Turn based combat is considered better... Why?

[sgc_meltdown]

How do you do turned-based stealth play? It would be doable, of course, but how would it be superior to FP RT stealth gameplay (Thief)? It wouldn't.

I think your little system doesn't work as well as you think it does

thief isn't exactly an rpg is it

by dint of focusing success variables completely on player skill and specialist per-level gameplay objectives it gets better stealth gameplay just like a racing game gets better racing gameplay than if I named a barbarian volkswagon and raced him around a hex grid making engine noises and using the console to give myself experience each time I lapped an enemy

no fear sb I get your convention shattering implications I just needed time to compose myself

I do think stealth in rpg games is way too much of a binary success/failure thing involving hide and spot checks smashing against each other until one of them twists a figurative scrotum, way too little feedback compared to combat and if there is any it's usually obvious shit like 'YOU CANNOT HIDE BECAUSE AN ENEMY HAS NOTICED YOU'

kind of like speech but a little better because the environment and LoS adds an extra variable to consider at least

tabletop playing bros chime in with their knowledge of modern spy rpg stealth systems right now pls

 

[sea]

I don't think you can do a great "stealth RPG", but you can certainly do a stealth game with RPG elements and progression. The strength of RPGs, especially turn-based ones, is their ability to simulate complex and extensive rulesets which operate as a stand-in for the laws of reality - therefore stealth, combat, dialogue, etc. can all theoretically operate using similar systems, and remain consistent with each other throughout the game.

That's why, at least theoretically, I tend to dislike RPGs that don't allow for a wide variety of options and approaches - because it feels like such wasted potential. Sure, combat is great when done well, but rarely do we see the same depth and ingenuity applied to other parts of the game. When you get a rare example of an RPG really taking advantage of its ruleset to offer a varied experience, it tends to result in at the very least an interesting game, and more often than not, an excellent one, even if it is an unbalanced and buggy mess (Arcanum, Fallout, arguably something like Deus Ex, Elder Scrolls, etc.). So yeah, you could totally build an RPG around stealth, but from an RPG player's perspective, I'll always prefer a game with mediocre stealth but plenty of other available options, over a game that's dedicated entirely to that one mechanic.

Of course, this is all when we're talking about game systems and not really in the real world. Once you account for the game itself as a finished and complete product, there's a lot more to consider, namely, that some games which strive for the ideal end up sucking anyway (i.e. Elder Scrolls, which is ruined by shitty world design/writing/poor game balance/mechanics).

As for stealth being a binary mechanic, I agree, that's a problem, but then generally when die rolls are involved, mechanics are binary anyway - you either pass or fail, in varying degrees. What makes those game systems interesting aren't the individual turns, but the culmination of actions and the wider narrative told by those mechanical interactions. Hence, just as a single attack in a battle isn't very exciting, when put in concert with all sorts of other variables, past events, goals, and so on, it creates something interesting. You can do the exact same thing with stealth, provided you want to actually spend time and effort on it. And that's the real issue in all of this - stealth is a minority feature for most players and thus developers typically don't want to take as much time to flesh it out, or don't really know how to, or even assume that nobody cares about it. They're probably right, too.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I don't think you can do a great "stealth RPG", but you can certainly do a stealth game with RPG elements and progression. The strength of RPGs, especially turn-based ones, is their ability to simulate complex and extensive rulesets which operate as a stand-in for the laws of reality - therefore stealth, combat, dialogue, etc. can all theoretically operate using similar systems, and remain consistent with each other throughout the game.

.

So ultimas and heroes are not cRPGs, right? They are just games with RPG elements. Cmp TOEE and JA.

 

[Relay]

Naturally the only strong point of RT games can be found in their storyfaggotry and larping aspects. If you don't put a priority on storyfaggotry, those games are boring as hell. When RT games don't even have storyfaggotry as a good aspect, they're what we call diablo likes and it's all about click click click click click click mouse click click click click. Diablo is a game for adhd riddled people.

Here's a trick question for you. How do you do turned-based stealth play? It would be doable, of course, but how would it be superior to FP RT stealth gameplay (Thief)? It wouldn't.

