Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Short Rest Poll

See. There's a difference between what I'm suggesting and timed events.

Example of timed event: You arrive at the grove and learn there is a ritual that will be completed in 3 days. If you don't complete the ritual in 3 days, the tieflings are kicked out and the grove is sealed off. Mission failed. GG. Guess we'll get 'em next time.

Example of what I'm suggesting: You arrive at the grove and learn there is a ritual. No one says how long it'll take. You ignore the quest and long rest 3 times. Someone shows up at camp and says the ritual was interrupted by Rath. Phshew! You still have time, but by doing this Larian is letting you know that you might want to focus a bit more on that questline. Still no exact time given, but now there's a bit of a follow up on the initial threat the game already gave you.

See. The game gives you several vaguely timed quests but then doesn't follow through at all. That's part of my issue with it.

@Ragnarok

Here's my issue with your theory about the map and the entire premise of your argument:

If I can move 60 feet per 6 seconds (1 round) and spend several rounds running from the intellect devourers on the beach to encounter the fishermen and the mind flayer and then run from there at 60 feet per 6 seconds to the dank crypt and trigger ALL the enemies in all three areas to attack me in a single combat, that means I literally went that distance. In minutes at most in the game, I can make it to Moonhaven if I just keep running there, and I can even trigger goblins attacking me in a single combat encounter, then that means it doesn't take hours or days of travel.

See. If they split the maps into smaller segments, then I'd agree with you. If I could run to a map exit that transitioned me from the grove to Moonhaven, we would not be having this conversation.

But they didn't do that. It's 1 fluid map location that you can literally travel through 1 foot at a time.

But sooner or later that ritual will be finished.

So you either are just creating long, but still regular timed event ...
Or there isnt any timing at all, since the ritual will never be finished ... and you just add some npcs that will keep reminding player that some quest should be taken care off first, creating ilusion of urgency ... wich dissapear by the way the second you reach last reminder and still nothing happens ...

Also i must say i dont quite like the idea that some messenger come to your camp to tell you how things look back in the grove ... :-/
Its just feels off ... like:
"Oh hey traveler, Zevlor send me to give you a message that things are really tough in the grove, Rath interupted the ritual so we have few more days, since they are starting anew ... not like you seem to care, since i find you in the underdark, where you traveled for last week, but i managed to catch up to you within single day." :-/


Yes ...

Yes ...

No.
Thats where the abstraction come to play ...

In the game it takes you minutes to get from Intellect devourers to Crypt entrance, just as you said ... but from story perspective, you just spend (half?) day runing.
(note that i didnt say Intellect devourers and fishermans ... they are both in the same ship wreckage ... and therefore the same "segment" )
Dont imagine it as "sprinting all the time" obviously ... its more like chasing scene in the movie, or book ... where enemies are close behind, so hero cant even rest properly and in first sign of any danger is forced to continue.

As i said ...
1 min ingame =/= 1 min in reality ...
And therefore logicaly ... 1 meter ingame =/= 1 meter in reality ...

No, they didnt ... i believe this is paradox of lacking "technical limiations" from the past ...

Many old games was forced to create theese small segments, bcs computers back then would have performance issues with anything bigger ...
So theese things come naturaly, i remember for example Fallout ...

Theese days our computers are more capable, so devs often see no reason to cut map into small areas and put loading in between them ... especialy since loading = boring for many players ... so they simply take those small areas we would have in the past, and stick them together.

But the logic for them remained intact in my opinion ...
So we have small segments that are litteral (more or less, more like less in my opinion tho ) and then there are places where miles and miles of forest / road / rocks / water / lava / w/e WOULD BE ... but since they dont provide anything interesting for gameplay, they were simply cut out.

Like ...
I dunno, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodhunt would be great example ... but i gues you didnt play that huh?
Thats ingame map that was created by real city, Prague.
Segments are faithfull ... you can recognize buildings, squares and streets ... but if you know that city, soon you realize that there isnt any Construction site few seconds running far from the main square ... its actualy few killometers away, all space between them was cut out, bcs it would be uninteresting for players.

---

Lets take it from other side ...
What seems more logical to you?

That this game map is litteral transcription of the world ... 1f ingame = 1f in the world ...
- so Goblins are "unable to find" Grove that is litteraly 7 minutes of walking from their own outpost?
- so entrances into and out of Underdark dont actualy corespond between Surface and Underground, and yet they are connected somehow?
- so Moonhaven was a willage that indeed sustains from 5 buildings and nothing more.

OR ...
That this game actualy isnt litteral transcription of the world ... 1f ingame =/= 1f in the world ...
- so Goblins would have to search for day(s) before they would even reach close to the grove.
- so entrances into and out of Underdark are just entrances to some kind of tunnel or other way ... that just LEADS to that place where we get out in the Underdark?
- so Moonhaven actualy had more buildings, but they were simply cut out for keeping this development in acceptable measurements.

