Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 27 of 31 1 2 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Indeed it isnt exactly matter of if they "could" ... more like if they "should". laugh

Enlargening danger zones would potentialy make sense, from story perspective ...
But from gameplay perspective they would once again be easily negated by player who simply first run all side quests, while zones are all friendly and cozy ... and then start working through main story, when "dangerousness" of those locations no longer matters, since you dont stay there for long. laugh

Backtracking have simmilar problem (btw you cant fast travel out of Hag's lair as far as i know) ...
From perspective of player who likes system restrictions for resting, and random encounters (meaning GM4HIM for example) your suggestion probably sounds good, bcs he have exactly what he want.
From perspective of player who dislikes those things (i would once again use Icelyn as example) it would be pure nightmare. :-/

Just try to imagine the situation:
You just ended the fight, it doesnt really matter if you just poorly managed your resources, or you made few stupid decisions, or you are simply unexperienced player ... the outcome is that your group is in bad shape, you are out of resources (both magical and consumables) and you desperately need to rest.

Have it? Good.

Now ... it splits up to two scenarios:

- Curent situation:
You rest ... you heal, restore your magical resources, you are totally able to continue your adventure. No complications at all.
You as a player are happy in that situation.

- Suggested situation:
You have choice ... either you continue and meet another encounter that will most likely kill you, and your game ends ... or you return, and have fair chance to meet "random encounter" that will most likely kill you, and you game ends ... you cant rest, you cant fast travel ... all you can do is either reload right now, or try one of previously mentioned options and pray to gods of dices to give you good numbers, so you dont meet anything hostile.
You as a player are happy in such situation? I doubt that. Personaly i would certainly not.


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Your answer doesn't prevent this message to be true :
"Random encounter create "psychological" limitations (to rest or to continue) but without any mechanical limitations. But it's mostly in the players head : random encounters are often easy but it has consequences on how the game is played".

Consequence on how the game is played, not on how it should be played.
If a player is now sleeping after every battles, what's the difference for him with random encounter ? Is it impossible to be victorious if you haven't a single spellslot or feature left ? It's not, and it has never been in games I can think of.

Please, can you name a game in which random encounters makes the players rest "more often than when they think it's necessary" ? Or maybe a game in which players are complaining to rest "too often" because of random encounters ?

On top of that, ressources management and resting are a core part of all DnD's rules.
Whatever you like them or not, well designed random encounter would make ressource management and resting a more meaningfull part of the game and very important... Without mechanical limitations.

(and without preventing those that wants to rest after every combats to do so... I mean... In every games there's a moment you HAVE to rest without much HP or spellslots left...)

With Larian's items interractions some players would also probably use barrels and other items to create traps and to fortify their camps... which could be extremely cool !

But tbh reading your last messages I'm not really sure you understand what we're talking about.
Goblins in the Blighted village and "that will most likely kill you" as exemples.


Originally Posted by sublimeclown
Essentially, there would be certain areas where enemies might appear, even if you've cleared that area already. That would add a sense of danger to backtracking, which might require you to use stealth, invisibility, etc. to avoid combat if your party is in bad shape. It might not be the most elegant solution, but I don't see why they couldn't implement this with the current engine.

That's also something I'd like a lot.
Like looters "x days" after you clear the druid grove or the goblin's camp, wolves in the wood after a while, a new merchant on the map,...

Just as random encounters at camp and eventually when fast travelling, this kind of "events" would make BG3's world so much more alive.
Without preventing us to fast travel, it could also really encourage exploring the world even after you have "cleaned" the map.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 29/03/22 07:49 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Your answer doesn't prevent this message to be true :
Since point of it was that your message is only one of multiple possible mindsets ...
Therefore in order to "prevent" that message, it would need to contradict itself ...

I would dare to say its quite logical that it didnt. laugh


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
If a player is now sleeping after every battles, what's the difference for him with random encounter?
Was this serious question? O_o

Taken at aburdum ... it can cause infinite loop ... if player sleeps after "every" battle, and sleeping can cause him random encounter > therefore a battle > he would need to sleep afterwards. laugh

But jokes aside ...
Obviously the difference is time spend with tedious actions in between following the story ...
I thought that my detailed description of how Long Resting works right now will paint you a picture that exactly its tediousness is discouraging me from using it until i desperately need to ... add another combat to the mixure, and you just wasted several more minutes doing someting you didnt want to do ...

