How should a RPG 'game' play out?

[TheNightATK300]

So, I'm planning a 'game' or sorts... But how should the game play out? This is why I created this poll right here, here's a simple backdrop of what's going on.

Say you're in a RPG game, you have yourself (The Player Character), the Party composing of 4 character and the enemy's party. Which is follows a traditional RPG game, but how should this 'game' play out?

Turn-Based
-Each character (PC, party and enemy party) moves turn-by-turn after a move.

Real-Time
-Each character moves at the same time, while abilities have cooldown.

Here are the choices:

Turn-Based, Party Control
-The Player Character's party is controllable, including the Player Character. With each character moving turn by turn depending on their Speed stat. Similar to most RPG games in the past.

Turn-Based, Party as Support
-Only the Player Character is controllable, but the party will support the player via abilities, if the Player calls for help in this case, but they cannot attack.

Turn-Based, Solo
-Same as above, but the party will only be controlled by NPCs. Do not be confused with the above, as they both attack and use abilities at the same time. Similar to Turn-Based, Party Control.

Real-Time, Party Control
-The Player Character's party is controllable with the addition of the Player Character, they can move to avoid attacks and attack the enemy party's party members. Everyone moves at the same rate, similar to a RTS game.

Real-Time, Ability Usage
-Same as above, but Player Character's party is uncontrollable. Instead, the player must use the party's abilities.

Real-Time, Solo
-Only the Player Character is controllable, and not the party. The party will act as NPCs however. Similar to Hack 'n Slash games.

So how would you think about this, guys?

[insightguy]

It all depends on what kind of game you want to make and what challenges are designed around it. turn based or real time or even in between can be fun in the right circumstances.

but just to weed out some things:

Turn-Based, Party as Support
-Only the Player Character is controllable, but the party will support the player via abilities, if the Player calls for help in this case, but they cannot attack.

Turn-Based, Solo
-Same as above, but the party will only be controlled by NPCs. Do not be confused with the above, as they both attack and use abilities at the same time. Similar to Turn-Based, Party Control.

Turn based games are usually better if you can control all or most of the characters on your side, so the above may not be a good idea,

Real-Time, Party Control
-The Player Character's party is controllable with the addition of the Player Character, they can move to avoid attacks and attack the enemy party's party members. Everyone moves at the same rate, similar to a RTS game.

Might get too messy in a combat scenario unless you can pause and plan like in the game doorbreakers or the like.

Real-Time, Ability Usage
-Same as above, but Player Character's party is uncontrollable. Instead, the player must use the party's abilities.

This needs clarification.

[wildweasel]

Turn-based/party-support is a really bad idea if it's not implemented well. In the PS2 releases of Persona 3, only the main character could be given direct orders; vague "strategies" could be issued that affected the entire rest of the party (stuff like "Go all-out!" and "Save SP!") but there was no hope to defuse moments like party members using elemental skills that accidentally heal enemies, or Mitsuru becoming hopelessly obsessed with casting the borderline-useless Marin Karin skill that generally fails to have an effect. The PSP re-release (and the immediate sequels) allow you to control the whole party at will.

I have never been particularly fond of real-time strategy-style RPGs. Even with RTw/Pause systems, they just never seem to play out in a way that is satisfying to me, because it's often still a "turn based" system under the hood that the game is trying to hide from me, with the pause button being a band-aid fix to the wrong problem.

[Sgt. Shivers]

Turn based is good for more strategic/traditional RPGs, real-time is good for more intense action RPGs. If you're making something with a lot of party members and you want to control them all, I suggest you stick with turn-based systems.

[Matt]

I'm good for all but two of those:

Turn-Based, Party as Support
Been SMG'd in the back by Ian and Sulik too many times. If I'm going to be staring at that battle map for that long I'd like a bit more finer tactical control.

Real-Time, Party Control
aaaauuuuuGH. So many fuckin' buttons and shit. AUGH.
(Confession: I never got to the second mission in the original Ghost Recon in part because of this, and never got past the first mission in any other RS game.)

tl;dr not good under time constraints


(fwiw, I count pause-anytime stuff like Baldur's Gate as turn-based for this)

[Chris]

Even with RTw/Pause systems, they just never seem to play out in a way that is satisfying to me, because it's often still a "turn based" system under the hood that the game is trying to hide from me, with the pause button being a band-aid fix to the wrong problem.

