An idea regarding resting/stamina/health

[Hormalakh]

I'm not a big advocate of making everything optional: some mechanics should not be optional and also worked so that players find it fun. I don't think that this issue is a matter of gamers having wildly divergent opinions. It's a matter of not having found the better solution where all gamers can agree.

[Atreides]

Sounds like players that want to rest less frequently can still push on, but face the consequences. Some may enjoy that challenge. However they'll still be able to go all out in battles with full stamina/mana - sounds good to me.

[Jobby]

I think making too many features optional would cause a lot of balancing issues, the three game modes theyve suggested seem fair enough, personally i say let the save scummers save scum, those who want to fix the odds to make the game easier can do so and those who don't don't have to, I would never have gotten anywhere in cRPGs without the trial and error approach initally.

 

The Health/Stamina system seems to be a bit of a strange comprimise between the old school hardcore approach, i.e. BG2 core rules, and the imo wishy washy DA / NWN2 approach of health regeneration.

 

Despite this i think it will work very well, it allows for quite a deep level of tactical resource management, i'm assuming that non magical skills will require stamina, combine that with the possibility of armour weight reducing maximum stamina and then you have a lot of pros/cons to evaluate.

On top of that there is a level of realism to it that the DA / NWN2 system didnt have and to me felt very immersion breaking and "gamey", from what i've read on the Health/Stamina system it doesn't sound too "arcade like".

 

In regards to the resting mechanic i'm in agreement that resting almost anywhere should be allowed but with extra risk for more dangerous locations, save scummers will save scum theres no point in trying to prevent it, especially if preventing it limits what we as the player can choose to do, be it scuicidal or not.

They could flesh out the resting system and make it a bit deeper, for example select a char to stand guard, he won't recover health but he could prevent the party from being ambushed and possibly avoid combat altogther etc..

In fact as resting sounds like such an important mechanic i would kind of hope they have a slightly deeper system perhaps akin to realms of arkania but we shall see, either way i'm just delighted that havent opted for the sell out health regeneration approach that really ruined those games for me.

[Lephys]

Optional minigames are one thing (although even then pretty much everyone I know, including me, save scummed rather hard on the Witcher dice game), but RNG within a base game mechanic? Yea, people are going to save scum and simply preventing them from doing it is not a solution.

 

I didn't hear any objection to "that literally defeats the purpose of the minigame" there, so I'll assume my point was taken. Optional or not, if something's intended to be random, something's intended to be random. You may not like that you only win money SOMEtimes in the dice game, but you want to play the dice game. No, you just want guaranteed money. Why? Because you don't like the item system that limits what equipment you can by based on the amount of money you have? So, then you're going to complain because you have to reload 30 times just to accumulate enough illigimate gold to buy some awesome equipment?

 

The developers were kind enough to allow you save anywhere, even though they knew you could do stuff like that with it. And your response is "people wouldn't save scum if they didn't have to"? That's like saying "People wouldn't commit armed robbery if banks didn't lock their vaults and try to call the police whenever they came in to take all the money." I think the fact that people actually play all the way through games without doing it (and that people go through life without robbing banks) is proof enough that they didn't "have to."

 

The existence of randomization doesn't mandate that people play the game despite hating any and all unfavored outcomes, and therefore does not mandate save scumming. The misuse of randomization is the only case where your point applies. If the game let you create a character, then supplied you with a randomly-generated character, despite whatever you picked at character creation, then yes... you would essentially have to keep creating characters until you got the one you wanted. The difference is that you're SUPPOSED to be able to customize your character. You're not supposed to be able to customize your dice game outcome, or the challenges presented to you in an RPG story.

 

 

Back to the topic at hand, I'd like to point out that, as far as I know, Josh has yet to say what our ratio of health to stamina will be able to be. He only stated that the damage taken will apply to both in a ratio of 1:4 (at the current phase in design). So, that's something else to consider in this discussion. Perhaps that's how he meant it, but he has yet to specify.

[Dream]

Optional minigames are one thing (although even then pretty much everyone I know, including me, save scummed rather hard on the Witcher dice game), but RNG within a base game mechanic? Yea, people are going to save scum and simply preventing them from doing it is not a solution.