I think your little system doesn't work as well as you think it does

This isn't a trick question, but something irrelevant to the subject since there is no such a thing as a stealth-focused RPG and Thief is not a RPG and we were talking about tactical combat and how it is superior in TB. Your question could be reformulated in many other nonsensical ways and still sound the way you did right now like "How do you do RT dialogue ?" (reverse trick), which is replying besides the point.

There is one thing that is nonsensical and better in TB though, it's your mother. And the winner has to roll the best initiative check because it's safer to be first.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Maybe my opinion has changed due to paradox, but why not make a rt rpg with adjustable speed and a slower, more tactical friendly pace?

Dunno... Paradox games = pause pause pausepausepausepause... I have long thought, ever since I started playing Victoria that what a shame it is that they don't make turn-based games but this really awkward and shitty real-time.

 

[dr. one]

"How do you do RT dialogue ?"

 

[Serious_Business]

There is one thing that is nonsensical and better in TB though, it's your mother. And the winner has to roll the best initiative check because it's safer to be first.

yawn

Not sure why TB combat has to be an inherent part of the role playing game. An isometric engine will show its limitations as much as FP will, there's no inherent superiority to it. And what if I want a stealth based rpg? What if I think it's more... immersive? Yeah, throw a fit on that, talk more about my mother

I also think exploration works much better in FP games or at least third person games (Daggerfall, New Vegas, Gothic series etc). Doing a pixel hunt to search for items in isometric play is not what I call good exploring.

In fact, if rpgs focus on controlling a single character, I see no reason why they shouldn't be played in FP. Unless we get full-on group tactical combat, isometric doesn't make any sense.

Easy, you roll hide and move silently checks, the opponent(s) rolls spot and listen checks.

Yeah that sounds like fun

no fear sb I get your convention shattering implications I just needed time to compose myself

Yeah I've been running out of juice lately, played all my cards I guess

TB is ultimately an abstract experience, and although every video game is an abstract experience of course, RT can be less abstract in a way that it's an actual experience that at least tries to hide the dice and stats that control them. I am not a fan of numbers, in games or otherwise. If you take a very cool-headed look at a game system, TB is superior because it definitively allows to simulate PnP in its entirety, and so allows more complex gameplay and ultimately allows what rpgs are perhaps supposed to be, i.e. a translation of PnP to computah games. But the thing is, I'd argue crpgs are not meant to be that, because PnP is already a very abstract experience, and trying to replicate it abstractly makes it doubly abstracted, which will ultimately leave you cold if you think about it for a moment. Crpgs can do different things than PnP - I gave the example of stealth gameplay, but any kind of RT gameplay can be used here - and that's a good thing, isn't it? If I wanted to play PnP, I'd play PnP. I think a lot of the fuckers who wail on the superiority of TB never even played it in the first place

 

[Relay]

Not sure why TB combat has to be an inherent part of the role playing game. An isometric engine will show its limitations as much as FP will, there's no inherent superiority to it.

From a tactical and rpg gameplay perspective, FP games are inherently inferior. Being able to trick the AI on the terrain by going to an unreachable area for the AI, running around in circle while gorging on healing potion, that sort of thing you can do in many FP games, is inherently inferior. Some of those point are inherent to all RT games, even those with iso perspective though. There is too much room for cheese like kiting in RT rpgs and those that feature pause are the worst of both worlds.

And what if I want a stealth based rpg? What if I think it's more... immersive?

I don't deal with what if, for now there are exactly 0 crpg focused on stealth. Even teh obshitian spy rpg isn't really focused on stealth. You're talking about a hypothetical game that does not exist so.. in the real world, with real games, RT mostly means spamming, running around and kiting.

I also think exploration works much better in FP games or at least third person games (Daggerfall, New Vegas, Gothic series etc). Doing a pixel hunt to search for items in isometric play is not what I call good exploring.

We're not talking about adventure games here. Can you show me an example of a rpg worth playing where you actually had to pixel hunt ? not to mention that many of those allow you to highlight all the items you can interact with with a keyboard shortcut. OTOH I can show you an example of a FP game where you sometimes had to hunt like crazy if you lack real world observational skills : Morrowind's dwemer puzzle box. The source of lots of nerdrage. I wouldn't even be surprised if Bethesda created the quest compass in Oblivion because of all the complaints they got from people who were sick of the many mistakes made in Morrowind and instead of giving better in game directions and clues they just took the easy way out.

