Fast Travel Unlimited

1. I like unlimited Fast Travel just like it is right now. If I unlock a waypoint I can travel to it at any time. I can also send to camp and travel to camp without hindrance at any time.

2. Fast Travel should be limited in some way.

Fast Travel Limitations

1. Random Encounters chance whenever you fast travel. The more dangerous the area you fast travel from or through, the higher the chance.

2. Fast Travel cost. Maybe it costs camping supplies to fast travel, spell slots, some kind of magic tokens, gold or something... Whatever. The idea is that some sort of resource is used to limit fast travel.

3. Get rid of fast travel. You hate it and think players should manually walk everywhere.

4. Limit fast travel in certain locations. Basically, you can fast travel at any time anywhere except certain places like the hag's lair, the goblin camp if they're hostile, the Underdark if you haven't found a waypoint, etc. Wherever it makes sense to limit it.

5. Limited number of Fast Travels per day. Kinda like how you have 2 Short Rests a Day. Maybe they could have only a certain number of Fast Travels and then you either have to End Day or manually travel about.

6. Something else. You want it limited but none of these options are good.

Voted for no limits on fast travel. I like going where I want quickly!

i voted for no limits on fast travel. i'm with Icelyn i like going where i want quickly. On the other hand, i voted for random encounter. i like to see larian implement random encounter in baldur's gate 3. or even a random dungeon or area of some sort.

random encounter will solve the problems of "merchant farming" where are no other means of getting loots/gears/items as encounters are limited. monsters that we fight in random encounters, i believe larian can make it so that they gain little to no experience at all. the rewards of random encounter is the battle itself! and of course the loot. i like to see an area or maybe some sort of dungeons or random areas with different level of enemies the deeper you go.

that will be really great IMHO.

Just to be clear, random encounters doesn't mean just getting into combat. It could mean encountering a friendly creature, a mischievous one, wolves attacking a peasant and you have to save them either by scaring them off or if you can talk to animals, persuading them, a dryad asking for help or trying to charm you, a goblin patrol, a couple of spider carrying paralyzed victims on their backs and you need to try to save the victims before the spiders escape with them into the Whispering depths...

There are LOTS of scenarios they could develop with lots of outcomes. Doesn't always have to be fighting encounters.

I'd just like a rework of the system to feel that our characters are walking rather than TP through non-sense runes.

I vote for no limits because we should be able to fast travel as much as we want.
But according to me we shouldn't be able to long rest and get out of dungeons so easily.

Not sure about 4 though, I have to think about it a bit more. Random encounters/events would be cool but it's seems impossible to me with such a map design.
I voted for "something else".

No limits beacause its a nesserilian teleport system. How to interrupt (this with encounters)? Random encounters would be great if you only travel via map. That should be distinguished if any possible.

I voted for no limits ...
In my eyes, that is pure Quality of Life upgrade ... so you dont need to travel through dead land back to Waypoint, to port back to Emeral Grove, to sell your loot, after you kill everything that was in that zone ... wich is main reason i ever fast travel.

But i also voted for Limit by zones, bcs i believe that is exactly what it is right now ...
Maybe, just maybe i would add few more "danger zones" as Hag's Lair is right now ... but only where and WHEN it makes sense ...
you are stuck in cave, surrounded by Gnolls? > Danger zone ...
you are inside spider-monsters ifested vell?> Danger zone ...
you are inside Goblin Camp, where you can eat, drink, trade and talk with everyone you see, no matter they are discusting canibalistic monsters? > NOT Danger zone, until you kill Ragzlin and they all turn hostile > then Danger Zone.

Also, yesterday i just started to replay Dragon Age: Origins ... and that game perfectly reminded me everything i hate about random encounters.
I had to travel from point A to point B 7 times to trigger sidequest, that is hidden in random encounter. (What kind of idiot even come with such idea?)
I rushed from point A to point B, bcs i had important quest ... nah, too bad, here is huge army od Dark Spawn, you just "randomly met on the road". Great! -_-
I rushed back, poof yet another encounter ... this time just vendor, but having nothing interesting, so in fact just delay from what i really wanted to do.
Yeah i know they arent exactly "random" since every time you travel in that game you tigger some (or it seems like it at least) ... but still, it was NOT good experience in any way.

I would vote for "certain locations". In general I find little reason to fast travel in BG3 - I go to the location, do the content, and mostly not return there. I think in the overworld I don't mind there being fast traveling (though I wish there was at least some attempt to explain it) but being able to just teleport out of the middle of goblin fortress or underdark completely kills any atmosphere those locations have. If you are telling a story of a brazen attack on an enemy stronghold, and delving deep into dangerous caves, then no, you shouldn't be able to just disappear.

Honestly, I think requiring players to reach teleporting spots would already solve this problem at least in EA content. See Elden Ring - blocking fasttravel at times can be a very compelling and memorable experience. I am pretty sure Larian did it themselves in D:OS2 in acr2 during Voidwoken ambush.

Honestly, Fast Travel is mostly a Quality-Of-Life functionality in my view.

My primary problem with the way Larian implemented Fast Travel in BG3 is immersion. They have once again gone for a Schrödinger, LOL-who-cares-about-immersion approach : the functionality is simultaneously

• a pure video-game functionality, with Waypoint Portals being a feature that the players can use, that (non-party) characters can't use, and generally that has zero impact in the world-building,
• an in-world element, that has an associated lore (Netherese origins) and is explained to us by a character (Gale) instead of being explained to us using the same UI as for other tutorial elements.

These two are not compatible.

The mechanical implications are coming in as a secondary, but nevertheless a problem, in my view. Currently, we can Fast Travel :

• (a) from anywhere to any discovered portal,
• (b) from anywhere to the pocket-dimension Camp,
• (c) from the pocket-dimension camp to where-we-were-before-teleporting-to-Camp (or any discovered portal, as the pocket dimension is included in "from anywhere" in (a)).

My main issue is with (c), as this allows to essentially Long Rest anywhere, for free. But at this point ... the issue is clearly with the Long Rest system.

The issue I have (a) and (b) is mostly the facts that ... (1) time does not exist and (2) the world is utterly static (non-reactive).

Imagine that you have assaulted the Goblins' Stronghold and already killed Gut and Minthara. You're low on resources, and feel you can't take on Dror Ragzlin right now, so you backtrack. You get out of this dungeon and head back to a safe location, like the Sylvanus Grove or the wherever-it-is-supposed-to-be-located Camp, to regroup and rest, before coming back on the next day for the final assault. You find the Goblin Stronghold in exactly the same state as you left it.

I'm not bothered by the fact that you can use Fast Travel as a way to get out of tough spots. After all, the world is utterly static, and it is absolutely inconceivable that a patrol inside the Stronghold (desecrated temple) or some Goblins from outside would have walked in and re-manned (or re-Goblined) the entrance. I'm more bothered by the fact that, even if the game prevented us to Fast Travel from the Camp (say) to where-you-were-before-teleporting-to-Camp, and forced to come back to the dungeon's entrance, nothing inside has been updated ... So much for the famous reactivity Larian talks a lot about.


In the end, I voted for 4 and 6.
- 4 because, for example, if the Goblins are now hostile and you haven't "secured" the Goblin Camp (i.e. killed everyone, and especially the three Leaders), then you should resume from beginning of the dungeon/area.
- 6 because, well ... the world should be reacting to your choice. Currently, it isn't.

I realise I should perhaps have added random encounters. Because, again, I feel it sad that the world is so static, that all encounters are theme-park attractions waiting for you to visit, and that once you've cleaned an area of whatever monsters, enemies and dangers you found there, it is forever devoid of life. Although, I would be more than happy to imagine that the main travel path is now much safer, and the party is reasonably able to avoid encounters, if they have decided to travel fast as they are only passing through a region, and no longer exploring it ... if only I could encounter the occasional respawned danger when not using Fast Travel. Again, it comes back to immersion.

Voted for 4.

In my first playthrough, it seemed really odd to me that the party was able to talk its way to the heart of the goblin camp, murder three leaders, then simply dimension hop out of there. Sounds like a pretty deep security flaw in the goblin defenses. My intuition was that the party would need to sprint to the waypoint to teleport out of the camp, dodging goblin spells and arrows in a daring and thrilling escape. Fast travelling back to the grove felt a little anti-climactic.

i love dnd5e for its combat. yeah sure you can have other non combat encounter but it can only be limited (and possibly recycled). like in pathfinder wrath of the righteous, the army management events are recycled. yes they did provide a handful or dozens of encounters. but since it's going to be random, it has to be recycled. i'm more interested in the combat and the loot though.

Voted something else, mentioned this a couple times a while back on how gates/portals actually work in FR. Someone actually makes them and links them to another portal, portals can be traps and there are several different types. Right now they are unrealistic, you can port to them from anywhere magically.

Besides how they work, you should have to talk/physically move to the portals location to actually use it. With removal of send to camp feature and having to actually move to a portal would make the player less likely pack mule everything and have to use there brain.

Pathfinder is a rather bad example, random encounters were so boring there and apart from the scripted ones, most of them involved approaching the enemy and waiting for him to die.
Another thing was that they were just as pointless.
At most, I would prefer the path DA: O. There was some limited pool of encounters (not too big, at least) but when you were done with them they didn't show up anymore (except for the trader who was annoying after a while)

Agreed. Pathfinder random encounters are not good. I've been Evading them every time. And they are just trash mobs. You easily kill them. Oh so exciting.

Solasta's we're better. Some of the random encounter fights I've had in Solasta we're the most exciting encounters in the game.

One encounter, I ran into a young black dragon. Now that was cool. Even though they are just fights, they mixed up the monsters so you don't fight the same random encounters all the time. Flying drake's, elementals, orcs, undead, dragons, and monsters I've never even used while DMing before.

If BG3 did something similar, and added some varies story-style encounters to boot, that would be really awesome.

My stomach turns at the thought of random encounters. Hate them on tabletop, and any video games, even in pokemon (I think the newer games are a huge improvement on that front. Give me the old games, but visible pokemon in the grass that I can walk around to skip, and I'd be a very happy nerd!).

I do think fast travel (and long rest) needs a major redesign in BG3 just because it makes a lot of other things redundant - If you can long rest all the time, why have spell slots at all. It also nerfs sorcerers and buffs Ki for monks.

Same with travel, but I don't currently have thoughts on alternatives. But random encounters is not a solution in any shape or form IMO. It's just annoying filler that doesn't drive the story. And if it's chance-based, I'd hit F5 before travel, travel, and reload if random encounter, and try travel again to avoid random combat :P

Or!
Maybe ... just maybe ... Larian didnt seen any reason for us to watch our party walking back to nearest Waypoint ... and just as with Long Rests whenever and wherever ... they simply decided to cut this awfull and boring walking out as QoL upgrade.

I have talked about this in private message with GM4 and I think he has "scripted events that may occur randomly" in mind more than traditionnal (and often boring) random encounters.

In exemple when you arrive at your camp there's a cinematic in which you see a pack of wolves looking for something to eat.
You have 3 choices : wait for them to leave, you loose 20 food units.
Try to distract them : skill check, if you suceed you loose 10 food units but if you fail you have to fight.
Fight them : you loose 0 food but have to fight.

I also think it could be very cool but I really don't think such events / encounters could apply to fast travelling.
We're fast traveling too often and from too many locations to too many locations.

Larian should create paths to recognise where players are passing through and create a very large pool of possible events so that they don't become redundant.
A massive job for a result that may not be fully satisfying.

It should be a part of the camping system redesign imo.

You say "even in Pokemon" as if was a display for low intolerance about the feature, when in fact Poken (and in general most JRPGs) have by far the WORST possible implementation of random encounters, as the more frequent, annoying and substantially irrelevant for any purpose than isn't sheer grinding.

There's a substantial difference between "You can occasionally get a 'random' encounter (which is in fact actually pre-designed) every once in a while while moving on the world map between major quest hubs" (which is what BG2 did) and "You'll get a million random fights, one every three steps/few seconds, just walking around in tall grass or any other random area".

In fact, they almost deserve different names because they are entirely different features in practical terms.

I overall agree with everything you said.