 

I didn't hear any objection to "that literally defeats the purpose of the minigame" there, so I'll assume my point was taken. Optional or not, if something's intended to be random, something's intended to be random. You may not like that you only win money SOMEtimes in the dice game, but you want to play the dice game. No, you just want guaranteed money. Why? Because you don't like the item system that limits what equipment you can by based on the amount of money you have? So, then you're going to complain because you have to reload 30 times just to accumulate enough illigimate gold to buy some awesome equipment?

 

The developers were kind enough to allow you save anywhere, even though they knew you could do stuff like that with it. And your response is "people wouldn't save scum if they didn't have to"? That's like saying "People wouldn't commit armed robbery if banks didn't lock their vaults and try to call the police whenever they came in to take all the money." I think the fact that people actually play all the way through games without doing it (and that people go through life without robbing banks) is proof enough that they didn't "have to."

 

The existence of randomization doesn't mandate that people play the game despite hating any and all unfavored outcomes, and therefore does not mandate save scumming. The misuse of randomization is the only case where your point applies. If the game let you create a character, then supplied you with a randomly-generated character, despite whatever you picked at character creation, then yes... you would essentially have to keep creating characters until you got the one you wanted. The difference is that you're SUPPOSED to be able to customize your character. You're not supposed to be able to customize your dice game outcome, or the challenges presented to you in an RPG story.

 

 

Back to the topic at hand, I'd like to point out that, as far as I know, Josh has yet to say what our ratio of health to stamina will be able to be. He only stated that the damage taken will apply to both in a ratio of 1:4 (at the current phase in design). So, that's something else to consider in this discussion. Perhaps that's how he meant it, but he has yet to specify.

 

You do realize that a bank robbery affects other people and a single player affects.... you; it's not just rules, but morals and not being an **** that stops people from robbing banks (although it's possible you're a terrible person and don't understand that, in which case my bad). Also the developers weren't "kind enough to allow us to save anywhere," they allowed it because games like the Witcher would be ****ing awful with checkpoints.

 

As for RNG: yea, doesn't mandate save scumming, but some people can't stand that **** and for them it's a solution to something that would otherwise heavily hamper their enjoyment of the product (and the developers clearly don't disagree since they've "allowed" it to occur for, well, ever). Why, exactly, is another player's enjoyment of a game (due to playing it the "wrong" way) such a bother to you that you wish to ban all playstyles except yours?

 

As an aside each npc in that dice game had a set amount of cash so the only thing save scumming really did was save you 10 - 15 minutes before you drained each player (and also prevent the rage inducing FUUUU when the game decided to **** with you). Considering there was barely any skill to the game (and the fact it was rigged against the player) the only thing people were bypassing was a time sink.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Dream

[Hormalakh]

I really don't see what your comments have to do with rests and health/stamina, Dream.

[Dream]

I really don't see what your comments have to do with rests and health/stamina, Dream.

 

That's cute. I didn't realize I was talking to myself; I guess lephys is a figment of my imagination.

[Pipyui]

It seems I may be the only one, but I wouldn't mind particularly if resting was limited to certain areas. I wouldn't be angry if my party could only rest in the wilderness for example, and not in interior spaces or otherwise dangerous territory (and not "I'll just back up a few yards and try resting again" territory). Perhaps I can rest in such areas, but at significantly higher risk of ambush.

 

Also, maybe my party could be limited in how many camping packs it can carry. That way I'd only be able to strike camp so many times before being forced to visit a town and buy more (it's not like I wouldn't be visiting a town often enough anyway to sell loot). Sure it's limiting, but it feels to me like a gameplay mechanic that can limit how a player rests without slapping them in the face with not being able to. It makes sense to me that I might not be able to strike camp somewhere because I've run dry on the necessary resources to do so.

In this case I have to decide for myself when it's appropriate to consume a camp pack for some much-needed health and rest. If I run into a tough brigand and die a few times (not playing ironman), maybe I'll bite the bullet and strike camp to heal before trying again, but thus limiting futher how many more times I can do such before having to revist a town or settlement to resupply.

Then you could make inn rooms cheaper than a camp pack (not necessarily too realistic, but practical), and make them almost somewhat usefull. Heck, maybe inns could even grant me a "well rested" stamina bonus.

[Lephys]

I really don't see what your comments have to do with rests and health/stamina, Dream.

 

I think save-scumming related to resting, health, and stamina. Then we got a little too focused on it. Sorry about that. If someone takes an exit onto a frontage road in a discussion, I tend to follow them and ride parallel until we eventually get back onto the highway. 8P

 

 

That's cute. I didn't realize I was talking to myself; I guess lephys is a figment of my imagination.