@Ragnarok

Who's sprouting off tons of headcannon now? Everything you say is headcannon. What grounds or basis textrually do YOU have that everything is abstract? Yet you keep clinging to it harder than I am to the fact that everything is literal.

Look. It doesn't matter. God Bless America! It doesn't freaking matter.

Regardless, these facts still remain:

Roleplaying games are supposed to immerse people in the world. You are supposed to take on the ROLE of your character and act like you ARE that character. You should feel like the game world is a real, living, breathing world.

BG3 does NOT provide that. Why? Because time doesn't exist. Period. I'm not looking for super hard, or even mildly hard, timed anything. I'm looking for continuity and for things to make sense.

What doesn't make sense?

A burning building that never burns down. I see it in the dang telescope on the hill in the grove when I first get there, and it's on fire in the telescope. Even if I take 6 weeks to get to the inn, it's still on fire. That makes no freaking sense at all.

Solution? Don't allow me to see the inn burning in the telescope. If I view the inn in the telescope, it should be perfectly wonderful looking and nice and warm and cozy and friendly so that if it takes me 6 weeks to get there, it's still going to be there and be on fire starting from the moment I first see it on Risen Road as I approach it. THEN if I rest even once, the building is burned down and any side quests involved can't happen because I CHOSE to not immediately try to help people in a burning building.

Does this lock me out of quests? Potentially. I know people don't like the potential of being locked out of quests, but for the love of all that is holy, a ROLEPLAYING game is supposed to be about your choices mattering. My CHOICE in this scenario with the burning building should depend on whether I help people involved in the burning building or whether I simply don't care and walk away and leave them all to burn to death. That's my CHOICE and it SHOULD have a consequence. If it doesn't, I'm not really roleplaying.

And as far as the grove is concerned, it's the same darn thing. If I CHOOSE to ignore the ritual and the grove, I should fail to stop the ritual and save the tieflings from getting kicked out. SOMETHING should happen. Do I want them to give us only 3 days to save the grove? HECK no! Do I want them to make something happen so that it explains why the ritual isn't completed in - you know... let's just use a different time frame because I could care less whether it's 3 days or 6 or 4 or 2... however long they think the ritual should take to complete, at least providing some time frame makes it so that YOU the player know that you can't just sleep for 2 weeks and the ritual will STILL be going in some timeless void where individuals are still having the same conversations day after day after day in a Groundhog Day fashion.

I understand it's a video game, but one of my biggest hangups with this one is that there is absolutely no sense of time at all.

Again, I'm not looking for:

1. You have 3 days to save the grove or mission failed.
2. You have 2 days to reach the Gith patrol or mission failed.
3. You have 4 days to kill the goblin leaders or mission failed.

I'm looking for:

1. You have 4 days to save the grove or something happens to explain why the ritual isn't completed yet, buying you more time. Eventually, yes, after an obscene amount of time, because the DM has run out of decent excuses to prolong the quest, you will fail it - after a truly decent amount of time.

2. You have 3 days to reach the Gith patrol or Lae'zel threatens to leave you and try to go it alone. If you long rest maybe 2 times without going there, she leaves and you can find her again later once you actually go there. Nothing permanent here. Just something that says, "If you truly care about having Lae'zel in your party, you'd better get your butt moving to complete her quest.

3. You have 6 days to kill the goblin leaders. If you don't, Wyll threatens to leave the party and after long resting again he follows through. You can pick him up again later in the goblin base. He's been captured because he tried to go it alone. Also, after 6 days, new goblin patrols appear outside the grove area, showing that they are getting close to finding it.

It's the little things that add immersion to a game, and BG3 is sorely lacking in these.

But whatever. I'm done. I'm moving on to Kingmaker and then Wrath of the Righteous. The more I play them, the more I'm realizing just how many things BG3 is missing - things like time, weather, decent rest mechanics, decent combat mechanics where enemies can't yeet you 30+ feet off cliffs and into lava, etc.

Exactly as i said ... glad you finaly noticed.


Few ... as i allready said aswell:
1) common sense
2) story narative
3) the way things usualy are in videogames
4) inagme map provided by developers themselves
etc.
As usualy, im not sure why i even bother listing it again, since you didnt aclowledged it until now ... like ever. :-/


Yes ... and that is why you as a player needs to accept (and prefferably understand) its abstraction ...
Bcs the game is suposed to "feel like the world is real" ... with emphasis on the worlds "feel like" ... not "is".


Sure it does ...
Its just not consistent, exactly as everything else in this game.


