Yeah I never said anything about timed quests.
When you said there should be "Pressure from the tadpole" -- to me, this implied that the main quest will have some kind of time restriction.
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.
I’m curious what these loopholes were. I know you never recovered all your HP per rest naturally. You had to expend spells or potions both of which are limited. So it was very common to dungeon crawl with less than max HP.
I can give you examples, but they're mostly moot on the basis that "a (good) GM won't let you do that" -- bear in mind that this is my point and that the problem is that BG3 does not have a GM
. What happens then is you have situations like in the original Baldur's Gate where you could essentially spam rest without consequence. Tell me what's stopping you from spamming rest in a regular D&D session? Concepts like it takes 8 hours are meaningless if time is meaningless. You need a GM to build consequences
You can’t stop munchkinism. People min-max no matter what. But encounters should require some level of tactics and strategy or it becomes so watered down, the gameplay becomes boring.
Munchkins are a meme in D&D because
they give headaches to GMs. No one complains about munchkins in a tactical board game like Warhammer. Tactics is how the game is played. If you want tactics, you need to lock these rules down.
D&D is not a system that's well designed for people who want to "defeat the GM" because that's not what D&D is about. If the GM wants to kill your party then your party will be dead. It's that simple.
D&D is collaborative and the GM will adapt to the players. In D&D, the tactics are not necessarily important, depending on the group. In many cases, you can expect a GM to reward for good roleplaying even when it's bad tactics. Any time a D&D session is "tactical", it's an illusion. The GM is actively deciding on the level of challenge and the GM is always actively making the decision not to kill your entire party.
When translated into a video game though, that changes: the level of challenge is relatively fixed and it is possible to "win" against the game.
Tactics are very good and I enjoy this but not when they detract from roleplaying. Especially considering that one of those tactics is save-scumming.
Personally the only satisfactory solution I could think of is to throw the entire current system in a trash bin where it belongs and replace it with a proper day/night cycle, with passing of time, etc, etc.
I don't know that your suggestion is super productive really.
Anyway, Pathfinder: Kingmaker's system was far from perfect. It could easily be spammed except for only some minor consequences coming from the timed quests
. And there was a bit too much freedom in choosing where to camp. I don't know how a day/night cycle substantially improved Pathfinder. I don't recall it doing anything really. Maybe someone would like to explain why it's so important in Pathfinder: Kingmaker?
The place where the player camps in EA is super evocative;
I like your thinking, but I still think it's worth trading this off for a more immersive and dynamic campsite.
The idea that you have a magical campsite that you carry with you everywhere is a little bit weird. I really think it's better to have the campsite adapt to the locations you're travelling to. This means the campsite will lose all of that unique charm, but I don't think we should be heading to camp in order to do more exploring
. Camp should be something different.