I was thinking about stats and rerolls and stats yesterday, and I was thinking that (now that we have stat priority), stats farther from "average" in both directions should be harder to attain.
I was thinking that it might be good if something were done to lower the amount of deviation from average, to lower the number of super-strong fighters, super-smart mages, super-agi thieves, etc. One fairly simple solution would be to make the roll the average of two separage rolls, though people with more than college-level stats might simply take a look at the numbers and come up with a more balanced solution.
This would drive the stat-rolls towards the center, but still make it possible to have the higher stats.
Yes, many people are going to hate this idea. I see it as a solution to the "every warrior has a really good strength, and if you don't, your life will be hell" instead of the random stats we used to have.
Morrolan
Bell curve probability.
Yes, I presume there is a bell curve somewhere in there.
Now the questions become:
1) What is considered a standard deviation?
(I really don't know on this one.)
2) If the odds of being in the "average" range equals the first standard deviation, then what percentage of the time would a character be average in all respects (all 4 stats)?
Assuming normally distributed data, this will only happen aout 21% of the time.
That means that approximately 79% will be at least a little special, one way or the other.
I'd like a sdev's worth of characters to be basically average. It's hard to focus on RP when your character's a cripple, and it's hard to stay in character when you're a born killer who can hardly be stopped.
Morrolan
EDIT: I don't want every character to be an Amos, but at the same time, stat ordering seems to have upped the number of bad-ass warriors, etc. in the world. I'd like the code to give it a nudge back toward the middle.
I don't agree on any point. Nobody seems to be any better. Matter of fact, I would say that they have become if anything, more average. And you would be suprised how often the "badass" warriors have average or below stats.
Quote from: X-D on January 24, 2009, 07:02:52 PM
I don't agree on any point. Nobody seems to be any better. Matter of fact, I would say that they have become if anything, more average. And you would be suprised how often the "badass" warriors have average or below stats.
I concur.
Here's one, no stats below average, unless you special request it for your character.
Quote from: Clearsighted on January 24, 2009, 07:11:16 PM
Quote from: X-D on January 24, 2009, 07:02:52 PM
I don't agree on any point. Nobody seems to be any better. Matter of fact, I would say that they have become if anything, more average. And you would be suprised how often the "badass" warriors have average or below stats.
I concur.
I disagree.
Fuck no. Let it be. I'm happy now - don't fiddle any more with the process. Morg already tucked that aging mess into the code. That'll even 'em out, trust me.
No more tweaks with stats, please. I haven't seen a single AI since the tweak. >:(
Stats simply matter too much in the game, to too many guilds/races.
And we aren't your 'average' commoners. Our PC's were meant to stand out above your typical commoner, in my opinion.
Maybe a total of 150 PC's scattered throughout the Known World compared to the thousands of NPC commoners living in each city-state.
Quote from: Lakota on January 24, 2009, 11:36:23 PM
I haven't seen a single AI since the tweak. >:(
I have. :o
I disagree that we should have more average stats. I like having extremely awesome, or oppressively bad stats. I don't want middle of the road everytime.
It's good as it is. Don't fix it unless it's broken. Problem with more average stats is that it depends on luck - and the 1 in 40 characters who has absolutely incredibly anything will be much more powerful than most people. It works fine now.. most warriors have above average strength, thieves have above average dexterity, it's as it should be. If it isn't, then reroll.
And like X-D said, stats don't really matter after a while anyway. They only appear to very early on in the game, where an unskilled merchant with exceptional agility and two daggers could cut an average fighter to ribbons. But once that fighter actually gets a few skill points, he'd be able to trash the merchant with no problem.
I'd support optionally tweaking your stats to become more extreme on both sides, though, like someone who has extremely good agility and strength, but very poor endurance and wisdom ;) Makes for some interesting roleplaying. Optional, of course.
No more tweaks.
I have to agree with Lakota here.
Quote from: Jarek on January 24, 2009, 09:39:40 PM
Here's one, no stats below average, unless you special request it for your character.
Part of me says no, and the other part of me says my badass elven crimelord had 3 poor stats, so...Huh.
Make stats affect combat less.
Especially strength.
Edit: grammer gammer grammer
lol at Jingo's "edit."
Strength -does- make a bit too much of an impact in fighting. I don't think it should determine whether you hit, but instead, how -hard- you hit someone.
Agility should determine how often you swing, and whether your swing connects.
