Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Food should spoil otherwise why have so much?

First, I'm pretty sure the game calls them "lesser" imps, not just imps.

*

Second, enemies having special abilities isn't what makes a fight interesting. There's so much more that goes into it. What's not fun is a flat map where you hit me and then I hit you and then you hit me and then I hit you.

In the first fight, assuming you don't trigger a conflict with Us, the map has obstacles, high ground, and areas that are on fire. There's a sense of urgency as you're trying to make it to the helm, and you don't want to be stuck in hell on a burning ship that will surely crash.

Once you get to the helm, you experience the big fight. There's a time constraint. Get to the transponder, connect the nerves. You have a goal, and meanwhile, a powerful illithid is fighting a powerful cambion. Lesser imps are coming at you, blocking your path, along with a hellboar. Fight your way through.

These are interesting fights.

The phase spider fights are interesting, also. The location is part of what makes it interesting, not just the abilities of the spiders. You can go for the high ground, you can hide around corners, you can get caught in an effective ambush area. Maybe one of your characters tries to go high and gets stuck on a web bridge. Laezel can use her jump ability to maneuver around the map.

In my opinion, you're hyperfocusing on 5e stats, as if nothing can be good (or at least acceptable) unless it matches whatever the 5e monster manual says. But that's just not true. These things can be tweaked.

*

Third, switching out party members based on how many short rest hit dice they have left isn't roleplaying. It's pure meta.

*

Fourth, you mentioned all the issues with the tadpoles making you think the characters should push themselves to go as far as possible before resting.

So. Go as far as you can before resting. No one's stopping you from pushing yourself.

The notion that you have to rest after two to three encounters is patently false.

*

Fifth and finally, you can't have it both ways. Either players can spam the long rest or they can't. If the long resting can be spammed, some players will and some players won't.

I don't buy into your theory on the psychological impact of charging food supplies for short rests.

I think I will give up. You completely missed the whole point of my speech.
It literally does not matter if what enemy they use in the prologue, it can be a kobold, imp, or balor, this is not what my post was about.
It's all about tuning. If you have more fights, they must be inherently easier or the player would be massacred.
So the more fights you have to play before the long rest, the weaker each enemy must be. This means that we finally come to trash mobs.
And it doesn't matter what these enemies are, they can be kobolds, imps or balors, all these enemies can be trash mobs.
I know I'm doing it for nothing, but whatever.
If the game was intended for a large number of encounters, a fight like the Spectator would not be relevant. If its health was reduced to 5e, it would be destroyed in one turn.
Which means the entire combat project could be thrown in the bin, as it wouldn't be able to awaken more than one drow before dying.

I hear what you're saying, but just to put this in perspective: is this issue really worth the 10,000+ words you've written about it?

It doesn't feel like a big deal to me, but there are times where I feel like you're going apoplectic over it.

I won't quote you. We're getting too long as it is, JanK, but I did want to say that I do agree with a lot of what you said. Yes. I totally agree. Encounters can be very rewarding even if the monsters are not. I'm not arguing that. The three imp first fight is a fun fight. I'm not saying it isn't a fun fight. And, if they did call them lesser imps, since maybe Patch 7 or something changed it, okay. Fine. That's cool. I'm glad. That's exactly what I'm saying. Call them something different so long-term fans know, "Oh. That's not a standard imp. It's a lesser imp without sting and such. Okay. Never faced one in Descent into Avernus, for some reason, but okay." Shoot! Maybe they're a new breed. Who knows?

Like I said, several things about the stats bug me. The first is the naming of them. You call it an intellect devourer but it's really just a brain cat that uses claws, and it has no resistance or special abilities. So, it's not really an intellect devourer except by appearance. Likewise, phase spiders don't act at all like phase spiders. So, like I said, call them something else and I'm good. The fights are challenging, and like you said, strategic. I am not saying they aren't.

But MAN! When I first went into the Whispering Depths, what a shock that was. I'm trying to surround Gale to protect him and they just spit and we all died. Reload. Spread out instead? Against Phase spiders? What I'm saying is, don't even give them a name... call them "???" or something, and I'd be happy. This is a new breed of crazy teleporting spitting spider. Holy Arachnids, Batman!"

The other issue I have is that they are already established monsters WITH already established unique special traits. And for some reason, people are trying to say, "Larian has made them more unique and such. Why are you getting all on their case about not obeying D&D rules?" It's as if they think that the homebrewed versions are somehow better and super unique and creative. My point is they took unique monsters with unique abilities and made them trash mobs (like the imps and intellect devourers), and people seem to think they're somehow better than kobolds and goblins and Larian is being creative in their monster creation.