THAT is the difference (even tho i still cant believe i had to say it out loud) and THAT is the problem. laugh


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Is it impossible to be victorious if you haven't a single spellslot or feature left ? It's not, and it has never been in games I can think of.
Depends on deffiniton of "feature" ...
But then we could also ask question if it is even possible to have "no feature left". laugh

But then, we return to previous question ...
What would be point of such combat?
Scare people with supereasy encounters that can be win easily without spending single resource of any kind? Sure that can work for first, maybe first few ... but after that?
Sooner ot later (rather sooner) they become just another tedious obstacle with no real reason ... exactly bcs they simply cant change anything.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Please, can you name a game
Still no ...

I hope you didnt expect me to use those few hours to investigate all games with random encounters, try them and make an opinion based on that experience ... bcs if you did, then i have to disapoint you. :-/

Normaly i would presume that there is no need to point out explicitly that just the fact allone that i dont know any *specific* game with this particular problem, it doesnt mean that problem is impossible ... but concidering tone of this post ... maybe it would be better to do that.

So just for the record, i cant even name any game "in which Long Rests any time and anywhere makes the players rest "more often than when they think it's necessary"? Or maybe a game in which players are complaining to rest "too often" because they simply can."
I know a game, where people complain that other people rests "too often" tho ... but i still dont see how is that anything of their business. laugh


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
On top of that; ressources management and resting are a core part of all DnD's rules.
Then go play DnD i gues?
You know what else is "core part of all DnD's rules"? Rule zero ... i bet you know that one.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Whatever you like them or not, well designed random encounter would make this more important for most players than now and very important...
There is several problems i have with this sentence ...

"Well designed" ... as far as i know, you people didnt even managed to agree on what those words even mean. laugh
I mean sure, you all probably agree that "well designed" means something like "designed in such way to bring joy and happines to us all" or some simmilar vague stuff vith zero informative value ...
But how EXACTLY should they be designed to be well? That is something i still didnt seen around here. laugh

"Most players" ... you have that based on what exactly?
And please dont embarase yourself by saying based on this forum, or reddit, or steam discussions, or discord, or all of them counted together ... bcs even if you would manage to get ten thousand people ... and i honestly doubt you would, not bcs they would be against it, but bcs actual "most" of them simply dont give a shit ... but even if you would by some miracle manage ... it would be what, 1% of playerbase? laugh xD
And if you cant reach even that amount ... how can you even dare to speak about "most" players? laugh


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Without mechanical limitations and without preventing those that wants "another experience that what the game is designed for" to play as they want to play.
How is is possible that i play it that way then? O_o
And i dont need mechanical limitations ... nor i need random encounters ... i simply just dont waste all my resources in first possible opourtunity, and distribue them acordingly to situation ... then i rest only when i actualy need to, and my game experience is perfect.

The only difference is that i in the process dont ruin the gampleay for other people who dont want "another experience that game (based on wich this game is) is designed for" ... for example, Icelyn.

I obviously know (feel free to read it as: Presume) that in this topic your reaction could be basicaly sumarized as:
Screw you and Screw Icelyn ... I WANT THIS!

But all i want you to think about is ... is that really necesary?
What for do you need "mechanical limiations"? So you can pat your shoulder that you managed your resources exactly and precisely as some Larian developer expected you to? O_o
Isnt that little patetic reason to ruin other people fun? :-/


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
With Larian's items interractions some players would also probably use barrels and other items to create traps and to fortify their camps... which could be extremely cool!
Yeah maybe ... but they still can, we know that there are story related fights in the camp ... so ...
This option is quite open.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
What does the goblins in the Blighted village have to do this random encounter conversation?
Good question!
And if you would read it whole and thoroughly, you should allready know the answer. :-/

I can try to put it simplier:

Situation A:
1) Developer creates ramdom encounter.
2) Player approaches the place where this random encounter can happen. (Thats right, it still have to be all prepared in advance ... sorry guys, the only other way would be to create fully self aware AI.)
3) Random number generator ... generate random number (surprising huh?
4a) Encounter starts. (1/10 cases ... for 10% chance)
4b) Nothing happens. (9/10 cases ... for 10% chance)
Result: Work of developer would be in 90% of cases wasted.