Quote from: Lakota on January 25, 2009, 06:28:27 PM
lol at Jingo's "edit."
Strength -does- make a bit too much of an impact in fighting. I don't think it should determine whether you hit, but instead, how -hard- you hit someone.
Agility should determine how often you swing, and whether your swing connects.
Um.
Quote from: help strengthThis attribute affects several things within the game world, such as the
amount of weight you can carry before you begin to suffer penalties,
how hard you hit in combat, and modifiers on subduing the inhabitants
of Zalanthas.
Quote from: help agilityAgility is an ability score that measures all types of physical
coordination and swiftness. Hand-eye coordination, reaction time, balance,
depth perception, and reflexes are all types of characteristics measured
by agility.
... they do.
QuoteStats simply matter too much in the game, to too many guilds/races.
QuoteMake stats affect combat less.
Especially strength.
QuoteStrength -does- make a bit too much of an impact in fighting.
These. I don't like how much those initial dice rolls affect our characters throughout their lives. It's just too much of a factor, especially strength.
I'm not referencing documentation, I'm referencing reality.
In hindsight my post was a bit obtuse.
I understand that agility determines how often you strike. I meant to say that in addition agility should determine whether said attempt lands.
Currently, strength factors in to whether you hit an opponent or not, not agility.
Quote from: Lakota on January 25, 2009, 06:40:45 PM
I'm not referencing documentation, I'm referencing reality.
In hindsight my post was a bit obtuse.
I understand that agility determines how often you strike. I meant to say that in addition agility should determine whether said attempt lands.
Currently, strength factors in to whether you hit an opponent or not, not agility.
What? Are you sure? If so, this should definitely not be so.
Quote from: Lakota on January 25, 2009, 06:40:45 PM
I'm not referencing documentation, I'm referencing reality.
In hindsight my post was a bit obtuse.
I understand that agility determines how often you strike. I meant to say that in addition agility should determine whether said attempt lands.
Currently, strength factors in to whether you hit an opponent or not, not agility.
Staff disclaimer: We do not discuss code specifics, however, I will say that what is in the documentation is accurate. Agility affects the chance of hitting them as well as how often you swing. Strength only comes into play for damage calculations. Any perception to the contrary are just that, perceptions. I have reviewed the code to make sure I wasn't mis-remembering or that it had somehow changed, but Lakota is wrong in this case. Strength has no play in the accuracy of blows.
Whew, that'll teach me to listen to Lakota any more.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 25, 2009, 08:21:44 PM
Whew, that'll teach me to listen to Lakota any more.
Seriously. That fucking moron.
I don't want to go too code based into this, but strength and dexterity really give the same advantage. It's just that both require the use of different fighting styles.
The problem is that people with low strength and AI agility are using really lame weapons. I mean, seriously, IRL, nobody could kill a rampaging bull with two daggers. Use a real weapon!
Low strength is permanently crippling though, because a fighter with low strength won't be able to dual wield maces or walk around in heavy armor. And strength affects a person's performance against (natural) armor. A fighter could survive with low dex with the right style, but a low str one won't be able to do any damage at all.
Also, back on the OP of doing bell-curves, you should note that tweaking the stats would make humans much stronger on average than elves, dwarves stronger than humans, but dwarves will be much, much slower than elves. And half-giants..!
Maybe adjusting scores isn't the problem, but rather the items themselves. I've seen videos of people in full plate performing various acrobatic moves. If they can do that in 20-stone armor, perhaps adjusting the items to fit a little better would work out?
Carrying any sort of large item without a container should be difficult, much as it already is. Armors should have a "worn weight" of about one-fourth of normal. Weapons shouldn't be affected if held or carried, unless you can somehow effectively use it from a "worn" position (Back-mounted Ballista!).
All items should have their effective weights deceased if placed in a container dependent on each specific container. Boxes and bags should get a weight reduction simply for being easier to carry, while Backpacks and worn sacks should get this bonus as well as a "easier to carry" reduction.
--
I can't speak about agility, as the only real thing I can see from its lack/abundance is the number of items you can carry at once.
Most of that is already the case.
I was about to post something near a complaint, but it boils down to this: It shorely is hard to keep encumbrance at "light" while carrying a bunch of stuff. ;)
What X-D and Venomz said. It is fine as it is.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on January 28, 2009, 10:56:29 AM
I was about to post something near a complaint, but it boils down to this: It shorely is hard to keep encumbrance at "light" while carrying a bunch of stuff. ;)
I've never had a problem.