In fact, if rpgs focus on controlling a single character, I see no reason why they shouldn't be played in FP. Unless we get full-on group tactical combat, isometric doesn't make any sense.

Good point, and I agree, from a gameplay pov. I still have a thing for iso, particularly the pregenerated bg variety because it just shows far more unique environments than your average copypasta 3d FP or TP game. Part of what made PST was the atmosphere and it would have been ruined if they had made the game using something like the aurora or gamebryo shit.

TB is superior because it definitively allows to simulate PnP in its entirety, and so allows more complex gameplay and ultimately allows what rpgs are perhaps supposed to be, i.e. a translation of PnP to computah games. But the thing is, I'd argue crpgs are not meant to be that, because PnP is already a very abstract experience, and trying to replicate it abstractly makes it doubly abstracted

You are basically arguing that there is no point in replicating the experience of chess or any board game on computers either.

Crpgs can do different things than PnP - I gave the example of stealth gameplay, but any kind of RT gameplay can be used here - and that's a good thing, isn't it? If I wanted to play PnP, I'd play PnP.

If you want actiony games, you can play them, there is no need to tack this stuff on RPGs. You love stealth gameplay ? You already got thief. You want a shooter ? Good, there are plenty of shooters on the market. There is no shortage of diablo like, FPS and cover shooters. Actiony games with stats tacked on are still actiony games at the core. New Vegas plays like a FPS in combat as long as you got enough weapon skill, and it shows. There is nothing more to it. A FPS that would feature more interaction with the environment but without stats at all would still play like New Vegas, hell C&C isn't inherently a RPG feature, you don't need dialogue skills to give people choices in dialogue and consequences to those choices as visual novels demonstrate. The core of RPGness has been lifted away from the genre and in the near future every game will be called RPG, Bioware thinks that Call of Duty is a RPG.

Bioware wrote:
“We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won’t necessarily call them RPGs. They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience.”

 

[epikitscheesy]

The strength of RPGs, especially turn-based ones, is their ability to simulate complex and extensive rulesets which operate as a stand-in for the laws of reality - therefore stealth, combat, dialogue, etc. can all theoretically operate using similar systems, and remain consistent with each other throughout the game.

I hope you're not ignorant of the fact that the underlying program code of most rt-crpgs is at least as complex and extensive. So to speak, there are two different but equally valid approaches to crpg which have emerged at its very beginnings:
One is to have the computer actually replace the rpg system in order to simulate real 'rp'; the other is to have the computer simulate an rpg system in order to simulate the experience of f.e. pnp gaming.
The former approach pretty much allows for both tb and rt, the latter virtually relies on tb.

This relation again stems from the very beginnings of rpgs:
It's true that by creating his games, Gary Gygax wanted to allow for roleplaying. It's also true that he did this out of fondness for original wargaming.
Thus, "the rpg" was arguably never a homogenous, fully consistent, but an eclectic concept;
hence the neverending battle between all the different '-fags'.
(There'd be no need for this if people didn't believe in imposing their standards on others, but there's no place for that story in this most dramatic thread)

That's why, at least theoretically, I tend to dislike RPGs that don't allow for a wide variety of options and approaches

So, you link this poverty of options to rt games?
That's only correlation, not causality - all sorts of today's mainstream rpgs are popamole.
Apart from that, the variety of options and approaches in rt can be just as wide as in tb, the only thing that's per se limited by time is your decision process.
This constraint probably helps people immerse themselves into the role, not the game.
As shown above, that's not decline, but just one side of the way it is and always was.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I also think exploration works much better in FP games or at least third person games (Daggerfall, New Vegas, Gothic series etc). Doing a pixel hunt to search for items in isometric play is not what I call good exploring.

Isometric exploration is indeed shit. But that isn't an argument against turn based combat.

There is no reason you can't have first person exploration and proper zoomed out third person tactical combat in the same game.

SSI figured out how to do it in 1988.