In that case you are providing the worse possible examples.


Just as another building that is barely holding together, where 3 Ogres (weight almost a Ton each) are fighting and the only part that can be broken is scaffolding added there exactly for that purpose?
That is just necesary evil in games ... some things are just not ment to be destructible.


I like this idea.

Not sure how it would work when you get there from the Underdark, through Zhentarim hideout tho.
(Not even if that is still possible to be honest. )


That is litteral description of "timed anything" you are "not looking for" ... :-/


Agreed ...
If you CHOOSE to rest ... and then you CHOOSE to anyway go complete sidequests, you feel like you should not have anymore, you are not really roleplaying.

I mean ...
"I know people don't like the option to play the way they want, while leting others play any way they want, but for the love of all that is holy, a ROLEPLAYING game is supposed to be about your choices mattering." ... So make them matter yourself, you have the power, i believe in you.


Yeah i know ...
Basicaly you are looking for:
"you have 3 days to save the grove ... and if you dont, you have 3 more days to save the grove ... and if you dont, you have 3 more days to save the grove ... and if you dont, you have 3 more days to save the grove ... and if you dont, the grove is doomed."

Quite honestly ... i would rather have "you have 12 days to save the grove" and finish ...
Since by using this scenario you described, new player would after first (or maybe second, or third delay) naturaly get expression that there is no hurry, since something that would give him more time will occur again.
And that would lead to exactly what Icelyn descibed, when she talked about failing a quest due to time limit you didnt actualy even know about.


/wave

Isn't this working as intended? Now, I quit TT with 4e, but my understanding is that LRs should be better than SRs, that's why they're LRs, right?


Then why do you do it? I have missed more content because I don't take a lot of LRs than I've seen, and if it weren't for YouTube, I wouldn't even know it, well, largely, some I do find out about here, after all. I haven't felt "encouraged" to do that, and I'm not even a big stickler for the rules, so why is it a problem for you, if you are a stickler for the rules?

It's a problem at the very least because it's a loss of content for no reason. Most of the cutscenes don't need to be tied to long resting: Gale can (should be able to) talk to us about the Weave literally any time of day, etc. Only like 4 cutscenes require night-time: Astarion, the party after defeating/invading the Grove, and the initial tadpole-sickness one.

Also, the game doesn't warn you that this will happen. Many people familiar with D&D design (or who just treat the tadpole problem as seriously urgent) will end up delaying long resting. And they'll be punished for this by losing out on content, not realizing they missed things until (hopefully not that much) later in the game because the game doesn't warn you of this. Which can just be a sucky feeling, and makes it seem like BG3/Larian is playing a cruel trick on you. If it was a conscious decision to put off long resting with the knowledge that you'll miss game content, that's a different story. But it isn't.

If you are perfectly fine with missing content, that's fine. You do you. But that doesn't mean others should be fine with it.

I agree about comp content, and tadpole stuff needing to have different triggers than LRs. The point was more to the fact that, despite all the "but everyone just spams LRs", I don't. Even knowing I'm missing out, I don't. So there's no "the game encourages it" for me. I've suggested before that we just get the quest marker on comps that have dialog to share. It already exists in one form or another, they just need to apply it to story beats that are tied behind LRs currently. The first LR is fine as is, as it could be considered a "tutorial", and those events are fine as they are, but yes, there needs to be a system to let us know that things are going on that we're unaware of, that we should be aware of.

In context with the thread though, I'm not sure how removing or changing the limitations on SRs and then complaining about LRs being in the same state is going to help with that.

+1 for quest markers on comps that have dialog. I'm perfectly fine with the slightly gamey/unimmersive floating exclamation points over their heads if it means that I don't have to do a full LR to check for new dialogue.

Honestly I'm not exactly sure where this thread is with regards to SRs, but my rough understanding is: LRs are practically as easy to do as SRs and have so many more benefits (cutscenes, full restore of abilities), so SRs become practically useless. If you're saying that changing #of SRs without changing LR mechanics is useless, then I agree. Both are tied and need to be considered together.

I don't remember who posted it, but there was a thing about making a LR require a set number of SRs, and limiting SRs by time played. That's fine, for resting, but doesn't address the issues I have, which we've already covered here. It just seems odd that the thread is about removing/changing the way SRs work to make it more like how LRs currently work, while complaining about how LRs currently work.

The argument doesn't feel consistent. On one hand, it's saying the long rest is too easy and gets spammed after every combat. On the other hand, it's saying characters don't long rest enough to get the cut scenes.

And something about how a long rest is as easy as a short rest while also a short rest is too easy because it's a spam button that does an insta heal.

I would also add that RagnarokCzD is absolutely right. The distance in the game is clearly not meant to be taken literally. It's a game, and games require a certain level of suspension of disbelief.

