RPGs with turn-based combat

There is no "real time" or "phased" mode in DW; the critters and characters politely take their turns swinging away; with a pause for more orders. Wizardry 8 is the same, except that while everything take their turn regardless, in Phased mode they do not stop for the player to issue orders. Wiz8 offers both Phased and TB combat. However, your confusing yourself on the issue, because you don't realize that the units take turns based on initiative and statistics in both games, and the action does not all fold out in real time.

Real Time = All units on the screen operate independently and at the same time, without taking turns or pausing for orders. - Baldur's Gate

Phased = All units take turns in a order based on internal mechanics, but the combat simply continues until one side wins or flees. The Player can issue orders on the fly, and the next combat round they will be carried out. - Wizardry 8's "Phased Mode"

Turn-based = All units take turns in an order based on internal mechanics, with an additional pause between combat rounds for the Player to issue orders to his units, or a simple "end of turn" mechanic that keeps it from being Phase-based. Games where the Player gives orders to his units one at a time, and that order is carried out then also count as turn based. Devil Whiskey or Treasures of the Savage Frontier.

"Phase based" is called "phase based" because there is an order-issuing phase at the beginning of every round of combat (as opposed to selecting an individual character's action when it is their turn to act). That is all.
What bjon was stating lies within that definition, and does not preclude participants taking turns to act when the "action execution" phase occurs (it's just that what they were ordered to actually do was done in the order phase).

The Codex has a rather good discussion on this subject matter which I will post when I find it again.
Also, I've seen people successfully argue the point that phase-based is a sub-type of turn-based. I can live with that.

EDIT:
Here it is. It's an article by Gareth Davies, one of the Fallout Tactics guys:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21

Pertinent part:
"Phase-Based combat, like its close relation TB, provides tangible phases which can be carefully measured, anticipated and progressed through. The difference lies in the fact that rather than taking turns, combat is rationalised into two phases - planning and execution. Sequential phase based provides very little advantage over standard TB, however a simultaneous execution phase can provide all of the advantages of real time, sidestep most of the flaws in TB, but does come with it's share of problems. More on that a little later, first the advantages. All of the TB advantages apply here, but with the addition of simultaneous actions, which greatly speeds up the TB process, and also helps to satisfy the naysayers who believe TB is unrealistic. "WeGo" PB effectively takes away the abstraction of TB."

Note: I don't necessarily agree with everything the article says, but it's a good start.

The problem with that being that the two games in question, Wizardry 8 and Devil Whiskey, do not play combat out in a real time fashion, but in sequential turns. According to that, every CRPG practically that is not real-time is Phase-based; except a VERY small number (and I'm having trouble coming up with an example beyond the Gold Box games or the later Ultimas, where the order/execution is one and the same, much like Chess). Even though the definition is "taking turns", not "doing everything at once then pausing". You may not have played Wizardry 8 or Devil Whiskey, but the action does not happen instantaneously or simultaneously. Each character or monster moves in it's turn, not all at once (which is real time). If that's not turn-based, then Super Mario Brothers is an RPG of the deepest caliber. You cannot have two characters in Wizardry 8 or Devil Whiskey move at the same time, to attack the same creature. Nor do 20 creatures mob you, then the game pause to get your input. 1 creature moves forward at a time, and if it's able, it may attack in some way. The only exception is if the party advances in combat; then the party moves as a whole. That's more a limitation of the engine than a function of combat; if the combat mode was more akin to Baldur's Gate or the aforementioned GB games, then it would be one PC advancing at a a time as well.

In fact, in Wiz8's case, it can be argued that the "phased combat" mode is more TB than the TB-mode. The PCs and monsters all act in their turns, however there is no pause to the action whatsoever; they operate on auto-pilot every turn until the battle's over or you tell them to do something else (or switch to the TB mode). In phased mode it's closer to the old Gold Box games' tactical combat than anything else; which I doubt anyone will argue is real time or phase based (at least those who played it).

Having beaten both games, and having played these kinds of games for some 20 years, both Wizardry 8 and Devil Whiskey display every inclination of turn-based combat I've ever seen, even in PnP gaming. The main difference is instead of the combat rounds flowing continuously, in between each round the player is able to alter each character's actions. That sole thing has been present in TB CRPGs longer than either game has been around, and in Wiz8's case can be turned off.

Oh dear, you appear to not have understood my point, nor what the article said.

I'll state it again, unequivocably:
"Phase based" is called such because orders and execution for all participants occur in separate phases: an orders phase, and an execution phase.
It has nothing to do with whether or not in the execution phase the actions of the participants are simultaneous or sequential. Hence bjon's definition still fitting.
Also, both options are mentioned in the article.

