Food and resting.

[Iyanga]

Hm.

 

My suggestion would be:

Make food a prerequisite for resting or fast travel. Not more, not less.

 

This way it is unique and unlike potions or buff spells. It is not a deal breaker, because you can continue without resting (as long as you have other means to heal wounds etc.). It is yet important enough to worry about it, because resting might save money early in the game and later other resources before a difficult fight. And then you add a forage skill for certain classes which (also) allows you to rest without food in your inventory.

[Lephys]

That's not a bad idea, Iyanga. I'm just trying to think of how different foods could have a varying affect. Especially on the fast travel. Because, if they don't, then there might as well only be one food item in the game, simply called "food." Maybe it could affect the speed of fast-traveling (if it's just actually really fast traveling, a la Fallout/Arcanum, instead of insta-traveling), and it could probably affect the extent of resting benefits. I mean, if you sit down for a couple hours and have some broth and bread and jerky, you're probably not garnering as much strength from that as you would from everyone enjoying an entire chicken-pot-pie. *shrug*

[Iyanga]

That's not a bad idea, Iyanga. I'm just trying to think of how different foods could have a varying affect. Especially on the fast travel. Because, if they don't, then there might as well only be one food item in the game, simply called "food."

 

 

It's quite fine to have different food just for the sake of having different food. Some games even came up with different kinds of useless stuff for sale, although they could have just increased the gold amount on the body. 

[Lephys]

It's quite fine to have different food just for the sake of having different food. Some games even came up with different kinds of useless stuff for sale, although they could have just increased the gold amount on the body. 

Yes, but on some subconscious level, we say "Why isn't any of this stuff any different from any of this other stuff?!"

 

In other words, you give me a candlestick worth 3 silver instead of a pouch of 3 silver in coins, and I'm going to yearn to find some difference between the candlestick and the coins, SOMEwhere in the game. When I don't find it, I'm disappointed. Then, I either try to find a difference in all the various other pieces of "junk" in the game, and am subsequently even more disappointed every time I verify they are naught but money, OR I just assume that they're all naught but money, and I no longer care about them. That's why so many games recently have a "junk" category in your inventory, accompanied by a "sell all junk" button at a merchant. There's pretty much no value in the variation, at that point. Without actual item differences of any nature, you can't bring yourself to actually care whether you found a candlestick or a broken knife, because they're both just a handful of silver.

 

If you have different foods that don't do anything different, then they'd have to all cost the same, right? And if they don't (if it turns out to be cheaper for some, or just easier/cheaper to forage berries or something), then everyone will just do that, and all that food variety serves no purpose anymore.

 

The player can't help but reduce the system to a single food item, for all practical purposes, because it mechanically amounts to nothing more than that.

 

Then, of course, it's just a chore. "I can't rest or fast travel without food? Well, then I guess I'll buy food." There's absolutely no other reason to buy food, or to worry about WHEN you buy food, or what kind of food you have, and it doesn't affect the game in any other way whatsover. Just "Have food and you can do this, don't have food and you can't." That's pretty much a chore. Something you don't really want to do for any reason, but you have to do it.

[Iyanga]

 

 Just "Have food and you can do this, don't have food and you can't." That's pretty much a chore. Something you don't really want to do for any reason, but you have to do it.

 

 

 

Uhm, but this is true for any item. The whole point of stuff in your inventory is to allow you things that you couldn't do without it in the inventory.

 

And you take the point of view from the number cruncher. The number cruncher will always pick the same food anyway - the one that he determined is "best". I don't think that you can force a number cruncher with game mechanics to make roleplaying choices. The roleplayer again will buy what seems appropriate, even if it's a coin more. Adding effects just makes his life more difficult.

 

It's a bit like forcing people to choose between ugly armor with good stats and beautiful armor with bad stats. I preferred the 'The Secret World' approach, where clothes and the appearance of the character is completely separate from item stats.

[Lephys]

Uhm, but this is true for any item. The whole point of stuff in your inventory is to allow you things that you couldn't do without it in the inventory.

But that's not all it does. It does not simply toggle a binary switch. "Have weapon? Things die now. Don't have weapon? Things live."

 

You don't just carry a bunch of keys around. There are actual differences to static items, alongside differences to situations and dynamic factors. So, SOMEtimes, one item is better than the other, and sometimes it isn't.