Situation B:
1) Developer creates a regular encounter.
2) Player approaches the place where this encounter is. (Thats right, they take just the same amount of work.)
3) --No random number generator involved--
4a) Encounter starts. (10/10 cases)
4b) --no alternatives--
Result: Work of developer would be experienced by every single player.

I can only hope you actualy WILL read it this time. frown


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
So is this sentence "have fair chance to meet random encounter that will most likely kill you" ?
Have you ever tryed to read whole post? :-/ Or at least sentence ...
It should be refreshing experience ...

Its written right there, its describing situation where player (from whatever reason) get to situation where his game ended just bcs Random Number Generator decided to give him challenge we was unable to beat. :-/


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Like looters "x days" after you clear the druid grove or the goblin's camp, wolves in the wood after a while, a new merchant on the map,...
Theese sounds like good suggestions and i like them. +1

I bet you feel confused now ... should i explain myself?
I gues i rather should ... even tho im not sure if it will have any effect.

Difference between what you are suggesting here (repopulation of cleared areas after some time passes) and random encounters should be quite clear but 3 points stands above all others in my opinion:
1) This can easily be avoided, if you simply dont want it.
2) Every player who wants to experience them can, every player who dont have same possibilities ... for random encounters RNG decides for you.
3) It would actualy make WORLD more alive ... instead of spawning random group of random enemies into completely lifeless wasteland. laugh


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Just as random encounters at camp and eventually when fast travelling, this kind of "events" would make BG3's world so much more alive.
How?
Lets say you wipe out whole Goblin Camp ... for example ... then you decide to rest ... random encounter triggers, you are attacked by goblins in your camp, far far away from the Goblin one ... you kill them ... you rest ... you return to the Goblin Camp ...
And its just as lifeless as it was before ...
So you return to your camp ... well, there is few fresh corpses, but except that nothing new ...
So you return to Goblin Camp ... still just as lifeless ...
You run around, possibly picking some missing loot or something ... doubt that you would just running circles for fun around here ... still just as lifeless ...
Then random encounter triggers, from somewhere another bunch of goblins appear ... you kill them ofc ... back to the lifeless ...
So you continue in your adventure ...
Later you decide to fast travel back here ... random encounter triggers, you kill them ... and you guesed it, nothing changed.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Without preventing us to fast travel, it could also really encourage exploring the world even after you have "cleaned" the map.
Why would you do that? O_o

You allready explored those parts, you work here is done, your quests here are done, your enemies defeated, their values taken ... there is nothing more for you ... and in case you forget, there is tadpole in your head, so you really shouldnt "roam across the places you ahave cleaned allready". laugh


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Man, Ragnarok. You and I need to stop the long posts.

Let me be brief. Picture this: Bogrot is cleared out. Goblins WERE keeping troops there, but you cleared it out. Why would they let days go by and NOT send new patrols out to see why their troops didn't come home?

Random Encounters simulates chance of encountering something because in life you never know what you might run into each day. As you travel through the forest one day, you may encounter a deer that scampers off. Next day. Nothing. Next day, an Owlbear. Next two days, nothing.

Each day, as you're traveling, you should encounter new things if it's a living world. You shouldn't feel like it's a ghost town once you've killed all the baddies in a particular area.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Based on what ? On 20 years of video game history.
Not sure why I still try to "discuss" with you.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Picture this: Bogrot is cleared out. Goblins WERE keeping troops there, but you cleared it out. Why would they let days go by and NOT send new patrols out to see why their troops didn't come home?
Dunno ... same reason they dont come home if you get past them by skme alternative way?

You get what i mean right?
Goblins arent exactly military specialists ... presuming they are sending reports back to camp regulary is just as valid as presume that they are lazy, slopy and stupid enough to either forget or report only when spmething important happens.
Bcs that both is just headcanon.