That's not creative. Creative is taking an intellect devourer and replacing Body Thief with something like - oh, I don't know. Whipping this out of thin air - Puppet Master. This new breed of intellect devourer can devour your intellect and control your body from afar while being totally invisible. Now, it's not even in the body as it controls it like a total puppet. It's sneaking around behind you while invisible to attack you from behind while its puppet is attacking you from the front. That is something new and unique. Stripping an imp of stings and invisibility and everything else and turning into a little winged monster little better than a kobold or goblin with wings is not. It's the opposite. And again, what's the point of doing something like that when there are plenty of other monsters that could fit the scenario and stats better without totally altering an already created monster? Make lemures with wings. Make devil cats. Replace the intellect devourers with strange, cross-breeds between intellect devourers and pigs... I don't know. But don't take an already solid monster and strip it and call it new. That's dumb.

And as for switching out characters who are fresh versus ones who have used up their short rests, how is that meta? That's a mechanic that perfectly simulates a character being tired versus one who's been doing absolutely nothing all day and is totally fresh for the fight.

Wyll and Lae'zel are in the party with my Druid MC and Astarion. We do 3 fights. Wyll held back and Lae'zel used Second Wind a lot. Astarion got up close and took a lot of hits. He's used up all of his 4 SRs. Meanwhile, Lae'zel is only kinda tired, having used 2, and Wyll is still rearing to go. He hasn't used any. My MC has used 1, so still pretty ready to keep going. I trade out Astarion for Gale. Gale is fresh and ready to go. Astarion is beat. He's only got 3 HP and he has no more SRs to use. Send him to camp. Good journey, Astarion. You fought well today. Time for someone else to take up the torch.

3 fights later. Gale's spent all spell slots and SRs. He's done. Wyll's still only used 2. Lae'zel's used no additional SRs. MC used 1 more. Switch out Gale. Bring in Shadowheart. She's fresh and ready to go. Adventure continues. How is that meta?

And finally, why can't I do this kind of thing now? Because I only get 2 short rests. That's it for the WHOLE party. So, after 3 fights, I use 2 short rests. That's it. I might switch a couple people out and do a few more fights, but I've got no more short rests to use to keep going after that. It's over. 2 is all I get. If Lae'zel was fine, and Wyll was fine, but the 2 others were not, oh well. I used a Short Rest to restore some HP for the other 2. And again, once those 2 are gone, Lae'zel no longer gets Second Wind, Wyll no longer gets spell slots restored, my druid no longer gets wild shape restored. That's it. I'm done. Long rest is really my only solution.

No. You're right. It's not really worth 10,000+ words. None of this really is.

Lol. Yeah. You're right. It's like you say A. I say that I get it, but you're not thinking about B, and you say I'm not understanding you when you say A because I keep saying B. But I keep saying it to make the point that I think A is totally wrong.

So, let me put it another way. This statement is false: "So the more fights you have to play before the long rest, the weaker each enemy must be. This means that we finally come to trash mobs.". How do I know? I've designed many D&D stories and campaigns. You don't need to have trash mobs in order to carry on an adventuring day.

Example:. Descent into Avernus. Cultists. 1st fight. Kinda quick but first real fight, so kinda like 3 imps on the Nautiloid. In the dungeon. 2nd fight. But tougher. Monk was hurt the most. Cleric uses Cure Wounds and heals. level 1 mind you, so not a lot of slots. 3rd fight, Banite cleric and companion. Tough fight. Party suffers much more from this one, and Warlock and Wizard and Cleric use up all spells. Short rest. Hit Dice used to heal. Fighter and the monk suffered most. Wizard uses Arcane Recovery to get back a slot but no Hit Dice. Cleric no Hit Dice. Fighter gains cool flail. They still continue. Warlock gets back spell slot.

4th fight. Crazy Myrkul necromancer and zombies. Tough fight. Fortunately, wizard had a spell and so did warlock. Myrkul necromancer has potions of healing and spell books. PCs use potions to heal. Wizard now only has cantrips. 5th fight. Couple more cultists. Because no spells, fight is challenging. Fortunately, found a few more potions. PCs, however, risk another short rest. Fortunately, no cultists find them during that hour. Warlock regains spell slot. Some use potions. Others Hit Dice. 6th fight. Zombies. They win, but tough fight. Hallelujah! Level up. New abilities and spell slots unlocked. Also, 1 more Short Rest Hit Dice each. Fighter now has Second Wind and Action Surge.

