Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Fast Travel Limitation Poll

Aren't those portal part of the lore in BG? They should be there so I voted no limits at all. The only thing I can say if we do need to limit it would be to be able to use it on location only were the portals are.

And yet, one bit where the game cuts player off from fast travel and forces them to find a way out has been praised to high heaven.

Because skill checks in dialogue or combat, are elements of gameplay where the player is actively involved. They choose to go into dialogue, and choose the reply they want to say. Combat is something they also either choose, or encounter in correlation to something they choose to do, such as delving further into the goblin camp, or as a consequence to a dialogue option they chose (and failed or was a poor choice).

Random encounters during fast travel is just a random chance, of a random event, that the player is forced to do, without giving them a choice. So there's no irony, but a clear distinct difference. Not to mention random encounters is one of the common factors among DMs and discussions that are often pointed out as a contributor to overland travel being boring. Roll a dice for each hexagon you move, players roll their eyes as another pack of wolves randomly come out from the treeline? Even the dungeon master's guide advice on this is terrible, there's advice somewhere in there to make random encounters more exciting, and the example is that the bandits could ambush the players from behind, rather than from in front of them. Woo-hoo.

And it's also just terrible filler content that adds very little to the game compared to inconvenience and annoyance. You go for a long rest, and travel back to where you were, woops you got ambushed, either gotta use some spellslots to get them out of the way fast, or take damage and spend a short rest to heal up before you've even gone back to the adventure after resting.

Not to mention it adds bloat in terms of player rewards, if the random encounter doesn't provide loot and/or experience, then it'll feel even more annoying and boring. If it does, you can just fast travel back and forth to farm exp. Then exp becomes an infinite grindable resource, loses its meaning and might as well be removed from the game entirely.

There are many discussions and videos for, and among DMs out there that has a bucket-full of ideas on how to make random encounters better rescue random encounters from not making the game suck for players, and just that fact should underline that random encounters are fundamentally disliked by a lot of players. Not all, it has its fans too as is obviously present, but it's a topic I often see on repeat in social platforms where DMs discuss among themselves, or share their wisdoms to aspiring DMs.

I feel an urge to go on a longer rant, but to make it very short: Random encounters is in my opinion one of the worst gameplay elements that any game could ever have, unless the game is specifically designed around it as a core component and gameplay loop, ala Pokemon.

That being said, I do agree and believe that both fast travel and longrests should have some form of iteration, addition or limitations to them compared to what currently stands. But random encounters is not a solution to either.



That goalpost can just be moved further and further, until the game just becomes a dice-rolling centipede of blockades to player agency. So no, all of those are bad for gameplay. You want to improve player agency and experience, not limit it or poke a stick in its wheels and over-systematically design every nook of gameplay. And just for random encounters alone, if it's rolled every time the players pass a crossroads, and there are many points in a world where a dice is rolled, it makes travel incredibly frustrating, and incentivizes fast travel. If fast travel too has random encounters, it's just a long fest of not fun gameplay that dictates what should happen, rather than letting the player steer their own adventure.

So... Just a flat no. To everything.

Hehe. Fair enough.

My little play on D&D gaming was exaggeration for effect. But my main point was for real. I REALLY don't like the extent to which pure chance plays a role (pun intended ;)) in D&D mechanics. And like I said, I especially hate it in basic elements of the game such as anything to do with your character creation or development (so rolling for HPs when you level up), and rolling for the magnitude of effects when spellcasting/using potions/scrolls.

+1. Wanted well crafted random encounters. It would be neat if there is a dedicated area or paid DLC? I don't mind. This area will be procedurally generated? And the deeper you delve in the more difficult the fights. And this will definitely solve the merchant farming issue. Players have great fun in the battles and the rewards are the loots. Be it weapons, armors, items or crafting materials.

I despise fast travel. It should be used minimally. "uuuuh, so don't use it, duuuuu...". Its a problem when a game is designed/built around fast travel.
Me wants my <Quality of life> this and that = bye bye RPG immersion. <<RPGs>> in 10 years : Who needs TB combat? Who needs inventory management? Who needs spells/classses? Who needs to walk around? Who needs a mouse and keyboard?

Limit fast travel. LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS = a better rpg experience and immersion. Quality of life dumbs down everything and is a plague to creativity.
#fuckqualityoflife (in games)

Quality of life stuff that ruined RPGs:

Auto health/magic regain
Unlimited resting
Unlimited inventory space
Unlimited xxx
Fast travel
No ammo
Less <junk> spells and abilities because they bring nothing to combat
No random encounters
No day/night
Dump down creature type and abilities
Less class/races/kits choices
Less companions
Less weapon types/skills
No written dialogues
Story mode
Tutorial areas
MMO/Smart phone like UI
UI designed around controllers
Brighter easy to see more colorful graphics
And on a general note : Game less mature/marketing towards kids (kids also including 20 to 30 year olds nowadays lol).

