In a recent video on his YouTube channel, legendary developer Tim Cain weighed in on one of the great RPG debates: Turn-based, or real time? But Cain doesn't see it as a zero sum game, instead staking out a sensible, radical moderate position on a topic that can prompt forum knife fights.
One unique aspect to Cain's perspective: He zoomed out to "real time" period, not just the OG Baldur's Gate-codified "real time with pause" (RTWP) where you can queue up commands to multiple characters while the game is stopped. The specific contrast of turn-based and RTWP is more often the center of debate, given that they have both been ways of digitizing tactical, often tabletop-adapted combat.
But Cain doesn't see one style as being inherently superior to another, pause or no pause. He thinks each has pros and cons, and reflects on them more as tools available to devs rather than ends in and of themselves. Regarding real time, Cain argued:
- It's naturally superior for first person games (excepting very specific edge cases).
- Combat moves faster, and allows for more characters on-screen without dragging things out.
- But it's more difficult to control multiple characters, and the "pause" in RTWP can feel like a bandaid: "It doesn't solve all the problems," according to Cain.
Cain sees the slow pace of turn-based games as a major drawback, a sentiment you might connect with if you've ever reached the modern era in a game of Civ or gotten an entire town hostile in a 2D Fallout. Conversely, he doesn't seem to be much of a fan of adapting turn-based tabletop rules to a real time game, even if you add in a pause.
He proffered the example from Baldur's Gate of enemies moving out of range from your area of effect spells while you're still casting them as one big disconnect. As an aside, Cain was project lead on the defiantly turn-based, post-Baldur's Gate D&D adaptation, The Temple of Elemental Evil.
More of a neutral observation from Cain: He sees real time games as allowing for (and sometimes requiring) a greater degree of raw player skill and reaction time. On the one hand, this can allow for a greater degree of player expression—I thought of "The Ultimate" challenge in Pillars of Eternity, and how high it raises that game's skill ceiling by prohibiting both the turn-based mode and pausing.
But Cain's also a bit of a purist when it comes to RPG gameplay, seeming to prefer that buildcrafting and strategy take center stage over reaction speed and precision, unless you're making a dedicated action-RPG hybrid.
"They both have their loud, vocal advocates," Cain cautioned fellow developers, but he sees a place for both styles. Cain has, indeed, made games in both styles. However, he firmly does not recommend trying to design for both and allowing players to switch between them as in Arcanum, Pillars, or Owlcat's Pathfinder games, because you'd be "setting yourself up for a lot of work."
I can appreciate Cain's agnosticism on the topic, even though I generally prefer turn-based (at least over RTWP). For other developers' perspectives: Cain's Obsidian colleague, Josh Sawyer, thinks turn-based initially fell behind due to a lack of "tactical variation." James Brawley, a lead designer on upcoming turn-based tactics game Star Wars Zero Company, still believes that RTWP has a place, and that its star will rise again.
