Baldur's Gate RTwP vs TB in Baldur's Gate 3 - Discuss!

[NJClaw]

I don't understand these arguments. I played Baldur's Gate when I was 11 or 12 and I had no problem understanding what was going on. I'm not a genius with a supernatural ability to understand baldur's gate combat... I mean, how do people who find BG and IWD to be incomprehensible clickfests even play TB games? On easy difficulty? Story mode?

They're idiots that can't keep track of two things at once. Your 12 year old self had a higher intelligence and constitution modifier than they do now.

With TB you have the time and information to take informed decisions. It's as simple as that. With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun. A TB system allows you to build far more interesting encounters, because you can place monsters and give them abilities counting on the fact that the player will always have all the information he needs to make choices. That's it, at least for me.

The problem is not just "understanding what's going on", the problem is that they have to build encounters understandable in RTwP.

 

[ItsChon]

1. Jagged Alliance 2
2. Silent Storm
3. Temple of Elemental Evil

All came out after IE inception, and all have better combat systems than any RTwP game, including 7.62 High Calibre (which is as monocled as RTwP gets).

Both JA2 and Silent Storm are not RPGs in the sense that games like FO, Temple of Elemental Evil, BG, etc are RPGs. They have RPG elements but they're far closer to tactical combat sims than they are RPGs. Why is this relevant? Because it's not as simple as cutting and pasting combat systems from mission based combat games into full fledged RPGs in the same vein as BG and FO. Temple of Elemental Evil is the only "real RPG" that you listed, and I haven't budgeted the time to buy the game, get mods installed, and play it yet. That being said, even if I end up completely falling in love with ToEE, that doesn't change or devalue my point in anyway.

With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun. A TB system allows you to build far more interesting encounters, because you can place monsters and give them abilities counting on the fact that the player will always have all the information he needs to make choices. That's it, at least for me.

Git gud kid. If your brain is incapable of abstracting enemy positions and actions a second or two into the future, I feel bad for you. None of what you said made any sense either. You can literally pause any time you want, so what the fuck do you mean "you have more time in TB to make informed decisions". You also have the same exact information in RTwP as you do in TB. And what the fuck is up with people acting like encounter design is impossible in a RTwP system? You can do just as complex encounters in a RTwP system as you can in TB, and there are plenty of examples that prove this throughout the IE series.

 

[Lacrymas]

How does someone saying, "I enjoyed the way RTwP was impleneted in the IE games, and they wouldn't have worked nearly as well if they featured a TB combat system" a nonsensical argument? What part of the statement I just said could you disagree with?

This particular argument is pure speculation and nobody can agree or disagree with it in any meaningful sense. It carries the same amount of weight as "it would've been better as TB", you have to explain why.

 

[Jason Liang]

rtwp is about exploiting the engine and or the enemy AI, not about real tactics

actually even movement-based tb is rarely if ever truly tactical since the AI can't deal intelligently with movement in 99.9% of games. Movement-based games FEEL tactical but your satisfaction is coming from "outsmarting" a dumb AI. For example, even when Age of Decadence becomes truly tactical, all you are actually doing is exploiting the AI's inability to move efficiently.

for true tactics, combat must be tb and abstract at a level where the AI can challenge the player

A perfect example of this is the high difficulty battles in Rance X

 

[Lilura]

With TB you have the time and information to take informed decisions. It's as simple as that. With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun.

Yep. RTwP lacks the precision of TB. In Baldur's Gate, you can't know whether or not your warrior can get in the face of a Mage before the spell is cast. You don't know if the pathfinding routine is gonna fuck you over, or if another combat unit is gonna get in your way en route. You know how far you can move (in feet per round), but you can't transfer that information accurately to the playing field: it's an estimation, a guess. In ToEE, Silent Storm and JA2, you can measure out your movement precisely. In ToEE, you can see the exact path you're gonna take before you commit to the movement, along with attack of opportunity provocations. It's way more cerebral.

 

[NJClaw]

With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun. A TB system allows you to build far more interesting encounters, because you can place monsters and give them abilities counting on the fact that the player will always have all the information he needs to make choices. That's it, at least for me.

Git gud kid. If your brain is incapable of abstracting enemy positions and actions a second or two into the future, I feel bad for you. None of what you said made any sense either. You can literally pause any time you want, so what the fuck do you mean "you have more time in TB to make informed decisions". You also have the same exact information in RTwP as you do in TB. And what the fuck is up with people acting like encounter design is impossible in a RTwP system? You can do just as complex encounters in a RTwP system as you can in TB, and there are plenty of examples that prove this throughout the IE series.

