D&D 5E Tedium for balance. Should we balance powerful effects with bookkeeping?

[EzekielRaiden]

Then what are they doing in the book? Don't tell me ignoring such rules just recently became popular.

Certainly not! But there are plenty of unwise game design choices that are kept for reasons other than helping to make a rich, positive game experience for the people playing it. Tradition is a big one. Controlling player responses is another--remember the "no playable gnomes!" debacle, where something like over 90% of players don't play gnomes and never have and yet somehow delaying them for a later book was an absolutely unconscionable affront.

As bad as WotC are about giving players perverse incentives, the playerbase itself is often ready, willing, and able to bring illogical or perverse expectations to the table. Fail to include a rule that "should" be there, even if almost no one uses it, and you might have a riot on your hands. I have found no rhyme nor reason beyond "but it should be there, even if it doesn't matter!" in over two decades of interacting with this fandom. It just is what it is.

What if it's tedium for one player, but acceptable for others? Does that one player just not have to do it?

If it is merely acceptable to others, then it ideally should still be excised. Acceptable is a pretty low bar. Conversely, if that same rule is well-liked by the others, then yes, we have a problem. We cannot serve all possible interests perfectly evenly. Some people want Wizards to be simply superior to all other classes. Some want to excise non-casters from the game entirely (or, in some cases, to have non-casters become casters in some way over time.) Some want to excise magic from the game entirely. Etc., etc., etc. No matter what you do in game design, you will always be choosing some preferences that won't, or can't, be served by your game.

But it is simply true that, all else being equal, you want to design a game such that the fewest number of people possible will feel that the rules are tedious. Intentionally trying to make something tedious for most players so that people will avoid over-using it is simply unwise game design.

 

[CleverNickName]

The parts of the questionnaire that I'm struggling with are the words "tedious" and "bookkeeping."

Almost everything in D&D involves changing numbers and keeping track of those changes: from AC to XP, hit points to spell slots, gold coins to silver arrows, ki points and spell points and grit. It's all Uses of X per Y, where X is a feature and Y is the reset. And that is always going to be a form of bookkeeping, and it is always going to be tedious...but the amount of bookkeeping (and the tedium that comes with it) will vary from table to table.

Importantly, this has nothing to do with balance. Powerful abilities are always going to be powerful whether your character can cast them once in their lifetime, or every six seconds. The DM builds the world and the encounters, and thus can throttle the power level of an ability easily. A character that can cast Fireball every round is easily to balance, just by filling the dungeon with creatures that have Evasion, or immunity to fire, or the ability to Counterspell every round, etc. The player will obviously be frustrated, but is it any more frustrating than "here's this super-cool ability! Too bad you can only use it X times per Whatever."

So I voted No. I understand that the rules need to be written in a balanced and easy-to-track manner, yes, but they also need a DM to interpret them for their specific table and players.

 

[mamba]

Well to be fair. at 50 percent that means a lot of people are still having fun tracking thier stuff. (probably). Some people like to live in the weeds focusing on the details and some don't. No reason a table full of detail oriented people can't spend thier time tracking thier stuff if they find it fun.

I am not sure that means they are enjoying it rather than not being bothered by it.

In any case, if half your players ignore a rule and it exists for a purpose beyond just tracking stuff in and of itself, then I’d say it is time to find a different rule that is ignored less and still accomplishes that purpose.

You can keep the original as an alternative for those that enjoy that rule for what it is

 

[mamba]

Then what are they doing in the book? Don't tell me ignoring such rules just recently became popular.

good question, I’d like them changed so they get ignored less. At a minimum offer some (hopefully more popular) alternatives

 

[mamba]

Importantly, this has nothing to do with balance. Powerful abilities are always going to be powerful whether your character can cast them once in their lifetime, or every six seconds.

if you do not see a difference in balance between those two options, then I cannot help you

The player will obviously be frustrated, but is it any more frustrating than "here's this super-cool ability! Too bad you can only use it X times per Whatever."

you mean like all of vancian magic?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing about this game approaches anything resembling realism. You can add all the rules you want. Tedius ones will be ignored by most.
first one I remember going back in the day was surprise. first we nerfed it so that only one round of attacks was possible. then we just did ignored it except for special things like dragons. then we dumped tracking spell components. Encumbrance took a lot longer but eventually apathy just killed that one. But who cares if the Devs have design intentions? If it sucks we'll do what dnd Players have done since the 1970's ignore it.

A little transparency of design wouldn't go amiss, regardless, or else I struggle with what the point of buying the game is at all, particularly one as schizophrenic as D&D.

 

[nevin]

good question, I’d like them changed so they get ignored less. At a minimum offer some (hopefully more popular) alternatives

the thing about alternatives is that if 15 or even 20% of the player base use them then they've served thier function. I have no data but I'd bet more than 15 to 20 percent of table's track stuff.

 

[nevin]

if you do not see a difference in balance between those two options, then I cannot help you


you mean like all of vancian magic?

the game was literally designed with the DM as the Fulcrum to maintain the level of balance they want in their game. Rules can't fix that unless you make a new game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Certainly not! But there are plenty of unwise game design choices that are kept for reasons other than helping to make a rich, positive game experience for the people playing it. Tradition is a big one. Controlling player responses is another--remember the "no playable gnomes!" debacle, where something like over 90% of players don't play gnomes and never have and yet somehow delaying them for a later book was an absolutely unconscionable affront.

As bad as WotC are about giving players perverse incentives, the playerbase itself is often ready, willing, and able to bring illogical or perverse expectations to the table. Fail to include a rule that "should" be there, even if almost no one uses it, and you might have a riot on your hands. I have found no rhyme nor reason beyond "but it should be there, even if it doesn't matter!" in over two decades of interacting with this fandom. It just is what it is.


If it is merely acceptable to others, then it ideally should still be excised. Acceptable is a pretty low bar. Conversely, if that same rule is well-liked by the others, then yes, we have a problem. We cannot serve all possible interests perfectly evenly. Some people want Wizards to be simply superior to all other classes. Some want to excise non-casters from the game entirely (or, in some cases, to have non-casters become casters in some way over time.) Some want to excise magic from the game entirely. Etc., etc., etc. No matter what you do in game design, you will always be choosing some preferences that won't, or can't, be served by your game.

But it is simply true that, all else being equal, you want to design a game such that the fewest number of people possible will feel that the rules are tedious. Intentionally trying to make something tedious for most players so that people will avoid over-using it is simply unwise game design.

Depends on the players you're trying to attract. You can make a game including rules some would find tedious, if the design intent is to attract players who want those rules. Several games I favor work this way. The problem comes when the players you're trying to attract are "everyone".

 

[CleverNickName]

if you do not see a difference in balance between those two options, then I cannot help you

Eh, that's okay. I wasn't asking for help or anything, I was just explaining why I voted the way I did.