7th fight. PCs have more HP and abilities. Fight cultists. Tough fight. Short rest. Fighter uses Hit Dice and Second Wind. Others use Hit Dice. Cleric uses last spell slot to Cure Wounds for one person.

8th fight. Save people from torture room cultists. Tough fight, but found more potions. Short rest. Warlock regains spell slot. Fighter gets back Second Wind. Still going. No long rest yet. Players are really feeling it though. Wizard and Warlock mostly using cantrips. Awe. Poor babies. It's almost like their fighters who keep using their single melee weapon or something. Big deal. Encounters are unique a d different each time and challenging... Oh yeah. And I forgot. Wizard and Warlock keep finding spell scrolls so they CAN periodically mix it up and use more higher level spells.

Skip ahead. 12th fight. Final boss. Still no long rest. Every fight, just about, is tough. Regardless, all unique. All interesting.

To preface, I generally too want and have many opinions on long rest and that there should be sufficient content between each long rest, this misses the mark a little imo. Because it's not tabletop, it's a video game. There's no DM to individually prepare an encounter based on knowing their particular table and their party comp between sessions, or to adjust on the fly. And there are no way all of these, arguably unrealistic and self-assured for argument examples would all occur in one session in tabletop. (I'd leave the table if it did and not come back), and the DM has had time to take into account what the players have at their disposal and prepare accordingly for next session. Most good DMs don't want to kill their party just 'cause, they'll adapt. Also, players will get way more creative in tabletop outside of nosediving into character sheets, because they can. Out of spell slots? Throw the chair, ask DM if you can try to intimidate the kobold to run away, etc.

Non-linear videogames don't have this luxury. You don't know where or when a player is gonna go, in what order, what angle they're going to approach an encounter, etc. It's a lot more static and rigid than tabletop. And if you approach a videogame as if a replacement for tabletop, you will always be disappointed. I advise reflecting on this a little.

Balancing encounters for a video game and balancing encounters for tabletop is fundamentally incomparable, because the games play very, very differently.


If you're referring to the encounter in the inn, that's maybe the worst encounter design in any pre-written adventure imo.

Basically, while I want to make it very clear I'm not disagreeing with the intent and message, I could write another 10.000 words on why certain game designs need iteration in a complex layering of how narrative works out, the urgency with the tadpole, unlimited longrests and how it all breaks immersion a bit if you sit back to think of it; This argumentation isn't the way to go, and it's just flat incorrect. Unrealistic examples not based in reality, and completely missing the mark of how a video game and tabletop is fundamentally different yet arguing as if they're the same, actually does the messaging a disservice.

And there's no hill to die on or argument to win here, I hope I don't make you feel defensive because I believe at least I actually agree with what you're trying to say conceptually GM4Him, just not how the argument is presented and made. All of this totally disregarding that it's way off topic for the thread itself anyway 😸

Oh another comment, I'd generally recommend not leaning so much into self-constructed random examples in attempts to draw metaphors, analogies etc such as the series of combat before. It's incredibly situational, unrealistic and just not how it plays out in either tabletop or even more so video games. It just makes a lot of unnecessary read while actually undermining the point you're trying to make, rather than supplementing it. Because idiots like me can just start poking holes in it, watch it unravel and the discussion will immediately derail to unproductiveness from there

Longrest is spammable in BG3, I think we both have opinions and ideas on how and why that would benefit the game to see some re-work. That's about it. No walls of text, no mental gymnastics, no arbitrary metaphors for smoke and mirrors to make my argument sound more credible.

(It's not JandK or Ragnarok that needs to be convinced anyway, it's Larian. Perhaps I'm biased against long pointless rambling arguments because I have the privilege of just making sure feedback is heard and delivered personally. So technically most of this is entirely pointless as I've personally forwarded feedback about it to the team myself, beyond that only new interesting ideas that isn't already forwarded is worthwhile. Whether or not it's put to use or to what end is beyond me, but I rest comfortably knowing it's at least heard.)