/me flexes
Seriously though, I haven had a character with bad strength since the implementation of the new encumbered code but before it, I could easily carry around an extra pair of clothes in a pack, as well as food, extra weapon, and water, and still not break 'easily manageable'. Was the ammount you can carry changed as well as the affects of being over-encumbered? Or are you just running around with a armor too heavy for your char??
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 28, 2009, 12:31:07 PM
Seriously though, I haven had a character with bad strength since the implementation of the new encumbered code but before it, I could easily carry around an extra pair of clothes in a pack, as well as food, extra weapon, and water, and still not break 'easily manageable'.
Easy manageable isn't hard to maintain; it's staying
light that seems nearly impossible if you're tricked out for desert work (armor and supplies). But that's probably as it should be.
If anyone, I don't care what their race, is having trouble staying at light encumbrance, then they are carrying too much. Don't forget you can 'pack' stuff on your mount. And Desert Elves should be staying close enough to their tribal homeland to not need to carry a tent and three skins of water at all times.
Quote from: Clearsighted on January 28, 2009, 06:38:07 PM
If anyone, I don't care what their race, is having trouble staying at light encumbrance, then they are carrying too much.
Have you ever played a human/half-elf/elf with average strength or lower?
Quote from: Fathi on January 28, 2009, 10:14:32 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on January 28, 2009, 06:38:07 PM
If anyone, I don't care what their race, is having trouble staying at light encumbrance, then they are carrying too much.
Have you ever played a human/half-elf/elf with average strength or lower?
It can be done. Sacrifices might need to be made.
Quote from: Clearsighted on January 29, 2009, 01:58:39 AM
Quote from: Fathi on January 28, 2009, 10:14:32 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on January 28, 2009, 06:38:07 PM
If anyone, I don't care what their race, is having trouble staying at light encumbrance, then they are carrying too much.
Have you ever played a human/half-elf/elf with average strength or lower?
It can be done. Sacrifices might need to be made.
If you mean sacrifices in the form of foregoing armor in several locations or other essential equipment, then yes, you can stay at light with pretty low strength. However, it's entirely possible to have trouble staying at light without "carrying too much". Here's what I consider the bare necessities without excluding any guild or common profession:
> Reasonable armor for the head, neck, body, wrists, arms and legs.*
> One main fighting style setup (two weapons, weapon + shield, two-handed weapon)
> One backup weapon as well as a bow + quiver or three throwing knives
> A cloak, a belt, a backpack and a torch
> A full waterskin + enough food to last two days
> About a waterskin's weight in miscellaneous items such as tickets, tokens, licenses, tablets, keys, skinning knife, lockpicks, magick components, mul mix, poison, clan patch/epaulette/armband/sash/bandana/codpiece, and a few minor crafting appliances.
> 500 coins
* Reasonable armor means of decent quality, not the crappiest of crappy leather shreds that happen to be coded as armor. Excludes armor for the hands, feet, waist and back.
Sorry, my mind started to giggle after the mention of carrying mul mix as a must through the desert; I couldn't really finish the rest.
Wandering desert whores are people too.
Quote from: Good Gortok on January 29, 2009, 03:36:01 AM
Wandering desert whores are people too.
I wouldn't consider everyone smart enough to carry "protection" a whore.
Clearsighted, I agree with you that you're describing a reasonable amount of gear for "minimum protection/equipment" required for surviving in the desert.
It doesn't, however, necessarily follow that the minimum amount necessary for survival in the desert would be considered a light load by an average-strengthed Zalanthan non half-giant.
It's a very harsh desert, after all.
Also, anyone (d-elves included) who need more than the necessities can always pack a mount.
The grizzled, scarified half-elf surveys a unit of T'Zai Byn mercenaries, mouth hanging open unprettily.
The grizzled, scarified half-elf clears his throat.
The grizzled, scarified half-elf asks, in sirihish,
"So...y'all really do fight with yer packs on?"
Quoteminimum amount necessary for survival in the desert
Hmmm, I have never been able to carry the 3-4 half giant guards, armored argosy, vividuan and rukkian necessary for (somewhat) assured survival in the desert and remain at light encumberance.
I have found that if I was choosing armors and equipment meant for the desert, and desert survival, I was usually better off with my encumberance, though.