Originally Posted by GM4Him
As you travel through the forest one day, you may encounter a deer that scampers off. Next day. Nothing. Next day, an Owlbear. Next two days, nothing.
But why would you return there so often?
I see your point it just seems purposely fabricated. :-/


Originally Posted by GM4Him
You shouldn't feel like it's a ghost town once you've killed all the baddies in a particular area.
Repopulating areas with wildlife afzer long rest(s) serves the same purpose ...
Plus it involves no RNG, so every player can enjoy it ... and the world "feels alive" all the time.

And personaly i support that idea.


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Based on what ? On 20 years of video game history.
I see ...
It was evident ... but i was wondering if you are man enough to admit that is just your personal feeling with no data wich would support it anyway ...
You dissapointed me. frown


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Oh, but we can talk about systems and compare how it work in many video games... But it looks like the only thing you have to say is "I don't like random encounters" so it would probably never be a discussion.

I don't have to prove my point, especially on consequences of random encounters on the overall experience. Many games already have, even if I like them and you don't (or haven't tried them).

Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/03/22 07:47 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Sure we can ... or we could have. :-/

As far what who have to say ... all i see on your side is "it would just be better" or "i want it" (sometimes masked as "we want it" or "majority wants it" or "most people wants it" ... while the message is still the same) ... so why should i bother with anything more complex? laugh


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
You're unable to understand or discuss about anything more complex, mostly because your "big picture" about some mechanics is very small...

I guess that's why you're quoting every sentences rather than understanding and answering the whole message and why you're nitpicking everytime you read sometimes that you "may" not like... "may" because, finally you can't really say... You haven't tried or experienced something more or less the same in other games... (And I won't talk about suggestion that are inspired by multiple games you haven't played).

Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/03/22 09:25 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Nice excuses ...
But even if you were right (and i dont think i didnt played "enough" games) ... but even if, i dont see how is that relevant. laugh

If some mechanic pisses me off ... it would still piss me off, if it would be in million other games aswell. O_o
Just the same, no matter how many other people loves, it dont mean i start loving it aswell, just for that reason. :-/

Personal i believe we would know if anyone of us is even "able to understand or discuss anything more complex" once "anything more complex" will show up around here ... until then, you can guess at best, or roll your dices ... chances the outcome would be valid are aproximately same. smile

As i said Niara few times in our discusions ... i quote so people clearly see what im i refering to, there is nothing deeper.

As for things i "may" or "may not" like ... bcs, you know those two options usualy come together ... i would dare to say that i know my own prefferences well enough to say, and i dont feel ashamed to admit that im not sure when im not sure ... wich by the way is that only case when that "lack of experience" you mentioned come to play.
As for random encounters ... yes, im definietly sure i would hate them! Not a single doubt on my mind.


In the words of the senior NCO instructor at cadet battalion:
“If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying. And if you got caught you didn’t try hard enough!”
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Why should I need excuses to discuss the consequences of random encounters in games ?

I already said that I find them boring as hell in some game, I also explain why and suggest things that could make them better according to who you want.

(the most common complain about random encounter is that there are too much of them and that you waste too much time, which is something I 100% agree with in many games).

Try, in exemple, Wartales or Expedition : Rome and tell me if you absolutely hate them.
There's little to no chances it happen. I'm sure at best you'd say : "it's useless"...

I'd be curious to know what games have make you become so hostile to them.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/03/22 11:59 AM.
Joined: Mar 2022
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2022
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Try, in exemple, Wartales or Expedition : Rome and tell me if you absolutely hate them.
There's little to no chances it happen. I'm sure at best you'd say : "it's useless"...

I'd be curious to know what games have make you become so hostile to them.

If that is about random encounters perosnaly I dislike them in Expedition: Rome, if that encounter was about fighting then I would just load the last saved game so I dont have to fight.
And for example in both Pathfinders random fights during camping/travelling only makes me frustrated. There are too much of them, they are pointless, boring and are just fighting for fighting and game time stratching. And I dislike feelings when game is artifisially stratched to being longer frown

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Deirdre
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Try, in exemple, Wartales or Expedition : Rome and tell me if you absolutely hate them.
There's little to no chances it happen. I'm sure at best you'd say : "it's useless"...

I'd be curious to know what games have make you become so hostile to them.

