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

[Baron Opal II]

Tedium? No. Adding something undesirable to control access or utility of a class feature seems self-defeating.

I think that material components these days should have one of three purposes:

1. Gatekeeping / Adventure seed (plane shift - the key is special, how do you get one?)
2. Enforced rarity (secret chest - "powerful magic" requires special expenditures.)
3. Ad hoc enhancement (+1 per die of damage for lightning bolt with a thunderbird feather.)

I've also noticed that as I've run games, the first two options have become foci and the last single use components. Keeping track of the individual mundane components for the variety of spells was fun for me precisely once. In some way I don't remember this was an aspect of the low magic campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no need to exclude anything. However gating a plot behind a resource the party does not have is bad design. But I have never seen the wizard voluntarily taking plane shift.

That's their choice then, assuming the rules allow the wizard to choose their spells. And my campaigns don't have a "plot" that needs to be followed. It's up to the players.

 

[Incenjucar]

We should not be basing the power of the characters on how effective their players' mental processing is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Some people will put up with basically anything to get a power up.

I'm sure some people reading this right now would take a vorpal sword at level one at the cost of the DM being allowed to dopeslap them whenever they swung the thing.

 

[mamba]

Then...don't ignore it. I really don't see the problem. "The rules are a problem because some people ignore the rules" makes no sense to me.

If the rule is tedious bookkeeping and the instinct is to simply ignore it, then the problem is with the rule. You cannot tell me that a rule that the majority ignores is a good rule, at that point it is essentially an unwelcome optional nuisance.

 

[MichaelSomething]

We should not be basing the power of the characters on how effective their players' mental processing is.

Isn't that the whole point of the game? That the player make decisions to affect the fiction in the way they desire? In order to come to the conclusion that they want, a player needs to understand the fiction and how to manipulate it?

Also, I thought "skilled play" was something we were supposed to like around here??

 

[CreamCloud0]

If tedium is all that’s standing in the way between players and powerful abilities then you can be pretty sure they’re most likely going to very quickly dedicate alot of effort into circumventing as much the resource management aspect as possible to give themselves free reign and use of these now unhindered overpowered abilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the rule is tedious bookkeeping and the instinct is to simply ignore it, then the problem is with the rule. You cannot tell me that a rule that the majority ignores is a good rule, at that point it is essentially an unwelcome optional nuisance.

Whether or not something is "tedious bookkeeping" is subjective. If a lot of people don't like it, then you can change the rule, although I would appreciate if a point was explicitly made in the book about how verisimilitude is meaningless in D&D and that rules only exist to facilitate "fun" for the largest possible group of people, which means it's not going to be a good fit for everyone. Basically, be honest about dropping the big tent and stop pretending they're everything to everyone.

 

[Scribe]

Whether or not something is "tedious bookkeeping" is subjective. If a lot of people don't like it, then you can change the rule, although I would appreciate if a point was explicitly made in the book about how verisimilitude is meaningless in D&D and that rules only exist to facilitate "fun" for the largest possible group of people, which means it's not going to be a good fit for everyone. Basically, be honest about dropping the big tent and stop pretending they're everything to everyone.

Man, we fall on the same side often enough, you have to know that Wizards is not remotely interested in providing a game that is even remotely 'simulationist'.

Any number of things could be brought up to reflect the fact that the game is pretty much nonsense at this point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Man, we fall on the same side often enough, you have to know that Wizards is not remotely interested in providing a game that is even remotely 'simulationist'.

Any number of things could be brought up to reflect the fact that the game is pretty much nonsense at this point.

Oh, I know. I'd just like them to be honest about it.