Quote from: Good Gortok on January 29, 2009, 03:30:49 AM
If you mean sacrifices in the form of foregoing armor in several locations or other essential equipment, then yes, you can stay at light with pretty low strength. However, it's entirely possible to have trouble staying at light without "carrying too much". Here's what I consider the bare necessities without excluding any guild or common profession:
> Reasonable armor for the head, neck, body, wrists, arms and legs.*
> One main fighting style setup (two weapons, weapon + shield, two-handed weapon)
> One backup weapon as well as a bow + quiver or three throwing knives
> A cloak, a belt, a backpack and a torch
> A full waterskin + enough food to last two days
> About a waterskin's weight in miscellaneous items such as tickets, tokens, licenses, tablets, keys, skinning knife, lockpicks, magick components, mul mix, poison, clan patch/epaulette/armband/sash/bandana/codpiece, and a few minor crafting appliances.
> 500 coins
* Reasonable armor means of decent quality, not the crappiest of crappy leather shreds that happen to be coded as armor. Excludes armor for the hands, feet, waist and back.
This isn't what I had in mind when I mentioned making a few strategic sacrifices. In fact, if the above is what people consider to be travelling light /after/ making sacrifices, then I think you all deserve to go around at whatever encumbrance you are at. Remember, as well, that your mount isn't just for carrying you. Sadly, I don't think many people really understand what reasonable armor truly is anyways. Though, that requires a certain time and experimentation to find out gradually, what really works for its weight. Looking at veteran desert survival PCs will give good clues.
Quote from: Cavaticus on January 29, 2009, 08:13:01 AM
Clearsighted, I agree with you that you're describing a reasonable amount of gear for "minimum protection/equipment" required for surviving in the desert.
It doesn't, however, necessarily follow that the minimum amount necessary for survival in the desert would be considered a light load by an average-strengthed Zalanthan non half-giant.
It's a very harsh desert, after all.
Might have gotten me mixed up with Good Gortok?
QuoteThis isn't what I had in mind when I mentioned making a few strategic sacrifices. In fact, if the above is what people consider to be travelling light /after/ making sacrifices, then I think you all deserve to go around at whatever encumbrance you are at. Remember, as well, that your mount isn't just for carrying you. Sadly, I don't think many people really understand what reasonable armor truly is anyways. Though, that requires a certain time and experimentation to find out gradually, what really works for its weight. Looking at veteran desert survival PCs will give good clues.
I'm just pointing out that it can be quite difficult to stay at light encumbrance with a low strength if you don't want to make sacrifices that directly affect your character's range of utility or chance of survival. I don't necessarily think that every character should be able to wear what they feel they need without suffering any encumbrance consequences, but to say that anyone of any race can stay at light without difficulty isn't quite true. Assuming that the character in question is a fighter or traveller of some sort, there's nothing in my list that you can remove without also adding risk or significant inconvenience. A merchant, gemmer or street cutpurse might not need half of that, but neither are they particularly concerned about encumbrance.
QuoteSadly, I don't think many people really understand what reasonable armor truly is anyways.
I consider reasonable armor to be anything that makes a noticeable difference. This will typically be leather or lower-range chitin/bone armor along the lines of the studded bone bracer, black leather pants, shirt of hard black leather, tied carru-hide collar, simple black helm etc. that you can generally buy with a warrior or ranger's starting funds. You
can exclude arm and leg armor if you're really struggling, but you simply have to wear the head + neck + body + wrists pieces if you want to enter combat with any kind of regularity.
A full desert kit with extra weapons will have most PCs at easily manageable or manageable.
I think this is fine and to be expected.
Making some sacrifices will allow most PCs to travel at light encumbrance.
A "light" desert kit outfit would look more like this, IMO:
> Leather or reinforced sandcloth armor, with heavier pieces for the head and neck.
> Two main weapons, a couple backup knives, either a two-handed weapon or a bow, either a shield or a quiver.
> A skinning knife, a few throwing knives.
> A waterpouch/small drinking container for emergencies, a few pieces of dried meat.
> A cloak & veil/facewrap
> A few tablets, 250-500 coins, tickets, minor lightweight minutiae, a torch/crystal
> A backpack with rations, waterskins, climbing gear, extra lights, an extra bag, to be packed on the mount
That is what we mean by making sacrifices, folks. You carry only what you absolutely need to carry. You could even cut down further on the above setup by being more selective with your ranged combat and/or weapon choices.