In defence of randome encounters - I don't think I have ever seen random encounters serve mechanical purpose (maybe outside grinding which is yuck). I think they could be very effective for worldbuilding, but unfortunately most cRPG are too low of a budget to flesh them out properly. I am playing Red Dead Redemption2 at the moment, and honestly it's random encounters is what impressed me the most so far - there is a lot of variation there (not just fight encounter) and ususally serves a flavour - either by reinforcing wild west setting, or continuing past story beats - like gangs you had run ins before trying to take revenge etc.

If BG3 fast travel was a bit more "in universe", there could be goblin ambushes, druid revenges, etc. We have a little bit of it in form of camp encounters already - abandoned companions showing up, Rafael's visit, Halsin revenge... Personally, I don't think it works - mostly due to camp being such an abstract location, seperated from the rest of the world. Having those encounters when fast traveling and more I think would be more natural but of course, directing cinematics would be trickier.

A bit off topic - but in general, I think BG3 could benefit from random or not so random encounters, but limiting fast travel is entirely different thing.

Which I don't see as a big issue.

I think the most valuable thing we can do, as players giving feedback on an early version of the game, is tell Larian what doesn't work, and why it doesn't work. Whereas how a given subsystem should be designed really comes as a distant third.

If we managed to convince Larian that a currently-poor subsystem really needs to be substantially revised, that would already be amazing. (Yeah, this last idea could be nuanced and discussed a lot. But I'll keep this post short.)

This is what I was going to ask as well. What about "random" encounters that are not quite random, but rather are scripted encounters that appear to be random? I personally like this; a good balance between maintaining some appropriate tension during travel/camping but without the encounters being a boring chore.

I believe i have read somewhere that something close is allready planned.

This is my biggest issue with the system, too - and it applies even with the waypoint system.

In general, I think Fast Travel is a good option, as opposed to forcing players to retrace their steps over territory they've already cleared. (Allowing players to opt out of anything that's tedious is usually a good thing.) But there are cases where story dynamics suggest that there should be NEW challenges, and exiting the goblin camp is a good example of this. (I mean, I have other issues with that, too. All the partying goblins becoming suddenly aggressive feels...artificial...and the fact that the cursor still suggests that going through their stuff is 'stealing' makes it feel like you've done something you're not supposed to. But there ARE at least a couple of options for making your exit, even if, imho, there should be more, but climbing down to the outpost and magicking past them that way really SHOULDN'T be one of those choices.)

ETA: While the suggestion of pre-scripted events for fast travel sounds interesting, I don't think fast travel should be generally *required* to access game content. This is particularly true of anything story-related: I shouldn't miss something important just because I try to avoid or minimize fast travel.

You do realise there's a certain irony in your statement that you hate random encounters because of how they're chance and not story driven in a discussion on a game that forces you to roll dice on literally everything in combat en often in dialogues too ? Why not let some world events be dice driven too? Like you first come on a crosspoint. Dice roll, d6 , anything between 0-3 bad luck, 3-6 good luck , the higher lower, the more beneficial or dangerous. How would that randomness differ from the randomness in attacks hitting or missing, or your charisma checks to succeed. If the issue is losing rolls (or losing to randomness), just add an option of few negative encounters, no random encounters, or story mode where you succeed any roll everywhere... ?

No crap RagnakrokCzD, it's a QoL feature, I know the reason it's in the game.

Doesnt exactly seems like you get what im talking about tho. :-/

I didnt say that "fast travel is QoL feature" ...
I said that the fact that you can "travel from anywhere" is QoL upgrade of Fast Travel Feature ...

Just think for a second ...
If we would need to return to last visited waystone every time we would feel the urge to fast travel, what would we get?

Answer: Walking.
Nothing else ... just boring, tedious walking through either empty, or wiped out zones ...
Who would want that? :-/ And why?

We would get realism & immersion

YES!! Exactly!! That literally everything in D&D is driven by the randomness of dice-rolling is what makes me so dislike D&D mechanics. Literally everything. Some dice-rolling would be okay, but in D&D all the choices you as the player make, up to and including character creation and development choices, are ultimately of little relevance because outcomes will ultimately be driven by a die roll. A truly egregious example is that even the healing power you get from drinking a healing potion is driven by a die roll. Ditto the healing received from a healing spell, which therefore says your God is choosing to play dice with your life and the lives of anyone depending on that God's spells. It's just plain silly:

Player: "DM, my character needs to pee."
DM rolls a D20: "Nope. Sorry. The die roll says you don't get to pee. Better luck next time."

Wow. What DMs do you play with. I don't make my players roll for everything. I only make them rule for important things. Shoot, even if they are trying to persuade someone and they give me a good, persuasive argument, I just run with it, rewarding them for good roleplaying. I make them roll for things when they're like, "I don't know what to say or do."

As far as past travel goes and Random Encounters, the idea is more to help people feel like the world is not just dead. You can't just travel from anywhere to anywhere without the potential of something happening.

I honestly don't want some mechanic where we are forced to manually walk around everywhere or manually walk up to the runes to use them when it doesn't really matter. That to me is boring. If I could click a button and fast travel to someplace with no threat of any kind, or I can walk there manually with no threat of any kind, I would rather be able to press the button and instantly travel there rather than waste a few minutes walking there manually. In that regard, just leave the game as is. If you aren't going to do something like Random Encounters, then the only other real limitation for fast travel should be certain restrictions based on locations and events occurring.

In other words, if they aren't going to build threat into fast travel at all, then the only time I want limitations on fast travel are in places like the goblin Camp after you've killed the leaders. Don't allow people to fast travel back to the Grove or something when there's an army of goblins outside wanting to kill you because you butchered their leaders.

Other than that though, I don't see a need for limiting fast travel if you aren't going to do something to create risk or threat. Don't just limit fast travel to annoy people.

That’s where a wonderful thing called “a design” comes in. Put some thought into where you put your fast travel point and how you design areas and you don’t have such an issue.

I can see both sides of the coin. Though I'd never play Skyrim without fast travel 😅

Right now I'm almost fine with current fast travel system, but I'd make a couple of changes.

The issues:
Random unexplained rune portals embedded into locations, that are seemingly there as a mechanic, not part of the world.
Unlimited travel at no influence on gameplay. (In skyrim for example, time passes, events move on)

What I'd do:
Remove the portals entirely, and embed fast travel to being able to select key locations on the map that has already been discovered. Same function but is less "Why is there a random portal there?" feeling and more "I want to go here but skip the tedium" that is less unimmersive.
Due to no day/night function, I'd just add parity to long rest supplies system instead, and make fast travel cost a small amount of supplies based on distance from player location to destination. It adds some consideration for the player of cost vs outcome, and if they're close enough they might just decide to do the walking instead if it means saving supplies that they're short on.

This is something about Morrowind I really came to appreciate, especially the way they made the most out the space given by forcing you to travel in curved lines.

I'd rather avoid having to walk just to have food to rest afterwards.
What is the point of introducing such mechanics? Fast travel is used to quickly move around previously visited locations to skip tedious backtracking and there is no point in limiting it in any way.

Well its right there for you ...
All you need to do is simply dont fast travel ... so ... where is the problem?

And this is how you pilot an airplane: You fly.
Easy right?

Seriously tho.
To say "some thought" is coveniently vague to cover all ideas, while not providing any ... but truth be told it doesnt really matter what they would come up with ... bcs there allways is a group of people who would preffer THEIR solution and concider choosen one to be stupidest possible in the world. :-/
Just look around.

No, but I am not flying a plane nor designing the game. But if you try flying a plane I hope you are competent enough to do it,

There is crap ton of games that don’t have or limit fast travel system and don’t have the issue that you made up. I don’t think BG3 would even loose much by forcing players to reach fast travel point - Larian did design their areas rather well so far. Druid grove unlocks elevator for quick access from the end of spiral decent to the very top, underground dungeon has 3 separate exits, goblin hideout leads to underdark. On top of that there is little reason to visit once explored areas. It is not a game I. Which you will be traveling back and forth much. By [not] limiting fast travel game shoots itself in the foot by removing any tension or consequence for exploring.

Just see recent Elden Ring and how compelling it can be to be thrown and locked in a difficult situation and be forced to find your way out. It is not a new idea, it’s classic RPG manouver, BG1&2 did it as well. Delving into dungeon or being trapped doesn’t quite have the same impact if one can teleport back into safety of a friendly town at a whim.

What? Elden ring is a very bad example to defend your point of view.
In the game, you can teleport from most locations to any grace, it even applies to legacy dungeons, which means that when you have a problem with healing, you can safely evacuate.
The only limitation applies to small dungeons, but they are actually quite small and usually don't have many enemies.
Another thing is that elden ring is a slightly different type of game.

Wich is? O_o
I have to ask since im not aware of mading anything ... especialy any issues ... :-/


Yeah, it would actualy gain ... walking.
Lots and lots of walking.


Exactly!
The only places wher we can talk about some kind of trap (so far) are either Cellar in Tollhouse (especialy if you break the ladder ) ... or Cellar in Blighted VIllage ...
And other places (Goblin camp, Underdark, Gnoll Cave, etc.) have several entrances and they are NEVER ever all covered and guarded ...

Therefore, quite logicaly imho, everytime you get to some tight situation, you HAVE at your disposal at least one way to get out without any major problems or danger.
So, again, logicaly ... all you need to do to get exactly same result as you have when you teleport from middle of the zone, is walk for a while.


Agreed.


I dont understand this sentence ...
Fist half is speaking against limiting fast travel ... but second part seems to be encouraging the limitation. O_o


Cute ... i dint play Elden Ring ... it not my cup of beer ...
I would rather hear any example of such situation in BG-3?

Oh come on, man. You couldn't tell I was kidding/exaggerating for effect?

Lol. People legit feel that way. I can't tell if people are joking anymore. 🤪

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

Yup thats basically it.
For most people here RPGs are a chore now...console Command whatever you want to win and be done with it.
Clicking stuff and moving around is such a chore. So archaic and old school.
Soon the closest thing to an RPG experience we will get are auto-running Tell tale games you just watch. Because STORY is everything right? But that too will become a chore. I mean, you have to turn on your computer and start the game.

And since all RPGs will in essence become just Tell tale movies, I am calling it; THE FUTURE of RPG gaming are couple minutes clips watching OTHER PEOPLE game rpg games. Its the least amount of chores and effort for the max amount of content and satisfaction.

Aaah, the <real life> argument? Really? lol

If you hate these <mondain> chores, why are you playing an RPG then? Basic rpg elements like Day/night , creative random encounters, no auto health regain, more written dialogue, no fast travel for example fleshes out the world MORE. It adds atmosphere, risk/reward and urgency.

I am not saying everyone needs a bathroom break every 5 minutes or you need 100% isopropyl alcohool and bandages to heal. You have games that do that called SIMULATIONS.
Though ironically people don't seem to mind real life and realistic SEX simulations in their <RPGs> lol.

Aren't we there already? No data to support it but I feel like games being fun to watch when streamed is more important nowadays for success then games being fun to play.

No limits, video games are about having fun, anything that could potentially get in the way of that is possibly a detriment to that.

So no class restrictions? No item restictions? No health bars or need to rest? Everyone can use spells and all abilities? Everyone can use ALL items? Unlimited time for everything? Unlimited lives for everyone?
A rogue can use all wizard spells, and wizards can backstap because who cares for limits? Because a single godly character that can do everything is really more fun? Really??

Point being, LIMITS and RULES is what makes RPG games fun and interesting. Its what makes boardgames fun. Its why we have, uuuuuhm, fun sporting events?? Is the state of mind of modern gamers that naive?!?! No need for rules and limits in video games?
Baseball games, 3 strikes your out...yea fuck that its not fun lets just remove that LOL.

Don’t feed trolls/stupid. Games by definition are a set of rules and limits - that’s what makes them games.

I think there's a happy medium between "no limits at all" and "no quality of life at all" and that medium really isn't hard to achieve. Like with UI design for instance. UI absolutely should lean towards being clear and easy to see. In fact clear and easy to see/understand should be the bare minimum for UI. And brighter, easier to see graphics in general? Well, real life is actually quite bright and colorful and, if you're lucky, easy to see. With graphical capabilities getting better, of course games will look brighter and more vibrant. With weapon types, that really depends on if there's gonna be interesting stuff to do with those weapons, as it were. Having lots of types of weapons you can use feels to me like a lesser requirement. The type of thing you devote time to after you've shored up other features, such as races, classes, etc. I think that spells that bring nothing to combat should be excluded if they also don't add to gameplay. A game where spells have good uses outside of combat would be awesome. They don't get ported in as often because the devs will never be able to be as creative as all the people who will play their games, and even with a relatively simple spell, there is the potential to drastically overwhelm the scale of the game if you try and account for every potential use of it within the game. Also, a lack of day and night cycle isn't a quality of life feature. It doesn't make the game easier in any meaningful way.

