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

[Stormonu]

I do wonder sometimes how much "walking back" players would accept. I have had cases where I have "nerfed" spells and abilities my own players have applauded them. I'm not much for the logistics game, but making light, food & water, encumbrance, ammunition and downtime are things I'd like to pop up sometimes and be meaningful when they do. I just don't want a level of logistics to become the chain around everyone's neck that detracts from doing things in the game. Just something that can't be entirely ignored or whisked away with an innate ability or low (1st-2nd) level spell.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay, fundamentally then.

Is that supposed to be better? You're still saying no logistical challenge could ever be interesting or worthwhile in the context of D&D. I think that's a hasty generalization at best, particularly because the rules for logistical stuff aren't exactly a hotbed of innovation or change across D&D's history. Rather the antithesis, actually.

I do wonder sometimes how much "walking back" players would accept. I have had cases where I have "nerfed" spells and abilities my own players have applauded them. I'm not much for the logistics game, but making light, food & water, encumbrance, ammunition and downtime are things I'd like to pop up sometimes and be meaningful when they do. I just don't want a level of logistics to become the chain around everyone's neck that detracts from doing things in the game. Just something that can't be entirely ignored or whisked away with an innate ability or low (1st-2nd) level spell.

Exactly. The methods used for these things in D&D as it exists--even in 4e!--have been at best mediocre and typically both boring and mere "spend a spell to circumvent."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is that supposed to be better? You're still saying no logistical challenge could ever be interesting or worthwhile in the context of D&D. I think that's a hasty generalization at best, particularly because the rules for logistical stuff aren't exactly a hotbed of innovation or change across D&D's history. Rather the antithesis, actually.

I've played a lot more than just D&D. I've seen all sorts of attempts from PF2's Bulk to die rolls for depletion that try to gamify logistics, to slots, to elaborate container systems and the only good one I've seen is BitD's Load, which amounts to not doing it and having fun with the fact that you're not doing it.

Even if it were possible to make counting for no reason 'fun', is it worth the page space and development time that is so desperately needed elsewhere in 5e.

 

[Lanefan]

No, pick something to improve.

You said this upthread:

No, processes can be made more efficient and carry the same information and decisions.

Assuming you had a method or system in mind that achieved this, I asked what it was - while at the same time pointing out that loss of granularity fails the "carry the same information" clause. Awaiting your answer.

 

[TwoSix]

Re logistics... I'm imagining an adventure where the PCs have tightly limited supplies and no easy way to recover them. If you run out of arrows, your bow doesn't work. Run out of food, you starve. Every day and every battle, your resources dwindle and it's a race to beat the villains before you run out.

That actually sounds like a lot of fun. (Though I think not everyone in my group would agree; and it also poses class balance problems.)

But in practice, my experience of tracking supplies is that it doesn't matter in 90% of games. With the kind of money adventurers accumulate, plus utility magic, it's trivially easy to supply yourself with whatever you need. D&D is simply not designed to support real logistics challenges. So it becomes a bookkeeping exercise, neither challenging nor fun, and I'd rather just abstract it away.

I've said it before, but the best way to make D&D's attrition-based model work is to move away from the idea of inherent magical capability, and make magical effects the result of craftsmanship that costs gold and resources.

Spellcasters don't cast magic missile, they know the recipe for magic missile and can make scrolls and charged wands of magic missile. Discovering new and more possible recipes, and acquiring the resources to craft those recipes, is the core loop of spellcaster play.

You don't long rest in the wilderness, the only place to long rest is civilization, which requires gold. Making scrolls or potions or other magical items require specialized materials and facilities, which requires civilization, and therefore gold. If you can't long rest, getting back Hit Die and Hit Points requires magic, which requires (you guessed it) gold.

You want the adventure cycle (trek to new civilized area, discover adventuring site, explore and discover rewards of adventuring site, return to civilized area with profit) to always be about minimizing waste, and maximizing returns. If you want to enable more of a power fantasy, simply give out more loot.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Assuming you had a method or system in mind that achieved this, I asked what it was - while at the same time pointing out that loss of granularity fails the "carry the same information" clause. Awaiting your answer.

The method varies depending upon the problem being solved. When I said "pick" I meant what problem specifically. I was expecting you to say "Encumbrance" since that was the current topic of discussion, but was attempting to give you the opportunity to pick some other problem that was of greater interest to you. Sorry that was unclear.

As to your second point, loss of granularity is acceptable if the outcome achieves the same purpose with the same or better utility. If tracking weight to the ounce or character movement to the inch is not useful, or in fact tedious, then that loss of fidelity is in fact beneficial.

Awaiting your choice.

 

[Lanefan]

The method varies depending upon the problem being solved. When I said "pick" I meant what problem specifically. I was expecting you to say "Encumbrance" since that was the current topic of discussion, but was attempting to give you the opportunity to pick some other problem that was of greater interest to you. Sorry that was unclear.

As to your second point, loss of granularity is acceptable if the outcome achieves the same purpose with the same or better utility. If tracking weight to the ounce or character movement to the inch is not useful, or in fact tedious, then that loss of fidelity is in fact beneficial.

Awaiting your choice.

Thing is, loss of granularity specifically means the outcome does not achieve the same purpose. Instead, it's a trade-off of precision for utility.

I'm not looking for a trade-off, I'm looking for something that's flat-out better: that preserves granularity but also achieves better utility. I'm more than willing to accept that such a thing doesn't exist, but one can always hope.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Thing is, loss of granularity specifically means the outcome does not achieve the same purpose. Instead, it's a trade-off of precision for utility.

I'm not looking for a trade-off, I'm looking for something that's flat-out better: that preserves granularity but also achieves better utility. I'm more than willing to accept that such a thing doesn't exist, but one can always hope.

It's not a trade-off if you aren't utilizing that level of precision. But, suit yourself.