If RPGs had been inclining since then instead of declining, we'd probably have seen a lot of it. It solves a number of significant problems. (shit exploration in isometric games, shit combat in blobbers)

We could have had something like the Gold Box games but with greater tactical depth, better AI, better terrain, hand crafted battle maps for important encounters, etc.

But RPGs went in another direction. (downwards)

 

[sea]

I hope you're not ignorant of the fact that the underlying program code of most rt-crpgs is at least as complex and extensive.

The underlying rules, yes. Their cumulative effect on gameplay and how they tend to be exposed to players? That's a different story, although yes, it's certainly possible to make a real-time game with complex mechanics - it's just that when you put the player into a real-time situation, juggling a hundred objects at once becomes a lot more difficult. In a sense, turn-based games work better in more complex situations not because there's any sort of inherent deficiency in real-time games, but because you'd end up with a game that's damn near unplayable if you offered up the same degree of depth.

That, and unfortunately, real-time systems tend to be more open to exploitation by players, as bending the rules, manipulating the AI, and so forth are all a bit easier in a 3D environment where human ingenuity can win out. This occurs in turn-based games as well, but the rules aren't as easy to bend due to the constraints put on the player in such an environment (i.e. can only move so much per turn, can only perform one ability before the enemy responds, etc.).

[quote="epikitscheesy"So, you link this poverty of options to rt games?
That's only correlation, not causality - all sorts of today's mainstream rpgs are popamole.
Apart from that, the variety of options and approaches in rt can be just as wide as in tb, the only thing that's per se limited by time is your decision process.
This constraint probably helps people immerse themselves into the role, not the game.
As shown above, that's not decline, but just one side of the way it is and always was.[/quote]
I agree with you on that. The real issue is one of economics, not that real-time games are intrinsically inferior (and again, I didn't mean to give that impression, hence my quip about RPGs in "the real world"). Developing a fully 3D real-time game is much more difficult and time-consuming than a 2D turn-based one, and coupled with the industry expectations of those games, you've got to offer up a level of storytelling, graphical and audio fidelity, etc. in order to have a hope of drawing a profit or even turning up on the press' radar. When you need to focus so much of your budget into these relatively superficial factors, and don't have the time, money or manpower to work on additional game systems, or to polish them to a level consistent with the rest of the game, you end up with games which by and large provide much more limited options and fewer opportunities for diverse expression.

 

[Regdar]

I am not a fan of numbers, in games or otherwise.

I'd argue crpgs are not meant to be that, because PnP is already a very abstract experience, and trying to replicate it abstractly makes it doubly abstracted, which will ultimately leave you cold if you think about it for a moment. Crpgs can do different things than PnP

Yes, Bioware has been showing us just how different crpgs can be from PnP for the past 10 years.

Anyway, your arguments are hollow without examples. I'd argue that crpgs are de-abstracting PnP by removing the middle man. Now, PnP is a game you could potentially play forever, because the only limiting factor is you imagination. That said, combat was still the number 1 focus of the game. With crpgs, their world is limited by time constraints of the developers, so combat becomes even more important to creating a fun, replayable game. Because when all the diplomacy skill checks have been rolled, when all the pretense of politics has been dealt with, you pick up your sword and you go into a motherfucking dungeon to fight some motherfucking dragons. And if you can't have fun while doing it, the game isn't worth shit.

 

[Johannes]

I hope you're not ignorant of the fact that the underlying program code of most rt-crpgs is at least as complex and extensive.

The underlying rules, yes. Their cumulative effect on gameplay and how they tend to be exposed to players? That's a different story, although yes, it's certainly possible to make a real-time game with complex mechanics - it's just that when you put the player into a real-time situation, juggling a hundred objects at once becomes a lot more difficult. In a sense, turn-based games work better in more complex situations not because there's any sort of inherent deficiency in real-time games, but because you'd end up with a game that's damn near unplayable if you offered up the same degree of depth.

Often that lowest level of micromanagement in TB games is pretty boring though. You just do some calculation and pick the attack with the best expected value. The truly interesting parts of any combat are the positional maneuvering and rps elements, not optimising whether each of your guys should shoot the enemy in the torso or in the head to inflict maximum damage.