Exactly, what does RTwP brings to the table? What can you do in RTwP that can't be done in TB?

With TB you have the time and information to take informed decisions. It's as simple as that. With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun.

Yep. RTwP lacks the precision of TB. In Baldur's Gate, you can't know whether or not your warrior can get in the face of a Mage before the spell is cast. You don't know if the pathfinding routine is gonna fuck you over, or if another combat unit is gonna get in your way en route. You know how far you can move (in feet per round), but you can't transfer that information accurately to the playing field: it's an estimation, a guess. In ToEE, Silent Storm and JA2, you can measure out your movement precisely. In ToEE, you can see the exact path you're gonna take before you commit to the movement, along with attack of opportunity provocations. It's way more cerebral.

Lilura agrees with me. I win. Byebye.

 

[Lilura]

Both JA2 and Silent Storm are not RPGs

Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm are tactical RPGs. If you disagree, that's fine. But it's your word against mine, Wikipedia's and many monocled posters on the 'Dex.

What it comes down to is that everyone shares my view (that they are RPGs), and no one shares yours. You live in your own reality.

 

[pomenitul]

Expecting a website filled to the brim with control freaks to understand the appeal of RtwP is like trying to drown a fish. TB is their natural element; they will literally defend it to the death.

 

[ItsChon]

This particular argument is pure speculation and nobody can agree or disagree with it in any meaningful sense. It carries the same amount of weight as "it would've been better as TB", you have to explain why.

The argument is not something that can be proved with rational or empirical evidence, as it's impossible to do so one way or another. You acknowledge as much in your post. That being said, certain things transcend mere rationalism/empiricism. I don't want to go off on an LS style rant, but if you can't see how changing a fundamental aspect of a game would render it a different experience, I'm not sure what to say.

Exactly, what does RTwP brings to the table? What can you do in RTwP that can't be done in TB?

I'm not the one arguing we should change a TB game to RTwP. You're the one arguing in favor of a change, so it's up to you to explain what TB can do that RTwP can't. Regardless, I reevaluated my statement. RTwP is clearly different to TB. The information isn't the exact same and it is less precise as Lilura said, so I guess your original reasons for preferring TB to RTwP are valid.

Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm are tactical RPGs. If you disagree, that's fine. But it's your word against mine, Wikipedia's and many monocled posters on the 'Dex.

What it comes down to is that everyone's on my side (that they are RPGs), and no one is on your side. You live in your own reality.

I never said they weren't RPGs Lilura, I merely said that they're not the same kind of RPG as the other games I listed. You acknoweldge as much by adding the subtitle "tactical" to differentiate them from RPGs like BG, IWD, FO, Arcanum, etc. I know I said "real RPG", but I put the quotes in place to indicate that I'm only saying real to differentiate the type of RPG that ToEE is versus the types of RPGs that JA2 and Silent Storm are. Don't hide behind semantics to dodge the point of what I'm saying Lilura, it's beneath you.

 

[ItsChon]

With TB you have the time and information to take informed decisions. It's as simple as that. With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun.

Yep. RTwP lacks the precision of TB. In Baldur's Gate, you can't know whether or not your warrior can get in the face of a Mage before the spell is cast. You don't know if the pathfinding routine is gonna fuck you over, or if another combat unit is gonna get in your way en route. You know how far you can move (in feet per round), but you can't transfer that information accurately to the playing field: it's an estimation, a guess. In ToEE, Silent Storm and JA2, you can measure out your movement precisely. In ToEE, you can see the exact path you're gonna take before you commit to the movement, along with attack of opportunity provocations. It's way more cerebral.

Lilura agrees with me. I win. Byebye.

Oh, and while I do agree that y'all were originally right in saying it's more cerebral and all that, I do think that there is merit in the more "primal" RTwP system. I am naturally more in touch with my primal/animalistic side than most people, and this is reflected by the thing I enjoy doing (combat sports, weight lifting, rap music, etc) despite my high IQ/intellectual ability. That is probably part of the reason why I enjoy RTwP more than other people on the forum, as it speaks to my primal, action oriented nature.

 

[NJClaw]

Exactly, what does RTwP brings to the table? What can you do in RTwP that can't be done in TB?

