Limiting rest areas

[Gfted1]

What is this health regeneration / recovery? From what Ive read Health can ONLY be replenished by sleeping. Is there a developer post to the contrary or is this just speculation?

[Lephys]

I mean, the inventory is limitless, the abilities mostly per-encounter, stamina you can recover (regenerates out of combat I guess?)...

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I wasn't aware we had any official idea what portion of abilities would be per-encounter, beyond "some." So, that might be a little misleading to random forum-goers.

[Frenetic Pony]

 

Word going on sounds great in principle, but in practice players are amazingly hostile to time limits and need to rush.

 

I know the Fallout 1 time limit wasn't anything like severe, but still lead to players abandoning or not even trying out the game.

 

Their loss.

 

I personally find it rediockous that poeple take on 10 quests at once, ignore them, and then complain when they fail.

Their own fault, but it's not like they'll ever admit it.

 

 

Never tell a player they are "playing the wrong way" like that. Ever.

 

The goal is to make sure as many people can have fun as is reasonable, not to punish the player unduly for the way in which they wanted to have fun but the game wouldn't let them. I absolutely HATE that in games. One of the ways in which Halo has gone downhill since the first one is the invisible walls that block vehicles from exiting their designated area. Getting a warthog into a corridor section of Halo 1, just to run down every enemy inside with abandon, was some of the most fun you could have in that in game when replaying it.

 

A small tick up in a few peoples immersion is definitely not worth a major section of players not having fun at all.

[Lephys]

 

Their loss.

 

I personally find it rediockous that poeple take on 10 quests at once, ignore them, and then complain when they fail.

Their own fault, but it's not like they'll ever admit it.

 

Never tell a player they are "playing the wrong way" like that. Ever.

 

I've gotta agree with Trashman. I mean, obviously the game should be properly designed so it's not some baffling chore to try and figure out what quests you have time for and what quests you don't. But, if the game presents it clearly, and makes it known that you have a limitation, then accepting that limitation and subsequently complaining about it after-the-fact is pretty silly.

 

The fact remains that there are wrong ways to play a game. If you fire up a First-Person-Shooter and just run around the levels, intentionally not-firing any of your weapons, ever, or using any grenades or your knife or anything, then you're quite literally playing the game wrong. The game involves getting as many kill-points as you can, and you're not even attempting to get any value of kill points, much less a high value. So, yes, if you said "This is stupid! I should be able to win with what I'm doing!", I would say "Negatory, Ghost Rider. You shouldn't."

Edited April 26, 2013 by Lephys

[JFSOCC]

Rest anywhere, but camping spots have benefits which make resting actually useful.

 

And I'll reiterate: Gamify recovery.

 

If you have to set up camp, set a watch schedule (or not), choose defences. choose the size of the fire (might attract foes) then during the night you'd have sick members vomit up their sick, put on salves to aid wound recovery etc. Camp is also a good time for Companion character development. So if you set two people on the same watch you might get some interesting banter.

 

And it makes resting not boring but part of the experience. Gather wood, light fire. clear perimeter. (maybe some resting areas need clearing first?) put tent up (or sleep on the bedroll) Place alarm trap (what distance from the camp? all along the perimeter, or just the most likely approach?) , place caltrops(idem). And all these things have different costs benefits to the resting effects. If you only have one healthy person and the rest needs to recover, that is going to be one long watch for him.

What food do you prepare and how. (supplies or local)

 

It's also an idea to have campfire tales. A good way to get lore and a sense of teambuilding. Different companions have different tales to share. High speech options and you might tell a few cool ones yourself. Some resting areas might have interesting night-time experiences. Wisps, soft music in the distance. Characters randomly wandering off and getting lost. Strangers walking into camp rambling.

 

Just do something with it. don't make it press button here, minus x damage, cripple cured. that's boring, that also encourages grinding because it's fast and easily repeatable.

[SymbolicFrank]

Most games use accelerated time: walk around for 15 minutes and a whole day has passed and you're fatigued. That requires sleeping often. Then, if you have a very limited amount of spells that only replenish after 8 hours of sleep, you are more or less required to sleep at least every 15 minutes.