 

This is exactly what we're talking about in the Crafting thread. "Did you gather some things and click a button? Then you made an item! Did you not do that? Then you didn't make an item." There is no dynamic to it. It's just a switch. Switches are boring to the human mind. Especially when the switch is between "detriment" and "no detriment," with no option for anything beyond a lack of detriment.

 

And you take the point of view from the number cruncher. The number cruncher will always pick the same food anyway - the one that he determined is "best". I don't think that you can force a number cruncher with game mechanics to make roleplaying choices. The roleplayer again will buy what seems appropriate, even if it's a coin more. Adding effects just makes his life more difficult.

Yes, the number-cruncher may always try to find the best possible food, but, in this case, you're literally not even giving him a choice. "Do I pay 5 silver and get to travel and rest, or do I pay 2 silver and get to travel and rest?" Those are his options. That or "Hey, my Ranger can find 73 berries in like 10 seconds of Foraging, whereas Sandwiches, in town (the cheapest food item I can find) are 3 silver a piece."

Boom. Berries it is. Buying sandwiches is LITERALLY just throwing money down the toilet, unless you're incapable of foraging.

 

Forget number crunchers. Let's take roleplayers, and dialogue. If you give people 17 dialogue options, and they all produce the exact same response, they're going to start viewing dialogue options as clutter. You can only pretend SO hard that your wit had some kind of effect, if, in the game, the person responds in the same manner as if you had threatened them or been super kind and offered them some of your delicious berries. Roleplaying is quite literally about options. Otherwise, you just end up on a role-ercoaster. So, even if it's something small like food, it needs to provide at least SOME form of variance. Hell, 2 different food items with 2 different effects would be INFINITELY better than 100 food items, all with the exact same effect.

 

 

It's a bit like forcing people to choose between ugly armor with good stats and beautiful armor with bad stats. I preferred the 'The Secret World' approach, where clothes and the appearance of the character is completely separate from item stats.

I agree with you there, at least in games like MMORPGs and such. If it's not really that important to the world lore, etc, what you're wearing (and you've got all manner of enchanted items and such so that a robe can provide as much armor as plate), there's no reason you shouldn't allow the player to mix-and-match aesthetics and function. ESPECIALLY between armors of the same type. Like, this ugly plate armor with awesome stats, versus this awesome-looking plate armor with terrible stats.

 

But, I'm not so sure a game like P:E needs to offer quite such a degree of freedom with such things, as the effects of the aesthetics have a lot more focused story/lore with which to clash. I mean, I don't think you should be forced into certain stats/effects if you make your armor blue instead of green, or if you adorn it with embellishments. But, I don't think you should be able to just pick a loin-cloth model and have as much armor as full plate, etc.

[JFSOCC]

I suppose I could be OK with an abstraction like "You have food for X days and Y hours" based on the nutritional value of trail rations and other food in your inventory, but TBH, no, I don't need to have food in my game.

[Iyanga]

 

This is exactly what we're talking about in the Crafting thread. "Did you gather some things and click a button? Then you made an item! Did you not do that? Then you didn't make an item." There is no dynamic to it. It's just a switch. Switches are boring to the human mind. Especially when the switch is between "detriment" and "no detriment," with no option for anything beyond a lack of detriment.

 

 

Yes, but with the little difference, there was never a Gordon Ramsay goal to have exciting food and dinner experiences.

 

 

Forget number crunchers. Let's take roleplayers, and dialogue. If you give people 17 dialogue options, and they all produce the exact same response, they're going to start viewing dialogue options as clutter. You can only pretend SO hard that your wit had some kind of effect, if, in the game, the person responds in the same manner as if you had threatened them or been super kind and offered them some of your delicious berries. Roleplaying is quite literally about options.

 

 

Options, yes. Not consequences. State of the rpg genre is that you do have 4 dialogue options and yes, they will have usually the same result unless it is one of the big ones that determines the end movie, but that's cool, because you won't figure this out anyway. It's a balancing act about maintaining an illusion. But I'm starting to side-track.

 

Fact is, whether you eat an apple or a steak in real life, you will just be less hungry, even though the steak is much more expensive. Even if you drink Coke Zero, you will not get more strength. You could add a debuff for eating the same stuff over and over again to mimic reality. Then you are getting close to The Sims...

[TrashMan]

 

The problem I have with the conservative tactics angle (and perhaps I could have put it better) is when its used to make a short game seem longer. Like the kind of thinking that leads to "you could run through the entire map of the world in 20 minutes except you have to eat so all the backtracking adds value length to the game".

