D&D General Taking the "Dungeons" out of D&D

[Asisreo]

Serious question: Why would this group choose to play D&D, which has resource management laid out in its roots, rather than any other game which isn't built around that fundamental premise?

Because neither the cover, nor the PHB, nor the DMG or MM, or any of the additional adventures or settings, ever tell the players "D&D is meant to be a resource management game."

Would you not think it weird that something "so integral to balance and the game itself" is not mentioned as a point of balance? Would that not be misleading?

We shouldn't make assumptions about the game design unless it came straight from a designer's mouth. The game is balanced around action economy, HP, spell slot levels, damage, and other mechanics. The game does not need to be a resource management game to be balanced.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because neither the cover, nor the PHB, nor the DMG or MM, or any of the additional adventures or settings, ever tell the players "D&D is meant to be a resource management game."

Would you not think it weird that something "so integral to balance and the game itself" is not mentioned as a point of balance? Would that not be misleading?

We shouldn't make assumptions about the game design unless it came straight from a designer's mouth. The game is balanced around action economy, HP, spell slot levels, damage, and other mechanics. The game does not need to be a resource management game to be balanced.

Okay, so the "resource management" argument is based on the thinking that almost everything you've listed (damage and other being not) are technically resources. They're limited used resources that you spend to do things. You spend your actions, which are both limited in quantity and in kind, to do things. Combat is largely balanced on the action economy (economy being a telling point resources are involved) and hp economy (you spend hp to prevent attacks from being fatal/incapacitating). You spend your limited resource spell slots to do things. Etc, etc.

Resource management is baked into the design of D&D. It's pretty good as disguising it, as you've listed some of the core resources and yet disagree that they're resources and that their management is a fundamental aspect of the game. It's certainly not the only aspect, and may or may not be the most important aspect at your table (or scene to scene or round to round, even), but 5e is still very much about managing limited resources.

 

[Asisreo]

Okay, so the "resource management" argument is based on the thinking that almost everything you've listed (damage and other being not) are technically resources. They're limited used resources that you spend to do things. You spend your actions, which are both limited in quantity and in kind, to do things. Combat is largely balanced on the action economy (economy being a telling point resources are involved) and hp economy (you spend hp to prevent attacks from being fatal/incapacitating). You spend your limited resource spell slots to do things. Etc, etc.

Resource management is baked into the design of D&D. It's pretty good as disguising it, as you've listed some of the core resources and yet disagree that they're resources and that their management is a fundamental aspect of the game. It's certainly not the only aspect, and may or may not be the most important aspect at your table (or scene to scene or round to round, even), but 5e is still very much about managing limited resources.

What I'm saying is that the management of these resources, while they do exist, does not necessitate the balance of the game revolve around it.

The defining feature of a resource management game isn't that there are resource to manage. That would make Kirby, Dark Souls, Destiny, and Uncharted all resource management games, which is too broad a definition to be useful.

The defining feature of a resource management game is the scarcity of said resources. While D&D can have scarce resources, D&D doesn't have to. You don't have to have limited HP, spell slots, or Abilities for a D&D game to be balanced.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I'm saying is that the management of these resources, while they do exist, does not necessitate the balance of the game revolve around it.

The defining feature of a resource management game isn't that there are resource to manage. That would make Kirby, Dark Souls, Destiny, and Uncharted all resource management games, which is too broad a definition to be useful.

The defining feature of a resource management game is the scarcity of said resources. While D&D can have scarce resources, D&D doesn't have to. You don't have to have limited HP, spell slots, or Abilities for a D&D game to be balanced.

I'm trying hard to follow your argument, but I think there's something missing. If I were to guess, you're making the argument that you can have D&D play that doesn't put those resources in check -- that essentially revolves around resolving conflicts in ways that limited spell slots, or spending hp, doesn't really matter. And, sure, that's true, and I note it above in saying that the resource game isn't always foremost, even round to round.

However, I don't think you can divorce balance in D&D from the resource game. I mean, hp increase and spell slot increase are one of the primary things that improve with level and are countered by similar improvements in foes. Same with the action economy -- you don't get more actions, but you get more efficient and effective in how you can use the actions -- again something mirrored in foe design. A quick test of balance involving the resources in D&D is to go to extremes and see if it hangs together -- can an otherwise level 1 character have inifinite spell slots of any level and remain balanced? I don't thing so. Same goes with a character with 500 hp and regen 500/round. That doesn't balance. Going the other way, can we balance a wizard with 1 spell slot only and ever with a normal wizard? Can we balance a fighter with only ever 1 hitpoint against that same normal wizard? No, because a careful balance of these resources is the core way that D&D balances class design and encounter design. Do you, as GM, have to pay attention to that? Certainly not, but you can't just say that because you don't pay attention to it that the game designers did not or that the game isn't, at base expectations of play, balanced on managing those resources.

