Without a day and night cycle I doubt i'd be more immersed. In addition I doubt bg3 is a relaxing happy adventure. Storywise their is suppose to be pressure from the tadpole.
I call on my allies for support!
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Originally Posted by Ayvah
"timed quests" Stick around. I'll be looking for your support when we need to disagree with someone suggesting this.
Aishaddai wants the main quest to be timed. Help me!
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Roleplaywise I wouldn't trust the cooking, for example. I think the pace storywise should remain relatively fast. Most of the things you want sound like fluff that will slow things down.
So why camp at all then? If you're fighting side-by-side with someone and sleeping beside someone, I'd have to imagine there's some bare minimum level of trust there. If you can't expect you to cook your food (while you watch them) then how can you expect them to have your back when it matters?
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
Personally I like fluff. I would have like the "adventuring" party. I just don't think bg3 is like that. At least in Act 1, I think the tone is very cut throat. I don't think you really get companions becoming more like friends till probably act 2. Like some things have to hit the fan first.
You don't need to be friends to have a good time.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
In old school, you rarely were at full strength. As a party, you had to decide whether to face the monsters head on or perhaps just sneak by. Or even negotiate. There was no true benefit to kill every encounter. But such nuance is hard to program into a game. It's best left to a DM. But I do find more satisfaction of defeating an encounter with less than stellar resources. It makes the victory that much more sweeter.
Clearly you've never played D&D with a munchkin. Old school D&D had plenty of loopholes that could be abused, and resting was one of them. See Icelyn's comment below:
Originally Posted by Icelyn
Personally, I don't care if people camp anywhere they want, so I am not worried about stopping them from doing so. I think the original BG games let you do so, with only maybe the possibility of some trash mobs attacking? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that.
It was (and still is) up to GMs to manage this if the players start trying to exploit this mechanic. It is now Larian's burden to ensure that the mechanics of the game encourage players to play the game in a way that promotes immersion.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
It's meant to be a tactical decision. You could also have the cleric use healing spells. But that costs resources. That's what D&D is essentially. Managing limited resources. Do you max out HP but use up spell slots? Do you cast a fireball now and hope you don't need it in the next encounter?
First, to clarify: I will use the terms tactics to refer to "in battle", and strategy as "outside battle".
I don't like the idea of having to get through battle "without a scratch". I like the tactical stakes being a bit higher. Party Wipe should be an ongoing threat.
The big problem for me with expecting too much strategic planning and encouraging me to min/max in the metagame is that this is essentially encouraging me to embrace my inner munchkin. When that happens, I break games. I will find loopholes, and every one of them will be thoroughly exploited, immersion and roleplaying be damned. BG3 doesn't have any GM who can stop me.
The only hope BG3 has is if they limit my munchkin-ness to the tactical level, and allow me to try roleplaying the strategic level without obsessing about the details. Then they might be able to balance things properly enough that it won't be easy to break the tactics in BG3.
(DOS2 has plenty of other exploits, but these are just the ones that are ridiculously absurd.)
I think the original BG games let you do so, with only maybe the possibility of some trash mobs attacking? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that.