 

Note that with armor fitting you already have armor (if you bought some), you just can't use the new armor until its fitted. If you're going to starve to death you can't continue on without food. So its also not exactly a 100% the same scenario

 

And I've said several times that my position isn't terribly consistent because, again, my experience has been that food implementation is either busywork created as a money/time sink with little gameplay value or it has too much value and the game becomes "where do I get my next meal from" simulator and not "adventuring in the lost city/cave fighting/rping/whatever.

 

Again this is an emotive position; which is why if its going to be there I favor a toggle.

 

 

Ah..but here we come to a crux of what is is the "core" game and what is padding.

 

What you call "padding" someone might call a core game experience or component. I get it might "feel" like padding to you - and truth be told ANYTHING can. Even combat.

 

If you didn't have ot rest or eat you could beat a level in 20 minutes? Well, if you didn't have to fight you could beat it in 5. If oyu dodn't have to travel from point A to point B (teleport) you could beat it in 1.

 

Again, you only see the worst possible implementation, which is rather pessimistic of you. You really think the food bar would depolete so fast?

 

And lastly, if you're deep in a dungeon and haven't been in civilization for a month, then yes, I do think that "where do I get my next meal from?" is a valid question and part of hte adventuring experience.

I know people always want ot skip to the "good stuff", but seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is - for me at least - you'd need to look at several different things

 

Where do you get food from? If you always buy it are there always ways to make money so that you can get it (I can't remember the name, but I remember playing a game in the late 80s where it was possible to be stuck with no money and no way to get money and no way to survive without food to travel where you could get money.) If you can search for food or hunt, are the skills to do so done in a reasonable way (in particular, since most characters start out low skilled, could a character survive with low skills in the early part of the game?)

 

The issue with food is more inventory space and weight  then money.

 

 

 

 

How often do you eat? Is there a "food meter"? Or is it time based? How are screen transitions handled; is it clear how much food is used between them? If there are travel points like BGII does your character ever forage for food while traveling or do they always eat from the supply?

 

How often do you eat in RL?

There's your answer.

 

 

[Tuckey]

For most players a food and drink mechanic would not be fun. I don't mind the option being included as a toggle(on/off).

 

But and this is a big but - this isn't a survival based game like wasteland or fallout so less integral to the gameplay I think. We will likely have the ability to get drunk at a pub/tavern - works well enough for me anyways so cheers! (clink)

[TrashMan]

For most players a food and drink mechanic would not be fun. I don't mind the option being included as a toggle(on/off).

 

 

Proof please.

 

 

I'd like to point out how silly "Ad Populum" arguments are given the forums we're on. An old-school isometric RPG? Most players won't like that.

 

It's the same preconception un-argument that is constnatly used (and abused) and leads to stagnation and creation of souless clones. Adventure games are dead. Old-schoold RPG's are dead. Oh wait, PE kickstarter campaign was a massive sucess! Space shooters are dead. Oh wait, Star Citizen broke all records.

 

See the problem with equating "what is on the market" with "what will be a sucess". People play whats on the market because that's what they have available or is what they know. If the market is saturated with bread, people will eat bread because there's so much of it to go around. That doens't mean people will not like cake because bread is popular.

Edited May 6, 2013 by TrashMan

[spudud]

 

For most players a food and drink mechanic would not be fun. I don't mind the option being included as a toggle(on/off).

 

 

Proof please.

 

 

I'd like to point out how silly "Ad Populum" arguments are given the forums we're on. An old-school isometric RPG? Most players won't like that.

 

It's the same preconception un-argument that is constnatly used (and abused) and leads to stagnation and creation of souless clones. Adventure games are dead. Old-schoold RPG's are dead. Oh wait, PE kickstarter campaign was a massive sucess! Space shooters are dead. Oh wait, Star Citizen broke all records.

 

See the problem with equating "what is on the market" with "what will be a sucess". People play whats on the market because that's what they have available or is what they know. If the market is saturated with bread, people will eat bread because there's so much of it to go around. That doens't mean people will not like cake because bread is popular.

 

 

The same could be said about your argument. There isn't any reliable data available for what players prefer in terms of any specific game-play mechanic; except for game-play metric data that developers use, but it's not available to us. And sure, PE and Star Citizen are a massive success for Kickstarter, but even if 75K backers turn in to 300K(though, I hope the number is in millions) buyers, it's hardly a massive success compared to other games, including old school 2/2.5D isometric games.