I play Blades in the Dark as well, and it's a narrative structured game -- pretty far mechanically from D&D. And, yet, I would say that the balance of how players manage stress is a critical part of that engine. You can't take it out, or introduce a character with overly large or small pools of stress and have it balance at all with the other PCs or the mechanical expectations of the game. And, balance against those mechanical expectations is critically important. To shift back to 5e, I don't see how you can totally ignore the resource management game and still be playing 5e according to the designed expectations. You can play it that way, of course, because 5e is ultimately a GM decides core mechanic, so the GM can decides whatever they want. But, the class writeups, the spell level descriptions, the construction of foes, and the construction of encounters are all very much tied into the expectations of how resource management works in 5e. You can dispense with them, at your table, but that doesn't say much at all about how the game was designed to function, and it's clearly balanced on resource management in a number of ways.

 

[Asisreo]

I'm trying hard to follow your argument, but I think there's something missing. If I were to guess, you're making the argument that you can have D&D play that doesn't put those resources in check -- that essentially revolves around resolving conflicts in ways that limited spell slots, or spending hp, doesn't really matter. And, sure, that's true, and I note it above in saying that the resource game isn't always foremost, even round to round.

However, I don't think you can divorce balance in D&D from the resource game. I mean, hp increase and spell slot increase are one of the primary things that improve with level and are countered by similar improvements in foes. Same with the action economy -- you don't get more actions, but you get more efficient and effective in how you can use the actions -- again something mirrored in foe design. A quick test of balance involving the resources in D&D is to go to extremes and see if it hangs together -- can an otherwise level 1 character have inifinite spell slots of any level and remain balanced? I don't thing so. Same goes with a character with 500 hp and regen 500/round. That doesn't balance. Going the other way, can we balance a wizard with 1 spell slot only and ever with a normal wizard? Can we balance a fighter with only ever 1 hitpoint against that same normal wizard? No, because a careful balance of these resources is the core way that D&D balances class design and encounter design. Do you, as GM, have to pay attention to that? Certainly not, but you can't just say that because you don't pay attention to it that the game designers did not or that the game isn't, at base expectations of play, balanced on managing those resources.

I play Blades in the Dark as well, and it's a narrative structured game -- pretty far mechanically from D&D. And, yet, I would say that the balance of how players manage stress is a critical part of that engine. You can't take it out, or introduce a character with overly large or small pools of stress and have it balance at all with the other PCs or the mechanical expectations of the game. And, balance against those mechanical expectations is critically important. To shift back to 5e, I don't see how you can totally ignore the resource management game and still be playing 5e according to the designed expectations. You can play it that way, of course, because 5e is ultimately a GM decides core mechanic, so the GM can decides whatever they want. But, the class writeups, the spell level descriptions, the construction of foes, and the construction of encounters are all very much tied into the expectations of how resource management works in 5e. You can dispense with them, at your table, but that doesn't say much at all about how the game was designed to function, and it's clearly balanced on resource management in a number of ways.

What I intend to discuss is that the game was balanced in a way that extends beyond resource management, not necessarily devoid of it.

Do I believe the game's balance is compromised upon the removal of limited resources? Yes, but only to a degree. Balance" in-and-of itself is a meaningless term since it requires a relation. Balanced to what? I ask.

If you're trying to balance the game DM v. Player, it's obviously an asymmetrical design. The DM holds almost all the power, the player holds almost none. If you try to balance Player v. Player, the game would make more sense but a subtle problem appears. Balance that allows symmetry between players makes the game less interesting. Many games have attempted PvP balance but few get it truly right.

The game is balanced, as I understand it, around the play experience. Allowing the maximum variety of games to be played while also being fun for a specific group.

That is, the game was balanced to allow resource management games to work well but not balanced such that only resource management games work well. The game was also balanced keeping in mind how a group may want to play a game without resource scarcity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I intend to discuss is that the game was balanced in a way that extends beyond resource management, not necessarily devoid of it.

Do I believe the game's balance is compromised upon the removal of limited resources? Yes, but only to a degree. Balance" in-and-of itself is a meaningless term since it requires a relation. Balanced to what? I ask.

If you're trying to balance the game DM v. Player, it's obviously an asymmetrical design. The DM holds almost all the power, the player holds almost none. If you try to balance Player v. Player, the game would make more sense but a subtle problem appears. Balance that allows symmetry between players makes the game less interesting. Many games have attempted PvP balance but few get it truly right.