If that is about random encounters perosnaly I dislike them in Expedition: Rome, if that encounter was about fighting then I would just load the last saved game so I dont have to fight.
And for example in both Pathfinders random fights during camping/travelling only makes me frustrated. There are too much of them, they are pointless, boring and are just fighting for fighting and game time stratching. And I dislike feelings when game is artifisially stratched to being longer frown

That's why we said we want random encounters done right, like Solasta. Not Pathfinder. Exciting random encounters or interesting ones. Not just fighting easy, boring fights that are time wasters.

I mean, even some of Solasta's are boring time wasters, but many are not.

Last edited by GM4Him; 30/03/22 12:31 PM.
Joined: Mar 2022
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2022
Well I never played Solasta, but for me in such games if a random enconuter is designed to end with a fight it is a F8 encounter (or F9 based on game settings) as it is just fightingh for fighting....

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
I personnaly didn't mention Solasta because in my opinion, it can happen too much too on the worldmap, even if you're on it way less than in Pathfinder (This is mostly the game I'm talking about when I said that too much random encounters may be boring).

But I didn't have the same experience with Expedition : Rome tbh.
There are too much random events imo but there are a very limited number of them that ended on combats in my 1,5 playthrough. I played it at release and I really didn't have a lot of them. Maybe I was lucky with my choices.

I can't obviously be sure about that one but I don't think that games I played included random encounters to be "longer".

That said, I don't really understand the difference between visual combats and random encounters. With exceptions for story/quests reasons, most games I can think of have "combats for combats".
(to name a few in BG3 : the minotaurs, the spiders+ettercap, the gnolls after the bridge, the mephits).

I don't think it's an issue but I like combats, especially in tactical TB RPG. And I also like a few "easy" combats (that does not require you to be absolutely prepared). It helps a lot to feel that your party is not a full party of total noobs.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/03/22 02:11 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That said, I don't really understand the difference between visual combats and random encounters. With exceptions for story/quests reasons, most games I can think of have "combats for combats".
(to name a few in BG3 : the minotaurs, the spiders+ettercap, the gnolls after the bridge, the mephits).
Random encounters feel like trash filler to me, too, in the games I have played. Boss fights are designed and often have mechanics that are interesting, so I like those. They also aren’t stopping me from doing something I want to do (traveling/working on a quest or resting). That is one of the things I love about BG3: no trash mobs or fetch quests. Everything in the game is fun and interesting to me!

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
But why don't you consider the combats I gave as exemples as "'trash filler" ? What makes the difference except that they're visual and not "random" ? They are stopping you and "forces" you to fight (to explore, travel, continue your quest and so on), aren't they ?

That said, I totally agree that Larian has done a great job to give an (more or less, depending) interresting purpose to most combats.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/03/22 03:34 PM.
Joined: Mar 2022
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Mar 2022
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
But I didn't have the same experience with Expedition : Rome tbh.
There are too much random events imo but there are a very limited number of them that ended on combats in my 1,5 playthrough. I played it at release and I really didn't have a lot of them. Maybe I was lucky with my choices.

The problem with "non-combat" encounters in E:R is that there are too few of them, but they are too often. Wnen you have dosen encounters with your party member falling into a trap with only difference in which patry member will be injured this time... Or it variation "party member X was bitten by scorpion". Its neither fun nor interresting to get the same encounter again and again and again... Its not good when you have random encounter, start reading its text and think "oh, this again".


Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That said, I don't really understand the difference between visual combats and random encounters. With exceptions for story/quests reasons, most games I can think of have "combats for combats".
(to name a few in BG3 : the minotaurs, the spiders+ettercap, the gnolls after the bridge, the mephits).

If I see enemy blocking my way and I am not in mood for fighting I may choose to turn around and go other direction. Or try different route. Or try to sneak. I also see what enemy I will be dealing with and how much enemies are there.
In random encounter game just suddenly throw in my face bunch of mobs and "have fun"... I usually dont frown

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Deirdre
The problem with "non-combat" encounters in E:R is that there are too few of them, but they are too often. Wnen you have dosen encounters with your party member falling into a trap with only difference in which patry member will be injured this time... Or it variation "party member X was bitten by scorpion". Its neither fun nor interresting to get the same encounter again and again and again... Its not good when you have random encounter, start reading its text and think "oh, this again".