Edited May 6, 2013 by spudud

[PrimeJunta]

Food mechanics are like any other mechanics. If done poorly or they don't fit the setting, they're annoying, pointless busywork. If done well and fit the setting, they're exciting, interesting, and add to the experience.

 

NetHack is an example of a game with food mechanics done well. You don't just get hungry and have to eat (or starve to death). Using magic or wearing rings makes you get hungry faster, but there are magic items that slow your digestion. Eating particular things has effects, often permanent effects. Eating a red dragon will give you fire resistance; wolfbane cures lycanthropy, carrots cure blindness, apples cure sickness, eating a ****atrice will turn you to stone (i.e., kill you); fruit and vegetables can tame ponies and horses while meat can tame cats and dogs; you can choke on your food and die if you get greedy; starving yourself or overeating exercises or abuses your abilities, which will rise or fall over time accordingly. And so on. Making good use of comestibles becomes an essential gameplay element, not just a matter of stacking up on food rations so you don't run out.

 

My take? I'm all for food mechanics if they're done well and contribute to the game. But if they're there just to limit resting or some other balancing purpose, then... no, please, find some other way.

[Tuckey]

@Trashman It's just my opinion man. Take it for what it is, a statement of my preferences. I mean it could be fun if done right but I think it works best for a survival based game.

 

Also I do think most people don't prefer such a mechanic; but by most people I don't mean hardcore rpg players. I believe obsidian has ambitions to sell this game to more than just the kickstarter audience - and they need to if they want to be truly independent and make unique interesting games. (again just my opinion)

 

The trouble with discussing preferences is that everyone has different preferences. No one is wrong, its just different strokes for different folks. I guess the extra challenges available for new vegas were popular but most people I know weren't interested.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Tuckey

[Nonek]

The game is being made for the Kickstarter audience alone however, the developers have stated this numerous times, and though I would not call myself hardcore I did contribute to help escape the modern trend of dumbing every game down to sell to the widest possible demographic. There are plenty of featureless streamlined games out there for the mass market, the whole point of project Eternity is to step back and embrace a style and genre that the industry abandoned, not to ape the latest trend.

 

As for the game being a survival simulator, from what i've read of the medieval period, the getting of food and clean water was as much a priority as it would be in a setting such as Fallout and Wasteland. Entire armies and cities were devastated by dysentery, spread by polluted water. Bread was the staple diet of most of the malnourished lower classes, and meat was an extremely rare luxury. A good rpg set in this time period should have elements of survival incorporated into it, otherwise we do not understand the struggle that the peoples of the gameworld undergo, and it becomes less believable. More a renaissance fayre setting than an immersive theatre of conflict.

 

That's my personal take on the matter anyway.

[Lephys]

Yes, but with the little difference, there was never a Gordon Ramsay goal to have exciting food and dinner experiences.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what this means. 8(

 

 

Options, yes. Not consequences. State of the rpg genre is that you do have 4 dialogue options and yes, they will have usually the same result unless it is one of the big ones that determines the end movie, but that's cool, because you won't figure this out anyway. It's a balancing act about maintaining an illusion. But I'm starting to side-track.

True, there's a bit of illusion to it, as you have it make it seem like the player is actually conversing with a fully-realized person, within an imagined world, using a handful of dialogue lines and various sets of consequences. That in no way means that the accepted goal should be nothing but the tiny semblence of the illusion.

 

Fact is, whether you eat an apple or a steak in real life, you will just be less hungry, even though the steak is much more expensive. Even if you drink Coke Zero, you will not get more strength. You could add a debuff for eating the same stuff over and over again to mimic reality. Then you are getting close to The Sims...

I'm confused as to how Coke Zero plays into this. Coke Zero isn't nutritious, so why would you gain anything but caloric fuel to do things? And I'm not talking about STRength, the stat (although that could be a factor in the abstraction of the "well-fed"ness) here, just to be clear. If you eat a full meal, you're going to feel a lot better as you go along than if you ate a bunch of berries. Or, to use your steak and apple comparison, the steak is going to give you more to work with, in the long run, than just the apple. Sure, you're "just going to be less hungry" 10 seconds after you ate either one. But, 3 hours later, I don't think that apple's gonna be holding up, calorically, and it's not gonna help your muscles repair themselves and maintain mass as you go, if you just run around eating apples all day every day.