 

That master's in Fictitious Existence was TOTALLY worth all those loans! 8D

 

My point, Dream, was only that people who decide to steal money from banks THINK it should be easier to get to, or think they have the right to get it, just because they're capable of doing so. The morality of it or the number of people it affects is not even relevant. What's relevant is that the only way to "not allow" people to steal money from banks is to prevent anyone from accessing the money in banks. But, since people need to be able to use banks to deposit and withdraw money (or banks exist for no reason), they have to allow people who want to go through the trouble of avoiding the "time sink" that is actually earning their money to be capable of getting to the money and stealing it. Much in the same way that the ONLY reason anyone can even save scum is that the developers of games allow you to save anywhere, PURELY because not being able to save anywhere sucks worse for many other reasons. No developer sat down and thought "You know... these saving checkpoints REALLY cause problems for people who view entire game systems as time sinks and therefore wish to circumvent them... they keep having to play through 30 minutes at a time to bypass the entire point of that dice game which they hate the very idea of but still want the reward from... we should do something about that to make it easier."

 

Annnnd that relates to health and resting because the proposed resting limitations are there for a reason, because if you're against limitation in general (namely because it allows the possibility of failure and longer durations/greater numbers of attempts for completing tasks), you're essentially against challenge. Save-scumming is taking the easier way purely because it's easier.

 

If people wanna do it, that's fine. I'm not disputing the fact that lots of people want to do that and consider lots of things to simply be slowing them down from getting their reward or desired outcome. But it's one thing to accept that and call it what it is, and another thing entirely to blame the very idea of resting limitations and the availability of anytime-saving as the purely detrimental cause of the allegedly mandatory status of save scumming.

 

I'm not about to try to rationally explain why I hate spiders, or why I like the color blue more than other colors. I'm going to pick blue things and stay away from spiders, but there's no reason for me to try to debate whether or not other people should, or say that something is logically causing me to do so.

[Karkarov]

Good luck with that (convincing people games should be tough and sometimes frustrating by design). In any case, the ideas I brought forth do increase tactical decision making when it comes to combat, I believe and still adds to the flavor of the combat within the game. Wouldn't you agree?

As far as resting goes absolutely not. With a percentage chance that insanely high I would simply never bother resting and would just take the 5+ minutes to walk back to town and sleep at the inn. No matter what though I am still left with either a frustrating waste of time or a frustrating encounter rate that makes it near impossible to recover enough to make real progress.

 

Good design does challenge the player, but it never, ever, frustrates the player. Frustration and challenge are not the same thing. Hence why I liked Demon's Souls more than last years Dark Souls. It had far fewer moments that felt down right cheap and rarely did I ever feel like I died to something other than a mistake or bad play. I died many times in Dark Souls to bad mechanics and or cheap design. Nothing like fighting an enemy so tall your lock on drops off when they stand up, which results in your already input attack going in the totally wrong direction, which leaves your back completely open to a massive counter, which ultimately leaves you dead. I wish I could say it only happened once.

 

Truthfully there is another game that had an alternate approach to healing that came out this year called Dragon's Dogma. In it you had your hp and that was that, stamina was there too but it was used for executing special moves. What was interesting about HP was as you took damage you took what became "penalty" damage. The more you got hit, the more damage you took, the lower your max HP would become. You had casters that could heal you but they could not heal you past the "penalty" damage cap. To get past that you had to actually rest with an inn keeper or use healing items. Fortunately the game also had an encumbrance system which could prevent you from just carrying a metric ton of healing items, but I think it would have been even better if they had just taken it a step further and made an inn rest required to clear the "penalty".

[Hormalakh]

If the goal is to limit resting to being practically impossible out in the woods and dungeons and making the percentage high, the fact that you want to go back to town proves that this would be a feasible answer. While you might think the risks are too high, there will be others who don't and will rest out in the woods. This is much better than forcing a decision by saying "absolutely not!"

