Is Resource Management “Fun?”

[Jd Smith1]

That's something else I haven't seen in nearly forever: a party using pack animals. For anything.

They's a staple in every non-modern campaign I run. Except our current campaign, which is set in the American Revolution. Mules were uncommon in the New World until after we gained independence. George Washington was instrumental in introducing mules to the new United States.

 

[Jd Smith1]

This. The number of players at the table determines the game you are playing. The more players you have at the table the more the focus of the game has to be on what everyone is doing together. The fewer players you have, the more you can focus on what that player character is doing and feeling at any given moment. So many games are written where the basically are only playable by one or maybe two players with a single GM because the sort of gameplay they want and the pacing it implies, implies continual spotlight on a player.

This is actually the real determining factor in what a game is about. You can have six or eight players and put spotlight on the actions of an individual player, but what that player is then doing better be really entertaining to watch.

I currently have six players (I normally restrict the group to five, but that's another story), and I find that resource management is a useful tool for keeping the group busy. Resource tracking duties are spread out among the players, and likewise travel duties.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Neither, kind of.

There's a point in the game where tracking the basics* becomes less necessary - where magic can largely replace the need to track e.g. light, water, and food .....

In some games, D&D and clones particularly.

In other fantasy systems, light, water, and food are still purchased no matter what stage of development your PC has reached.

 

[bloodtide]

That's something else I haven't seen in nearly forever: a party using pack animals. For anything.

I'm a fan. It's common in my games I run for that reason.

We are enjoying paying attention to encumbrance, and resource management. And my son, who is 13, stopped playing 5th, and said he likes OSE ‘because worrying about rations and torches is like it’s own mini-game’ and ‘it’s fun’.

It is weird how things like foods, and fads and fashions keep coming back around.... Even Game Styles.

The vast bulk of gamers from the last 20 years have been very opposed to nearly any resource management, even for things like spells and abilities.

My 5E Spelljammer group was one of them. Six months ago they played a game with zero resource management: they would just have all items, equipment, abilities and spells at all times...because it was "more fun".

They ask me to run them a 5E Spelljammer game. I'm firm that I will only do it my way. And they agree. Now a little over six months later and they are loving all the resource management. They love having something to do and keep track of and find it.......fun.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm a fan. It's common in my games I run for that reason.

It is weird how things like foods, and fads and fashions keep coming back around.... Even Game Styles.

The vast bulk of gamers from the last 20 years have been very opposed to nearly any resource management, even for things like spells and abilities.

My 5E Spelljammer group was one of them. Six months ago they played a game with zero resource management: they would just have all items, equipment, abilities and spells at all times...because it was "more fun".

They ask me to run them a 5E Spelljammer game. I'm firm that I will only do it my way. And they agree. Now a little over six months later and they are loving all the resource management. They love having something to do and keep track of and find it.......fun.

It is strange, while having to keep tabs on my personal rations and the like is annoying, I do admit, I did have fun when I found my party in command of a ship in a pirate game, where I had to find solutions to water, food, ammo, maintenance and hiring a crew. However, I won't lie that we also solved a lot of these concerns with magic.

Similarly, I had fun with Kingmaker, until we discovered the rules for kingdom management were pretty much busted. So I'm willing to say that, in the right circumstances, logistics management can be fun, but it can also be a chore if not given the right weight and presentation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it has to matter to the player as more than simply a tax to play the game.

 

[JohnSnow]

Possibly not, but it is an argument I'd be willing to make in another thread.

Almost the entire time I've been playing ttRPGs, the consensus of the "smart people" was that the hit point was stupid, along with Vancian magic, linear fortune mechanics (as opposed to dice pools with normal curves), and classes and levels.

And the longer I play the less reasonable those criticisms become. And if there is any one aspect of the system that has survived all criticism it's the hit point.

And after spending two or three years GMing a game without hit points, and indeed on one of the strongest hit point-less systems I know (D6), I really miss them. They make game preparation so much easier. I can't think of anything that the lack of hit points do that hit points don't do better.

And one of the strongest proofs of that is that despite all the other different mechanics that I have been created to replace the hit point with something better, none of them have much penetration into the market. Video games without a hit point system are vastly less popular than ones that have it, despite the heavy math capabilities of video games making alternative more complex systems viable.