Yeah, real-time-with-pause to me feels like it's trying to merge real-time with turn-based, and ends up bringing out the negatives of each other. The real-time element makes it so you can issue commands at any time, and cancel a command before it starts, but the turn-based elements mean you're still limited by internal turn timers. Also, the actual time that an effect goes off influences the results. For example, you see a party member that's low on health, and you issue a command for someone to heal them. You end up waiting a variable amount of time for your turn timer to be up, then start the action and you think you're good -- but as you do, an enemy hits and kills them/knocks them out. You've initiated the heal though and can't stop, so it ends up being ineffectual, wasting the heal and the time it took to execute the heal. You couldn't have done it earlier because of the turn timer, and even though they were still up when the action started, it did nothing. Annoyingly, this sometimes happens backwards; you and an enemy are in melee range, the enemy starts an attack action, and you move out of the way before the attack hits... but you still take damage because you were close when the action started. It's inconsistent, and it's not possible to account for it when you don't know what's going to happen when.

I'd rather have something that's fully real-time, like an Elder Scrolls game, or fully turn-based, like Divinity: Original Sin. Even something like XCOM would work, with turns being divided by squads instead of per-character. But trying to mix real-time and turn-based results in unnecessary frustration with little gain over true turn-based (about the only advantage I see is you can stop giving commands and let the AI auto-resolve actions for a while).

[Nash]

Real-time solo a la Elder Scrolls/Fallout etc

[Matt]

Also, the actual time that an effect goes off influences the results. For example, you see a party member that's low on health, and you issue a command for someone to heal them. You end up waiting a variable amount of time for your turn timer to be up, then start the action and you think you're good -- but as you do, an enemy hits and kills them/knocks them out. You've initiated the heal though and can't stop, so it ends up being ineffectual, wasting the heal and the time it took to execute the heal. You couldn't have done it earlier because of the turn timer, and even though they were still up when the action started, it did nothing. Annoyingly, this sometimes happens backwards; you and an enemy are in melee range, the enemy starts an attack action, and you move out of the way before the attack hits... but you still take damage because you were close when the action started. It's inconsistent, and it's not possible to account for it when you don't know what's going to happen when.

The first point is why I like realtime+pause myself - it's just one of the hazards of the fight and definitely one you have to account for IRL (in combat and non-combat situations). Fix the second point and I think we've got my own personal ideal.

I may be biased since I'm specifically thinking of how it works in the Baldur's Gate games, but the second point seems primarily influenced by a desire not to let the player cheese the AI by nibbling away with a zillion hit-and-runs. It's not an FPS like Doom where the exact line of sight is expected to be a crucial point, and putting too much control in the player's hands will downplay the RPG stats aspect of defence, overly rewarding micromanaging a lot of movement when that might not be the skill the designers want to encourage (and the game interface doesn't properly accommodate anyway).

[Chris]

The first point is why I like realtime+pause myself - it's just one of the hazards of the fight and definitely one you have to account for IRL (in combat and non-combat situations).

That's where I'd prefer fully real-time action. If timing is everything, then let me control the timing of my characters. If the amount of time is variable due to some turn timer, it gives a false sense of strategy. You try to do something, and it may or may not work due to an arbitrary amount of time for you to start an action, an arbitrary amount of time for an enemy action, and then it depends on how fast the animations play and the effect triggers. Turn-based handles this issue the other way; rather than giving you control of the timing, it makes the timing clear. If you know a heal will take 1 turn to complete, you can consider what can happen with the coming turn and plan accordingly.

Real-time-with-pause has too much variability to be very strategic, nor enough control for actions to feel responsive. Fixing the cited issues would result in a game that is fully real-time (Elder Scrolls), turn-based (Divinity: Original SIn, Darkest Dungeon), or squad-based (XCOM), depending on what aspects are favored.

I may be biased since I'm specifically thinking of how it works in the Baldur's Gate games

Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins, and even Pillars of Eternity all showcase these flaws to me. You're given neither enough control for your responsiveness to matter much nor enough information to make strategic decisions. It feels like an attempt at randomness, but it's not really random; it's strict rules lawyering where you're purposely kept in the dark on important details.

but the second point seems primarily influenced by a desire not to let the player cheese the AI by nibbling away with a zillion hit-and-runs.

Ironically, it seems to cause more confusion for the AI. I've seen some cases where an AI will run up to an enemy, start an attack as they run away and still damage them, while other times they'll run up, stop as the enemy runs away, then run after them again (where they catch up and do the same thing over again, never actually attacking). It again showcases where the turn-based and real-time action conflict, creating inconsistency.