 

As to actual numbers and the balance between "unacceptable frustration" and "acceptable frustration" we can do that by changing the encounter possibility percentages. That's an easy fix.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Dream]

That master's in Fictitious Existence was TOTALLY worth all those loans! 8D

 

My point, Dream, was only that people who decide to steal money from banks THINK it should be easier to get to, or think they have the right to get it, just because they're capable of doing so. The morality of it or the number of people it affects is not even relevant. What's relevant is that the only way to "not allow" people to steal money from banks is to prevent anyone from accessing the money in banks. But, since people need to be able to use banks to deposit and withdraw money (or banks exist for no reason), they have to allow people who want to go through the trouble of avoiding the "time sink" that is actually earning their money to be capable of getting to the money and stealing it. Much in the same way that the ONLY reason anyone can even save scum is that the developers of games allow you to save anywhere, PURELY because not being able to save anywhere sucks worse for many other reasons. No developer sat down and thought "You know... these saving checkpoints REALLY cause problems for people who view entire game systems as time sinks and therefore wish to circumvent them... they keep having to play through 30 minutes at a time to bypass the entire point of that dice game which they hate the very idea of but still want the reward from... we should do something about that to make it easier."

 

Annnnd that relates to health and resting because the proposed resting limitations are there for a reason, because if you're against limitation in general (namely because it allows the possibility of failure and longer durations/greater numbers of attempts for completing tasks), you're essentially against challenge. Save-scumming is taking the easier way purely because it's easier.

 

If people wanna do it, that's fine. I'm not disputing the fact that lots of people want to do that and consider lots of things to simply be slowing them down from getting their reward or desired outcome. But it's one thing to accept that and call it what it is, and another thing entirely to blame the very idea of resting limitations and the availability of anytime-saving as the purely detrimental cause of the allegedly mandatory status of save scumming.

 

I'm not about to try to rationally explain why I hate spiders, or why I like the color blue more than other colors. I'm going to pick blue things and stay away from spiders, but there's no reason for me to try to debate whether or not other people should, or say that something is logically causing me to do so.

 

I'll give you that save scumming (and other "degenerate" forms of gameplay) makes it easier (why else would people do it), but I think there are better ways to make a game challenging than by simply limiting the player can do.

 

Edit: Karkarov said it very well

 

Good design does challenge the player, but it never, ever, frustrates the player. Frustration and challenge are not the same thing.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Dream

[Karkarov]

As to actual numbers and the balance between "unacceptable frustration" and "acceptable frustration" we can do that by changing the encounter possibility percentages. That's an easy fix.

Thanks for saying that. Because it ties in perfectly to this very legitimate comment...

 

I'll give you that save scumming (and other "degenerate" forms of gameplay) makes it easier (why else would people do it), but I think there are better ways to make a game challenging than by simply limiting the player can do.

Meaning that your system of rest anywhere but risk a random encounter will always fail over all. Why? Because...

 

#1: The encounter rate is so high it is basically going to happen so no one bothers trying and loses time as I already said.... Or

#2: The encounter rate is so low it may as well not even be there and getting ambushed is a fluke flash in the pan.... Or

#3: The encounter rate is perfect but some (if not most) players still save scum it (especially considering the potential no exp for combat kills) on the off chance they do get ambushed

 

Simply put, designing hand placed and pre planned "safe spots" to rest is a better option. It gives the player a goal to push for if they know one is near. Gives them a good idea of where they should probably stop to take stock and consider heading back to town instead of moving on. It also creates a clear sign post for how much progress you have made in an area. Lastly it does what Dream said good game design should do (and he is right) eliminate a possible cause of save scumming by removing your reason for doing it. It is safe to rest so there is no fear of ambush so no need to try to game the system. Getting there might be tough though and you had to work your way to it.

 

Another alternative with many of the same perks but being slightly more free form would be to allow for full healing no matter what. In other words you "might" get ambushed, but even if you are your rest still took effect and you start that ambush at full health. People might still save scum this but most players would probably take it in stride now since they got the benefit of resting regardless of the ambush. After all the game should not require a rest after every fight by design so even though I may take some damage in the ambush it should still be perfectly manageable.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Karkarov

[Lephys]

I'll give you that save scumming (and other "degenerate" forms of gameplay) makes it easier (why else would people do it), but I think there are better ways to make a game challenging than by simply limiting the player can do.

 

Edit: Karkarov said it very well

 

Good design does challenge the player, but it never, ever, frustrates the player. Frustration and challenge are not the same thing.

 

Thank you for plucking an observable fact about save-scumming completely out of the rest of the conversation, then "giving me" that fact -- as if I hand-crafted it in my fact workshop rather than simply observed it -- whilst simultaneously pointing out just how blatantly true it is, as if I suggested my noticing it was a significant accomplishment. That was very kind of you.

