Nope, not a "better analogy" at all.
It's a much better analogy.
You don't like the way you can teleport to rest? Then walk.
The rest of us will teleport.
In other words, you use your clock and other people will play without it.
This is still relying on players to provide the limitations of the game that the designers should have. Which we as players can't really do, because we don't know how many encounters Larian intended for us to fight before resting. 1? 2? 5? Setting restrictions on yourself
can be fun or interesting, but in an rpg video game I want to play against the game, not against myself.
Not to mention all the game balance issues created by Larian's design philosophy to not implement long rest restrictions, which means they're likely not balancing encounters so that the players face ~3-6 per long rest. These issues are unavoidable even if I do set restraints on myself - if we're expected to fight 1 or 2 encounters between long rests, then either playing as a martial character or warlock feels much shittier compared to the long-rest caster classes, or I have a much more punishing gameplay experience than intended.
D&D is designed around the Adventuring Day. Which has its problems, I'll definitely agree with that. But just ignoring the Adventuring Day without addressing the gameplay aspects that were designed with it in mind creates different problems.