Oh yes definitely. I totally share this feeling.

I haven't experienced much events that has led me to combats (which is what I was referring to), but I had many events and sometimes the same multiple times as you said (boars, poisonned water)... to the point that it becomes boring.
That's really something I don't like in many games and a reasons I think random encounters are so criticized in many cRPG : They happen way too often, especially when you roam on a worldmap.

On top of that especially in E:R, just as you said most of those events will hurt some characters which will forces the player to move back to camp and/or to wait and/or not to use the characters he wants to use. Consequences are too important.
I really don't understand why they have gone this way and those random events are really a common complain I saw on their discord server. They're still working on the game (itemization should be/have been reworked too) so I really hope they'll do something about exploration on the worldmap.

About combats I only remember a single ambush in woods that was as interresting as the other combats in the game. I just rewatched a playtrough I have recorded for 3 hours (speed +++ ofc) and I also avoided some with the "skill" you select at the beginning.
Anyway there are good ideas related to random encounters/events imo even if the overall "random events experience" becomes boring very fast.

Main problems I could note :
- Too much random events
- Some random events can occur way more than once
- Consequences on the gameplay are too important (loosing "real time" to recover/to walk back to camp, being unable to use some characters too often in a game that is already often restrictive about that too)

Don't know about "random combats" because it looks like I haven't experienced the same as you have.
But what is good about BG3 is that you don't "walk in real time" on a worldmap so we won't have the same problems, or at least it would occur way less often.

Originally Posted by Deirdre
If I see enemy blocking my way and I am not in mood for fighting I may choose to turn around and go other direction. Or try different route. Or try to sneak. I also see what enemy I will be dealing with and how much enemies are there.
In random encounter game just suddenly throw in my face bunch of mobs and "have fun"... I usually dont frown

I'm not sure what games you have in mind but I can't think about many cRPG in which you can really sneak or take a different route to avoid "trash" combats. Ofc I haven't tried them all^^

But whatever, random encounters (or random events) doesn't have to be exclusively trash combats imo.
As I said in a previous page, it could also be a merchant, a meeting with a peacefull outcome possible through dialog, someone asking for something,...

I'm only talking about random encounters/events when you long rest, but I really have a hard time to imagine that having, in exemple something like 5% chances to have a "trash" combat, 2% to meet a merchant and 3% to meet hostile npcs but with peacefull outcomes possible when you longrest at camp in the wild would be a major issue for a lot of players (reduced to 0% for potential combats if you're in a safe area, and, why not reduced to 0% for non hostile meetings and multiplied by, let's say 1.5 if you're in a dangerous one).

But I'm totally convinced it would add a lot of depth to the game.
- The world would feel more alive, dangerous and "real". At the moment it's totally static/frozen. It only react to the players actions.
- It would help to better reflect some basic rules of DnD (especially on action economy and classes balance, which is something the whole system is based on)
- Resting would become a real gameplay mechanic rather than a "no brain" button.
- It could eventually open the game to interresting mechanics (i.e camp defense, watch guard,...)
- It could also increase the feeling that we're really roaming a land rather than just "cleaning a map" (i.e because it could always be usefull to get back to the grove to rest safely. ofc it would require a specific "mini camp")

Ofc it should only be random once/long rest. The chain of 3+ random encounters you could have in the old games before sucessfuly resting didn't occur that much... But sometimes it was really boring too (even if it could led to challenging combats).

On difficulty, I'd say it should be balanced to be something like the bandit group in the crypt. Not so hard even if you're not prepared, but also not impossible to loose.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 30/03/22 07:25 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Ok. Look. At least give me more than 2 Short Rests so I can adventure longer in a single day.

I want Hit Dice. It's so much more strategic and limits Short Rest spamming. Once a character is out of Hit Dice, no more benefits for Short Rest. There you go.

As for Long Rest, Random Encounters, etc., it doesn't seem like enough people will be happy with some form of limiting it, so whatever. If I can at least Short Rest more, I will long rest less.

But for the love of all that is good, please at least also make it so you can't just Short Rest when enemies are so close. And PLEASE make it so dialogues don't require you to long rest. Dialogues during Short Rests too, or something.

Page 27 of 31 1 2 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Moderated by  Nicou 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5