I used to have all the same complaints, and I will confess to having come around on all of those but Vacian magic.

Hit points aren’t realistic, but they’re elegant and simple. The problem with D&D isn’t hit points per se, it’s that the pools start too small and get too large. And that cracks the system at the edges.

My Vancian magic issue isn’t that the system doesn’t work, it’s philosophical. Without some kind of check, magic is too reliable. That level of predictability doesn’t feel like magic to me. But that’s not the Vancian part. Although I like the rather elegant solution to the problem in Shadowdark.

 

[James Gasik]

I used to have all the same complaints, and I will confess to having come around on all of those but Vacian magic.

Hit points aren’t realistic, but they’re elegant and simple. The problem with D&D isn’t hit points per se, it’s that the pools start too small and get too large. And that cracks the system at the edges.

My Vancian magic issue isn’t that the system doesn’t work, it’s philosophical. Without some kind of check, magic is too reliable. That level of predictability doesn’t feel like magic to me. But that’s not the Vancian part. Although I like the rather elegant solution to the problem in Shadowdark.

A poster on another forum once pointed stated that "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use". The complaint was that magic should be reigned in by meticulously tracking spell components, or some other restriction (like chance to backfire).

Grod's argument was that the problem with this rationale is that it doesn't really solve any problems. Wizards are still just as powerful, but now the player has to go out of their way, detracting from the campaign and story, so they can scrape their spell juice off the dungeon floor.

• The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
• The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
• The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it moot), avoids the class (turning it into effectively a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
• The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.

 

[JohnSnow]

A poster on another forum once pointed stated that "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use". The complaint was that magic should be reigned in by meticulously tracking spell components, or some other restriction (like chance to backfire).

Grod's argument was that the problem with this rationale is that it doesn't really solve any problems. Wizards are still just as powerful, but now the player has to go out of their way, detracting from the campaign and story, so they can scrape their spell juice off the dungeon floor.

• The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
• The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
• The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it moot), avoids the class (turning it into effectively a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
• The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.

I agree about making it annoying. Making it unpredictable isn’t necessarily about making it annoying. Are critical failures unfair to mages? Only if they’re only applied to them.

Is spell failure annoying?

If we can balance magic by letting it stay powerful but making it unreliable, then it feels different. If you make magic both more powerful and reliable, then logically everyone would use magic. Because there’s no reason not to.

And that’s boring.

 

[loverdrive]

Making it unpredictable isn’t necessarily about making it annoying.

I think, it kinda is. Expending a valueable resource, only for it to have no effect for no fault of your own, I'd say, is annoying, yeah. There's only so much randomness you can introduce before things go sour.

Making a really hard-hitting option really hard to use works well for videogames, where the only determining factor is player's aiming skill. It's way harder to make it fun in a tabletop setting.

If you need to mix spellcasters with non-spellcasters in a single gaming group, your options get even more limited. Making magic require weeks of preparation for complex rituals, for example, would probably be unviable (or turn magic users into a bargain bin martials for the vast majority of the time).

While, yeah, I like the aesthetics of unreliable magic, of a threat that an unspeakable horror from the outer space will slip through a crack in reality you've created to cast a spell, I don't think making it unreliable for the player is the right approach.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree about making it annoying. Making it unpredictable isn’t necessarily about making it annoying. Are critical failures unfair to mages? Only if they’re only applied to them.

Is spell failure annoying?

If we can balance magic by letting it stay powerful but making it unreliable, then it feels different. If you make magic both more powerful and reliable, then logically everyone would use magic. Because there’s no reason not to.

And that’s boring.

What loverdrive said, and yes, spell failure is annoying; I know people who would refuse to cast spells with even a 5% chance of failure (such as due to old school magic resistance).

As to whether or not everyone would use magic...well, yeah. Why wouldn't they? In fact, the better question is why don't they now, since 5e gives no reason whatsoever for people not to use magic.

Don't get me wrong, magic does need to be contained, but lowering it's power would be better than having a greater chance of spells to fail (since some already require attack rolls, allow saving throws or both) or worse, turning everyone into a wild magic sorcerer, where the party is constantly wondering if today is the day they will be engulfed in a miscast fireball.