Fast travel in an open world game is kind of a necessity because you can potentially have massive amounts of space between point A and point B, and having to traverse it all on foot would get boring, especially when the player wants to get on with the story. It's effectively taking the principle in old rpgs of going from one area to the next and putting it in the player's hand. For example with Dragon Age: Origins, you go from the circle tower to Redcliff and the game doesn't make you traverse all the space between them. That's effectively fast travel, just more limited. But the principle is still the same, the devs saying "there's nothing interesting going on in this stretch so we won't make the players experience it."

Regarding lack of random encounters, I'm of two minds about that. Wrath of the Righteous has them, and I don't like them at all. Solasta has them, and I actually like them a lot. So sometimes a game can be made in a way where random encounters just don't serve the experience and the game would be better without them.

You bringing up tutorial areas and story mode are points I entirely disagree with though. Providing a way for people to experience the game more easily is a very reasonable thing, because why not, if it means more people get to have fun with the game? Plus it can benefit players that DO have the skill anyway. I've run through Wrath of the Righteous about four times now, and have wracked up over 500 hours in that game. If there weren't the option for me to tune down the difficulty so that I could engage with the story directly and breeze through the battles, I wouldn't have been able to experience nearly as much of the game, which has firmly become my favorite game of all time. In fact with me, I tend to start games on story mode and increase the difficulty as I become more comfortable with controls and tactices bit by bit. And tutorial areas are just a no-brainer. It's straight up just smart game design. Of course you make the first area easier so that your player will be able to get a handle on the various mechanics. The first section is always going to be the easiest anyway, if you don't use it to teach your player how to play, then you're just wasting an opportunity.

All this is really to say that yes there should be some quality of life stuff included in games, because a lot of times quality of life just means "we've learned how to make better games now." But at the same time, that doesn't mean excising anything that would give games any challenge. It's not a choice between one or the other. Different individual titles will benefit from going farther to either end of the scale. Though I do think that while a small number of players would enjoy the most difficult, tedious extreme, basically no one would enjoy the easiest extreme.

A lot of this speaks to what I was getting at with Morrowind. A limited fast travel system as well as a smartly designed map that utilized the limited space of the island efficiently.

Otherwise I think there's a difference between game design that improves something, making it easier to understand and use for the player and game design that removes those systems or automates them, taking them away from the player.

Because mobs in BG:3 don't respawn, nor does anything seem to change over time for us to witness, having fast travel points just cuts down on mindless backtracking sure, but it also stops those things from being a possibility. That and this funny thing that happened for me in Gyrmforge where using a fast travel point seems like the solution for traversing the map, bypassing a puzzle and a combat, probably with a split party (I'm not sure what 'legal' way of getting to the forge is). I also noticed that so many people weren't hitting the portal outside the druid grove that they made its discovery automatic. Having fast travel points that actually do away with map exploration doesn't strike me as good.

My vote would be for portal-to-portal travel only, that way people still can actually explore the map a little, even after they might already have 'cleared' the area.

Eventually you'll have made it from the beach on the Chionthar to a Temple of Shar deep in the primordial Underdark, and travelling between the two is as easy as clicking a button. I think that such a distance deserves a little more than that.

So very sad, but so very true.

Yes, having unlimited fast travel doesn’t excise all challenge from the game or make it story mode. That is just people using dramatic language in their arguments against it.

Its a matter of self discipline.

I have done Skyrim where I only use Carriage and Horse to travel and it was fun.

Latter play-troughs I just wanted to knock out familiar territory , then slow down.

What?
You purposely ignored covenient mechanic that nobody ever forced you to use, since you simply didnt want to ... and had a good time, while not ruining anyone else game?

Imposible!
Lies i say! LIES!!! *insert ironic smilie here* *and here* *and here aswell*

It depends...

Dungeons are supposed to be a few combats not too challenging one after the others before you can rest (or with a risk during your rest).

If combats are not challenging + you can freely rest between them yes, it excise all challenge dungeons.
Except maybe from bosses.

Nope, Icelyn is right ...
*It* doesnt excise anything ... you do.

Thats the beauty of curent state.
If dungeon is set to be too challenging people get frustrated.
If dungeon is set to be not challenging enough people get frustrated.
But when you hold the tools, its allways exactly as challenging as you make it.

[img]https://images.app.goo.gl/w3d2XBmdy7vH1goa7[/img]

Oh stop with this stupid argument. BG3 is a game. A game is a set of rules, not a set of tools.

At least the game should have coherent rules and eventually options for players like Icelyn that don't like them. But a game should not lack of rules to the point players have to create them in their heads.

At this point they could also remove any consequences when you carry too many things in your inventory so players could eventually decide a weight not to exceed.

I've finally found the right words to voice why I actualyl don't like this argument. It feels like too much of a coppout on the part of the devs. It's putting the onus on the players and saying that if players don't enjoy the game, it's their fault for not playing the right way, absolving the creators of responsibility. Especially since loads of other games make concrete choices and establish limitations regarding the stuff mentioned, like fast travel and resting, and it works out fine for them and creates a satisfactory experience. And not only that, but I feel as though that isn't even what Larian is going for anyway. If they were to come out and say "hey, we want to make things as free and loose as possible so that players can regulate their own play experience" then sure. I'm not sure if it's a good choice, but it's at least a choice, a creative decision that can be judged on its own merits. But short of that, especially since this is a still developing game, why should we think that's what they're going for when it's not an approach that is at all typical of game design? Why should we assume Larian is trying for some unique, avant garde approach rather than assuming they're attempting a far more common approach, one which was also taken with the other two games of the franchise?

We both know that i will not.
Certainly not until someone at least *try* to explain me what is so "stupid" about it.

Except its completely right, and it dont fits your *perfect experience* model.

Actualy "a game" is set of both ... that and many more.

Hope you are prepared for hard question then: Why?

Also the game do not "lack the rules" ... they are right there, they are simply loosened enough to fit everyone.
Have you ever thinked about why games even have difficiulty settings?
THIS is the reason.

---

I dont believe this ... especialy that part where player "is supposed to play the right way" ...
That sounds like direct contradiction to what im trying to say ...

When player try to "play the right way" he is "trying to play the way he presumes Devs wanted him to play" ...
Question is if there even is any "expected way to play" in the first place. O_o

What im trying to say is that player should not "play the right way" ... he should "play the way he is having fun and dont give and fuck about the right way" ...
And in that case, yes ... its totally players fault he is not having fun ... i know people dislike to hear it ... but who else is there to blame, if you can do EXACTLY what you want to ... but you dont do it bcs you dont NEED TO?

This kind of mindset fascinates me from psychological aspect more than game design ...
We demand to swim with our hands tied to our waist, since we presume it would be better ... but we refuse to try swim, while not using our hands, to find out what would it be like.
Do you know what will happen once our hands will be tied and we will be thrown in the water?
(Yes it is absurdly extreme example ... but it should help you understand.)

This is inctedibly close minded argument ...
Yes, it certainly bring a "satisfactory experience" for people who likes those limitations ...

Oh surprise, surprise, people who likes something were happy about receiving it ...

But as you can see, their lack also creates satisfactory experience ... for exaple for myself and Icelyn.

So what can we learn from this?
Different people have different taste ... how shocking. :-/

Its certainly possible that curent mechanics are (or not) there just to gather data.
After all, they should have some measures about how often people rests, if they plan to include any limitations in the result.

But even that would be argument for "play the way you want to" ...
Since (quite logicaly i would dare to say) if nobody will clean whole surface of Act 1 with as little Long Rests as possible, how would Larian gather any data supporting that *this* is the way people wants to play it?
Quite the contrary, if we all will rest after every single combat (just bcs we want to) all Larian will see in their data is that litteraly MILLIONS of peope do exactly that.

I believe their exact wording was that they would like to "create the same (or as close as possible) freedom as you have on tabletop session".

Bcs that is what we have, duh.

What other reason would be there to give players "to test" any other mechanic, than the one you are planning to use?

I came to conclusion from this forum, that list of things that "were taken with the other two games of the franchise" and are not present within BG-3 would be quite long. :-/
So ... i honestly dont see much reason in such argument.

.

I just did it with an exemple.

But maybe weight as implemented fit your *perfect experience model* so it's hard for you to admit that the lack of rules if our characters carry tons of things would be more in line with

""

You mean this?

Even if i put aside that i see no connection between limmiting curent state of things ... and removing curently existing limmtis (wich you claimed are not even present) of something entirely different ...

Are you not aware of "send to camp" button?
There is effectively no carry limit allready, if you simply send everything to your camp ... so, players can make this decision, if they want to.

And yet, it doesnt seem like people are bothered with that as much. O_o
I wonder why ...

Oh okay, so they created coherent rules and add convenient options or QoL features about weight ! Nice.

They could do the same with fast travelling

To me the current difficulty level of the game overall is normal and similar to other games I play on normal (and even a bit harder than some). There will also be higher difficulties included on release to give more of a challenge. No need to remove QoL stuff for everyone.

I thought they did. O_o

The thing about this argument that I don't get is that it assumes that games where those limitations aren't imposed don't exist. It assumes that the majority of games don't present an expected way to play, when they very clearly do. Good dames are designed around a core gameplay loop, a fundamental way to play that everything else is built off of. In a well-designed game, that gameplay loop is rewarding in and of itself, and other features are built to compliment that loop. For example, Mario. The core loop of every mainline mario game is moving across the screen and navigating platforms. Everything else added on is there to improve and compliment that loop, or to provide something to break up the loop so that the repetition doesn't make it boring. You can argue if that's the only way to make a good game, but that's the way most games are made, and it's a reliable one that produces countless great games. With most cprgs, the devs want you to play with the companions they provide. They might make it possible to play without those companions, but the overall experience is designed so that the maximum enjoyment will be found playing in the way they intend.

Even with your extreme, swimming with hands tied example, if you take the wider context into account then it becomes "we want our hands tied when we swim here because we know that it's fun and we enjoy it." We know exactly what will happen, because it happens in most other games of this genre. And the people who've been playing BG3 and asking for changes are essentially people saying "we don't like swimming with our hands untied. We want you to tie our hands because we know that works." Does that take something away from the people who like having untied hands? Yes. But then it becomes a matter of Larian deciding who they want to cater to. But the request itself is entirely logical and reasonable and the people who want it are entirely reasonable. Arguing that it's a bad choice in and of itself is a poor argument because we have clear proof that it's perfectly good in and of itself. Is it prefect? No, nothing's perfect. Is it better than the approach you feel Larian is taking? I don't know, but one could argue that it is because it's had ages of refinement and polishing that Larian's theoretical approach hasn't had, but maybe once Larian's approach has had the time and care put in, it will be equal or even superior.

As for the question of who is to blame. It comes down to this; if this is how Larian wants the game to work and this sort of "create your own limits" approach is their vision, then yes, it's the fault of the players for not meeting the game on its own terms. But in that case, setting your own limits IS the right way to play, and thus if you don't do so, you're playing it wrong. But if this isn't Larian's intention, then it's absolutely Larian's fault because then it just means they made a poorly designed game.



My feeling there is, if that was their intent, they should have said that. They should have said "we're giving players a lot of space to explore and try things to see how they want to play and how to tune mechanics." Larian says they want to be our DM, well DMs TALK to their players, and when it comes to house rules, they need to be agreed on TOGETHER so that things work.


Because like you said above, they could just be there for data gathering purposes. They could also just be unfinished. Also, because it's a departure from the traditional approach of the genre, and because this game is being created within a genre, the reasonable action is to judge it based on the conventions of that genre. If they're trying to play with those conventions, then they should say so and allow us to properly adjust our expectations. I'm someone who firmly believes in openness and clarity in communication. Leaving stuff unsaid is a recipe for confusion. Even if it's supposedly obvious, it should be said. The level of dissatisfaction aparent in these forums makes it clear that it's actually NOT obvious.

