Real Time Combat and CRPGs

I have been giving some thought to the whole Real-Time v. Turn Based debate, so I would like to share my findings for those to flame me. 8*)

I am one of those "Old-School" RPGers. I played RPGs when it was just D&D. Long before the concept of AD&D. (Though I am not a fossile of the Chainmail days 8*) So I am very much at home with Turn Base Combat. It was the only way to do things on the table top. However, Turn-base Combat presents us with one fairly major consitancy flaw. That is, in Turn-Base combat the active character does not have to worry about the reactions of the other inactive charcters.

The clasic example is from old D&D. My character can run up take a few swings and maybe take a step back before the opponet reacts. This is an extreme example, but it cleary shows the problem. Now, some Table Top systems have added in Opertunity fire or means of Squencing Attacks, but they got completacted quickly, and did not fully get around the problem of things not moving simultainiously.

One more recent "abuse" of Turn-Base combat. My Dwarf Thief could either attack 3 times with his dagger, or runaround the monster and backstab twice. I am able to act without the monster reacting. In reality, trying to get behind someone in 1 on 1 combat is far from that easy. 8*)

But in the Table Top world, we lived with non-simultainious actions because we wanted to play a game and not do equasions.

But now we have the Computer to help keep track of all the players in the combat. Each action takes place at the right time in relation to every other action. This is a good thing. It brings a little more "realism" into the game with out adding any complexity to the player.

Now, this makes "Real-Time" harder since I can no long expect my opponet to stand still while I beat on him 5 times in one turn. 8*)

So what are the actual benifits of Turn-Based. First off, it is not "twich" base. The player does not need any high degree of skill in motor coordination to play it. Thus the ability to hit the target is with the Character and not the Player. Second, It allows for one player to manage multiple number of characters and give each one a controled strategey of attack.

The first point is important in all CRPGs. The second has been made less important in games like Fallout and Arcanum since the Player never fully controls the NPC companions anyway. (The merits of this philosphy will not be discussed here. 8*) So the trick is to make a Real-Time Combat systems that does not require the player to "twich" but can still have his character act intellegently.

For the most part, Real-Time CRPGs have either been "click-fests" (ala Diablo) or some variation on the First Person Shooter (Deus Ex and System Shock). Both of which require some level of skill by the player. (I am still someone who never learned "mouse-look" 8*)

So an Ideal Real-Time RPG should allow me to do with one button "Attack Target with my bow twice, then draw my sword, and swing. If wounded to x%, quaff one potion. If wounded again to that level, disengage."

Also I should be able to change the strategy on the fly if things go better or worse. But it should not require too much reaction time on my part.

The trick is to make this "simple" to do, but give enough detailed for those who can deal with it to go hog wild in their strategies.

One game that sort of did this, was a little sleeper CRPG called "Soulbringer." Depending on your skills, you chould create a little macro of actions that would either be agressive, defensive, start off with one power attack then follow with three quick jabs. A realy cool idea. (The rest of the game had some "issues" but the concept was there)

This is how I would like to see Real-Time evolve in CRPGs. For the most part, Real-Time is simpler to understand and co-ordinate, and it allows for multi-player stories.

-gustavef

 

I entirely disagree with the use of 'real time' in RPG's as the one big difference between an RPG and any other kind of game is the vast ammount of possibilities.
Therefore if you take /your/ optimal viewpoint and have macro's do various things under various circumstances then :-
1. you would end up having to write thousands of macros, and even if you did have an endless ammount of macro's 'loaded', each time you came to certain circumstances imo you act differently, so that each time you got to 50% health you may or may not want to cast heal, as in 'real life.'
2. Even if the macro's idea worked as far as success is concerned i feel that it would take away some of the feeling of achievement that you get with an RPG, and this feeling imo is what sets RPG's apart. it would feel too automated and the role playing aspect would be taken away.

The only 'real time' combat system that i have seen for a CRPG that i have liked (although i do realise it seemed to make the combats easy, whether or not that was a game balance issue or not i dont know.) was the one used in BG. where the game is played in real time however you have the option of pausing (not realistic but under the circumstances the only option) in order to make the split second decisions for all player characters at the same time.
The problem i think with having true real time in CRPG's is the fact that you are playing the role of a person and that means that your options are vast. the place where real time belongs in my opinion is in games like FPS or C&C where the only options for your elements are move and shoot.