What can I say to this? I guess first, I'm glad that at least you are confirming that many of the things we are suggesting are actually being forwarded to the team. Now that you mention it, I do recall you saying something like that previously, and that's a comfort. That, in and of itself, is all I really wanted on this forum. Also, you are right. I keep falling into the trap of trying to convince others of something, and I'm failing utterly anyway. I try to give examples because I don't feel I'm explaining myself well because, well, frankly, I read someone's response and think, "How the heck could they think that way? Surely, I must not have explained it right or something. Maybe examples will help."

But they don't. And, you're right. Most of the time, they make people think I'm saying that those examples are the have-all-be-all instead of just an example of something I'm trying to demonstrate or display.

All the Descent into Avernus encounters, for example, were just to demonstrate the concept that encounters can be designed to be challenging but players can still continue the adventuring day. DMs, whether tabletop or video games, can create encounters that aren't just trash mob encounters. You CAN have more than 2-3 fights per long rest and not have them be garbage, filler fights.

But there I go again. Examples. Hah. Anyway, none of it matters as long as Larian IS actually receiving some of our suggestions and ideas. Even if they don't consider them for long, at least they're receiving them so they CAN consider them.

As for Descent into Avernus, I was referring to the Cult of the Dead Three lair. First fight meaning the Bath House. The entire example was based on several sessions my players and I did in that campaign. Maybe my memory's off. It's been months since we played that part, but they went through the entire bath house, dungeon west and dungeon east without a single long rest. They fought many cultists and took like only maybe 2 short rests. And they did just fine. Yet the encounters were challenging. Sure, by the end, they were like, "Man! Are we done yet? Our characters have gone through Hells," pun intended. But I didn't think the fights were boring trash mob fights. Each one had different scenarios and enemies and so forth.

Am I just remembering incorrectly? Am I truly making up "arguably unrealistic" scenarios and "self-constructed random examples"? Is that not how the adventure went for real and it's all just in my head? I mean, I was trying to use a legit, real life experience so that it WASN'T that; not some fantasy scenario I created in my own head for argument's sake. I remember the PCs not being able to long rest for the entirety of the dungeon, and I was trying to say that it's possible to create such a thing in a video game without totally trash mobbing the whole thing.

I don't know. Whatever. Here I go again. Another wall of text trying to respond to someone and explain myself, and like you said, none of it's on topic anyway. So fine. Enough said. Thank you for your responses.

Is there a place where we can find out how to give good feedback? Or do you know what constitutes good feedback/suggestion? I want to give my opinion, but I'd rather tailor it in a way that is most helpful to the team and folks delivering feedback/suggestion to the team.

+1

The manual is part of the game. Playing the game is what is fun.

Good ...
When were we talking about it, please? O_o

Prooving it again.
Yes, they are ... they just arent the imps you would expect.

Funny you ask ... you answered this question about half year ago.
Bcs real thing would rip our asses appart.

You are fighting a bird.
As long as you dont know what is a dog ...

And you can be quite happy to fight such bird. That combat can be fun, rewarding and you can feel good when it ended, bcs you beaten it.
Until you start reading about it ...

Just as JandK said:
You'd enjoy the game more if you never opened a monster manual.

---

Manual is just cookbook ... you can surely follow the recipe step-by-step ... and maaaaaaaaybe, you get exactly the same result.
OR, you can (its said right there on first page) you can switch some ingredients and quite possibly get something else ... it might still be good tho.

Resting is a key, I'd probably think the most important element of the gameplay and strategy. It resets all your spells.

Having unlimited rests whenever/wherever you want with no LIMITS (food? lol...) basically completely negates having to REST for them. Its not fun. Its not interesting. Its not strategic.
So...at this point why not do it like DOS2 at be done with it Larian? Lari' homebrew D&D and RESET SPELLS AFTER COMBAT.

Yeah, I understand. Metaphors and examples probably aren't always bad anyway, but the first chapter of DIA isn't very good as the first encounter contains eight bandits, where one is a captain with 65 hitpoints. For a party of level 1. 😅 To be fair, there are several ways to circumvent/avoid combat there entirely, and likely is the most common and recommended resolution to it. If engaged in combat, I genuinely think it's a really bad first encounter in a campaign too, because it's a big long and tedious fight, with at least one friendly NPC involved that is probably stronger than the player party, taking the spotlight away from the players. It has many similar issues to a DM taking on a PC of their own and making a session about them, not the players IMO.

Comparing that to the first fight in BG3, which is a forced combat encounter tutorial, with no aids or other approaches involved, just isn't comparing apples to apples. And is a poor combat encounter in terms of challenge rating to player party level in vanilla DIA.