 

And yes, Karkarov did, indeed, say it very well. Which is why you obviously don't implement limitations completely at random and fail to test and balance them. You make sure they aren't overly frustrating. However, a challenge, by definition, is an action performed within AT LEAST ONE limitation. Otherwise existing would be a challenge. And limitations, by their very nature, prevent you from doing certain things.

 

Thus far, pretty much any argument I've seen from you has been "This is a limitation, and therefore is bad because it produces the negative effect of not-letting you do something." Obviously, all challenges aren't stupid and bad. So, there MUST be another reason than "because it limits the player" for something to be a bad idea.

 

This isn't me trying to beat you at forums. I couldn't care less whose post is better. This is myself and various others trying to discuss the pros and cons of a proposed system and you constantly jumping in with "I don't like the cons, and therefore the pros don't exist." You're not even reasonably suggesting that the cons outweigh the pros. You're simply telling everyone that every single crumb of reason they're pointing out is, in fact, complete nonsense, and that you're correct because of your opinion.

 

Disagreement isn't detrimental to a discussion. In some ways, it's actually an important part of discussion. But, disregarding everything that doesn't support your opinion doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

[Dream]

And yes, Karkarov did, indeed, say it very well. Which is why you obviously don't implement limitations completely at random and fail to test and balance them. You make sure they aren't overly frustrating. However, a challenge, by definition, is an action performed within AT LEAST ONE limitation. Otherwise existing would be a challenge. And limitations, by their very nature, prevent you from doing certain things.

 

Thus far, pretty much any argument I've seen from you has been "This is a limitation, and therefore is bad because it produces the negative effect of not-letting you do something." Obviously, all challenges aren't stupid and bad. So, there MUST be another reason than "because it limits the player" for something to be a bad idea.

 

Except this conversation was never about limitations in general, but about "fixing" save scumming. My position has been that you can't fix save scumming by simply removing the ability to do it since all that does is frustrate the player. The proper way to fix the issue to design a system wherein the player doesn't feel the need to save scum (Karkarov proposed a few solutions; there are others as well). But hey, If you want to talk about limitations in general then I guess we could do that, but that'd likely derail the thread even more.

 

Also you seem to be a bit mad bro, may I suggest relaxing and not taking internet discussions so seriously?

[Lephys]

Simply put, designing hand placed and pre planned "safe spots" to rest is a better option. It gives the player a goal to push for if they know one is near. Gives them a good idea of where they should probably stop to take stock and consider heading back to town instead of moving on. It also creates a clear sign post for how much progress you have made in an area. Lastly it does what Dream said good game design should do (and he is right) eliminate a possible cause of save scumming by removing your reason for doing it. It is safe to rest so there is no fear of ambush so no need to try to game the system. Getting there might be tough though and you had to work your way to it.

 

Another alternative with many of the same perks but being slightly more free form would be to allow for full healing no matter what. In other words you "might" get ambushed, but even if you are your rest still took effect and you start that ambush at full health. People might still save scum this but most players would probably take it in stride now since they got the benefit of resting regardless of the ambush. After all the game should not require a rest after every fight by design so even though I may take some damage in the ambush it should still be perfectly manageable.

 

You make a very good example. Obviously certain people are still gonna save-scum, purely because they want to circumvent the ambushes. But, the point isn't to make sure no one can do so, and the only solution would be to remove any chance whatsoever from the game (including evasion, card/dice gambling, etc.), even when it would provide some manner of benefit and enhance the experience for the players not trying to circumvent it.

 

That's exactly why I don't really see why those who are pro-save-scum are worried about the health/stamina/resting system. If you don't want to deal with the span between safe spots, you can still save anywhere you want and retry fights with enemy location/group-makeup data to ensure that you keep plenty of health to make it to the next safe spot.

 

Acknowledging that some people are always going to save-scum doesn't necessarily mean catering to the save-scummers. If the sheer possibility of having to return to a previous rest spot to regain health is providing a valid reason to save-scum, then the existence of health in any form (and thus the possibility of dying and having to re-fight the battle) is as well.

[Tanos]

As to actual numbers and the balance between "unacceptable frustration" and "acceptable frustration" we can do that by changing the encounter possibility percentages. That's an easy fix.