 

I don't wanna deal with Macros.
I found BG to be acceptable, and can live with that.
I still perfer having Turn Based, if only as an option. I agree that it's less realistic, and introduces tactics into a game that wouldn't otherwise be there. Hey, it's an RPG, not a tactical exercise on just how far your PC can move and still take his shot while retaining some cover (or as Gus points out, running around behind the baddie to get in your backstab bonus). Don't get me wrong, I like that stuff. But I also think that it can be separated from a CRPG successfully.

- Stravaig

 

I disagree it's less realistic because it takes away from your character's abilities.

The character is relying on you for your reaction time as opposed to turn based where you are relying on the character's reaction time.

That's one nice thing about CRPGs over pen and paper ones, they can limit what your character does based on his attributes, especially if they used Turn Based Combat.

With Fallout, your character's reaction time is modelled with the sequence secondary attribute. It's based on Perception and Agility.

With Baldur's Gate, it's more of a question on how fast you can click on whom.

Also, it's a question of control. Sure, the characters will auto-attack a monster, and rightly so because in Real Time, you have to have a system like that just for the player to be able to keep up.

That limits the player's control over the character. Turn Based offers total control over the characters action to the best of that character's abilities.

 

Well, just to offer some extra info.
First off, I am working on the premise that the need for real-time combat is proportional to the number of players playing at the same time. That is in a Single player game, Turn-Base is fine. But as you add more people, That same turn-base system can cause a lot of waiting for everyone.

A beter sumation "is the more people expected to play simultainiously demands that time passes at a more consistant rate." For instance, when playing BG or IWD with two or three friends, it most likely is not a big deal that everyone could have the option of pausing the game. However, the more people you add, and the less friendly they become, the less you should be able to modify time.

Now for some personal opinions on game design. First off, I am tiered of Companies designing single play games. The eveloution of CRPGs needs to create worlds and systmes and not just adventures. NWN is the first foray in to this market. What a company should look to do is create the World&System pack, then sell moduals/adventures on top of it. Theorectical, there is nothing stoping someone creating an adventure as deep as Arcanum with the NWN tool set. Just requires a lot of time. 8*)

So if you are going to create a World&System, you need to cater for one to many players. This implys that Real-Time/Continuous Combat is necessary in order to keep more people entertained.

The idea behind the "marco" is to provide tatical tidbits that one could hot-key. It does not have to be a complete strategy. In fact a "twich" player could hit the keys/buttons manualy and not let the automation take over. The key thing is to allow the player to "twich" less during real time, with less need for a full pause.

Games should not be designed solely around the single player. Personaly, I would love to see the Fallout Universe translated into something like NWN. I can therefore build and run my own Casino in Las Vegas. 8*) But to even attempt something like that would mean to break out of Turn-Base and implement some Real-Time system.

-gustavef, defender of the mis-begotten view of the future.

 

Just a short thing, I don't know if any of you like the CTB system that was introduced with fot, but to me, it was a VERY good implementation of real time / turnbased

Maybe its cuz I like the real time aspect, but in this age of broadband and crap, we cant have turn based anymore, its just too hard with too many players.

So maybe we can see something alot like the CTB in more games, and in rpg's

FOT had some good concepts in the game design, just got put into a crappy storyline

 

FOT's CTB is an example of how to merge from Turn Base to Real-Time. I am not saying it is the best solution, but it is in the right step. That is creating something that limits the amount of waiting a player does while other players take their actions, but still allowing some time to react to situations.

I realy have not played FOT, so I can't realy give my impress of how well it achived my goal, but on paper it is the right idea.

-gustavef

 

FOT was pretty good, only thing I MIGHT add is losing ap's for running.

 

And the Speech Skill would work how?

 

Real time with pause is a very good system.
It is NOT a twitch system and has nothing to do with player reactions. In the IE games all the calculations are done behind the scenes and the combat animation is looped so it looks like your in a fight not just standing around. However not all those are attacks.

You have the option to set pause on enemy sighted so again its not relying on player reaction to pause the game it will do that for you.

It's the same with casting spells you may cast one spell then imediately select another but the other spell wont be cast until a certain amount of segments have passed.