On a side note on that, several early DIA encounters aren't challenging; They're ridiculous. They're poorly designed, but are challenging to experienced players who can tell a good combat build from a bad, and how to coordinate in combat well. Basically if DIA was explicitly advertised for veteran players, it'd be pass-able. An encounter *can* be designed that way by a DM PoV if they know their players are very experienced with TT combat and are building optimized characters and personal player skill. But it's not an objective "The way to design an encounter". On a tangent, I don't even think all encounters should be skirting life and death levels of challenging.

Going on with further examples loses in how it's in a combat log format


Agreed. And a healthy D&D adventure should naturally revolve around adventuring to resting balance, and it should feel natural to the player. However the examples were poor to make the point, particularly by extending it to 12 encounters before long rest for exaggeration (while maybe based on personal experience in a DIA playthrough?) and I'll give you some examples, ironically enough, to why 😂 To not make a wall of on-and-of quotes I'll instead just inject my comments in blue color in the spoiler box below. This part isn't strictly relevant to the post at all, just a curious discussion between you and me because it interests me in how we think differently.









I'll put no censor on the fact that I genuinely find certain parts of DIA's first chapter to be incredibly bad. I homebrew it heavily as a result of that. Granted it has a bunch of cool ideas, it also has some bad ones like how to discover the way into the bathhouse (which can be rectified by a good DM, most things can). If you translated DIA chapter one into a single-player video game, I think it'd have a very poor reception in the starting bits, it's mostly saved in tabletop because everything is more fun with friends and a DM can steer it to work. XP To lvl 3 is very accurate on my opinions on DIA chapter 1 here, and not to my surprise their experience with Tomb of Horrors were close to my opinions on that adventure as well.



No, I just don't think it helps the argument. It's sort of unclear whether it's based on real experiences, it also assumes that the reader has experience with DIA to be able to relate at all. If they don't, then it means basically nothing other than "source: trust me bro" which you know... Can swing both ways. It's a tangent topic stemming from a very fragile foundation, to begin with, so I'd be pressed to fault you tbh. And to be fair, I am heavily biased. I have some very strong opinions on D&D in a video game and how that synergy works with gamers, and tabletop players' expectations and views going into it. Maybe I'll make a thread on it someday because I think it's a pretty interesting discussion to be had. Preparing for family dinner now though.

Also, I hope you read my first reply as me replying as just another guy, not as a moderator. It struck me as I was going to bed, but too sleepy to get back up that "Oh crap, maybe he feels I'm trying to shut him up!". Not the case😅 Just trying to help a topic that I strongly agree with to not get sticks in its wheels.

Maybe a "technically true" statement, but keep in mind that D&D fandom is a thing, BG3 is based on D&D. Thus D&D players with experience in DMing or as players will be drawn to video games based on their fandom. You should rather be happy that they're around to raise their voice when something isn't flying the same colors as the dungeon master's guide, monster manual and PHB, because everyone's better off having an adventure experience that is closer to the real thing, rather than further away from it.

Most of these forums boils down to people who are bad at arguing, or fall victim to a very natural human reaction of not wanting to lose an argument and will shut down in cognitive dissonance and fight to the death to be right, for no good reason. Remember, we all just want a good, fun game to enjoy our free time with. But where people come from, from what angle and experience that colors their perspective on things is very broad and varied. Just like how just one table in tabletop can be very different from another, leading into why I think D&D in video games is risky business.

I DM as a hobby, and recently we had a new player join the table. He was surprised that I didn't ask him to roll for something, and initially tried suggesting that he should roll for athletics, sleight of hand, etc for things that on my table, is never rolled for. I never ask people to roll if they explicitly say they try to open a door. If it's open, I tell them that the door opens as they pull the handle. As it turns out, this player came from a table he'd been at for years, where the DM has them rolling for basically everything that isn't moving the right foot forward, then the left foot.

I say that to illustrate that both DMs and players in tabletop have very different experiences, and that influences what they think "D&D is", and they often argue from that basis. Then other D&D fans will come in and argue against them because that's not how their table is, so surely that person is wrong.

Multiply that by a hundred, then put them into a video game environment where the very format of game presentation is vastly different, remove the DM, and recognize that is just one big table with all those experiences, and those without experience, thrown into the same group, and expecting all of them to agree with "What D&D is" and how it's supposed to be played.