 

But resting isn't the same as sleeping. Just sitting down for a while replenishes your stamina. And even if you sit around a fire, you can still keep watch while resting. So, if your spells require stamina instead of sleeping and there is much less time compression, there is no need to sleep every 15 minutes.

 

BG2 had an interesting mechanic on sleeping: it automatically cast all healing spells you still had, in a smart way. And if spells require stamina, you can automatically have that spell cast again when you have recovered enough. So, you just rest (no sleeping), without cheesy "healing while sleeping". You just sit down until you have recovered your stamina and the amount required to cast the healing spells.

 

And you get fatigued, so your maximum stamina decreases slowly over time until you can sleep in a bed. Sleeping at a campsite or such can be done in that it increases your maximum stamina, but not all the way.

[TrashMan]

 

 

Their loss.

 

I personally find it rediockous that poeple take on 10 quests at once, ignore them, and then complain when they fail.

Their own fault, but it's not like they'll ever admit it.

 

 

Never tell a player they are "playing the wrong way" like that. Ever.

 

They are playing the wrong way. PERIOD.

 

Trying to ignore the logical consequences of their actions is not a sound way to play, nor is it a playstyle that should be encouraged OR supported.

 

RPGs are supposed to thrust one into a living, breathing world. Which means, acting like that world is real and your character demonstrating ownership of some basic ammount of grey matter.

 

NOT acting like a spoiled brat who wants to go do whatever he feels like and then complain whenever things don't go how he wants, despite it being very much common sense they would.

 

 

 

The goal is to make sure as many people can have fun as is reasonable, not to punish the player unduly for the way in which they wanted to have fun but the game wouldn't let them. I absolutely HATE that in games.

 

"Do whatever you want without any conseqence" is for some other types of games. Maybe.

 

You want to go slaughter children in the game because youre bored? You then want to complain that the game is harsh for the town guards going hostile?

 

 

How about this? I want to play in a completley non-intuitive way. I want for enemy stabbing me to heal me, I want to kill dragons with my bare fists and I want to solve quests by ignorign them completely. If I can't get that than you're a mean developer who doesn't want me to have FUN!

 

 

 

 

A small tick up in a few peoples immersion is definitely not worth a major section of players not having fun at all.

 

If you're having fun breaking character and the world, then I'd say you're playing the wrong types of games.

 

There are games exactly for that, and those fall under hack-and-slash and similar categories.

 

Also, a "small tick" "few"?

Yeah, did the thought ever occur to you that maybe that kind of bulls*** system completely ruins MY f.u.n?

[Hormalakh]

frankly, i believe that if a system takes no decision-making, then it is a failed system in a game.

 

this is how bg2's sleep mechanic/system worked. it had no decision-making whatsoever. you could rest anywhere, anytime, without any sort of negatives.

 

i do not want the same thing happening in PE. limiting the rest areas to only specific areas is a step in the right direction, but once again , if there are no pros/cons to making a decision between resting and not resting, then it is a failed/broken system.

 

if resting requires time, then time should matter.

if resting requires resources, then the resources should matter.

if having to move to a certain place to rest is implemented, then it shouldn't just become a thoughtless "let's head back to camp". monsters should respawn, enemies should attack at camp, etc.

 

if you can't acheieve a certain goal within a certain set limit (defeat the enemies in a dungeon), you should be given a failure state. some failure states are harsh (like death, game over) some failure states are "soft" (retry mission, start again from checkpoint) which just mean that you have to try again from a setpoint. resting should not become a mechanic for which players refer to when they fail a particular goal to make it easier. the difficulty slider is what that is for. resting, if it becomes a game mechanic, should be implemented in a way where you cannot refer to it to decrease your difficulty. a battle of attrition and returning to rest is ultimately that.

 

this is what i do not want. i am in agreement with those here who basically said that if it's going to be half-assed, then don't implement it at all.

[SymbolicFrank]

Hormalakh, do you think your party should get some sleep while resting? Even if it's only one hour? Do you want guards? How and when are you going to rotate them? Do you keep track of their fatigue? What difference are they going to make when the alarm is sounded?