While it moves in real time you still have turns going on behind the scenes you just dont see them.
The real different is you dont have to wait till one person finishes their turn before moving onto the next they can all attack but they still do so in initiative order.

This means much shorter more intense combats but has nothing at all to do with twitch gaming.
On the other hand games like Dues Ex and SS2 do.Your character skills may make things easier but player skill is the essential factor. If I cant line up the crosshair on the enemy it really dosnt matter if my character is master level or not.

In FO3 your probably only going to control your character in combat anyway with AI controlled NPCs same as the first 2.The need for turn based combat seems somewhat exagerated.

Arcanums RT combat is bad because everything moves too fast so you are a spectator in most cases but BG's combat more measured because of the 6 second turns in the background.Same is true of FOT it moves at an easy to handle pace.

I didnt find the transition to RT to be all that painful :smile:

 

Someone mentioned "realism" with regards to TB. (As in: TB isn't very realistic.)

Saint Proverb, however, probably hit it on the head: Your character is not supposed to be limited by you. This is the main #1 reason I /hate/ FPS games. I just loathe them. Because I suck at them, and thinking about it won't make me any better.

Then gust said that "the demands of real time are proprotional with the number of people playing". This is also, very probably, dead-on as well.

What is the best middle-of-the-road solution? (Okay, Saint, you tell us!)

Me? I think one of two things.

1) Consecutive Turn-Based. Not revolutionized by Fallout Tactics. Revolutionized byCivilization Gold (aka Civ 2 Multiplayer). The only drawbacks /I/ see with this is that it can be slow in a multiplayer environment and it can be difficult to learn.

2) Slow Down Realtime. Slow it down to the slowest rating of all the people playing.

Neither of these are feesable answers for anything remotely Massively Multiplayer (say, more than 8 players). But then, by that time the purpose of the game shifts to include the fact that people are going to want to wander around beating the crap out of anything that moves, and any pretence at RPG status vanishes.

I hope 'Anarchy Online' gives us the answer.

-Thenomain (NMI)

 

Civilization 2 and Alpha Centauri both have good Continuous Turn Based modes. In fact, they really ARE Continuous Turn Based, unlike what Fallout Tactics had.

In Civ2 and SMAC, it was just like playing your turn, only everyone played the turn at the same time. When everyone was done or the time limit for the turn ended, all your movement points and things were replenished.

Fallout Tactics's "CTB" is merely Real Time with Action Points. When you think about it, most real time games have units with features such as those in Fallout. For example, in Total Annihilation, a stumpy reloaded slower than a AK.

The difference is, you can see the APs and how they effect time.

I'd rather have the actual SMAC style CTB so I can actually control my units.

As far as realism goes, it's really a bullshit catch phrase when it comes to gaming.

For example, in TB, you can hop out from behind a wall, shoot, and get back behind cover. Guess what, folks, that's pretty much how people do it in real life. The big difference is that they don't go all the way out in to the open. However, TB simulates this kind of "tactic" nicely.

In real time, you have to walk all the way out, and fire.. Odds are, you're getting shot in the process. Not too many people are that stupid in real life.

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-05-16 23:20 ]</font>

 

Okay, let me take a step back and see if people mostly agree with the following principles.

1) in any RPG (computer or Tabel Top) The success of the action should depend more on the Character and not the Player. The player just has to choose the action, and let the character do that. (I am leaving the definition of action vague right now.)

2) In an RPG with multiple players, everyone must agree on the rate at which time passes.

Now, (1) means that CRPGs should be turn based as for the player to react and tell the character what to do.

(2) does not directly imply that the game must be in Real-time, but that the game must move time along for all palyers at the same rate. So a better term is "Consistant" time.

What I proposed was one solution to "How to have consistant time with out increasing the reaction time of the player." 8*)

-gustavef

PS as for the speech skill in NWN, 3d D&D does have Socail skill, like bluff and persuasion. I don't know if they made it in NWN.

 

RE : "realism and Turn-Base"

the lack of "realism" in turn-base style combat is a result of everything not happening at once. More of a "time-paradox" issue. When time does not move the same for all characters, odd things can occur.

In Table top games, you have a Human GM doing a sanity check on every action. So you are less prone to get these loop holes. (Depending on the force of the GM)

Turn base could still work in moderated Multiplayer. But then you are limited by the quality of the moderator.