I guess no one is asking them to remove anything.
I'm asking them to add coherent rules for everyone and eventually QoL options for you


"You can fast travel from everywhere to everywhere whenever you want" is not a rule, Ragnarok.
It's only a "QoL" feature that has a HUGE impact gameplay, story, immersion (and so on) -wise.

This will be a little longer, so lets split it into two sections:


---

Exactly:
As i said:

They did.

You were answering to "they created coherent rules and add convenient options or QoL features" about the weight system.
Which would be understood by most people within the context as "they created coherent rules FIRST and THEN add convenient options or QoL features (encumbrance levels as a core rule then a convenient "send to camp" button).

Where are the core rules about fast travelling and the related points of camping.
Why bother with rules about the weight system and a QoL send to camp button rather than just remove the rules about encumbrance ?
If you remove it, the system becomes beautifull because the system doesn't have rules so players can create rules in their head if they want to. Just like with the fast travel system !

That's what you're saying and that is stupid.
The core difference related to this conversation between the "weight" system and the "(fast)travel" system is that one have rules and QoL improvement while the second is the QoL improvement of nothing.

No one is asking Icelyn to walk for hours to travel.
As the send camp button has proven, QoL improvement (which may also be found in options, like auto saves) allow the player to more or less completely negate existing rules about a secondary system like the encumbrance.
Main systems (and the resting/fast travelling system ARE main systems) need rules because it is too important gameplay and roleplaywise.
If Icelyn doesn't like them, they could easily add options to disable them. The same system as now for her. A consistant one for the others, whatever we like it or not.

I'm sorry to talk about you Icelyn but you kind of represent the players that like games without too many "systems" here

It's getting even longer Ragna. Not sure I'll answer more.
3 options : you're trolling, you want the last word whatever it cost, you just don't realize that games need good rules first to be fun.

Travelling in the world is a main feature of good roleplaying video games (The R for Role, the P for (game)Play).
You can't avoid making it a core system with a deeper design than "fast traveling and camping whenever you want wherever you want".
POINT

It may be an option but not the entire system.

I had a longer response to more points but the forum ate that, so I'm just going to focus on this, since it's the part I'm most concerned with.

If the game is designed poorly then, fundamentally, that means Larian failed in makingit. I would argue that the closest thing to an objective measure of success and failure in creative endeavors is whether or not the creation ellicited the reaction that the creator wanted. If we assume that the game is poorly designed for the reasons I set out, then that means fewer people will enjoy it because a poorly designed game isn't as fun as a well-designed one. People who would have liked the game if it had been well-designed. Sure, some people might still like it, but that's in spite of the game, not because of it. Take a bad movie for example. If a horror movie makes you laugh from beginning to end, then it's still an entertaining movie, but it's a failure as a horror movie, and needs to be judged on those merits. The fact there's something to like in it doesn't redeem it. There's something to like in every movie, just like there's something to like in every game. To say that it doesn't matter if a game is well designed just because some people enjoy it is to disregard the effort and care people have put into good, polished, well-designed games. And when you talk about how, if a player doesn't have fun in the game then it's their fault, that's only true if the game is well-designed. Take FromSoft titles. I wouldn't enjoy those games, because the difficulty of them is too much for me and the idea of constantly dying and struggling doesn't appeal to me. But the games are still well made, and for the target audience of the games, they're brilliant. I can recognize that, regardless of my peronal tastes, those games set out to do somethign specific, to evoke a specific feeling and experience, and they succeed in doing that. It's just an experience I don't want. If I played those games and disliked them, it's because it's not meant to appeal to me and my tastes, that's not the fault of the game. It's my fault for trying a game that doesn't mesh with my tastes and abilities. Meanwhile with a bad game, those are also meant to appeal to a target audience, but if it's poorly designed, then that target audience is unlikely to enjoy it, because it fails to be appealing to them. So it's the game's fault they don't have fun.

To summarize the "so what?", if the game is poorly designed, I'm probably not gonna have fun in the first place. It's less likely that I or anyone else will have fun with it. And that would be the fault of the game, not the people playing it.

Nah ...
Thats at best what you read ... wich is kinda sad, by the way.

You were the one who started with weight:

All i did was to point out that there allready is QoL feature, that "can be used to remove any consequences of carrying too many things" ...

Anything beyond that were your words, not mine. :-/

---

I dont see any reason why it should matter what was created first and what second ...
Also as far as i know "send to camp" was present since day 1 of Early Acess ... so im not even sure if we can know what was "first". O_o

ACTUALY!!!
"Send to Camp" was in game even before Encumberance, (unless i remember that incorectly) ... since implementation of Encumberance come up in patch 2 or 3!


Depends ...

Core rule about fast travel is that we are travelling through nexus of waypoints (those runic portals on walls) ... that is reason we allways come out of one.
QoL feature then is that you dont need to manualy walk to nearest, the game does it for you.

I dont think we were told of any rule about camping so far ...


Not sure what are you asking here ...

In my opinion (wich is basicaly the only answer i can give you really, so i dare to presume you were asking about that) ...

I repeately expressed my dislike for often repeated suggestion that "Send to camp" should be recreated, so people can either send whole groups of items, all wares at once, or any item with single click with some keybinding ...
Why? Exactly for this reason, weight and encumberance rules would imediately loose any meaning, since our characters would effectively gain infinite inventory with no weight limit. :-/

Yes, basicaly we have "something close" right now ... but not exactly this!
Since i honestly do believe that our curent "send to camp" feature was never meaned to be used as infinite backpack ... just QoL feature allowing us to store items we forget to store, when we were in camp ... in other words:
Using it as infinite backpack is clearly exploit.

That is the difference between curent state and this hypotetical nonsence you come up with for some unknown reason. O_o
(and if you cannot see it, im not sure how to explain it ... just try to send to camp 100 items ... and them imagine you would send them all at once, or not at all since there would be no weight limits, so you would not have any reason to send them anyway ... it should be clear after that)

And that is also the reason to "why not remove the rules completely" ...
As i said before: The rules are still right there for you, you simply have way around them, if you want to. :P


As i stated abowe, difference is that in that weight example, dont need to remove rules in order to create your own way ...
But no, system dont become beautifull ... system become mess.

I repeat once again:
The rules are still right there for you, you simply have way around them, if you want to. :P

Or i can repeat once again something else:
Its single player after all ... so do whatever the hells you want in *your* game, just dont mess with mine, and we will be cool.

I believe you realize that same phylosophy i aply on myself:
I dont want to remove any rules, since i dont want to mess with *your* game ... i just want *mine* to stay the way *i* like it.


On that we can agree ... you managed to fabricate bullshit.
Hope you are proud.


Wich is suppose to be wich?
Since i can see rules and QoL improvements on both. O_o


Amount of time is irellevant ...
I often refuse to rest since it "bothers me" ... and it only takes barely one minute.

Point is that it would not add anything worthy.
Just walking ... have you even tryed it?


Yeah, big shock ... exploits can break the game.
*surprised face*


I have two more:
1) You dont actualy really even bother to read anything i tell you, since your explanations of my words are direct contradictions of those words you are reacting on. O_o
2) I actualy do believe that strict rules are not as fun as you .. and players who dont like them should be taken under concideration during development, and should have option to avoid figuratively every and any rule they dislike ... bcs its ffs their game, and its nobody business, except their own, how they will play it.

Sure, there is also option that YOU are trolling ... just to have it covered aswell.


I probably dont understand this sentence ...

Happened to me aswell few times ...
You just need to get to previous page, copy your whole coment, open the forum in next tab, and insert it as whole new coment ... worked every time for me, hope you use it some day in the future.


Yeah, thats basicaly the same sentence created with different words ...
If A = B and B = C, it means C = A.


You either missunderstand me ... or i expressed myself poorly ... or, most likely, bit of both ...

I simply believe that this is matter of taste, and expectations ... your own example with movies is quite good in that regards:


Indeed ...
Horror fans would hate it.
But Comedy fans would love it!

And that is exactly what i mean ... sure, some people would be dissapointed ... but some other people will be exited.

You are right, the move would not be redeemed as Horror ...
Did you know that late 80' movies like Gremlins, Leprechaun, or Critters were originaly presented as pure Horrors? And theese days they are called "horror comedy" ...
One could argue that there were something to like that redeemed them.


You seems to be still too focused on that wrong interpretation ...

Its getting late, so i start to be lazy in searching for best words ...
Lets just say if the game offers me option A ... and i want to play it with option A ... but the game also offers me option B ... and i deeply despise option B ... and i use option B, no matter the reason ... its not game fault that i feel discuised with it, its my fault, since i decided it.

And i dont think any kind of desing could fix this ... maybe expect that one that dont offer any other options, than exactly those that they want. :-/
Wich would equally ruin it to anyone else.

I like modern systems.😊

I like tested true old systems with a touch of modern.

Then again, I like records. I have an old amp with records player and original Pink floyd albums. But also listen on latest technology Astel&k modern DAC mp3 player with Grado headphones.
I like BG2. Actual I love that game. I was 21 when I first played it. But I don't go "its old system, so bad...).
I've got an OLED for my Switch, but also a CRT for retro games (Super famicom, PS1...) because it just plays faster, no lag, and still looks amazing for these old games.

People who worship JUST modern stuff seem like that's ALL they consume. Fuck the rest.

I feel they are so ignorant on the possibilities of what/was available. Give it a chance.
Power to GEn X we accept EVERY tech./systems. New and old.

Rag, the way you think about how games should play, you would NEVER EVER get a job at ANY game studios. Now or 30 years ago. So your opinion is NULL in my view.

Feeling is mutual ... as i stated before.

I also like modern systems but about (fast)travelling in BG3 I'd call it "empty" rather than modern.


That's even not true : The camps doesn't have one.
The system you describe to travel fast in the world is as empty as your analysis.

Sure you can ignore it if you wish ...
But that doesnt mean it dont exists. :-/

Camps doesn't have runic portals, it's a fact.

On top of that : mechanical rules =/= visual or narrative packaging that explains them.
The nexus portal is the visual and narrative layer that translate the mechanical rules and tries to make the whole system coherent.
The only mechanical rules about fast traveling is that you have to find a waypoint first before being able to fast travel there (camps are exceptions for unkown reasons), then you can fast travel whenever you want wherever you want.

The visual/narrative layer is debattable as previously explained by poeple that know the lore of these portals.
The rules are not coherent because you can fast travel inside/outside locations without portals as proven by camps.

Even simple suggestion would improve the system as a whole without changing its shallow mechanical rules.
I even don't understand why you're arguing so much once again. Icelyn could still have the same experience with an option that turns a deeper system into something as empty as he like.

Never said they do. O_o

You are messing two different things. :-/

I dont see any tho. O_o

I was quite sure Icelyn is a woman. O_o

It's unrealistic so I'd get rid of it.

Maybe turn on fast travel for easier difficulty levels like story mode. They can also have a button "kill all enemies in a combat". And if they don't find it fun, they can choose not to press it.

Sure, why not.

I don't mess things, you just don't understand what we're talking about.
Travelling to and from camp is also about travelling back in already explored area.
It obviously has strong link with the resting system but whatever you click the map and the "(leave) camp" name or just the "long rest button", it's all about the system that allow us to reach specific points without walking.

The system as is just don't make any sense and the only pro is the quality of life, or the convenience it has to offer.
The core rules are absolutely cheap for such an important feature of cRPG and it is deep as a keyboard cheat command to teleport with a debattable narrative layer on top of it.

As The Composer suggested in this thread an easy suggestion would be to remove the runes completely and to allow clicking icons on a map (i.e the worldmap) rather than on names of runes in a list.
The same system than it was BG1/2 (because that's exactly what it is right now) but with another visual and narrative layer.

Just for you : in BG1/2 when you were fast traveling back and forth between two locations a worldmap with icons and names opened. You clicked the icon of the next location and you were teleported in the location you had chosen.
Without random encounters it would be exactly the same as now mechanicaly but with a visual and a narrative layer that's suggesting travel/walking rather than teleportation.

It solve the narrative-wise debatable question and the mechanical incoherence arround the camp at the same time.
Both the mechanical one and the narrative-wise question (again) about the camp. A camp in the middle of nowhere that is not spotted anywhere but on a list of names.

Icons on a map to fast travel also solve this weakness of the system as a whole and it gives a very cRPG feeling to the game.
It would be the bare minimum improvement.

The next question is being able to teleport from everywhere or only from defined area (probably surface, underdark, grymforge). This is easier to implement as a customizable option than a toggle for reactions.