I wish I could remember where I heard this, but a game designer (maybe of the Outer Wilds) said that modern video games are designed to play themselves.
This was mostly in context of open world games, which do everything in there power to ensure that players never feel out of their depth, but it goes for most game systems in every genre. Every aspect of rpgs that veered into simulation is not user-friendly so naturally game design has become about sanding down those edges, or taking them out all together.
I'll let you guys tell me how this might also be the case through the editions of D&D, I feel that older rules did more to deal with simulation in campaigns (usually in exploration) but never really adequately and it seems like most players and DMs are satisfied to hand-wave it.

No, it would be remove fast travel outside of not being at portal, remove send to camp feature, and link portals to specific other locations, not having them all linked together.

its that simple

They better not even plan it, it would be a terrible limitation.

That’s a rather a different subject - handholding and following objective markes vs. Exploration through player’s curiosity. BG3 is rather far from AAA ina that regard.

Simulation isn’t the best word I would use to describe difference between BG1&2 and BG3. In the game sense BG3 has far more of a simulation then BG1&2 were - environment is interactable, liquids spill, surfaces are impacted by elements. As far as systemic simulations are concerned BG3 dwarfs previous entry.

What I think people are missing is the narrative focus of Bioware - they didn’t create simulated worlds, but worked hard to breathe life into the world they created. When game reacted it wasn’t an act of simulation, but of a narration - reinforcing the feel of the place, or players character. Random encounters (be it during travels or in maps) weren’t there to simulate anything, but to tell a story - protagonist’s venturing out of comfort of home, exploring wilderness, war between guilds.

Yes the original context for that remark (if I've remembered it correctly and still can't find) is about open-world exploration and the difference between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Or as is pertinent to us, Sandbox and Railroad narratives. But I still think it's a industry-wide move, regardless of genre and beyond open-world gameplay.

Of a scale of Dwarf Fortress to Mass Effect; BG 1&2 incorporate more of D&D's attempts to realize actual adventuring concerns than BG 3. i.e. simulation isn't just about environments it's about a lot of things, if there's a better word for that I couldn't think of it.


Of course, how much D&D deals with this type of gameplay varies by campaign, with a majority of players being uninterested, which is why it's more or less an afterthought in the rules without supplementary material.

I like Bioware games and I'll be happy to play a Baldur's Gate game in the vein of one, but especially with the last Dragon Age I've reached a tipping point with the way certain aspects of RPGs have been streamlined or are now out of the player's control.

Its so cute when you are trying to dementate something ...
As when kids thinks that two inifinites is twice as much as infinite.

I wonder what that even mean.
Could you elaborate?
Or is that just some vague catchword you are hiding behind? :P

This all can be done while not ruining other people game ...
If you dont want to ... just dont.

Seems simple enough ...
What is the problem? Why do you require other people you never seen or met to play their own completely separated SINGLE PLAYER game that dont affect you in any way ... the way you want it?
Where is origin of this urge to adjust everything on system level so you can get what you want but are too ... dunno unwilling, lazy, incapable (fell free to pick) ... to get it youreself?

Now when i think about it ... i think i know ONE possibke reason that would explain such behaviour ... but i still find it inprobable that so many people on this forum would share the same diagnosis. O_o

It probably won't happen, but if it did, it would be amazing!


Ya, I was waiting for this kind of answer, the game isn't setup like that plain and simple, It's not my game nor yours, its larians baby, I just put out my request that's all, just like most of my requests I don't really care if you or anyone really likes them. What matters is if the request is good enough in larians view, so in other words it's not about you.

The thought process is, looking at the game as a whole, we are not playing big mmo maps, they are small and clustered together, you can seriously run down the road and find a goblin town sacked by the grove and the npcs are a o k with that. A previous request was adding more filler areas to seperate the locations. But IMO FR Lore and Immersion is better so here's this one.

Now what if they did put limitations in, you could probably use cheats to change it back so it wouldn't ruin "your" game.

Not sure if "probably" is good enough to use as an argument ...
But basicaly it seems the same as if i would say: Hope for mods and shut up.

Since you seem to be dead set on doing mindless chores instead of enjoying actual gameplay:

May I suggest that you play an rpg called "real life"?

It has mindless chores in abundance. And doing mindless chores there has much better rewards!

No chores for me, please! I love unlimited fast travel, unlimited inventory, and unlimited resting! The more quality of life stuff the better.

It sounds like what you want Is a Command console. You might even be able to inta-kill enemies! No need to play the game at all. Just type what you want and it happens.

no im not going to shutup, this thread was for voting, i voted other and gave my reason what other was. wtf did i hound anyone on here about there stupid vote.

Wich part of "as if" you need to explain?

Even if ... why not? :P
As long as it entertains her. :P