 

They could get the initiative, and/or make the difference between only facing a few scouts, and being completely surrounded with enemies.

 

 

And why do spells only refresh after a good nights rest?

 

Why wouldn't a level 20 wizard be able to cast the magic missile spell just about any time? He/she probably casted it about a thousand times, so it's just as much a reflex as the fighter swinging his sword.

 

Now, your cleric might not be so lucky, as his/her God might refuse to honor the request. But that's probably not what players want.

 

Then again, I could understand "healing while resting" if the wound is properly bandaged, and the right medicines (herbs?) applied. So, you would have a "heal" skill, that only works if you rested afterwards. Slowly.

 

 

EDIT: Considering that things like swords and fireballs are the main offensive weapons, do you want to keep track of the limbs still attached and not burned to a crisp?

Edited April 29, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[Lephys]

And why do spells only refresh after a good nights rest?

 

Why wouldn't a level 20 wizard be able to cast the magic missile spell just about any time? He/she probably casted it about a thousand times, so it's just as much a reflex as the fighter swinging his sword.

It's mental fatigue. Manipulating the forces required into the desired spell is generally lored as requiring a great deal of non-physical effort.

 

Just as you can get very tired from reading an encyclopedia for 10 hours straight (even if you didn't do anything physically taxing that day) AND can get quite tired from pulling weeds in a field for 8 hours in a day, so can you get as tired performing sword maneuvers as you can casting spells all day in a fantasy world. That's the idea, at least. And it tends to make sense. *shrug*

 

Also, as for your "wouldn't the level 20 Wizard be a BAMF?" point, P:E will actually represent this exactly as you say, as progressing into higher levels of magic-usery will cause your lower-tier spells to start refreshing per-encounter instead of per-day(rest). So... yes.

[thenez]

I agree that resting should be limited. One thing I didn't like from nwn and nwn2 was how resting only took a couple seconds and you could do it anytime, immediately recover all health and spells, really diminished the difficulty of the game.

 

What I would like to see is a mix of some of the stuff that's already been suggested: limit resting to only specific areas when in dungeons (no matter how many times), unlimited resting while outside, and some injuries can only be healed by visiting a doctor or healer.

[Bradr]

Let the player rest whenever, wherever they want.  Don't artificially limit it.  Just make penalties, such as random encounters.  

 

If a player wants to rest in the middle of the street in the most dangerous slum of the city, fine.  Just make sure the chance of a random encounter is 90% or more, depending on PC's skill set and reputation.

 

If a player wants to rest in a dungeon, but has the wherewithal to find a defensible room, barricades the doors, and sets a sentry, don't penalize them for wanting to rest in that spot.  And make sure that if there is an encounter that the player's foresight gives them benefits.

 

Once again, artificial limits are bad.  There is nothing natural about having campfire save spots in games, so why does it make sense to have campfire rest spots?  There is nothing natural about saying that "You can only rest once today, you have used up your allotment."  If anything is going to be imposed, I might be OK with resources, such as food and water being needed.  But otherwise, let the players do what they want.  If the more hardcore players our there don't like the choice of resting anywhere, then don't.  Role play it guys.  Self impose yourself to only sleep in town.  Or in your house.  Or whatever makes your game the way you want it to be.

 

And lastly, resting provides more activities, which provides more opportunity for role play.  By resting anywhere, you provide the opportunity for more encounters, random events, choices, and consequences for the player.  And the more of that, the better.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Bradr

[Kjaamor]

I'm intrigued by the idea of limited resting in a pcRPG title, because I think there is a potential for it to work extremely well.

 

I enjoyed the jrpg model as it worked in FFVI, FFVII and particularly FFIX. Limited resting areas, expensive potions required to regain mp, but your mages were extremely powerful.

 

On the plus side, it made for some excellent sequences where you really had to decide how best to use your resources, but if things looked tough or you were struggling, you could always go back and grind up the gil for some extra Ethers/Tents. On the downside, it could make for some nasty reloads and backtracking to the world map/town if you wandered into an area unprepared. Overall, I was very impressed with it, and most disappointed when they changed the mechanic (and most of the combat) in FFX to automatically renewing health at save points. In actual fact FFX was really the beginning of the end for the FFs, and although I love that game for its characters and story, the combat as a whole was the first of many steps backwards.