Putting forth arguments that take the distance literally seems like a try-hard way to find fault, in my opinion.

Not that it matters, because I doubt at this point they care, but robert, ya've missed the whole point of the thread.

It was not to make Short Rest like Long Rest. It was to give each a specific purpose and meaning besides Short Rest being a quick heal button press. That is currently its only real value because you can LR as much as you want for better benefits. So why SR at all?

The suggestion was and always has been to limit SR in some other way, like Hit Dice, not only 2 per day. Then do something to make LR less appealing so people will naturally want to SR more to extend a single adventuring day. LR is currently greatly promoted while SR is an after thought. It is mechanically pointless because LR is pushed by the devs in various ways.

The way the game is built, you are meant to LR after almost every fight.

So, as has been suggested before, if a LR required x number of SRs in between, and you can only SR x, or even as it is now, then SR would "mean something". There's no need to increase the number you can take "per day", as it were, simply improve the LR mechanic by requiring SRs in between. In doing so, however, we're going to need another system for story beats. As I've said countless times, I miss a lot of them because I don't LR between every encounter. I'm lucky if I LR every session. I've used SR exactly once.

When a game litteraly show a bridge between two location, there is only a bridge between two locations in this world.
Not saying its better, but that's why some other games have a worldmap or even loading times between two areas.

Larian's map is unimmersive as hell even if you try hard to find "explanations". They created something in the middle of open world and small maps that has pros (no loading, faster gameplay...), but also cons (story incoherence, lack of immersion, limited exploration,...)

Both long and short rest mechanics (including cutscenes & dialogue) in BG3 need to be changed to fix the BG3 resting system; making changes to only one will likely do little. if anything, to help.

- Increase the # of short rests per long rest. There's no reason it should be limited to 2, especially because:
- Hit Dice are a natural limit to # of short rests. Since you only get back half with a LR, this naturally encourages players to LR when they have ~1/4 their hit die left
- Untie cutscenes from LRs, at least the ones that don't require night-time. This includes allowing dialogue while traveling in the world and/or during SRs, not just at base camp.
- Change the ability to freely LR anywhere, anytime, an ~unlimited # of times. This can be done using one or all of the following: change the food system, restrict ability to LR in certain locations, and/or have the game react to the # of times you LR (ideally, NOT by causing sudden and permanent loss of content. Changes to content and/or non-permanent effects--e.g., companion disapproval--are reasonable effects imo)
- Make the cutscene where the party initially finds out that the ceremorphosis ISN'T progressing as normal unavoidable and happen before the grove. This directly tells the player that the tadpole situation isn't actually as urgent as previously communicated.

After all or most of that is done, then limits on # of SRs needed before a LR is available or SR limits themselves can be discussed. But honestly, at that point those changes won't really be needed.

...and how far apart are those areas? I've played plenty of games with a bridge that didn't lead to an area transition, or to a new area. Is it different terrain that's throwing you off or something?

Now, when I was building in NWN and NWN 2, I did use bridges for area transitions sometimes. But sometimes, a bridge is just a way to get over something that may be impassable any other way, like a river, or a chasm. Neither requires that it's an extremely long distance, however.

Oh please tell me the names of "plenty other rpgs" that have very small areas with just a bridge or anything else between them.

You know, like if Pathfinders areas had bridges between them rather than a loading time + a worldmap.
That's how the map is designed in BG3 for the better and/or the worse.

Ofc the bridge itself is not the problem... I though it was obvious.

If a LR required x # of SR in between, what is to stop you from SRing that many times and then LRing? It limits nothing and is just more annoying. Besides, it doesn't fix the main issues.

1. Dialogue is tied to LR, so LR is encouraged often.
2. Characters in the game prompt you often to "get some rest. It's been a long day."
3. Encounters are not built to promote pushing yourself to continue all the way through a story arc without LRing. Example:. The Hag. I've tried multiple times to start that quest and go all the way through to beating her without a LR. It's impossible for me. After the 4 Masks, I'm pretty much done for the day. So poor Mayrina has to wait 24 hours in a cage dangling over a pit while I go take the rest of the day off. The spider lair is the same. Try getting through the entire spider lair without LRing once. I can't do it. Maybe you can, and yay you, but I can't and I doubt a majority can as well.
4. SR is still pointless because LR has full restore benefits and SR is just a band aid. But it's limited and LR is not. So again, why SR at all when you can LR as much as you want?

I didn't even touch on all the other issues I've mentioned like a thousand times out here.

I don't know how to make the whole resting system more meaningful but in case it stays fully/mostly as it is now - something like that would be a great notification about a party member wanting to have a word with PC at the camp.