Ah, I had forgotten about that one ... though it's a bit less focused on the contradiction than the current thread. And my link was to other contradictions/Schrödinger designs, not other instances where the particular contradiction around Long Rests was discussed. Now that I think of it, I think the last few times I saw that issue raised was on Reddit. So it's good to have this thread here.
And the opening post clearly lays out the problem :
The designers want the players to avoid using Long Rest too much, as
- the story tells us we don't have plenty of time,
- the mechanics of Camp Supplies tells us we can't use Long Rest all the time.
But the designers want the players to use Long Rest as much as possible, since
- the narrative system for the Companion Relationships requires us to be at Camp, and often.
Note and slight digression : I'm aware that Supplies are nowhere near at risk of running out at the moment. But I don't exclude that Larian will adjust the number of Supplies required per character in the full release version (and they'll probably make it difficulty-dependent too). It's just one variable to change, it's pretty easy.
I'm not convinced it will be a lot more effective than currently (where it isn't very effective). I mean, the designers can't risk having players fall into a virtual game-over state where they're out of food and also out of combat resources. That's why Supplies can be purchased. So, as long as you have gold (and like in any RPG, we'll be swimming in gold in no time), you have Camp Supplies.
But regardless of whether the Camp Supplies mechanics is a good idea or an effective mechanics to dis-incentivise Long Rest, it is clear that the intent is to discourage player from using Long Rests.
In my view, the only way Larian can solve this contradiction is by removing the incentive to Long Rest all the time. Which means letting all queued cutscenes play out when we go to camp. (And perhaps have some play out when we are not at Camp.)