I'm not the one arguing we should change a TB game to RTwP. You're the one arguing in favor of a change, so it's up to you to explain what TB can do that RTwP can't. Regardless, I reevaluated my statement. RTwP is clearly different to TB. The information isn't the exact same and it is less precise as Lilura said, so I guess your original reasons for preferring TB to RTwP are valid.

Jesus Christ, I thought that the "Lilura agrees with me. I win. Byebye." was a joke and instead it works just like that. Lilura is the true Codex chad.

I'm not the one arguing we should change a TB game to RTwP

Well, BG3 is TB and you are saying it would be better as RTwP, soooooooooo...

 

[hell bovine]

I've covered speed factor and spellcasting time. I've also covered THAC0, AC, saving throws and ApR in more detail than the manual (and more concisely than AD&D 2nd Edition PHB, which is written terribly). It's cool that the manual didn't spell everything out, though.

Well, I haven't found the info I am looking for, but admittedly I haven't read all of your posts. Take this for example, from the TobEx readme:
"TobEx makes the following changes to the standard attack action:

• With X/2 attacks, the attack that occurs once every two rounds now always occurs every two rounds (rather than a random probability of the attack taking place every single round)"

Which implies that in the original, unmodded game the half-attack is implemented on a chance basis:
http://www.shsforums.net/topic/54572-interesting-research-on-attacks-in-the-round/

 

[ItsChon]

Jesus Christ, I thought that the "Lilura agrees with me. I win. Byebye." was a joke and instead it works just like that. Lilura is the true Codex chad.

Nah, in this situation she (and you) just happened to be right and I was wrong. I would have done the same if it was anyone else. I don't have a fragile ego and a closed mind like the majority of the forum. Should be made clear though, I think your reasons for not liking RTwP are valid, but I still maintain that RTwP can be very good and is not an objectively shit system. Just because you and others don't like it doesn't mean it's bad.

 

[Lacrymas]

The argument is not something that can be proved with rational or empirical evidence, as it's impossible to do so one way or another. You acknowledge as much in your post. That being said, certain things transcend mere rationalism/empiricism. I don't want to go off on an LS style rant, but if you can't see how changing a fundamental aspect of a game would render it a different experience, I'm not sure what to say.

You are moving the goalposts, you said it wouldn't have worked nearly as well had it been TB, that is a qualitative judgement. Something not being the same and something being better are different arguments. Metaphysics have nothing to do with this, lol.

 

[ItsChon]

You are moving the goalposts, you said it wouldn't have worked nearly as well had it been TB, that is a qualitative judgement. Something not being the same and something being better are different arguments. Metaphysics have nothing to do with this, lol.

It wouldn't be the same, and by extension, I don't think it would have been as good, because frankly, I can't think of a TB combat system that would have worked well in the IE games. I have not played ToEE yet, so perhaps that will change my mind, but I'm not very optimistic that'll happen.

 

[Lacrymas]

I can't think of a TB combat system that would have worked well in the IE games.

I can, it's called Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Lacrymas]

Expecting a website filled to the brim with control freaks to understand the appeal of RtwP is like trying to drown a fish. TB is their natural element; they will literally defend it to the death.

I understand the appeal of RTwP, that doesn't mean I want it and want to perverse systems to fit it. We had a BG-like system made for RTwP - PoE, it's terrible and nonsensical even if I have a lukewarm relationship with it. It exacerbated the worst aspects of RTwP while playing to none of its strengths (which I'm having trouble remembering). If there was a RTwP system (that I've played, I guess 7.62 High Calibre is monocled?) that works fine-ish, it's Tower of Time, it makes full use of the free movement RTwP offers and you are only given a limited number of abilities per character (which can be changed to fit the situation). The best part of it is boss battles, though, all other fights are trashy.

 

[flushfire]

This entire argument is pointless.

This is not about RTwP vs TB, it's about Baldur's Gate specifically and what people wanted from a sequel to that game. If they had just announced they were going to make a D&D spin off of D:OS we wouldn't be bitching about this kind of stuff.

Thread should have ended with this post.

 

[Lilura]

I never said they weren't RPGs Lilura, I merely said that they're not the same kind of RPG as the other games I listed. You acknoweldge as much by adding the subtitle "tactical" to differentiate them from RPGs like BG, IWD, FO, Arcanum, etc. I know I said "real RPG", but I put the quotes in place to indicate that I'm only saying real to differentiate the type of RPG that ToEE is versus the types of RPGs that JA2 and Silent Storm are.

