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

[Micah Sweet]

So, I was speaking to what should happen. Real armed forces have entire branches devoted to logistics, so that the people who shoot the guns don't have to worry about it.
I understand that logistics can be interesting - Settlers of Catan, and any other resource-management/building game, is basically an exercise in logistics. They can be very popular games.

But D&D isn't Settlers of Catan.

D&D is a resource management game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the more interesting questions are:

What is it about the way we do logistical challenges that makes people dislike them?

How can logistical challenges be done better so that they are interesting/exciting/approachable?

Because these aren't about us expressing our preferences. They're about asking what isn't working and how that can be fixed.

But whether or not its working is apparently based on popularity, which is just preference. So we're back where we started.

 

[Stormonu]

D&D is a resource management game.

To some it is, to others it is not.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But whether or not its working is apparently based on popularity, which is just preference. So we're back where we started.

No, processes can be made more efficient and carry the same information and decisions. Preference is based on more than simply whim.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To some it is, to others it is not.

Are you saying there are no resources to manage? WotC hasn't yet fallen that far in shadow and flame.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, processes can be made more efficient and carry the same information and decisions. Preference is based on more than simply whim.

Sure, but try to convince me that WotC's moves are based on anything other than popularity and the fear of losing it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

D&D is a resource management game.

I would say that post-1e, D&D has been more of a heroic adventure game with heroic resource management. You need to manage your HP and other limited resources. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is the time scale. Whereas previously resources were recovered at a slower rate, they've generally gotten faster. There's been a shift from managing resources across the adventure, to managing them over an adventure day.

There is still still some adventure level management. Not everything recovers overnight. Hit dice, some features, and so forth. But a lot more does, like HP.

The newer editions do faster paced adventures better, whereas the older editions do slower paced adventures better. It's not that 5e can't do a slower pace, but you do need to use some optional rules or house rules, such as the one that makes long rests that require a week.

As for mundane resource management, that would probably require something like bringing back XP for gold. In a 5e campaign that I played in that focused on harsh survival rules, the DM limited the amount of food and water we could carry, and removed the spells that create food and water. It worked. The environment was our harshest enemy in that campaign. It was fine for a campaign, but I certainly wouldn't want it to be the default.

IMO, the reason for this shift is that many people prefer the faster pace, and the reduction of mundane resource managment, and the designers recognized this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But whether or not its working is apparently based on popularity, which is just preference. So we're back where we started.

It's not "just preference." There are ways to improve overall reception. That's literally the point. That's why one part of rule design is collecting user feedback.

Throwing up your hands and just saying "it's all preference so there's nothing to say" is defeatist. We can find ways that make things work better--in the sense of being better-received by players, of actually getting used by most people instead of being ignored, of opening up the design space and seeing what else can be done with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not "just preference." There are ways to improve overall reception. That's literally the point. That's why one part of rule design is collecting user feedback.

Throwing up your hands and just saying "it's all preference so there's nothing to say" is defeatist. We can find ways that make things work better--in the sense of being better-received by players, of actually getting used by most people instead of being ignored, of opening up the design space and seeing what else can be done with it.

That third one, about opening up design space... that seems worthwhile to me. The rest of it, well, quite frankly I don't share WotC's priorities. I'm not interested in making WotC D&D even more the law of the land, as they continue their quest to simplify the game into nonsense so even more people will buy it. It is to me a waste of creative talent in the interest of ever rising profit, and it doesn't make a better game, just one that more people purchase.

 

[Lanefan]

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

I'm all ears.

The challenge, however, will be to in fact carry the same information (and to the same level of granularity, otherwise information is lost) while making it more efficient.