I still like much more the idea that Waypoint runes should be added to camps.
At least from story perspective it would make much more sense than walking somewhere ... then being exhausted from that travel ... and therefore start walking back to rest.

Our characters litteraly walk less than 10min to go from the beach to the arcane tower. Heroes are not exhausted after walking 10 minutes and clilmbing 2 ladders.

But ofc you like it better. Not surprising at all whatever the "arguments".

This is where you are wrong.

Whatever the "argument", just as I said 😂

One would say that just the fact, that your companions are complaining at exhaustion after "few minutes of walking", will be hint enough to understand that you are not really "walking few minutes" ...

I mean i do know that we are living in sad times where walking from PC to Toilet and back is equivalent of climbing Mount Everest for certain people ... but even so ... you really, REALLY, believe that our ingame map is "litteral"? REALLY?

Imagine what you want in your head but that's exactly how the map is designed. An entire other thread though, so I'm out

Probably someone else has already pointed out this scenario, but here I go.

I realized I hate this unlimited fast travel on the first version of the game, during my first playthrough.

I was at the Goblin Camp, doing my commando-like quest to quietly infiltrate and eliminate the three bosses of the horde. I killed Minthara, the Goblin priestess and only the big hobgoblin himself was remaining.
I triggered the encounter and managed to survive through it, but now all my abilities and resources were depleted, I was low on health and with a whole garrison of goblins now hostile to me. I had to think of a clever way to get out of that mess... and then it hit me: I could have just fast travelled away.

I didn't do it, because it was no fun to me, but the fact that the option was legally available bothered me soooooo much it killed my immersion. Why bother to learn magic or to carefully plan a heist or an assault when you can just pop away if you get stuck or mess things up?
I understand many people may not be bothered by this but I think is a serious game flaw, detrimental to immersion and the overall challenge of the game (at that time the infinite long-rest option was still a thing, so the game difficulty was below 0).

I would love for fast travel to be like in The Witcher 3: you can fast travel only if you are near a fast travel point. It also makes sense since you should be in front of a teleportation gate (rune) to travel to the other side.
I can accept the existence of teleportation scrolls for when someone is really stuck and the last save game is maybe hours before, but they should be really rare and/or expensive.

Anyway, these were my two cents on the matter

On one hand we have:
- two ingame maps provided by Larian themselves, providing different ranges between places ...
- companions complaining about exhaustion after few minues of walking ...
- whole plot of basicaly every single quest that require at least some walking ...
- and the common fact that in computer games measures are not litteral, for budget and experience reasons ...

On the other hand we have:
- Maximuuus stating "it is litteral" ...

Decisions ... decisions ...

---


Lets ask someone whos opinion you should thrust:


He know what he is talking about.

I understand (or at least, I think to) your logic, but I don't think I agree with it.

It's the old argument of "If there is an optional feature that bothers you, don't use it" but I don't like it very much to be honest.

It's not up to the player to ignore bad features, it's up to the development team to change/erase them. Otherwise, we can justify 90% of bad decisions because, if we are not forced to experience them (like shoving everything, cheese super Mario jumping everywhere etc), we can just pretend they do not exist.

If a game can be exploited, then it has a flaw. Sure, some people may like to exploit games but the problem still exists.

As I mentioned, I didn't use the fast travel in that instance, but still, my immersion was broken and this is not a good thing in an RPG. One can still "suffer" from bad game exploitable mechanics even if he/she chooses not to directly use them.


I think my argument makes sense, even if someone may disagree with it



EDIT: I should've been more patient since lots of people have brought up the goblin camp scenario. At lest I'm not the only one who seems bother by it

Get ready to answer his upcoming wall of text whose only purpose will be to show you how wrong you are 😅

I fully agree, except that for me it was not a little anti-climactic but totally immersion breaking


Walking through beautifully crafted environments is part of the cRPG experience. If one finds the part between combat encounters to be boring then an Arcade, Hack&Slash or RogueLike game is a much more suitable experience than an RPG.


+1

You snipped out a very important part of his post

As it has been said countless times, it seems like the solution that makes everyone happiest is for the game to be designed with limited fast travel, but with the option to remove that restriction.

The default option in an RPG should be the one that makes sense lore-wise (RolePlayingGames are all about immersion). Then, if the developers have the time and resources to develop a setting to improve QoL features, all the better.
I think it would be perfect. Just fast travel from a teleportation point to another as a default mechanic (which makes sense lore-wise), whit the option in the setting to be able to teleport from anywhere to anywhere.

Sort of, yes?

It is not an over-world map - assets seem to be to scaled with our characters, and individual locations seem to be believably designed. There seems to be little abstraction going on, unlike, in a traditional jRPG, a rogue-like or Heroes of Might&Magics/Kings Bounty/Thronebreaker.

Now, I don’t think Larian is terribly concerned if the map “feels right” it terms of the scale or how close things are together, but that doesn’t make the final product any less problematic.

That is totally fine.
(If you listen to Lore by Night podcast, imagine me saying it in that voice. )

Well, the important part is that you are *able* (and willing as it seems) to follow it ...
Wich i presume based on the that you said "i didnt since i didnt want to" ...

Therefore you dont stand in your own way ... and that is good (and important) starting point.

Depends ...
First of all (i dunno how much you were active lately, but i didnt seen you often around here) we are unable to even agree what is "bad feature" ...

And second ...
I believe that its up to the development team change/erase those systems THEY are not satisfied with ... sure we can say wich and why we dislike ... and then its up to them if they double check it if that is working as it should, or if there is any way to make it better, but in the end its still their (basicaly Swens) decision.
You know ... to explain this, i believe that i dislike this modern "im a customer and i dont like this, so they have to change it" kind of mindset, exactly as you dislike that "if you dont like it, dont use it" argument ... there is no way to explain it fully, at least not for me with my poor english skills.
The feeling is simply just right there, once somebody brings that up.

I believe so, yes ...

Even tho shoving is bad example, since even if you avoid is as much as you want to ... NPCs are still using it against you. :-/ So *that* is ineed unavoidable.
And jumping as Mario has ben removed when they split Jump and Disengage few patches back.

Curent and still valid examples would be ...
- Wizards being able to learn Cleric scrolls ...
- Everyone being able to Hide as Bonus Action (this one is one of harder to self-moderate, since even if you waste your action since your Fighter "would have need it to hide" you still lost your Bonus Action :-/ but in cases you dont need it, its possible)
- Party being able to Fast Travel from everywhere ...
- Party being able to Long Rest everywhere (except Hag's Lair) ...

And im sure there is more, but i bet those will be enough for now.

After all, some people start to speak around here about that there should rather be strict rules, with option to turn them off ... is that so different? O_o

Every game can be exploited ...
Maybe except old school things like Pacman, Sonic or Tetris.

But i dont believe this even "is" a problem ... exploits are things people do purposefully, and willingly (never accidentaly) ... so as long as you avoid them, there are none for you.

I cant help the feeling that we have different deffinition of "immersion". O_o

I mean ...
How can you "break" out of immersion by something that is system-mechanic ... and therefore it dont even exists, from story (in wich you are immersing) perspective? O_o

Indeed ...
But if i feel experienced enough by walking there, i see no reason to walk back just to someone else feels happy about the way i enjoy the scenery.

In this case i would quote Auntie:
Im affraid thats my business petal.

---

Yup ... intentionaly and for purpose.
What am i suppose to tell somebody who express his own feeling? Should i start persuating him that he was actualy still immersed?

So ...
You believe that Blighted Village actualy sustained from Barn, Windmill, Blacksmith, School, Doctor ... and nothing else? O_o

Do i understand you corectly?

So ...
You believe that Goblins were "unable to find" Grove, even tho whole area (and i mean whole surface of Act 1) can be scouted within 30 minutes? O_o

Do i understand you corectly?

I dont think that either ...
But then, im used to games where 2 minutes walking "would equal" 2 days travel ... "if i would be in that world in the flesh". :-/

You mean you're used to DoS and BG3 ? 😅


Because role playing games usually have a coherent visual and narrative layer upon the "system-mechanic".

Immersion is the core purpose of role playing and such flaws in the systems break the immersion in "the experience" as a whole.
You really didn't understand anything I wrote as expected...

And now you're repeating the same things once again.
It's fine if your definition of immersion is more shallowed, you know.

Don't mind me: just quoting this for the record.

Fast Travel via BG3 portals are specifically an in-universe feature, not simply a system mechanic. BG3 portals exist in the story - Gale is specifically shown to come out of one and comments on doing so, and we are told to use them for travel. And yet we can also fast travel without portals, using the same UI, but this method lacks an in-game explanation. This apparent uncertainty of how we fast travel without portals, when we're originally shown that fast travel relies on it, can lead to a loss of immersion.

😅
Never played DoS actualy ...

But DA:O, DA:I, (not 2 since i dont remember it, i played it looooong time ago), Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 1, 3, N-V, 4 and ofc WoW ... those are games where certain (even tho different) amount of abstraction is in play.

On the contrary quite acurate maps are (in my opinion ofc) in Witcher 3 (again dont remember older, too long ago), Vampyr, VtM:Bloodlines, VtM:Bloodhunt, new Tomb Raiders ...

Does that paint the picture?

It seems that im unable to understand how ... since it simply dont to me.
Well ... /shrug ... i gues.

---

Agreed ... dont see any flaw so far.

This part tho i cant agree with ...
True, we didnt get any explanation ... but part of that very fact is that we dont know if this kind of fast travel is happening "without portals" ...

Personaly i believe the contrary is true, since we still came out of portal every time we Fast Travel ...
Therefore my personal (and i can be wrong ofc.) explanation (and yes it is headcanon) is that Larian simply didnt see any reason to force us to manualy walk to nearest portal through usualy dead space, where everything is allready done ... and so they implemented QoL change, and snip that part out.
I welcome such approach ...

And even tho it can make odd situation *inside* the Goblin camp, under certain circumstances ... i have hard time thinking about at least one more such scenario. O_o
So even IF (and that is big personal if) ... i would also see this as a problem, it would still be minor one in my eyes, since you confront it once only. :-/

Interesting ...

No.

Duh, every game map is an abstraction of what it is supposed to represent. A real life location would be uninteresting to play in.

The question isn't: Could it work in real life? but: Does it work in the game - from gameplay perspective and/or supporting the story the game is attempting to convey.

And you have kindly provided the answer for it:

I was pretty active at the start (until patch 4) but, since the number of new things was inevitably decreasing, nowadays I limit myself to watching the threads without commenting on them, except for rare occasions like this one.
But to reply to your point: I hadn't a gun pointing at me when buying the EA of the game, I know I'm not entitled to anything, let alone to tell the developers what to do with their game.
Still, Larian asked people to buy the EA to give them feedback (and money, but I think they were genuinely asking for feedback), so, feedback I'm giving them, like any of us here. If I think a feature is bad for the game, I'm going to say it without ill intent, but because I really wish for the game to succeed. Larian can do whatever they like with my opinions

Because, even ignoring the "exploitable scapegoat" part of the problem, I know I have the power to do something that my character shouldn't be able to (teleport from anywhere) and that doesn't make sense with the IG lore.
If I'm paying 59+€ to play an RPG based in the forgotten realm I don't want to force myself not to use (bad) game features in order to have a coherent experience.

And I'm not saying it like "it's my personal taste and I want it that way". I'm saying it because it's the foundation of what constitutes an RPG experience.


I must be honest, seems to me that you are really trying to be provocative in your posts and I don't find it very nice, since it is dismissive of the other person's argument.
But maybe I'm reading it the wrong way and you have no ill intentions, in that case, I apologize.

I'm not saying that you should go play an arcade game instead of an RPG, but genres exist for a reason. They are categories personifying a well-defined set of rules and features, and people have all the right to complain if what was advertised as a particular type of game has features and mechanics detrimental to that same category.
Since the main reason RPGs are RPGs and not Action Adventures or RTS games is the immersion factor, a mechanic which breaks immersion is a bad mechanic and should be changed, or, at least, the developers should contemplate the possibility of changing it.

to quote Maximuus

And there is no arguing about the fact that fast travelling anywhere, in BG3, is an immersion-breaking feature for many people (this thread has plenty of them), even if one chooses not to use it.
I played dozens of RPGs, Action RPGs and cRPGs and the episode I mentioned in my first post was one of the most annoying and immersion-breaking I have ever experienced. It's indicative of a problem, it's a fracture in the silent pact that ask the player to suspend its disbelief, and it's not good in this type of game.