Quote from: Good Gortok on January 29, 2009, 03:35:55 PMI'm just pointing out that it can be quite difficult to stay at light encumbrance with a low strength if you don't want to make sacrifices that directly affect your character's range of utility or chance of survival.
Not really. I kept an average-strength half-elf at light and never had trouble making sure she had the basic necessities.
Maybe your expectations of what the "basic necessities" are need adjustment (see my post above).
I play mostly rangers and most of my rangers are half-elfs or humans. I have never had a problem keeping them at 'easily manageable' or lower.
Unless you are going after a mekillot or bahamet, are off to war, or on mounted patrols (with adequate reinforcements), heavy armor seems quite OOC to me.
Also: fighting with a pack on when you have a mount hitched to you, also OOC IMHO.
Quote from: a strange shadow on January 29, 2009, 03:39:15 PM
A "light" desert kit outfit would look more like this, IMO:
> Leather or reinforced sandcloth armor, with heavier pieces for the head and neck.
> Two main weapons, a couple backup knives, either a two-handed weapon or a bow, either a shield or a quiver.
> A skinning knife, a few throwing knives.
> A waterpouch/small drinking container for emergencies, a few pieces of dried meat.
> A cloak & veil/facewrap
> A few tablets, 250-500 coins, tickets, minor lightweight minutiae, a torch/crystal
> A backpack with rations, waterskins, climbing gear, extra lights, an extra bag, to be packed on the mount
Yeah. This 'does' look better then what Gortok mentioned. All you really need on you is armor (head/neck/wrists mainly, the rest not so important). Weapons+backup. Cures. A cloak. And enough water/food to be able to return back to the city/camp should shit hit the fan and you'd have to abandon your mount. If you're really scrapped for strength, you might even choose to keep your arrows on your mount. The bows tend to be expensive/rare to abandon with the mount, but arrows? Most of the time when you get to shooting, you have some time for preparation, so you'll be able to rearrange things. Not very comfortable, but if you're making sacrifices, yar.
Things are harder on delves though, since if they're planning to drag a mount after them, they'll have to sneak slowly or otherwise have the mount tired out. Buuut, eh. Delves got other things going for them that makes things easier.
All that said, I kind of like how things are right now. You dont 'have' to be in top shape all the time you travel. It's wiser sometimes, and sometimes too much of a nuisance. Up to your character's personality to see how careful is he. It also allows different preparations depending on what you're planning to do, going out. Are you going out on a hunt or even a manhunt? Are you just going from city to city, trading?
Quote from: a strange shadow on January 29, 2009, 03:39:15 PM
A "light" desert kit outfit would look more like this, IMO:
> Leather or reinforced sandcloth armor, with heavier pieces for the head and neck.
> Two main weapons, a couple backup knives, either a two-handed weapon or a bow, either a shield or a quiver.
> A skinning knife, a few throwing knives.
> A waterpouch/small drinking container for emergencies, a few pieces of dried meat.
> A cloak & veil/facewrap
> A few tablets, 250-500 coins, tickets, minor lightweight minutiae, a torch/crystal
> A backpack with rations, waterskins, climbing gear, extra lights, an extra bag, to be packed on the mount
That is what we mean by making sacrifices, folks. You carry only what you absolutely need to carry. You could even cut down further on the above setup by being more selective with your ranged combat and/or weapon choices.
This looks really good. If you cut your weapons down like she suggests at the end, I can't see even an elf having a problem.
Ofcourse, if you're an elf with a below average strength, some weapons will put you to easilly managable. You can forget ... anything obsidian. Yeah, in my experience. Strength trumps agility in many many many aspects where combat is involved.
That list looks almost completely identical to the one I made, with the exception that you're excluding the second most numerous race in the world. I also wouldn't want to keep almost all of my food and water on my mount where I could easily lose it. One gourd of water and three strips of dried meat will last you an IC day at most if the weather isn't mild. That's putting yourself at risk, as is wearing the lightest armor in existence. I have never claimed that it's impossible to travel light, but if you happen to be a human with below average strength, let alone an elf, you'll either be suffering encumbrance penalties or you'll be suffering equipment shortcomings.
...and that is a bad thing?
One of the most enjoyable, heart-pounding experiences I've had was being lost in the desert with minimal equipment and a dead mount. Making it back to civilization felt like a real triumph and a story to pass around, instead of "oh, no big deal. I have three skins of water, a week's worth of food, a whole backpack full of everything I could possibly need under the sun, and sweet armor."