A tactical RPG is still an RPG. All I did was cite RPGs with the best combat systems. It doesn't matter that they don't have as many words as PS:T or MotB, they're still RPGs. You seemed to resent the citation, and I don't know why you would. Did you want me to cite the best combat systems out of storyfag RPGs? Or maybe just cite the best combat systems out of jack-of-all-trade RPGs that do everything ok, but nothing outstandingly?

Does any of this matter?

 

[Lilura]

I've covered speed factor and spellcasting time. I've also covered THAC0, AC, saving throws and ApR in more detail than the manual (and more concisely than AD&D 2nd Edition PHB, which is written terribly). It's cool that the manual didn't spell everything out, though.

Well, I haven't found the info I am looking for, but admittedly I haven't read all of your posts. Take this for example, from the TobEx readme:
"TobEx makes the following changes to the standard attack action:

• With X/2 attacks, the attack that occurs once every two rounds now always occurs every two rounds (rather than a random probability of the attack taking place every single round)"

Which implies that in the original, unmodded game the half-attack is implemented on a chance basis:
http://www.shsforums.net/topic/54572-interesting-research-on-attacks-in-the-round/

Interesting. I wonder if anyone picked up on it before hacking into the files? Since it's ToBEx, and therefore BG2, I also wonder if it's valid for BG? Will have to check it out someday.

In respect to speed factor and spellcasting time, I basically just explained how rounds are divided into segments. I nutted out the basics of THAC0, AC, ApR and saving throws, though. It's all in my Revised Retrospective.

 

[hell bovine]

Yeah, there are some obscure tidbits of information on modding forums here and there.

 

[Lilura]

Yeah, there are some obscure tidbits of information on modding forums here and there.

It's really hard to find info on original BG even on modding forums, unfortunately. Because they mostly only mod for BG2. I had to dig into USENET archives to find info on some things (developer comments). Internet has all but forgotten the original BG, which is why I've gone to great lengths to commentate on it/defend its legacy. (Most people play Tutu, BGT and EE, as you no doubt are aware.)

 

[hell bovine]

It's really hard to find info on original BG even on modding forums, unfortunately. Because they mostly only mod for BG2. I had to dig into USENET archives to find info on some things (developer comments). Internet has all but forgotten the original BG, which is why I've gone to great lengths to commentate on it/defend its legacy. (Most people play Tutu, BGT and EE, as you no doubt are aware.)

Yeah, a lot of information simply got lost over time.

 

[Reality]

I want Swen to pull the trolling full circle : release BG 3 turn based only and then put RTwP when he makes the actual Divinity:OS 3 a couple years later.

 

[Kaivokz]

Being able to easily win battles doesn't mean you understand the combat mechanics; it just means that the game is so easy you can win with left-click and autoattack. Take for example the initiative/weapon speed/attacks in a round debate that has been going on for years. It's because a) the manual says one thing and b) the game does another while failing to provide relevant information.

1) RTwP is bad because the baldur's gate manual contained incorrect information, or was that an unconnected example?
2) You don't have to have perfect clarity of knowledge to understand what is happening. Ask a professional at any sport the physics underlying how they do what they do and most won't be able to give you the basics, that doesn't mean they don't understand what they're doing in a relevant sense. Most info in BG is clear enough for a teenager to pick up (a +1 sword adds +1 to your attack roll, something with lower AC makes you harder to hit, this spell does that, when you get hit while casting a spell you have a chance to be interrupted, etc.).

With TB you have the time and information to take informed decisions. It's as simple as that. With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun. A TB system allows you to build far more interesting encounters, because you can place monsters and give them abilities counting on the fact that the player will always have all the information he needs to make choices. That's it, at least for me.

The problem is not just "understanding what's going on", the problem is that they have to build encounters understandable in RTwP.

To the bold part: yeah exactly. That's the difference and that's what some people (including myself) enjoy. If you don't enjoy it, that's fine: don't play RTwP games! As to the second part, I don't think it's true. I have had more fun with challenging encounters in BG1/2/ToB and IWD1/2 than in any other game. And I actually love tactical turn-based games; always play them on max difficulty and enjoy doing so, but none have ever matched the complexity and challenge of the infinity engine gameplay + encounter design (with AI mods, but we're talking about theoretical RTwP system).