The game is balanced, as I understand it, around the play experience. Allowing the maximum variety of games to be played while also being fun for a specific group.

That is, the game was balanced to allow resource management games to work well but not balanced such that only resource management games work well. The game was also balanced keeping in mind how a group may want to play a game without resource scarcity.

I think there may have been a misperception in this discussion. Fundamentally, 5e is mechanically balanced on resource management, so it's hard to say that resource management has nothing to do with balance in 5e. You seem to have take that to mean that all balance, including how the GM might structure an adventure overall, must also be resource management to say that 5e is a resource management game. I think this is a bit to much either/or. Yes, it's very true a GM can run a politically focused game in 5e that rarely stresses resources of a PC so it's true that resource management isn't always on. However, that same scenario plays out very different for Tier I characters, that lack access to powerful character resources, and Tier IV play where players have resource that can restructure reality. So, even in this area the GM has to consider, if not the amount of resources present, the kind of resources present.

I said above and I'll say it again here -- resource management is a fundamental balance structure in 5e, but it's not the only one, nor is it always the primary one. On this, it seems we agree. Where it appears we disagree, though, is in saying how much resource management is important in 5e. I think it's pretty important -- one of, if not the main things the expectation for 5e play is based on. You most certainly can play against type, here, and avoid the combat pillar structure, or the rest structure, or spell slot structures, or hp vs damage structures, but I think that you're throwing too much baby out with that bathwater. That you can ignore these things doesn't mean that the game design does. The expectations for 5e play are laid out pretty clearly and those revolve around resource management. You're told how many and what kind of encounters you should expect and also how often you should allow resource replenishment to occur (the rest cycles). You can ignore this, but the game was built around these assumptions. It's balanced there. Not playing that way doesn't at all change how the game was balanced by design.

For what it's worth, I often ignore those guidelines and balance points when I run 5e. But, when I do, I do it with consideration of what I'm doing going outside of the mechanical balance of the game. Knowing the balance points of the game isn't a restriction -- it's like knowing where that pothole in the road is. Knowing where it is lets me drive around it without running off the road or swerving into oncoming traffic because I can anticipate it. Similarly, knowing where the game is balanced due to resource management lets me better and more effectively move away from that without running into another problem because I didn't know.

 

[Asisreo]

I think there may have been a misperception in this discussion. Fundamentally, 5e is mechanically balanced on resource management, so it's hard to say that resource management has nothing to do with balance in 5e. You seem to have take that to mean that all balance, including how the GM might structure an adventure overall, must also be resource management to say that 5e is a resource management game. I think this is a bit to much either/or. Yes, it's very true a GM can run a politically focused game in 5e that rarely stresses resources of a PC so it's true that resource management isn't always on. However, that same scenario plays out very different for Tier I characters, that lack access to powerful character resources, and Tier IV play where players have resource that can restructure reality. So, even in this area the GM has to consider, if not the amount of resources present, the kind of resources present.

I said above and I'll say it again here -- resource management is a fundamental balance structure in 5e, but it's not the only one, nor is it always the primary one. On this, it seems we agree. Where it appears we disagree, though, is in saying how much resource management is important in 5e. I think it's pretty important -- one of, if not the main things the expectation for 5e play is based on. You most certainly can play against type, here, and avoid the combat pillar structure, or the rest structure, or spell slot structures, or hp vs damage structures, but I think that you're throwing too much baby out with that bathwater. That you can ignore these things doesn't mean that the game design does. The expectations for 5e play are laid out pretty clearly and those revolve around resource management. You're told how many and what kind of encounters you should expect and also how often you should allow resource replenishment to occur (the rest cycles). You can ignore this, but the game was built around these assumptions. It's balanced there. Not playing that way doesn't at all change how the game was balanced by design.

For what it's worth, I often ignore those guidelines and balance points when I run 5e. But, when I do, I do it with consideration of what I'm doing going outside of the mechanical balance of the game. Knowing the balance points of the game isn't a restriction -- it's like knowing where that pothole in the road is. Knowing where it is lets me drive around it without running off the road or swerving into oncoming traffic because I can anticipate it. Similarly, knowing where the game is balanced due to resource management lets me better and more effectively move away from that without running into another problem because I didn't know.

The disagreement, as I see it, is that those who support the resource management position believe that deviating away from the guidelines by which the book instructs causes artificial imbalance due to the book being balanced around certain assumptions that will cause resource scarcity.

My position is that such imbalance is less due to deviating from any specific guideline and more due to DM's that have yet to be acclimated to whatever theme they're trying to balance.