That, and unfortunately, real-time systems tend to be more open to exploitation by players, as bending the rules, manipulating the AI, and so forth are all a bit easier in a 3D environment where human ingenuity can win out. This occurs in turn-based games as well, but the rules aren't as easy to bend due to the constraints put on the player in such an environment (i.e. can only move so much per turn, can only perform one ability before the enemy responds, etc.).

So, you link this poverty of options to rt games?
That's only correlation, not causality - all sorts of today's mainstream rpgs are popamole.
Apart from that, the variety of options and approaches in rt can be just as wide as in tb, the only thing that's per se limited by time is your decision process.
This constraint probably helps people immerse themselves into the role, not the game.
As shown above, that's not decline, but just one side of the way it is and always was.

I agree with you on that. The real issue is one of economics, not that real-time games are intrinsically inferior (and again, I didn't mean to give that impression, hence my quip about RPGs in "the real world"). Developing a fully 3D real-time game is much more difficult and time-consuming than a 2D turn-based one, and coupled with the industry expectations of those games, you've got to offer up a level of storytelling, graphical and audio fidelity, etc. in order to have a hope of drawing a profit or even turning up on the press' radar. When you need to focus so much of your budget into these relatively superficial factors, and don't have the time, money or manpower to work on additional game systems, or to polish them to a level consistent with the rest of the game, you end up with games which by and large provide much more limited options and fewer opportunities for diverse expression.

Yeah because realtime = 3d and turnbased = 2d

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Yeah because realtime = 3d and turnbased = 2d

the challenges of a first person 2D realtime game would be quite prohibitive mr johannes

I find that these arguments often go too much into pure theorising slug matches and forget that these two choices often come with their own preset synergistic baggage or perks

i.e. the problem is less high level than it is of industry packaging prejudices

 

[Disconnected]

My preference is WEGO TB, or phase-based if you prefer. I like having more options than current interfacing technology allows a human being to manage in a tolerably fast & consistent in-game time scale. And in my opinion, pausing to let me input my commands at my leisure is a far more elegant solution than, say, fucking around with the in-game time scale. I don't doubt ToEE could be made playable in RT, but I very much doubt it'd be pretty.

I want to smack all the jerks who voted for "character skill over player skill." Turn-based combat should involve a ton of player skill, just not your reflexes. Otherwise you're playing the "put points in things and watch it play itself" game which can also happen just as easily with real time (pause or no) RPGs.

As someone else pointed out, RPG character building is not about what characters can, it's about what they cannot. When players bypass the limitations of their characters, they're meta-gaming, not role playing. If the goal isn't role playing, there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. But when role playing is the goal, meta is its kryptonite.

The RT/TB thing isn't really about RT vs. TB. It's about how the RT & TB games that actually exist, have let players interface with their characters, and the amount of meta-gaming that has occurred in the process. And thus far, TB games win hands down. Not because any of them have been designed to minimise meta, but because all of them allow very slightly less of it than the RT games that has so far been created.

As another, or possibly the same someone talked circles around it in his "I'd like a RT FPP CRPG that used my character's senses instead of mine" posts. RT doesn't have to be a meta-fest. If you designed a RT game to minimise meta, it would allow a hell of a lot less of it than any TB game released to date. But then you're talking about the possible, not about what actually exists.

Incidentally, I'd very much like that RT FPP CRPG too, though I'd like it even more if it switched to top-down tactical WEGO during combat.

Of course there are aberrations backwards and forward, for both genres too. For strategy games, though, I actually believe games become more realistic the slower you make the gameplay. Not only because of how commands tend to work in the military, but also because games seem to have a really hard time translating real-life "time" to a real-time strategy game, that is "real-time" is more like "real-time (as we define time for the context of this game)", if that makes any sense at all. Only when you get to some fantasy or sci-fi elements, like Homeworld or Sins of a Solar Empire, do things seem more natural only because they have shed the realism of tank treads, boots, jeeps etc. for the fantastical where time really doesn't have much value.

/babbletalk

RT doesn't mean or imply any kind of in-game realism, time related or otherwise. Real Time refers to how you interface with the game, not the particulars of the game. Specifically, it means that commands you issue are carried out as you issue them.