If, while playing LA: Noir, a button on the top right of the screen says "shove a banana up your butt", I suspect no one is going to particularly enjoy the cathartic revelation of the case, even if they choose not to press it.


Not to mention that I think no one is asking to remove fast travel completely, just to make it coherent with the in-game lore and balanced in terms of mechanics, which basically translates in "make fast travel unavailable in enemy territory" or in "make fast travel only available if you touch a portal" if we want to be coherent with the worldbuilding.

I really don't think this is too much to ask for.

Disabling this option is just a string of code, and I'm more than happy if Larian chooses to put a "no fast travel limitation" option on the settings menu, maybe when choosing the game difficulty.

Would you like the game more, less, or about the same if teleportation portals as an in-game phenomenon didn't exist? If Fast Travel was an entirely out-of-game QoL feature where, say, we can fast travel to notable landmarks (like DOSII).

In addition to the Goblin Camp example, I'd include being able to fast travel after falling down the spider hole (when you have no idea where another portal is, there are enemies between you and other portals you could walk to, and you can't climb out of the spider hole) as another example. And this is only in Act 1 of the game. These "odd situations" might reoccur multiple times in later acts, which is why I feel it's important to give feedback about it now; hopefully Larian changes their fast travel system to at the very least remove these odd situations.

The spider hole is another perfect example, I agree.

Completely agree with you Sharet.
All valid points.

Please Ignore Rag the nag. He argues for the sake of arguing instead chilling and having some Sake on the rocks

[sarcasm]Well, that certainly helped me a lot in both determining where i made the misstake, and how should i read it to understand you better.[/sarcasm] :-/

Exactly my point ...
And yet there are people who keep claiming that ingame map is litteral transcription of the world. :-/

Indeed i did ...
Even tho for *this* particular question my answer would be something more like: "Well enough."

I really dont believe we *need* map rework ... it wouldnt hurt tho ... :-/

---

That is something i would call very healthy approach ...

Sadly some around here started to take it in whole another level. :-/
But lets not linger in that topic.

So ...

Save and Load ... bothers you aswell?
Being able to move your camera around the corner to see there, while your characters are still hidden behind it ... bothers you aswell?
See all dialogue options and have option to pick the one that suits your intentions best, no matter what your character "would say" ... bothers you aswell?

I presume not.

And that is why i cant quite grasp the idea that one game mechanic is bad, and her very existence is bothering you, even if you would never ever ever ever and once more ever use it ... but all others you are willing to ignore without hesitation. O_o
How is that possible that your "immersion" is not broken by any of them? They all are fiting your description "having a power to do something that your character shouldn't be able to" after all.

And here we are.
"Im a customer and i want ..."

Well, pal ... i also payd 59+€ ... if you really wish to use this parody of "argument".
And i dont want to deal with boring and tedious passages ... i buyed this game to have fun ... the difference is that while i dont care what you would do in your game, you demand change that would ruin mine ... why?

You see you are customer, so you have the luxury of saying "screw you" ... Larian cant do that, they (unless they wish to piss of really many people, wich isnt best strategy if you are leading a company) need to try find a way to satisfy us both.
Its easy with me, since im willing to ignore everything you find fun and dont screw my game ...
I really hope you can in time learn something simmilar. It would be benefitial for everyone ... me, you and Larian.

Sounds like you do ... just not straight forward, but hidden behind "it allways has ben like this" ...

Nah i dont try ... this goes naturaly with the way im usualy speaking, even in my language. :-/
In fact even if i actualy try, i never managed to get completely rid of it.
Seems like im just that kind of person, whatever that means.

All i can promise you is that if i would want to insult you, provoke you, or in any other way being agresive towards you ... i would do it straight forward.
That i best i can do with this.

As i keep repeating and people keep ignoring ... as long as i can play the way i want, im happy Ragnarok and i dont give a shit about anything (nor anyone) else.
Im totally selfish being and im not ashamed to admit it. :P

Well ... "no arguing" ... i would not go that far.
Especialy since even claiming that there is "many" people is arguable itself ... sure, there are some in this topic, but if you count them, how many would you get ... 5? 10? even if 20 (wich i doubt) that is hardly something you can call "many" in context of whole millions of players.

Plus (and i think this is really important) we should keep in ming that Larian actualy HAVE data from all people who decided to share them ... so they know MUCH better than us "how many" people actualy uses this feature ... no matter how "immersion breaking" it can be for "some" of them.
(Some, since as i stated ... it dont breaks immersion for me ... so we know for sure its claim not aplicable for everyone. )

And quite honestly ... if *i* would work for Larian ...
And i would have this topic on one hand, where (lets exaggerate a bit) 100 (or even a 10 000 if you want to exaggerate a lot) people are arguing that fast travel from anywhere is dumm, ugly, stupid, horrible, immersion-breaking, worse mechanic ever "no arguing about" ...
And then i would look to my other hand where i would get result from database and i would see that 17.479.135 people used it regulary ...
I know exactly wich group i would call "many". :-/

I believe we all did.
Not as if it should have any relevance tho.

I also never said that someone asked to remove fast travel completely (even tho i believe i have seen such opinion in the past ... not sure if that was here or reddit tho) ... so, while you are completely right ... im affraid we are all on same boat at this one.
Lets look at those examples you used ...

- Enemy territory ...
> Goblin camp:
Honestly with this one, its much more immersion breaking for me that this even become enemy teritory.
I mean just few seconds back i was drinking, eating, laughting with goblins and playing their stupid primitive chicken chasing game ...
Then i killed one of their leader (Gut) ... quietly and without a witnesses ofc ... and i was still able to drink, eat, laugh, and chase the chicken ...
Then i killed another one of their leader (Minthara) ... not as quietly as the first one, but as old Assassin rule say "nobody will notice if there is nobody left alive to notice" ... and i was still able to drink, eat, laugh, and chase the chicken ...
Then i killed last of their leaders Ragzlin ... again, not as quietly, true, but there was once again nobody left to witness it and i make sure that nobody will sound the alarm drums ... sudently whole camp, including goblins by the gate, beyond the gate on yard, even beyond the yard around another gate, and even beyond that another gate in completely different town ... they all know!
> That is immersion breaking for me. :-/
So quite the contrary to be honest ... being able to sneak out without Goblins knowing anything (via Fast Travel) is actualy more immersive for myself, than the game would be if this would be changed.
Since this way i can at least create my own headcannon that i sneak by those stupid goblins much sooner than they realized what happened ... and when i get there later, i can think that "enough time passed allready as it seems so they find their corpses" ... and even the stupidest goblin in the world may not count that 1 + 1 = 2 ... but they should be able to count stranger + dead boss = guilty.

> Ethel Lair ...
The only place where Larian actualy created "enemy territory" most likely to test how would players react ...
You cant Fast Travel from there (unless you kill everyone first), you cant Long Rest there (same rule) ... all you can (and i did) is walk out and travel, rest, and everything as much as you want.
So ... the only effect such are have is that it adds some extra walking through area you have allready completed, you allready explored, and have no longer anything to do there.
Kinda dissapointing experience imho, even tho certainly immersive.
I mean ... unless you decide to get in, leave out, rest > get in, leave out, rest > get in, leave out, rest > get in, leave out, rest > get in, leave out, rest > ... that starts to get immersive breaking quite fast.

> Spider hole leading to the Underdark ...
This is indeed great example and i salute mrfuji3 for bringing it up, since i would honestly never think about it.
And i must simply agree here ... there is no immersive way our characters should be able to fast travel anywhere from that spot, until they find some kind of portal ...
So ... +1 to this one from me i gues.

- Fast travel only from portal to portal.
Well, since i allready said few times that i do it exactly like this, even tho i dont need to ... i would not affect my gameplay in any way, so w/e i gues.
But on the other hand ... just that fact that i do it makes it hard for me to believe that there is some kind of "need" of system restriction for this ... but as long as it would be optional in settings, i see no harm in such option.

Agreed ... the deeper, and more detailed difficiulty settings the better.
Let anyone create the experience they want. ^_^ Nobody 59€ was more worthy than any other.

And since we allready discussed my expressions ...
Let me express that im happy to see such opinion, once again after so many months surrounded by people with closed eyes, stuffed years, yelling "lalalalala", and presuming their opinion will get more value, if they convince others to ignore anyone who dont agree with them. -_-

---

Depends ...
Are we talking about hypotetical alternative universe where Fast Travel as it is now was never part of this game ... or are we talking about change that would potentialy come in some futher patch?

- If they would remove the waystones in next patch and we would travel from landmark to landmark without any futher changes ...
I would like it less.
Since it would create exactly those "immersion breaking" situations people are complaining about in this very topic.
Take the Goblin camp for example (popular one after all) ... right now, when you want to get around the Goblin army all you need to do is sneak to Gut's room ... figure easy puzzle (or suceed on some rolls) ... climb down the ladder ... and voila! Portal!
If all you would get would be landmark ... you would still have to somehow get past the goblins, during that fast travel, and that would not make any sense. :-/

- If there would never ever ever be any teleportation rune in the first place, and we would only travel from landmark to landmark ...
I would probably like it about the same.
Since i walk to those runes anyway, there would be little change for me. Even tho some situations would make little less sense, as when you reach Grove faster than Minthara or Halsin ... with teleportation, you have covenient excuse, without it ... dunno, i would probably not make a fuss about it, but it would feel weird sometimes.


Thats why i said, and keep saying that i would preffer it exactly other way around ...
1) Camps should get their waystones ...
2) There should be ways to enter each and every camp from the map ... and once we do, there should be some short cinematic that would show us that our path we used is now gone (dunno, cave in, falling bridge, some traps triggers, use your imagination) ... therefore since *then* waystone would become the only way in or out our camp ... wich would make it perfectly suitable place for resting.
3) We should have some kind of options to talk with Gale (for example) about those runes, and he should either tell us that there is some kind of risk using them unless we know precisely and exactly where we want to get out ... so using them without exploring final destination first would be unwise ... or we should have option to talk with anyone else who dont have magical knowledge and agree on one of our first night that since the waystone is the only way inside ... someone should stand guard by it during the night (or we would switch, whatever).

Actually yeah, all the above bother me, except the last one (I choose the dialogue option that suits my character, not the more convenient one).
But I also understand that sometimes those features are necessary given the *nature* of the game. It is inconceivable to restart the game if your party gets wiped out in a fight or stuck in a wall due to a bug.
I’m against save-scumming but save-reload is a necessary feature in almost any videogame (except maybe a rogue-like).

A feature like instant fast travel anywhere from anywhere, that doesn’t make any sense lore-wise it’s *not* a necessary feature in an RPG, all the opposite in fact, it’s detrimental since it’s taking away a core part of the RPG experience.

Because you can say “I have no interest on travel again in an area I’ve already explored, so I prefer to instant teleport away” and it makes sense, but only partially, because I can just say “I don’t want to fight enemies, I’m just here to explore and loot chests, so please Larian, place a button to instantly kill all the enemies and people that don’t like this feature well, just don’t use it”.

If we are intellectually honest we must admit such a feature would be foolish, and to ask people to just “ignore it” is ludicrous.

If BG3 is an RPG then it must provide some key experiences. Just to list some of them:
- Immersion;
- Narrative;
- Travel and Exploration;
- Resource Management;
- Combat.

If the game implements a feature that is taking away from those key experiences then it’s a bad feature, no matter if it’s ignorable or not.

And this feature takes away from a lot of those experiences:
- Immersion -> because it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
- Narrative -> for the same reason, since doesn’t make sense with the IG lore.
- Travel and Exploration-> it facilitates the player to miss out on content since incentivizes him/her to skip areas for the sake of time.
- Resource Management -> It trivializes the challenge of having to plan your decisions because it takes away a big chunk of the consequence. I just enraged a whole camp of goblins? Oh well, *pops away*.

I totally agree with you that it’s good to have the option to use unrestricted fast travel for all those players that don't care about the above points and just want to fight -> loot -> sell -> fight again, but it should be, as I said, an option, not a CORE mechanic.
The CORE mechanic must enhance all the experiences I have listed, just not to the point it makes the game too unnecessary and convoluted of course.
This is why the “portal” thing is a good decision. It makes sense lore-wise and helps to travel the map more easily. It just needs a little bit of limitation to stay coherent and for all of what I said above.