Thanks for saying that. Because it ties in perfectly to this very legitimate comment...

 

I'll give you that save scumming (and other "degenerate" forms of gameplay) makes it easier (why else would people do it), but I think there are better ways to make a game challenging than by simply limiting the player can do.

Meaning that your system of rest anywhere but risk a random encounter will always fail over all. Why? Because...

 

#1: The encounter rate is so high it is basically going to happen so no one bothers trying and loses time as I already said.... Or

#2: The encounter rate is so low it may as well not even be there and getting ambushed is a fluke flash in the pan.... Or

#3: The encounter rate is perfect but some (if not most) players still save scum it (especially considering the potential no exp for combat kills) on the off chance they do get ambushed

 

Simply put, designing hand placed and pre planned "safe spots" to rest is a better option. It gives the player a goal to push for if they know one is near. Gives them a good idea of where they should probably stop to take stock and consider heading back to town instead of moving on. It also creates a clear sign post for how much progress you have made in an area. Lastly it does what Dream said good game design should do (and he is right) eliminate a possible cause of save scumming by removing your reason for doing it. It is safe to rest so there is no fear of ambush so no need to try to game the system. Getting there might be tough though and you had to work your way to it.

 

Another alternative with many of the same perks but being slightly more free form would be to allow for full healing no matter what. In other words you "might" get ambushed, but even if you are your rest still took effect and you start that ambush at full health. People might still save scum this but most players would probably take it in stride now since they got the benefit of resting regardless of the ambush. After all the game should not require a rest after every fight by design so even though I may take some damage in the ambush it should still be perfectly manageable.

 

Although your points are perfectly valid and informative as to why you dont like chance encounters, your entire argument are based on the assumption that everyone enjoy games the way you do.

Different people may enjoy the very same things for different reasons, hence why there are modes in games such as ironman or expertmode.

I personally enjoy and consider resting a strategic element when there are risk of ambush and playing on ironman modes in games (wether the game has ironman mode or i "create" it myself by simply not returning to an old save if i die). Should i press on, risk sleeping(with risk of numerus ambushes) or try to make it for a village or city?

 

I also consider your idea of "safe spots" to be very immersion breaking. If i rest in an area with frequent bandit activity, should there not be a risk of detection?

is it reasonable that every dungeon filled with monsters have safespots with no chance of encountering them while being in the same spot for 8 hours? I can see you point from a strict gameplaying perspective for those that enjoy frequent combat and a very high pacing when playing games. Yet from a roleplaying perspective i consider you suggestion to be an abomination:-P

I dont mind if there is a toggle that grants safespots for those that enjoy playing the way you do however.

 

My thoughts.

 

Edit: Spelling

Edited December 12, 2012 by Tanos

[ReyVagabond]

I have posted this many times but this is what i think. about the topic.

 

Health and stamina: Personaly i want a system where you have low health and high stamina, and every action you take counsumes that stamina, defending aka beeing ataked consumes stamina how much depends on the what you are defending against, a mages firaball is hard to dodge so consumes grate amount of stamina, a goblin hachet not as much. attacking consumes Stamina how much depends on your the weapon, skill, and other factors like doing a power blow, or entering a relentles stance where you atack faster losing presition.

With Armor that reduces damage.

So we end up, with a Defence/Ofence Where you always consume stamina but most of the time HP will not be consumed. and once it does its fairly lethal.

 

also, because this system is Stamina centered you need to recover it some what quicly, but the more time it pases or using specific skills your stamina bar is lowerd by exaution.

 

So the more time it pases since the last rest the party can only fight shorter fights because they have less stamina to fight, Defend cast magic, etc.

 

 

Rest: Personaly i want to be able to camp is most open spaces and cleared dungeons, to rest you need to use/consume resourses like food, water, bedrolls, tents, etc.

In the "camp" the game could change to a micromanage screen where you can chose diferent Jobs for the party like Watch for enemies, Gather materials ( wood, herbs, metals, etc), heal wounds like i stated the system is about not geting hit at all, with a small HP most injuries are Lethat (not realy) but this is the time to apply those healing kits and what not to keep the party going fowar, and what ever you feel that the party could to while camping.

In towns When you rent a room you enter a similar screen where you can send you party around town to buy items, steal stuff, gather intel, and what ever you feel like the party could do in a town before hiting the sack.

 

and thats it. hope you dont hate it! its my opinion, im open for discusing it!