-gustavef

 

Since we're agreeing on baselines.
(1) Yup, RPGers want their Characters to determine the results
(2) Multiplayer brings different problems into the mix
In my mind there are three basic types of gamers who play RPGs.
1 RPGers (Planescape:Torment rules!)
2 Pretty box syndrome sufferers (MystIII, delightful!)
3 Adreneline junkies (Diablo II frags!)
RPGers want turn-based because it's all about the Characters and the Story. CTB is an answer RPGers are happy with because it lets the entire party function heroically at the level of the Characters within the Story.
PBSS don't care except that they don't want things to be too complicated. The idea here is easy-access eye candy. RT provides that better than TB.
AJs suffer at the thought of clicking an End Turn button. It's all about fast-paced thrills.

Titles that want to be Mega-Hits will try to cater to the largest potential audience. PBSSes and AJs spend a lot of money. Therefore there will be a skew toward RT.
The only caveat is that there IS a dedicated TB audience. This means that developers with the guts to produce an excellent TB game will be rewarded by collecting a huge fan base (FO, anyone?). But you better have a GREAT game because RPGers are a tough bunch to please (name seven great CRPGs - did you make it all the way back to Bard's Tale?). Right now RPGers best hope is tied up in RPGer developers. In the future, RPGers need to show that they command enough lucre to make it worth the game companies while.

 

It looks like everyone agrees that your character's abilities should not be mixed up with the player's abilities.

Thenomain wrote:

Gustavef wrote:

Saint_Proverbius wrote:

Aldin wrote:

I agree. I am a separate entity from my character, so my failings should not be transferred onto him.

Unfortunately, I am a useless tactician. No matter how skilled my character becomes in warfare, however high his intelligence, I still come up short.

I therefore propose we eliminate all character control in combat. Your character will choose appropriate moves given his or her stats and skills. After all, a mutant with very little brain should be capable of little more than running towards the nearest opponent and smiting him mightily.

:wink:

 

Damnit man, give us "Brain Interfaces and Submersive VR Environment!!" Also known as B.I.S VR :smile:

Now if you can give us BISVR, then make CRPGS real time.. if you cant, keep them turn base. Cuz im a weed smoking gamer who cant fully handle a massive queue list of "what to do" alone with my mouse and keyboard!!

If that makes any sense.. if not, ive posted a lenthier one in the Arcanum Graphics debate..

 

For the most part I would agree. However Category 1 has lots of factions for so few people. You have the 1st Person v 3rd Person split, various grades of linearity and story, and what not.

So without catering to some aspects of group 2 or group 3, a developer will have a limited audience. So the trick is, how do you create a game with out pauses in actions (so as not to turn off group 3) yet still not be completely dependent on the skill of the palyer and thus alienate group 1.

The trick to create an interface where you can instruct your character to "swing my sword at oppentent X" and be very specific, or give general commands "Focus quick attacks on the Mage, then break and clean up the rest." Or even : Attack that group over there. and your character will pick what stategey it thinks is best given the situation and the training of the character.

In otherwords, A player should be able to everything by hand or nothing. 8*)

-gustavef

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: gustavef on 2001-05-17 10:09 ]</font>

 

I think the ones who want first person RPGs fall in to categories 2 and 3.

After all, most first person RPGs are thinly disguised shooters, like Deus Ex, System Shock, and Wizards & Warriors.

They're hardly RPGs because you're the guy doing the aiming, you're the guy reacting to everything, etc.

 

Although I personaly prefer 3rd Person over 1st person, the view does not necessarily imply other aspcets of the game. There is nothing stoping a developer putting in the detailed dialog and choices in a 1st person game. They just have not done it yet. Marrowind is supposed to have the Depth and richness of Arcanum, in terms of world, but since I have not seen it, I can not say for sure. Marrowind is not designed to be as "story" driven as Aracanum. This does not make it better or worse, but caters to a different type of RPGer.

Wizards and Warriors and the Might and Magic serise still did some form of Turn-Base. When it was one of your characters turn to act (depending on the speed of that character and the last action) you had all the time you needed to chose the next attack, (like cast a spell or use an item)

The point-of-view does not necessarily imply other aspects of roleplaying in a computer game. However, most 1st person view have required more coordination on the part of the palyer then most 3rd person games.

-gustavef