Please, don't deliberately ignore core parts of my posts.
I’ll repeat them with other words.
I’m not demanding the game to be changed to screw *your* experience, *nor* because I feel entitled to have the game tailored around my needs. My money has the same value as yours, it’s not a *my enjoyment* vs *your enjoyment* situation.

The thing is “I paid for a FRs RPG, because it was advertised as a FRs RPG, so I expect to have an immersive experience in a FRs RPG, and I wish for bad-RPG features to be changed”.
You may not care about it, but it still is a bad RPG feature. Not a bad feature intrinsically, just a bad feature when applied to an RPG.
As I said, I’m all for having the option to toggle off the limitations on fast travel for the people who want it, but the CORE mechanic of the game should be the correct one for its genre.

Because it has. Genres exist because they have a history of titles with common base features that defines what should be expected of a game which is labelled as to belongs to that genre.

Well, I respect that. But wanting to play the game as you desire doesn’t imply being unable to see if something is flawed, even if that flaw enhances your personal experience.
It’s still a conceptual flaw (relatively to the game genre) and as such should be fixed.

Yeah, but from this point of view also junk food is healthy because tons of people eat it.
If a lot of people don't find junk food (fast travel) to be unhealthy (un-immersive) doesn’t mean it’s true.


Well, I’m happy we can find common ground on the main body of the argument. I totally agree with you here.

To sum up my point of view, free of any negativity to be perceived in my tone:
I do not advocate for those changes because I want to take away the fun from other people's playthroughs. I advocate for those changes because I find that RPGs should have systems implemented to be coherent with the in-game lore, so as to benefit the immersion factor.
If one chooses to play an RPG, one should be aware that, in this genre, immersion takes precedence over QoL features.
That said, I’m more than happy for people who like QoL more than immersion to have the option to change the settings to best fit their needs.
But this is still an RPG, so I think, as written above, that the core mechanics should favour immersiveness over QoL, and not the opposite.

At the end of the day, we will both be happy and the game will rightfully be called an RPG, at least concerning this aspect 😊

Anyway, I doubt I can add anything more to enrich the debate. I’ll be more than pleased to follow how you people will comment on the matter tho!

Disagree with this!!!

On top of that if the game was already design with certian feature in place (like an ability to teleport from any where you want) the game might not be tested to work well without it.

It reminds me how when a new AA-AAA RPG is released there is a subset of players asking for no quest markers. And while UI can be turned off in most games, it doesn't mean that quests are designed to work without them. There is undeniable advantage to designing quests and world so player can engage directly with it, though handholding player I am sure makes things much easier for the devs.

Nope. People complain about quality of the map and systems of the game. Some players just are being able to "buy into fiction" or suspend their disbelief.


Which is absiutely fine for you to disagree. The purpose isn't to convice everyone who enjoys the game that they are wrong, but to give feedback to Larian about things that I as a player don't enjoy. I don't like artificiality of the map, and I don't like how fast travel is implemented. As usual, Larian has power to take this feedback into consideration and do something about it, or not.

Oh c'mon.
With all due respect but let's not hide behind a bush. It's called RPG for a reason, Role-Playing Game. Role-Playing (=immersion) is the core concept of the genre, of course it takes the utmost precedence over everything else.
This doesn't mean it must have zero QoL features, it still needs to be fun, but still, immersion takes precedence.

Otherwise, go to a renaissance fair or to a LARP while driving a scooter between the tents because "it's a quality of life feature that lets me move faster" and see if the people there are of your same opinion.

The current iteration of fast travelling in this game is exactly like that scooter. I can refuse to use it but it's still there, parked next to a horse. It's a bit difficult to stay immersed in this scenario.

This is the answer to so many of the issues and concerns we all have here with this game: OPTIONS. The one thing that truly shines in both Solasta and the Pathfinder games is the large number of options provided for players to customize their game-playing experience, and by extension then, their game-playing fun and happiness. If only Larian will come forward and at least tell us: "Yes, we will have a TON of gameplay and rules options available in BG3; we're just not ready to tell you about them all just yet, but we assure you they will be present. A LOT of them." This is all they need to do at this point to ease the concerns of so many of us.

The main issue with adding options is that doing so can require substantial work. Similarly, reworking the game can also require a lot of effort and time. However, limiting fast travel to only using portals requires ~0 work, as does adding an option to remove that requirement. (Compared to making all monsters and encounters match 5e RAW or implementing a RtwP option, both of which would take significant work).

And yes, Larian's lack of communication has been an ever-present issue throughout this EA process. Just tell us, broadly, what is planned, what is still being considered, and what is set in stone so we can focus our feedback!!! Have a reddit AMA every once in a while, or even tweet out ~biweekly "this is what this developer/artist/etc has been working on this week!"

On the 'options create work' point, if Owlcat and TA--with a very tiny fraction of Larian's budget and workforce--can do it, then so can Larian.

On Larian's communication, what I hope Larian will see fit to do at some point is to run an event entirely directed at us Larian forumites. Yes we are a very small fraction of the total fanbase. But we are much, much more intensely invested in the success of the game than those tens of thousands of casual players out there, and our feedback is surely more detailed, nuanced, and thoughtful. As such I would hope that we forumites matter to Larian. So it would be at least a nice gesture on Swen's part to do one of those PFH events where the whole event is exclusively to address and discuss the major issues that have been raised in numerous lengthy threads in this forum.

I admit ... you surprised me with this one (not with the rest, even tho its a bit extreme approach imho, but whatever makes you happy)
I would expect you mind it just aswell ...

I mean, you mind that you only have option to "coveniently teleport back to camp" no matter if you do it or not, the very existence of that option bothered you.
So i would expect you will be bothered by that you know exactly wich character you can try to persuate, wich you can try to intimidate, and wich you can try to i dunno for example bribe ... no matter what you choose in the end ... same rule you know, just the very existence of that option.

Well ... seems i was wrong. O_o


There are ways ...
Have you played Vampyr? You might like their approach ... there are only autosaves, nothing else ... there is no way to load, except when you die you get respawned, every time you make any choice game will IMEDIATELY save, so you cant make your investigation and then pick the most covenient one.

Immersive huh?

Developers presented it with kinda smug statement "learn to live with your decisions" ...
Shame, those decisions you get are often limited and you are forced to pick no matter what you would like to do, without having anything fitting your character ... for example:


I get you feel that way ...
But im simply unable to understand how something you never experience can ruin your experience. :-/

So i gues this is the best understanding i can hope for.


In the same honesty i can admit to you that i would not mind such feature at all ... exactly for that reason that i would ignore it.
I say if someone wish to spend their money for game and then ruin it for himself ... its his fault.

Same approach i had on VtM:Bloodlines 2 forum ... back in the days when we still believed it will happen.
One day rumor showed on internet that game will contain trigger warnings for certain missions, and if people would feel uncomfortable with their content, they would be able to skip them.
People on forum was outraged ... i still dont quite understand why.
If someone wants to spend their money to do: Skip > Skip > Skip > ... > Skip > And then watch final credits ... i say let them, its their decision.


I simply cant agree with this ...
You are right in general, sure ... but we are still talking just about your (and few other) personal prefferences, hardly anything more. :-/

And dont be mad at me (or be if you feel like its adequate reaction, its not like i can do anything about it), but this just seems exaggerated ...

I mean ... okey, lets say that the very existence of posibility to Fast Travel no matter where you stand ruins your experience, okey?
I repeat for some other users: LETS SAY.

Now ...
If you would need to reach and touch Waypoint to Fast Travel ... that would be okey i presume?

Now presuming that ...
If there would be option in settings you can turn on anytime you want, that would allow you to Fast Travel without needing to reach Waystone ... would that be okey?

And if so ... how is that mechanical option forcing you to reach that Waypoint any different from you simply ignoring the possibility? O_o
I mean ... i dare to presume you dont usualy Fast Travel accidentaly ... or do you?


I cant unnotice that you didnt coment on my perception of immersion on Goblin camp ...
I would really like to know how your immersion and naration even deals with the fact that "you just enraged a whole camp of goblins" ... "of wich nobody was close enough to see, or hear what happened".


This starting to seem like pure phylosophical topic ...
If tree falls and there will be nobody to hear it, will it make "a sound" ... or just air vibrations?

I mean ...
I get you ... or at least i think i do ... the only difference between us is that for me, once im not forced to use any mechanic, it is just an option.



Oh you missunderstand me ...
I dont say you do ... i say that is what will happen, if your wish will be fulfilled.
Your intentions are actualy quite irellevant here.

Example from the past:
Do you remember spellcasting from Patch 1?
People were complaining around here that having all spell levels on hotbar separately takes too much space, and that we should get some kind of popup window, where we will be choosing our spell level.
So instead of Magic Missile 1 and Magic Missile 2 ... we would only get Magic Missile on our hotbar and then decide if we wish to use 1 or 2 ... just as we do now.
*I* (and some others aswell) demanded to keep curent state possible ... you know, just as you intend "give that option for people who wants it" ...
Reason was that for some spells, there is no reason to upcast them, since they have exactly the same effect using higher spell slot ... (Mage Armor mainly, but also speak with animals, protection from evil and good, create water, discuise self, feather fall, ... and many more, that is not important) ... so *I* (and some others) wanted to keep the option to give on our hotbar spell level 1 if we wish to, so we dont need to deal with this stupid and useless level choosing every time we will use that spell.

What did we get?
Exactly ... popup windows for everything!
So since then, even tho options for people who wanted them was supported by some comunity members, *our* (or at least *mine*) experience was ruined, no matter the intentions.
Not in some huge important major way, so the game become unplayable, that is true ... but it get unnnecesay more anoying and tedious. :-/

Since then i keep asking for the possibility ... so far without any hope for sucess.
And that is why i say this is what would happen.


Everyhing happens "the way it allways had" ... until it dont anymore.
This process is usualy called evolution.

I admit that not all changes have to be good ... but you never know, until you try. :P


Is it tho?
Or is that just covenient excuse to add your words some value, so you dont need to say straight forwars "i just dont like it this way" ?


Eh ... no?
If lots of people eats junk food (use fast travel) ... you see lots of people eat junk food (use fast travel) ... you can presume they like it (dont find it unimersive), or they dont care (dont care ) its unhealthy (unimersive) ... but its values dont change.

There is no link between un/healthyness(?) of junk food and amount of its consumation im affraid.

But if we play "lets say" once again ...
And presume your argument is valid for a few seconds ...
If a lot of people don't find junk food (fast travel) to be unhealthy (un-immersive) doesn’t mean it’s true.
> True ... it doesnt mean its true ... it means it dont matter.

---

Im affraid we both are talking about completely different people here:


My purpose is exactly the same.
You say what you dont like ... i shall add what i do like about the same ... then Larian will have our both opinions at their disposal.

---

Precedence is fine ... and i dont think even Icelyn would have problem with it ... "in general" ...

The problem here is that word "immersion" however funny it may sound is incredibly subjective.
And while we all can agree on precedence that immersion is important for roleplay game ... and yes, i believe that even Icelyn would agree on this ...
And while we all maybe would agree on precedence that immersion should take priority over QoL ... here i start doubt that she would ...
Problem starts when we try to define WICH QoL features should be moved on second grade, in matter of priorities.


Do you know many single player larps?
I dont think i ever participate (or even hear about as the matter of fact) on any.


Well ...
As long as the scooter is actualy invisible, makes no sound or smell and nobody except you is even recognizing its existence ... yes, its exactly same.

My god, stop hydrating the troll! Its pointless lol. If you want to argue with him keep it short and stupid.

OF COURSE you do.

I would rather they have a fast travel that works in the lore with out being gamey, such as fast walk, backtrack revisit a place quickly a small walking cutscene of your party briefly setting off walking and appearing at the new sign post or landmark

you should also be camping in the area you are in, camp should be set up in the zone you are currently walking, or in a near clearing, if in a building inside one of its room.
and the risk of being attacked on rest is missing imo

The only thing that needs to happen is making fast travel actual accelerated travel on-foot rather than a magical teleport.

Move a party icon on a map. No limits needed other than having been to the locations before. All appropriate limitations come naturally when you are really traveling from A to B, just faster. It's the most simple and elegant choice. I don't understand why Larian had to reinvent the wheel here and create a nonsensical magical teleportation rune network.