Originally Posted by azraelck
The problem with that being that the two games in question, Wizardry 8 and Devil Whiskey, do not play combat out in a real time fashion, but in sequential turns.

As stated, this is irrelevant. Both options can be included in the definition.

According to that, every CRPG practically that is not real-time is Phase-based

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. The Fallouts, TOEE, POR2, every single Spiderweb game? All "normal" TB. Plenty of other examples on that list on the page previously, perhaps.

You may not have played Wizardry 8 or Devil Whiskey, but the action does not happen instantaneously or simultaneously. Each character or monster moves in it's turn, not all at once (which is real time).

Once again, an included option in both the article and what I wrote above (i.e. "and does not preclude participants taking turns to act when the action execution phase occurs" in my stuff; "Sequential phase based" in Mr Davies' stuff).

The rest of what you wrote is based on your continuing erroneous assumption that "phase based" is something to do with "continuous flowing combat rounds" or somesuch.

It is not.

The ability in Wizardry 8 to have these and queue commands instead of having an explicit orders phase is an alteration to the existing phase based combat, and is what they coined "continuous-phase" mode. Note the word "continuous" - it is not "normal" phase based. The fact that they muddy up the definition of "normal" PB with "turn based" is no surprise; many do*.

Anyway, as I said above, when push comes to shove I'm quite happy about people referring to PB with sequential actions (in the execution phase) as "TB". It's no biggy. But your assertion that "phase based" is the exact same thing as Wizardry 8's "continuous-phase" option is completely wrong.

[*Edit: it appears that they do not mix "TB" with "PB" after all. See below]

Okay, I'll cement this argument by quoting verbatim from my Wizardry 8 manual:
(damn, I have to type this in…)

Page 73

"There are two combat modes in Wizardry 8. The first is Phased Combat - you give your orders, then click on the check mark to begin the next combat round. The second is continuous combat. In continuous combat, Wizardry will start the next combat round on its own, without waiting for you to click the check mark."

(emphasis mine)

Who cares?!

I don't think the guy who started this thread really cares about the exact definitions. He just wants to find more rpg's that are turn-based combat(or phase based).

Originally Posted by JDR13
Who cares?!

I would say it is very important so people don't recommend phased based games when he wants turn based games.

Imagine if chess was played where both players had to write down their moves and then show each other at the same time with no opportunity to alter their moves based on what their opponent has done.

Phase based games are also typically limited to the first person based perspective and you do not get to control the movement of individual characters. What would happen if you are your opponent were to move to the same square?

A lot of people who like turn based games do not like phased based games as they think it is less tactical and in some ways it is, but on the other hand it can be just as challenging sometimes when you have to plan everything assuming a worst case scenario, in turn based you have the luxury of seeing if your characters sustain damage and then casting a healing spell during the same round.

I always thought the crux was in that little "WeGo" detail.

True turn-based doesn't intermix the attacks of the party with the attacks of the critters. Outside of which side swings first, there is no initiative calculation. TB means all your party does their thing while the monsters stand there. Then you stand there while all the monsters do their thing.

Phased is fundamentally the same, except individual entities get in line to do their thing based on some initiative calc and regardless of which side they belong to.

Continuous, ala the Wiz8 option, is pretty much hands-off phased combat.

You have to go back pretty far in history to find games with true TB. About the only "modern" stuff with TB I can think of would be Roguelikes. Even those aren't all true TB. FastCrawl is phased.

I guess I'm no authority, but I've been in or watched enough discussions over the years that I thought the definitions had been hammered out pretty well.

I once tried the demo for Wizardry 8, I think. And both the phased based combat as well as the continous (turn) based combat was highly confusing, at least for me.
It seemed like a (very weak) choice to have a combat system between a RT system and Realtime system…

I far prefer realtime with pause….

Originally Posted by bjon045
I would say it is very important so people don't recommend phased based games when he wants turn based games.

Yes, but at no time has he said he doesn't like phased based games.

Oh relax, folks. It's a fun discussion. A good academic exercise even if not terribly relevant to the original topic (which had kind of run its course anyway).

Yeah. It is interesting. I have thought a bit about this playing both type tb and rt and the ideas I have been using, like when I ran D&D were phase-based. The basics of it was a continuous initiative result which when your point in the initiative was reached some action was taken. At some point when all actions had been taken that could be, a new phase was reached. Though people would enter this phase at different points, it would be the end of the round for them. So you would have time to plan your next move.

Actions would have a set cost in the time (initiative) it took to complete some action.
Actions could be either passive or active, but both take initiative.

So an encounter might go like this:
Dm: You see some enemies, come out of the nearby, they haven't spotted you yet.
(rolls dice) What do you do?