Quote from: a strange shadow on January 29, 2009, 04:21:47 PM
...and that is a bad thing?
One of the most enjoyable, heart-pounding experiences I've had was being lost in the desert with minimal equipment and a dead mount. Making it back to civilization felt like a real triumph and a story to pass around, instead of "oh, no big deal. I have three skins of water, a week's worth of food, a whole backpack full of everything I could possibly need under the sun, and sweet armor."
Heh heh. I've done that before.
But honestly, my character learned after his first expierience.
Quote from: Dar on January 29, 2009, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: a strange shadow on January 29, 2009, 03:39:15 PM
A "light" desert kit outfit would look more like this, IMO:
> Leather or reinforced sandcloth armor, with heavier pieces for the head and neck.
> Two main weapons, a couple backup knives, either a two-handed weapon or a bow, either a shield or a quiver.
> A skinning knife, a few throwing knives.
> A waterpouch/small drinking container for emergencies, a few pieces of dried meat.
> A cloak & veil/facewrap
> A few tablets, 250-500 coins, tickets, minor lightweight minutiae, a torch/crystal
> A backpack with rations, waterskins, climbing gear, extra lights, an extra bag, to be packed on the mount
Yeah. This 'does' look better then what Gortok mentioned. All you really need on you is armor (head/neck/wrists mainly, the rest not so important). Weapons+backup. Cures. A cloak. And enough water/food to be able to return back to the city/camp should shit hit the fan and you'd have to abandon your mount. If you're really scrapped for strength, you might even choose to keep your arrows on your mount. The bows tend to be expensive/rare to abandon with the mount, but arrows? Most of the time when you get to shooting, you have some time for preparation, so you'll be able to rearrange things. Not very comfortable, but if you're making sacrifices, yar.
Things are harder on delves though, since if they're planning to drag a mount after them, they'll have to sneak slowly or otherwise have the mount tired out. Buuut, eh. Delves got other things going for them that makes things easier.
All that said, I kind of like how things are right now. You dont 'have' to be in top shape all the time you travel. It's wiser sometimes, and sometimes too much of a nuisance. Up to your character's personality to see how careful is he. It also allows different preparations depending on what you're planning to do, going out. Are you going out on a hunt or even a manhunt? Are you just going from city to city, trading?
You're right, except that noone should ever have any pity for delves, /ever/.
Things should be even harder on them, than how they have it right now. And they only have problems with encumbrance when they're routinely setting on larks to the other side of the world from where their tribe is. Which of course, they're tempted to do since they can run there and back easier than a mount.
Quote from: a strange shadow on January 29, 2009, 04:21:47 PM
...and that is a bad thing?
One of the most enjoyable, heart-pounding experiences I've had was being lost in the desert with minimal equipment and a dead mount. Making it back to civilization felt like a real triumph and a story to pass around, instead of "oh, no big deal. I have three skins of water, a week's worth of food, a whole backpack full of everything I could possibly need under the sun, and sweet armor."
Experiences like that are intensely fun. I've had a number of those, especially with my current character.
Regarding the list of necessary gear, so on and so forth, I tend to view this as I would women and purses (ignore the fact that this is a very broad, very sweeping generalization, so don't bitch at me Bebop or I'll strangle you with my bare fucking hands... <3):
If a woman buys a small purse, she can cart around everything she needs, but not necessarily everything she wants. So what does she do? She buys a larger purse. Suddenly she is...carting around everything she needs, but not necessarily everything she wants. So what does she do? She repeats the goddamned cycle until she is carrying the equivalent of a briefcase around with her and yet -continues- to bitch that it's not enough.
It's never enough.
Bringing this full circle to Armageddon, try playing a character for several ig years who has no apartment nor anywhere to store their things. That character will learn to travel light, consider the importance of everything they own and only keep that which is extremely valuable to them or their survival. However, give said character an apartment or other place to stay or store things and they will suddenly become flustered because they are running out room, can't carry it all with them, bitch constantly about it all getting stolen, and finally argue, vehemently, that everything they own is vital to their life and well being.
So, if the character is roughing it, icly they would or should recognize the need to travel light and only with the basic essentials. They would plan ahead, take what they need with them and include waypoints for gathering more food or water, seeking shelter, rest, so on and so forth. They would, or should, know the animals in their path along the trip and be prepared to either skirt them, run like hell, or lay down some massive ass kicking should the need arise