Yeah. Good luck :P

This link is by far the best, as it skips a few steps and goes more directly to those who is meant to hear it. What I've collected and forwarded is assimilated into a large document and given to my connections which forward it to the same people. So you could hope I or someone else happen to lurk the post, or you can send it directly 😋

As for how to write good feedback, there's no like formula to that imo. But I can answer it from a developer's mind, or rather a game designer in this case and how Larian's hierarchy goes. To grotesquely simplify it:

What you like or don't like, and why. Often, the player doesn't know why they don't like something. Or maybe they think they know, but is in fact just a symptom of a larger problem that a designer recognizes. To them it's just important to understand what causes players not to enjoy something, or what causes them to enjoy something and the ramifications it has.

I can give you a very specific example for BG3 that changed and was a result of feedback, and how the feedback was presented and later understood:


Where the line goes of how much of "why" a player needs to explain or where the game designer needs to figure out where the "why" is, isn't really a fixed metric so that's hard to answer tbh. Basically just describe what you like and don't like, and why that is to the best of your understanding. For example long rests and how they're spammable, but that it feels unimmersive or weird because we're supposedly in a hurry because of the tadpole in our heads. Perhaps Larian knows something that'll later make it make sense for the player in hindsight, and that it was never a hurry to begin with.

Then it becomes a matter of... Yeah, the presentation comes off as weird in early access, but has more purpose in the full game and isn't going to change in EA because of it. So maybe the tadpole front isn't the way to go. That's hard to know (And I don't know), but I assume this is the case later on. Instead my main focus on the long rest discussion is the ebb and flow of when it feels natural to long rest (or lack of that natural feeling for players) and how it pairs with companion events at camp. And how that's communicated to the player while adventuring. I see tons of players on platforms I lurk that talk about how they constantly go back and forth from camp to check if there's more companion dialogue to be had because they don't want to miss anything. I think that's bad and needs fixing because I think it adds unnecessary tedium for those players for no good reason.

@ Composer,

Thank you. I know it probably took you a bit to detail all that out, but you got through to me. I'm so used to DMing that I forget that there are things I do automatically. I don't even think about it. You're absolutely right. Now that you've gone into the details you did, I can remember how much I actually, naturally, did change the DIA encounters and situations to fit my party. And, you're right, in the end, it is a VERY poor example. It only worked BECAUSE I'm an experienced DM and my players are experienced players. If they had been new players who know nothing about D&D, and if I'd just run the encounters as written, they'd probably have thought D&D just sucks.

So... in the end... I admit defeat. lol. OK. Fine. D&D TT doesn't necessarily translate well into a video game in that regard even remotely. A live DM can and usually does tweak the encounters - sometimes unconsciously - to make the game more fun - challenging and exciting, but not so much so that it kills the PCs. Meanwhile, the video game cannot do that.

And thank you for everything else too. Too much to thank you for each individual thing. This is sort of an "AHA!" moment. I've taken a step back about the whole last yearish since I started out here. Gotta say, this has probably been the most constructive feedback I've received to date. Hopefully, it changes the way I respond from now on.

Thanks again!

Do you go through all the posts, or only the ones that get most replies? Sometimes a post doesn't build such a big discussion like this one, but it nonetheless can also be important in terms of gameplay/immersion problems. Thank you!

@RagnarokCzD

Lest you think I'm ignoring you, I just wanted to acknowledge that I read your post. I don't know how to respond to your points without continuing senseless back and forth about a topic that isn't Food should spoil, so I'll just leave it at that. Besides, I think Composer and machinus said pretty much what I would say anyway.

And now, let's bring it back to food spoiling to remind everyone what this topic is about in case future players want to get involved in the topic. In my opinion, food spoiling would:

1. Create extra item management that would only bog the game down more.
2. Cause players to want to long rest more often instead of less often. This is contrary to the direction I'd like Larian to take in the game. I want the game to have more encounters and fights per long rest. Not less.

Players would want to long rest more because they would think, "If I continue, I might get more food in my inventory that will spoil before I can use it. Therefore, I should rest now because I have exactly enough right now."

I want players to think, "I shouldn't long rest yet. I have a tadpole in my head and could turn into a mind flayer. Also, the grove is in danger, and I have precious time to save it. Maybe I should short rest instead and push myself to continue." In my "professional" opinion, less long rests and an extension of the adventuring day would give BG3 more of a true D&D feeling instead of a video gamey experience. I'd rather have a system that cuts down on excessive camping supply amounts - thus cutting down on item management - and promotes a longer adventuring day.