 

There's plenty of factors within the realm of nutrition to allow for some simplified, abstracted system in the game. It's not "OMG, we can't take this dragon out! Let's go eat the proper foods! OKAY, NOW WE HAVE +50 TO ALL STATS! WOOOOH!" or anything.

[Tuckey]

@Nonek I definitely don't want a dumbed down game which is why I contributed.

 

Having said that I wouldn't mind a food/drink simulation as long as it wasn't just busywork, if I hadn't made that clear by now. When games get too micro-management focused it detracts things for me somewhat.

 

I do hope that project eternity is popular beyond just us kickstarter backers through. As long as they make the game they want to make I think that will happen.

 

Seriously obisidian could find a couple million sales from the hardcore audience alone.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Tuckey

[cleric Nemir]

...

 

To add a bag,a traveler,adventurer or whatever bag that contains rations,occupies a unique slot and is gradually depleted on every outdoor rest,restocked for appropriate price at an inn and infoed about in the textbox is not a hard thing to do.

 

Or maybe I should put it in this here thread http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63145-small-suggestions-easily-implemented-ideas-quickfire-thoughts/

[Aldereth]

The computer medium is not conducive to make food as "fun" as the real thing. Food system has been relegated to a chore and does not have that social impact. In a RPG, with combat system, spell system, and all sort of "fun thing" going on, it is hard not to think if a resource management food system not be a kind of chore or distraction. It may sound severe but I would recommend against doing a food system unless one can resolve this.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Aldereth

[Lephys]

The computer medium is not conducive to make food as "fun" as the real thing. Food system has been relegated to a chore and does not have that social impact. In a RPG, with combat system, spell system, and all sort of "fun thing" going on, it is hard not to think if a resource management food system not be a kind of chore or distraction. It may sound severe but I would recommend against doing a food system unless one can resolve this.

Movement isn't very fun, either. But it's pretty exciting when it allows you to discover a hidden cave, or to tactically line up that lightning bolt so that it tears through about 7 enemies instead of only hitting one from where your character was previously standing.

[motorizer]

I'd be happy with needing food and water as long as it is consumed automatically, manually eating with 6 characters would be a bit of an unnecessary chore

I don't really want to starve to death either, I think a drop in party morale and some stat penalties would be enough to make you think about it.

If we must have fatal starvation then it should take a long time

[Aldereth]

Movement isn't very fun, either. But it's pretty exciting when it allows you to discover a hidden cave, or to tactically line up that lightning bolt so that it tears through about 7 enemies instead of only hitting one from where your character was previously standing.

Like you say about movement, it can lead to (more like part of) exploration which is fun. Notice many games from bg to skyrim. take out the not so fun movement with map or quick travel. Look at all the posters who prefer a automatic resource management , it is an indication that there is yet a system that make it fun. I am not against implementing food but without making it fun, it is but a distraction at best and a wasted resource that could have been put to better use. The best anyone has done regarding food is the old vampire masquerade game with the feeding mechanism. But since feeding has so much to do with the vampire setting so one may call it "cheating" but it does serve as an example where context and fun is integrated with feeding. It would be hard to translate that to a FRPG. Edited May 21, 2013 by Aldereth

[Lephys]

Like you say about movement, it can lead to (more like part of) exploration which is fun. Notice many games from bg to skyrim. take out the not so fun movement with map or quick travel. Look at all the posters who prefer a automatic resource management , it is an indication that there is yet a system that make it fun. I am not against implementing food but without making it fun, it is but a distraction at best and a wasted resource that could have been put to better use. The best anyone has done regarding food is the old vampire masquerade game with the feeding mechanism. But since feeding has so much to do with the vampire setting so one may call it "cheating" but it does serve as an example where context and fun is integrated with feeding. It would be hard to translate that to a FRPG.

So we implement food, if we can make it fun. That and "I don't think we should implement food because it probably won't be fun" don't really go together. That's like saying, "I think it's possible to do this well, but I don't think this can be done well."

 

So, all I ask is, if you (any given poster) don't think food can be done well, and you just plucked that opinion out of the sky, then it's not really doing any good in this thread, unfortunately. The only response you're going to get is "Why not?," because we, as humans, naturally like for things to be based in reason. That's why others in this thread are breaking mental sweats trying to evaluate possibilities for a good, fun food system. Even if you're saying "here's ways in which it objectively causes problems," that's useful, constructive information.

