Obsidian's Missed Opportunity: The Turn-Based Combat Dilemma in RPGs

This discussion delves into the evolving landscape of combat systems within role-playing games, particularly the transition from real-time with pause (RTWP) to purely turn-based mechanics. It highlights the strategic choices made by prominent game developers, Obsidian Entertainment and Larian Studios, in shaping their flagship RPG titles, Pillars of Eternity and Baldur's Gate 3, respectively. The piece explores the reasons behind these decisions, contrasting Obsidian's adherence to a traditional RTWP model with Larian's bold embrace of turn-based combat, and examines the market reception and underlying factors that contributed to their distinct outcomes. Ultimately, it sheds light on the complexities of game development, balancing developer vision with player expectations and technological capabilities.

Josh Sawyer, a leading figure at Obsidian Entertainment and a key designer for the Pillars of Eternity series, has long held a personal preference for turn-based combat in role-playing games. This sentiment was evident in a recent interview where he discussed the perceived triumph of turn-based systems over the real-time with pause approach that dominated many classic RPGs, including the original Baldur's Gate titles. Despite his inclination, Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity entries, serving as spiritual successors to the Baldur's Gate legacy, largely retained the RTWP style.

Sawyer noted that during the initial development of Pillars of Eternity, a strong undercurrent of nostalgia among Kickstarter backers for the original Baldur's Gate combat system influenced their design choices. This created a delicate tension between fulfilling fan expectations and pursuing the studio's own innovative desires. While the Pillars team eventually introduced a turn-based mode to Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire through a significant post-launch update, demonstrating their capability and interest in the mechanic, it was not the foundational design of the main game.

In stark contrast, Larian Studios made a pivotal decision to implement a fully turn-based combat system for Baldur's Gate 3, a move that initially raised some eyebrows among fans of the franchise's real-time with pause heritage during its early access phase. However, Larian's prior extensive experience with turn-based mechanics, particularly demonstrated in the highly successful Divinity: Original Sin series, provided them with a robust technological framework and a proven track record. This established expertise, Sawyer posits, allowed Larian to navigate potential fan skepticism more effectively and ultimately achieve critical and commercial success with their turn-based rendition of Baldur's Gate.

The divergent paths taken by these two esteemed studios underscore the significance of accumulated experience and technological foundation in game development. Larian's established 'tech built around turn-based' combat systems gave them a distinct advantage in delivering a polished and engaging turn-based experience, winning over a potentially resistant fan base. Conversely, Obsidian's limited prior experience with purely turn-based RPGs, aside from projects like South Park: The Stick of Truth, meant they lacked the same inherent confidence and established framework to make such a significant shift for Pillars of Eternity without alienating a core segment of their audience who expected the traditional RTWP format.

The varying approaches to combat systems in contemporary RPGs illustrate a dynamic interplay between developer preferences, audience expectations, and established studio expertise. While Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity maintained a connection to its real-time with pause roots, Larian's Baldur's Gate 3 confidently embraced turn-based mechanics, setting a new benchmark. The success of the latter highlights the increasing acceptance and even preference for turn-based combat in modern RPGs, suggesting a fertile ground for future innovation in this domain.