 

...but I ramble about what my IE-loving friend would term 'Japanese Muck'.

 

I think if the limited rest system is to be used, and I would provisionally support it, I think it needs to be very carefully planned and its one of the many systems that I think should be optional, for all it offers. The system as I knew it was dependant upon having specific save points (which the IE games don't have), the ability to grind up stockpiles of necessary items (which the IE games rarely had), an mp as opposed to spell-used system, and - probably most crucially - a very linear approach to areas. I wouldn't be in favour of enforcing any of the above on P:E.

 

What I would say, is that if limited resting is used (and even if it isn't), then camp sites should absolutely be a place for a main/sub-quest related party interaction. If that stuff is going to occur, and I sincerely hope that it is, then there is the place for it. It would be ideal if things could be scripted out to involve several people speaking together rather than just one-on-one, but perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself there.

 

I think the system could work, I'll certainly play it that way if it is implemented, but I think that the P:E I'm envisaging may not be the absolute best place for it.

[Nonek]

Just as a matter of curiosity Ms Kjaamor, what is your impression of what Eternity will be?

[rjshae]

I agree that resting should be limited. One thing I didn't like from nwn and nwn2 was how resting only took a couple seconds and you could do it anytime, immediately recover all health and spells, really diminished the difficulty of the game.

 

What I would like to see is a mix of some of the stuff that's already been suggested: limit resting to only specific areas when in dungeons (no matter how many times), unlimited resting while outside, and some injuries can only be healed by visiting a doctor or healer.

 

This was ameliorated in later modules for NWN2. In MotB, for example, you'd get an interface that would warn you about the particular danger level, then would advance the time forward the appropriate amount if you agreed to rest. Depending on the encounter odds, you'd be awakened prior to receiving the benefits of a full rest.

[Kjaamor]

Just as a matter of curiosity Ms Kjaamor, what is your impression of what Eternity will be?

 

In a sentence:

 

Baldur's Gate II with fewer and less talkative party companions, better graphics, less of the linearity and moral absolutes, and a few non-intrusive extra features.

[Nonek]

Ah thank you, I personally see it as a mix of Icewind Dale and Torment, with the usual superior Obsidian characters, and hopefully a more interactive and living gameworld, (courtesy of Mr Sawyer's referencing Darklands a few times,) the rest I agree with you on.

[Kjaamor]

Yeah. I think for the most part the design for the game basically equals:

 

[individual reader's favourite IE game] + [things Obsidian have confirmed that they're doing] - [things Obsidian have confirmed they won't be doing]

 

Or...for a few people on these forums:

 

[TES V]

 

Honestly, I really admire the fact that Josh Sawyer regularly posts on these forums because I think if I was in his shoes and had to read what we were posting I'd be crying myself to sleep most nights.

[Nonek]

I've yet to see anyone asking for one of Bethesda's consequenceless hiking simulators, but overall I think these forums are a rather well regulated and sensible place. The strange BSN people who appeared for the Kickstarter (with their demands for romancing all things animal, vegetable or mineral) have mostly vacated the forums, and there is very little unpleasantness or trolling if one treats others as one wishes to be treated. I will agree though that Mr Sawyers posts are usually very interesting and informative, a real anticipation builder for the finished product.

[TrashMan]

The biggest problem with resting in old IE games was that it was essentialyl free XP.

 

A normal, rational human being in the PC's shoes would avoid danger and would not look forward to resting in dangerous areas.

A power gamers is like "Yay! Monster encounter. XP and gold for me!"

You can scale the danger of the encounter, but it is pointless (and downright silly at times), given save-scumming every battle will eventually be overcome. It would only mean more XP for the player. I've seen players deliberately rest in dangerous areas to farm XP and gold.

As long as the encounter leaves the player better off, there is NO reason to avoid it. So it's not a fix to the problem. resource managment and a revised health/wound system is.