 

I just don't understand why people are so adamant about other people not even TRYING to come up with a feasible, potential system. You might as well be saying "I highly doubt your abilities, and it irks me that you're taking the time to attempt something I don't want to take the time to attempt."

 

I'm not telling anyone "Yes, there SHOULD be a food system in, no matter how it's implemented, and if you don't want one, you're WRONG!". So, we're basically in agreement. IF it can be made fun and not troublesome or detrimental to design time/resources, it would be nice in the game. The only thing anyone's in disagreement on is basically bets. "I bet a food system isn't going to be well-designed, so I don't want it to even be attempted." And that's a silly thing to argue about. Isn't it?

 

Why don't we just pool our resources in an effort to evaluate, as best we can, the possibilities for creating an actually-fun food system in a game like P:E? If we can't do it, and Obsidian can't do it, then obviously we're not going to have to worry about a crappy food system being in the game, because of that "if it's good" condition. And if we CAN do it, then awesome! We figured out how to make a food system fun and interesting when other games have failed.

 

As I said, you can totally frown upon food systems in general, and STILL contribute to the discussion of whether or not it's possible to make a good one, simply by pointing out objective ways in which prior food systems caused problems in games. We can put that stuff on the "Don't do" list, and keep on brainstorming with anything not on that list, and see what we come up with.

[Nonek]

Proposal.

 

Rations, can be gathered from many sources: Bought at markets, at inns, or stores. Given by goodwives, hunted down, gathered from the flora etcetera. If present in inventory will be consumed automatically at midday or whenever camp is set up (if implemented.) Rangers and Druids gain an automatic ration at mealtimes, except in the most lifeless or blighted lands.

 

Variance of quality, offering different benefits: Examples.

Ships biscuit and a tot of brackish water. You can live on it, but you recieve a slight penalty to stamina for the next 24 hour period. Keeps virtually forever.

Salted meat, dried fruit and small beer. Hearty tasteless vittles, they keep you strong and in fighting trim. If Stored properly will stay fresh for the duration of your journey.

Meat and potato pasty, followed by a slice of warm blackberry pie and washed down with a flask of cider. Tasty, stodgy grub that will keep you working hard, for the next 24 hours you recieve a slight bonus to stamina. Keeps for maybe a day.

Spoiled Food. It keeps you alive, but you sicken and recieve a mediocre penalty to stamina, possibility of a disease ravaging the character.

Poisoned Food. Some scoundrel has poisoned your rations, set up camp as soon as possible to try and treat the affliction through purging, healing and rest, or stagger onwards in the hope of finding aid.

Orlan Oatcake. To an Orlan this is a hearty filling meal, to every other race it is a mild stimulant that can grow addictive with repeated consumption. Tastes absolutely foul to all other races, but grants a mediocre bonus to stamina. Keeps for about a week if wrapped up and stored well.

[Lephys]

That's a pretty darn good basic mechanic if you ask me, Nonek. Something I'd point out needs some extra attention is the keep times on the different foodstuffs, and how that works into the game in its entirety/relates to the rarity/cost of different foods as compared to their benefits and the likelihood of keeping them for that long, etc.

 

Another thing I'd like to suggest (that isn't really necessarily an addition to your proposal, but also isn't necessarily exclusive from it) is a good selection of meals when resting at an inn/tavern. I know in a lot of games, there's been this kind of "If I can just stand outside on the street and 'rest' for 8 hours, why would I pay 10 silver for rooms at the inn?". Well, maybe you get a complimentary breakfast with the room rental. This, by itself, doesn't cause worries of micromanagement of ration supplies (as you simply acquire and eat the meal at the same time), and seems to fit as a basic differentiation between resting in the woods and resting in an actual bed.

 

Also, on this note, I think it was always irksome when you do something like eating a meal, and you gain some bonus effect from that for something like "8 hours," when, statistically, you're EXTREMELY likely to hit a world map after that and travel for 72 in-game hours to some cave or other town. The odds of actually getting to use any bonus from the foodstuff, within 8 hours, are pretty slim in such a case. So, maybe they should provide a mildly abstracted bonus for longer, but one that diminishes over time? Maybe it lasts 48 hours, total, but after 24 hours, it's half as effective, for example. You know, "You ate really well yesterday, so you've still got a good bit of heartiness to you, but that'll be gone by tonight if you keep eating basic rations." I think the idea would be plenty realistic, even if the duration/specifics were somewhat abstracted.

 

Just some thoughts.