25 28.7%
  • Hybrid between Turn Based and Real Time With Pause

    Votes: 15 17.2%

  • Total voters
    87

Seramus

Explorer
I’ve got to be honest. RTWP made me design parties specifically around the real time part, so I wouldn’t have to pause and micro so much. A real turn based game would feel much more like D&D.
 

gyor

Adventurer
I prefer Turn based games over Real Time, but Baldur’s Gate wouldn’t be Baldur’s Gate without Real Time w/ Pause.
News flash it's not really going to be Baldur's Gate in the way you mean it, no matter what the combat system. Ignore the name of the game, and look at the stuff they said.
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
Having just finished Pathfinder: Kingmaker, I have to say that RTwP doesn't work with D&D style combat at all. All of the nuance of the system goes away. Just like in the original Baldur's Gate series, a party of fighters armed with bows can steam-roll almost all of the opposition. Only occasionally did I feel the need to cast spells. By the time a spell caster fired off their spell the target would be destroyed by the bows.

There is no 5-foot step or other interesting tactical positioning.

In my mind RTwP works for people that want to play a the easiest level of the game. Once the challenge rating increases, RTwP becomes more and more of a handicap. It is like trying to play 6 characters in an MMO. If I have to pause every second to adjust to circumstances, then just give me turn-based. I literally cannot imagine trying to play X-Com as RTwP and it is a simpler system than Pathfinder and D&D.

It should definitely be turn-based or scrap the system and build one that works with RTwP.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
I want to give examples from Pillars of Eternity and Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire. While not D&D, they were of similar concept. They were real time with AI and pauses (including auto pauses).

In PoE, I found that if I let the AI use limited resources like spells, they would use them up in ways I disagreed with. If I didn't let the AI use limited spells (and the like), then easy/trivial combats I'd just run thought, but most other combats I'd be pausing a lot to handle my multitudes of spellcasters, plus needing to be more controlling of others as well not to get them into area of effects.

In PoE2:Deadfire, they changed the spell system and class feature system so that spells were per-encounter, with very few per-rest abilities and none of those triggered by the AI. I find myself just pausing occasionally to direct the combat and not worried about micro-managing it that a turn-by-turn would involve.

Since D&D is closer to the first of there, with even more resource management, I think turn-by-turn will give the truer experience. Not that real time is off the table - a good system of when to pause, or event the AI includes a "approve use of limited resource" dialog could do the same thing. So the party fights and depending on class you get more or less auto interruptions.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
Both (thus why I voted Other).

Pillars of Eternity 2 made it so that when you start the game, you can choose action, or turn-based. It works -phenomenally- with both. This should definitely be the direction so that all preferences can be enjoyed.

Barring that, I definitely agree with keeping it turn-based; as others have said, at Larian, they are masters of Turn-Based.
PoE2 changed the spell system from the original PoE to all spells refreshing after each combat, so it wasn't a problem if the AI burned through spells in an encounter.

The original PoE had spells recover on a (long) rest like D&D, and there real time with AI was an issue - either you let the AI use them and would burn through them quickly, or you didn't in which case it was effectively turn based as you be pausing often to cast.

So PoE2 isn't a great analog for D&D combat where there's a lot of long rest recovery spells and class features. The original PoE was closer, and that did have issues with real time because of AI use of them.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
[MENTION=2445]WaterRabbit[/MENTION] - I do agree with your points. I just wanted to point out that XCom is a lot like D&D 4e in having a lot of "this exact square vs. that square" in terms of positioning, cover, line of sight and effects. It needs a high level of precise, tactical control even if the system is less complex.

I'm not saying this to refute your point, just mentioning that example has some differences between D&D 5e.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
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.
 

WaterRabbit

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

Ruin Explorer

Explorer
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.
 

SkidAce

Adventurer
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.
I don't know, those games are fun.
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
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.
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.
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.
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.
 

Ruin Explorer

Explorer
I don't know, those games are fun.
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.
 

Ruin Explorer

Explorer
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.
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.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
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.
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..
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.
 

WaterRabbit

Villager
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.
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.
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.
 

MarkB

Hero
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.
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.
 

Advertisement

Top