[Bradr]

The biggest problem with resting in old IE games was that it was essentialyl free XP.

 

A normal, rational human being in the PC's shoes would avoid danger and would not look forward to resting in dangerous areas.

A power gamers is like "Yay! Monster encounter. XP and gold for me!"

You can scale the danger of the encounter, but it is pointless (and downright silly at times), given save-scumming every battle will eventually be overcome. It would only mean more XP for the player. I've seen players deliberately rest in dangerous areas to farm XP and gold.

As long as the encounter leaves the player better off, there is NO reason to avoid it. So it's not a fix to the problem. resource managment and a revised health/wound system is.

 

Why is this a problem?  That is how those other people wanted to play the game, and how the game entertained them.  

 

What did that have to do with your experience?  Did your game suffer because the party could rest anywhere?  Or because someone else playing the game could rest anywhere and farmed XP?

 

I'm just trying to get a reason for not having unlimited rest opportunities.  Doesn't it stand to reason that those who want to rest anywhere can, while those who want limited resting can restrict themselves from resting anywhere?  Why does the game have to impose those restrictions on every player? 

[Hormalakh]

Because a game isn't meant to be consequenceless. It is no longer a "game." It becomes merely an "experience." And I see experiences as things lesser than games.

 

In games, you have rules. You have win/lose scenarios and boundaries. You play within the rules and if the rules are difficult, then you change the difficulty.

 

Imagine playing chess where everyone was a queen. It's great and all, but after a while it's not fun.

 

I do not buy the "let them play the way the want." It is a weak argument. We will play the game the way the designers want us to play their game.

[Lephys]

Why is this a problem?  That is how those other people wanted to play the game, and how the game entertained them.

Because it conflicts with the rest of the game's design. The only reason that feature was implemented was to give you a reason NOT TO rest all the time, and yet people used it as a reason TO rest all the time. It's not wrong that they decided to play the game that way. It's wrong that the game was designed so.

 

I'm just trying to get a reason for not having unlimited rest opportunities.  Doesn't it stand to reason that those who want to rest anywhere can, while those who want limited resting can restrict themselves from resting anywhere?  Why does the game have to impose those restrictions on every player?

Because, saying "Ohh, you're limited to 7 spells for today," then allowing you to literally rest and regain those spells every 5 seconds is self-defeating. Again... it's a self-defeating design that makes no sense. If people want games with nonsensical designs, then that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that a game being made by a team who is trying to make a game with a sensible design is failing if their design becomes nonsensical and incoherent.

 

Also, you're supposed to be adventurers in this at-least-somewhat immersive world, yet you make friggin' camp every 10 minutes, every time someone takes out a rat. That's pretty silly. And the rest of the world doesn't care that you spent 17 weeks in a cave just outside of town.

 

Obviously a little time abstraction is in order in an RPG (we don't need something tallying exactly how many minutes our people have rested, and how healed each cut is, and how tired they are based on some complex math, and how long each individual member of the party is capable of resting based on current tiredness levels, etc.), but that doesn't mean "Just throw sense out the window and don't even have any checks against over-abstraction! 8D"

 

 

What Hormalakh said. If you put fewer opponents on a soccer field to make the game Easy mode, or change their skill level, that's one thing. You take away one of the goals, or eliminate the field boundaries, and that's something else entirely.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Lephys

[Bradr]

 

If you put fewer opponents on a soccer field to make the game Easy mode, or change their skill level, that's one thing. You take away one of the goals, or eliminate the field boundaries, and that's something else entirely.

 

 

It's more like eliminating time outs.  Well, if soccer had time outs. 

[Lephys]

It's more like eliminating time outs.  Well, if soccer had time outs. 

I thought it did, but I can't remember (been a while since I played). 8P

 

However, it's more like the opposite of eliminating time-outs. It would be like unlimiting time-outs. Except, time-outs don't actually abstractly represent hours worth of ability-replenishing rest and recovery like in an RPG, so it's not even really like that.

 

If you remove resting limitations all-together, then you might as well remove ammo limits, HP limits, pickpocket retry limits, etc.