Pc01: How many…Dm four or maybe more, it's twilight (10 initiative)
Pc02: I knock an arrow…Dm, ok (10 initiative)
Pc03: I flip the safety off my always loaded crossbow and fire…Dm so you aim carefully? Pc03 No I just blast them..Dm, ok (5 initiative)

Dm Twang! A crossbow shot goes off! There's a cry of pain and you all see one of them fall as the others are responding… Ching, Ching, Ching, 3 swords come out as they charge, Twang! apparently one of them has an always loaded crossbow too. (15 initiative)

Pc02: I had an arrow knocked…Dm, yeah you have good target and fire (5 initiative)

Pc01: Sword and shield.. charge.. Dm, Klunk! Good move you feel the impact of a bolt pierce your shield.. (20 initiative).. addition of -5 for the impact the attack has on the action.
Etc..

Well, it worked ok for TT, but over 25 got rather messy. Some fights took multiple sessions to resolve.

To the original post, the most recent turn based RPG I played wasLord of the Rings: the third age (2004, also, its for the xbox). Not a great rpg, mostly just combat and walking down a linear path, and that sort of Japanese TB that annoys me, you're walking along and out of nowhere enemies appear, you fight rooted to the spot with only a few options, etc. ) Since its EA, its pretty simplified, which is silly, because an advantage of TB combat is the potential for detail and tactical options. Anyway, there you go.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Outside of which side swings first, there is no initiative calculation. TB means all your party does their thing while the monsters stand there. Then you stand there while all the monsters do their thing.

I regard the Initiative as a (A)D&D invention. I don't know it from The Dark Eye, for example.
At least not in the third edition of it, it might be different in the 4th, which changed a LOT in the whole system !

Originally Posted by Mr. H
…nd that sort of Japanese TB that annoys me, you're walking along and out of nowhere enemies appear, you fight rooted to the spot with only a few options, etc. ) Since its EA, its pretty simplified, which is silly, because an advantage of TB combat is the potential for detail and tactical options. Anyway, there you go.

Yeah, that sort of thing really bugs me. Why do turn-based if your character are just going to stand there. The Disciples games did this, and while I did enjoy Sacred Lands, I just could never get into the sequel for that very reason, the fighting is pointless.

With turn-based games, there's so many different implementations of turn-based and many of them are terrible, so the whole style gets a bad name. If you look at some turn-based games, you can see why people would have an aversion or burning hatred of it, because the system was so poorly designed.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
With turn-based games, there's so many different implementations of turn-based and many of them are terrible, so the whole style gets a bad name. If you look at some turn-based games, you can see why people would have an aversion or burning hatred of it, because the system was so poorly designed.

Yeah, it seems like flaws area lot easier to spot in turnbased games. There are plently of terribly designed realtime rpgs as well, but at least it is over quickly You are right about them getting a bad name too. When your average TB-disliker hears "turn based combat", they probably don't think of games like Silent Storm or Jagged Alliance, or even Fallout. Hell, when I was young and naive, I used to think TB was silly, boring and outdated, but I had only seen it in action in really nasty forms. Fallout impressed me with the "tactical option" of targetting the groin (I later appriaciated the control of movement, otions and detail, but anyway).

If I was a multi-billionare, I might conduct an experiment. Make a turnbased game with all the latest details and options. Interrupts, APs, ability to move and shoot, all that. Make sure it has a beautiful parellax-reverse-double high definition exponetial mapped graphics, cinematic camera swings between turns, destructable environments, bloody deaths, variable perspectives, effects, all that too. Then I'd market it as a system that completely revolutionizes tactical simulation and intense combat with a system that gives you essentially unlimited options, is highly detailed, if its an rpg, takes advatages of/and expresses all of your character/party's abilities. Maybe give it a name, like V.A.T.S, Virtual action-packed tactical simultion(tm). I bet it would sell pretty decently.

Originally Posted by Mr. H
Make sure it has a beautiful parellax-reverse-double high definition exponetial mapped graphics.

That's so yesterday's graphics. The water doesn't even look wet without quadruple hi-def…

Ja, I am falling behind on the revolution. Silent Storm melted my computer into shit, because my video card cant take the ultra-realistic super-imposed quasi aliased shadows and bump mapped nipples. By the way, anybody else have trouble running this game? I have an ATI xpress 200 series video card, which I guess is a little outdated, but silent storm is from 2003, so you'd think it would be okay. Bizarro.

Strangely, when I think of good TB combat, I keep coming back to Betrayal at Krondor!!

Originally Posted by JDR13
Who cares?!

Woah.
My mother (wise lady) told me that "discussion is healthy". azraelck, bjon and I certainly haven't managed to offend one another, so I'm not sure what you're getting het up about.

Apologies for being overly, errmm, "discussive".