Random encounters would be a good way to breathe at least some life into already explored areas and make the world feel less scripted and controllable.

There was few reasons mentioned in this very topic. O_o

Just to list some:
Teleportation is quite normal way of traveling in this world ...
Netherese magic seems to play vital role in the story ...
Immersion reasons (you cant fast-walk through guards ... but you can easily teleport behind them) ...

And the (imho) most important one:
It would make litteraly no difference compared to what we have now ... you would simply dissapear on one place, and reappear on another one. O_o

One thing I would love to see is the Tiny Hut spell getting implemented in BG3 for travel camping. That would be very cool if there's a way to implement it well.

No, it's not...

Yes ... it is:

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Teleportation%20Circle#content

I lay my weapons on the ground.

Hope this game will be able to grant the maximum amount of fun to the maximum amount of people without becoming an amorphous amalgam of features antithetic to one another.

Peace.

Level 5 spell + portals in important locations in which the spell has been casted every day for one year doesn't make it a "quite normal" way of traveling, especially in such a small area in the middle of nowhere.

Ever played other video games, read books, look at films in the Forgotten Realms ? My knowledge maye not be fully updated but I guess no one would say that it's a "quite normal" way of traveling in the FR but you.

Teleportation also exist in The Witcher (and many other universe) without being a common way of traveling.

Great!

I may read this wrong so feel free to corect me someone reliable ... Niara for example ...
But the "spell" is about creating your own entry point and linking it to allready existing portal.

Here we are walking through allready existing portals, therefore we dont need the spell.

Fun stuff ...
You know, if you read that description thoroughly, there is litteraly written "You can create a permanent teleportation circle" ... with empasis on the word "permanent" ...

Now, sure we are now "in the middle of nowhere" ... but have you ever concidered on what places those portals are?
Temple of Jergal ...
Emerald Grove ...
The only village around ...
Hut of Hag, where people come make (not exactly fair) bargains ...
Selune temple ...
The only Inn around ...
Tollhouse by the road ...
And finaly den of Zhentarim ... slavers/smuglers wealthy, and smart enough to see benefits of such transportation ...

Wich one of those was "not enough important" by your interpretation?
(Hope i didnt left out any from the surface)

We can continue in the Underdark:
Myconid collony ... the only Friendly place around, wich members of Society of Brilliance (that right, mages) uses as neutral ground ...
Stronghold of Sharites ...
Beach ... once again, the only village around
Sussur tree ... main source of resources for Lenore research ...
And finaly Grymforge, twice ... main source of Arms and Amor for whole Sharite army.

The only one portal i would concider questionable i can think off ... is that one is spider cave.
But once again, we *know* that there was a Necromancer in the city ... wich most likely needed to move unseen.

Yup ...

One could argue about at least me and writters from Larian see it this way.

Funny you picked Witcher ...
Since even tho i admit i didnt read "everything" ... but still im not quite sure i have seen, hear, or read (unless she was forced to by circumstances obviously) Yennefer at least once using any and i mean ANY other means of transportation.

---

Aw thats a shame man.
I was really interested in those things.

Not sure if it will be in BG3 or not, but from the description of the teleportation spell, it looks like you can teleport anywhere that you have loot from without issues.😊

If you're a level 9 wizard, sorcerer or bard yes, it looks like you can teleport from everywhere to a permanent teleportation circle you've learned the runes before.

It would be a great power to have after we leveled up. But why would we need it in BG3 ? Everyone can already do it (and even more, you can teleport from and to locations without teleportation circle - which is not what the "portals" are but whatever, just another incoherence among others).

This is exactly my hope for the game as well, a maximalist approach to make happy as many fans as possible, within reason, versus a minimalist approach of only catering to the D:OS fans.

I dunno ...
That 1 round duration sounds like a little let down ...

But puting that aside for a second (since many spells was "adjusted" a little) ...
It could work perfectly as creating your own waypoint ... i dunno, i would like the option to create portal out, and then (within the same day prefferably) have option to port right back.

As I understand it, you are incorrect. Permanent Teleportation Circles are only destinations.
There is nothing in the spell that specifies permanent circles can be used without casting the spell. It just allows you to add a new Permanent Circle to the world (presumably in your base). It's not even clear if you can use a Permanent Circle as a departure site (I feel most GMs would allow that, still requiring the 5th-level spell to be cast of course).

Notably, Teleport (a 7th-level spell, castable by 13th-level casters) is the spell you're referring to that allows you to teleport anywhere you can think of. This is a very high level spell and thus would only be relevant for the last little bit of the game, if the game even goes up to level 13.

Thats what i said.

You create your own entry point and get through it to some, allready existing, permanent portal.


Nope ... but i didnt say there is ...
I claimed several times that curent fast traveling anywhere futher from waypoint, is simple QoL feature snaping out walking to the nearest waypoint ... wich in most cases, would mean just walking through cleaned area where is nothing new or interesting.
> Aka: No magic included.

Maximuuus claimed that using portals is not common in Faerun ... description of this spell litteraly states that there "are" permanent portals around the world ... therefore, quite logicaly, it is possible to travel through portals around Faerun.
And as Morigan said in Dragon Age: How common is "usualy"? If its not all the time, how can you tell if something is unusual?


Exactly as i thought ...
Only for one turn tho ... i was thinking about uses for this spell, and the only one i find out is escape from overwhelming fight.

@Rag, oh sorry I misread your post. Yep you were correct! I blame being sick.
Well, partially correct. See in my last paragraph - there are both Teleportation Circles and Teleportation Portals in 5e - the former is only a destination for said spell, but the latter can be used by anyone with the correct passkey. If these "Netherese portals" are the former, then we shouldn't be able to use them.

I agree with @Maximuuus that portal usage is not common; the portals in cities are Teleportation Circles and thus require casting of that spell to use them. So use of them is reserved for Important People that can afford the cost of a level 9 caster - definitely not used by commoners or even Tier 1 (level 1-4) adventurers. 5e Adventurer's League rules suggest that getting a level 5 spell cast costs hundreds of gp.

BUT - there do exist portals around in the world which are usable by anyone with a password or special item. These are relatively common in Adventure Modules; a party will typically find 1 or maybe even 2 through the course of adventuring to level 11+. So there is precedent for portals that don't require casting that Teleportation Circle spell, although I can't find rules governing the creation of these. But again, these are still uncommon even for adventurers; they usually link to a powerful enemy secret base and aren't just out there everywhere in the world.

That’s really not that relevant if teleporting all over the place is possible in lore. It’s more relevant if unrestrained teleporting makes for a more engaging game.

Agreed ...
As i said it was only brought up for the sake of wholesomeness(?) of argument ...

Anyway since as it seems we are unable to agree on this ... lets hope Larian will realize that options are the only corect way.
(Feels odd to talk about company as about living person.)

Not usual, but I disagree with you on this one.
Both are important imo, one for the "role" and the other for the "play".

In general I am in favour of making up a narrative excuse if it enhances the experience. As of now, I don't think fast travel is well explained through the narrative, nor do I think that it enhances the gameplay.

There is shockigly little effort put (as of now) to make things feel native to the world. That is in general a worryingly lazy design, and especially for story centric genre like RPGs. I am struggling to come up with an cRPG that would be as bad in that regard as BG3.

There is already a limiter on Fast Travel, if you don't like it, don't use it, or don't "abuse" it. Worry about what's happening in your save file and leave Joe Casual alone.

Portals and Forgotten Realms. Common or not?

Depends on where you are. Underdark Drow city of Menzoberranzan, probably quite common for more prominent houses, but still not as common as in BG3. Host Tower in Luskan - VERY common. Some defunct ruin of an ancient elven city. Might be common there too.

So it depends, honestly. If they had a decent explanation for it, I don't think it would be as big an issue, AND if they didn't allow you to use them from anywhere without cost or potentially running into dangers.

Example: Champions of Norrath 2. Portals everywhere. You were bouncing from plane to plane. BUT, they were level markers. You had to physically walk to each and every portal and you pretty much used one only when you had cleared the level.

The problem with BG3 is that you can just willy nilly use them. There's no limit or nothing. Now, if they did something like, "You must find special crystals that activate them. You spend one crystal per use.". That would make more sense.

See, in FR, portals are powerful magic. There is usually something required to use them. You don't just see one and go, "Hey. I can teleport now to anywhere.". You need to actually be able to use magic read it, understand it, or have some magic items to activate them.

I'm 100% fine with the implementation of fast travel personally, I think it's a cool feature for QoL. Only thing I would like is simply for it to be more " Anchored" in the story line. Either instead of portals we could have road signs implicating the character simply "walks" instead of magically teleportating. Or as GM4Him specified we could have some items allowing us to use them. Idk.

Immersion FFS !!

I think part of the deal that most are not considering is that Larian is telling us right away that these are special Netherese portals. So, they are letting us know that these are not your standard one-way gates where you can go from A to B, but you can't go from B to A. They are portals with multiple exits, and you can use them to return to places you've been previously. That makes them extremely rare and powerful. They aren't merely Creature Only portals, and they aren't merely Non-Creature (meaning just objects) Only portals. So again, they are VERY rare.

But, being Netherese, that does make sense. The Netherese were extremely powerful spellcasters. So, there is a mystery about the portals, and that's fine, as long as they explain it at some point and don't just say, "They're Netherese. So..."

Well, um, yeah. But why are they in the middle of nowhere Western Heartlands Faerun? Why are they all over the place, and even etched on the side of a building in a town that was decimated over a hundred years ago?

AND... my big pet peeve is that they don't explain at all how these things are used. Why are YOU the only one who can use them? How do you even know? Does Gale tell you? Does he teach you? I mean, clearly he knows, for he steps out of one when you first meet him. But what allows you to activate them? Is there a Word of Power? Do you need a special Word of Power to travel to the one you're wanting to travel to as opposed to another? There's just literally no real explanation, so it comes off as simply a video game Fast Travel tool as opposed to a genuine portal system created by someone in the fantasy world of Faerun.

So, as some have said, if you aren't going to legit explain the hows and whys, just remove the portals altogether and create some animation that shows on the game map your characters traveling from A to B as if they walked the whole way instead of teleporting. You have the same basic result, but you aren't creating a story element and then not explaining the story element.

I like the portals. I want them to keep them in the game. I just want them to give me a really good reason as to why they're there, and I want some details on their functionality. Even if they make it so you find a book on Netherese Portals, and that book details how to use them and so forth, that would be good enough for me.

And finally, there - again - needs to be some sort of Fast Travel limits imo. They shouldn't be too steep. I mean, I agree that it sucks in some of the older D&D games when you have to manually walk for five minutes through an area you've already cleared just so you can return to the merchant and sell gear, ESPECIALLY when you're encumbered. Walking stupidly slow for ten minutes because you have a bunch of cool stuff you want to sell and you don't want to drop it is just a waste of time.

On the flip side, I shouldn't be able to teleport from the inside of the Goblin Base to the Grove when I've just killed all their bosses and they're all super pissed and looking to kill me. I should physically have to sneak out of the base somehow before I can fast travel. Or, as someone else said, if I just fell into the Underdark and I haven't found a portal yet, I shouldn't be able to Fast Travel until I find one.

AND... I think some sort of Exhaustion system should be set up somehow. If you Fast Travel huge distances from portals, you should expend more Stamina Points, or something. So, if you're in the Bog, and you fast travel to the grove area, that's a considerable distance from a waypoint. So, it should take more energy to travel to the grove from there as opposed to traveling to the grove from say Moonhaven right next to the apothecary. A Short Rest could then allow you to recover Stamina Points, making Short Rests more important and valuable in the game.

And again, get rid of the hard 2 Short Rests limit. But that's a whole different topic.

But why create some exhaustion mechanics if a short rest is going to negate it (especially if it's going to be unlimited). This is the creation of mechanics that in practice will not exist.

Sigh. Limit short rest in a different way - ie Hit Dice. You know, 5e's true short rest limitation. Once a character has used up their HD, short rest no longer benefits them. Something LIKE this.

The point is that you wouldn't be hard limiting short rest but having unlimited long rest. That's backwards. Short rest should be used more often than long. So you need to create more purpose for short rest, and adding Exhaustion would do just that, and so would Hit Dice as opposed to a 2 limit system.