The "guidelines" are no such thing. They are useful if you want to run a resource scarce game, but they do not make any authoritative statements about what a DM ought to do for a maximum positive play experience, including balance.

If the game was meant to be a resource management game, why then are there no guidelines about how a DM might run an adventure where external resources are introduced? In the encounter balance section, there are no mention of magic items. No pure monster NPC (without class level) assistants. No maximum of minimum to short rests.

If the game was balanced to have 2 and only 2 short rests, why would they not affirmatively tell the DM to include 2 and only 2 short rests? If they don't, Warlocks and Monks hardly have any resources to manage since they may feel an abundance.

The way the book is written does not match the assumptions given that the game is, and should be, a resource management game.

 

[S'mon]

However, it's a good point about how some people are not outgoing or have acting skills, and how in 5E those players have a disadvantage compared to the more dramatic, role-playing, actor-y players. That's not the case with game combat: a less active or athletic player has no real disadvanatge compared to an athletic player with vast martial arts and weapons experience.

Players who understand the combat system, have good visuospatial skills, can min-max their PC build, maybe understand some basics of real life combat... these players have a huge advantage over those who don't. Likewise in social encounters, players who know how to talk will have an advantage over those who don't. But in both cases character abilities can accentuate player ability, or compensate somewhat for lack of player ability.

Generally the more thespy players tend to be good at social and weak at combat, for the above reasons. I'm not sure why they should be treated worse than the player who's great at the above stuff but not good at social interaction.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Because neither the cover, nor the PHB, nor the DMG or MM, or any of the additional adventures or settings, ever tell the players "D&D is meant to be a resource management game."

It's a role-playing game. You take on the mindset of an imaginary person. Unless you're playing in Star Trek, that means managing resources.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The disagreement, as I see it, is that those who support the resource management position believe that deviating away from the guidelines by which the book instructs causes artificial imbalance due to the book being balanced around certain assumptions that will cause resource scarcity.

Well, if you're always deviating, then, yeah, you probably should be playing a different game that does what you're doing better.

My position is that such imbalance is less due to deviating from any specific guideline and more due to DM's that have yet to be acclimated to whatever theme they're trying to balance.

The "guidelines" are no such thing. They are useful if you want to run a resource scarce game, but they do not make any authoritative statements about what a DM ought to do for a maximum positive play experience, including balance.

I think they're a pretty strong statement on how the game was intended to be played, though, presumably because the designers thought it would lead to maximum positive play experience. That's not to say there aren't other ways, but it's a pretty strong statement that the advice given on how to structure play will not lead to the best play experience, and one I can't agree with. Following the guidelines will result in a pretty good game, actually.

If the game was meant to be a resource management game, why then are there no guidelines about how a DM might run an adventure where external resources are introduced? In the encounter balance section, there are no mention of magic items. No pure monster NPC (without class level) assistants. No maximum of minimum to short rests.

I'm not following you, here. You're saying that there has to be the introduction of other resources in an adventure for the game to be have a foundation of resource management? That doesn't make sense to me at all. As for magic items, those are already accounted for as ways to modify the resource management game -- they alter the balance points and are, according to the advice, things that the GM should consider the impacts of on resource balance before handing them out. Most adventures that hand out magic items select those items to impact the balance points of that adventure. I don't even understand what you mean by no pure monster NPC assistants. You mean how they recover resources? Well, with the exception of hitpoint recovery, it's pretty well laid out in their statblocks, so I don't think this is as penetrating an example as you intend. They also have hitdice, and you can rule they recover hp on short and long rests pretty equally to the PCs. How you rule the existing rules apply is up to the GM. And, no, why would an adventure limit rests differently from how the rules do? If they're using a different approach than the rules do, they should say so. If they don't, then the baseline is the baseline.

If the game was balanced to have 2 and only 2 short rests, why would they not affirmatively tell the DM to include 2 and only 2 short rests? If they don't, Warlocks and Monks hardly have any resources to manage since they may feel an abundance.

Because there's a difference between 'hey, GMs, the game is balanced here, use that to inform how you choose to play,' and 'hey, GMs, you have to do this.' I mean, balance is an informative tool, not a restriction on play.

The way the book is written does not match the assumptions given that the game is, and should be, a resource management game.

Oh, it absolutely does. It's fundamental to how the game is laid out. You can ignore it, as I've said many, many times without acknowledgement, but you should know where it's balanced before you disturb it so that you can anticipate how it might go. Just like I strongly recommend playing the game RAW before adding houserules, I also think that you should recognize how the game is mechanically balance and what assumptions it's premised on before you change them. Do you have to? No, and plenty of people have fun without ever doing so, but plenty more have issues and can't quite figure out why.