D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[nevin]

hmm.. I think a lot of games do the same thing movies do today. They ignore all the easy stuff and only present the players with the hard things where they have a serious chance of failure. In a game run like that you begin to feel like your just an average guy pretending to be a hero. As boring as it can be for the DM I think a lot of games need to have more of the easy (what some DM's would call pointless) battles so the hero's can have those moments and feel badass. Because it just doesn't feel badass when every single action is 50/50, or 60/40 chance of success. Sometimes the bandits just need to be those unlucky idiots who attacked the wrong party.

 

[mamba]

All those issues apply at the per day model as well

no, because then attrition is a thing, instead of the chars being shiny and new before every battle.

I agree that SR is a bit like that, and I would gladly get rid of it.

Everything recharges after the day

yes, which is a very different scope than after every encounter

The variability of fights is still there, some fights are easy and you triumph easily. Some are tough and take longer and are a lot closer. Some are lethal and you need to recognize that.

but outside of a TPK, that variability no longer matters

It is the same as multiple adventuring days in a megadungeon, each day the party can advance until they reach their daily limit then they recover fully between each adventuring day with everything recharging and are not worn down day to day.

and yours does not need any rest at all, not seeing an improvement there

Only inconsequential on a per day challenge basis. They are still consequential narratively and have the same stakes individually as the per day budget challenge.

no, they do not have the same stakes, as nothing is getting depleted in your case

Is per day full recovery the best solution? Probably not, but moving to per encounter is making things worse…

 

[Shardstone]

Resource management of food and water isn't fun for you. Many people do enjoy simulating the experience of survival, and don't just see it as, "math for the sake of math" as you say. What you seem to be trying to say is that you don't enjoy it. And that's fine.

Its fun when the game supports that style of play. I domt think wotc 5e really does

One thing I wondered about is the response to a combination of both Gritty and gonzo.

1. Attacks and Cantrips are at will.
2. You always have X Spellslots/rages available but if you rest you temporarily have double X Spellslots/rages
3. You always have a number of your actionsurge/ki/maneuvers/pactmagics/etc equal to your tier (1 at level 1, 2 at 5, 3 at 11, 4 at 17). Double right after a rest.
4. Monsters beef up when they rest

This way a group can push on with always on base strength vs base strength foes OR rest for double strength vs double strength foes.

Push through the dungeon and the dragon has Fire Breath (Recharge 6).

Attack, rest, attack, rest, attack with double slots and the dragon has Fire Breath (Recharge 4–6).

Attacks, flee, rest, attack, flee, rest, attack with triple slots and the dragon has Fire Breath (Always available) and lair actions.

This might be your best idea ever.

 

[Pedantic]

hmm.. I think a lot of games do the same thing movies do today. They ignore all the easy stuff and only present the players with the hard things where they have a serious chance of failure. In a game run like that you begin to feel like your just an average guy pretending to be a hero. As boring as it can be for the DM I think a lot of games need to have more of the easy (what some DM's would call pointless) battles so the hero's can have those moments and feel badass. Because it just doesn't feel badass when every single action is 50/50, or 60/40 chance of success. Sometimes the bandits just need to be those unlucky idiots who attacked the wrong party.

I personally think this is ideal territory for Take 10/Take 20 rules, or something like the halving rules from Kids on Bikes. Making those rules work though is reliant on having fixed DCs and combating any DM tendency to creep DCs up to "challenge" PCs. I think that requires skills with specified outcomes instead of generic difficulty tables, because the temptation will always be there to make it a Very Hard check, so the rogue will actually roll.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Fixing encumbrance

For encumbrance at the table with pen and paper: Slotbased systems.

Gotta disagree.

PF2 has a slot system essentially and the effect is more or less 'oh boy, I can not have fun with slightly less math, but more operations!'

I've never met an inventory system, videogame or tabletop that ever managed to get better than 'not onerous' and never one that actually added to my enjoyment. I think logistics puzzles are one of those things that only appeal to people into logistics puzzles and no one wants to admit that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Its fun when the game supports that style of play. I domt think wotc 5e really does.

No disagreement here.

 

[Voadam]

part of the issue with that implementation is that i think alot of people who pick those classes/features want to be good at those parts of the game rather than sidestepping it entirely, i don't deny that some people take them so they can ignore that part of the game but it's like picking a rogue who's invested in slight of hand/thieves tools and the DMG says to remove all locked doors+chests and traps as a result because why would you of picked a class that specialises in that area of the game if you didn't want to specifically remove it as an obstacle.

There are people who want to engage with those areas specifically so they would be better served by something like having more options in a 4e style skill challenge or bonuses on the Adventures in Middle Earth wilderness travel rules rather than just skipping it entirely. Or even ironically just player skilling trap stuff to engage with it instead of dice rolling or autosuccessing stuff.

Some implementations though would not sidestep those areas but enhance them. If a thief had autosuccess on climbing it would not obviate thinking about climbing or climbing situations, it would be his thing that he would be called upon to do and would probably be worked in more as a step in what the group is trying to do. Auto hunting however essentially means no need to stop to think about food gathering, it is covered, while not really being anything that would tie into other stuff the way auto success climbing could.

 

[Corinnguard]

I'm not sure that totally proves that removing resource management is a desirable outcome, so much as removing specific resources from play is a desirable reward. I have fond memories of striving after Rings of Sustenance and Murlynd's Spoons.

I remember taking a liking to Heward's Handy Haversack.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think 5e could really use more formalised structure in many areas of skill use, instead of just letting GM to figure it out somehow. I'm sure many GMs handle it just fine, but when we don't have default structure for these things we also cannot have mechanics that attach to those structures.

For example if we had something like Adventures in Middle-Earth journey mechanics for making a perilous trek, then rangers could have features that provided bonuses in relevant areas.

 

[Shardstone]

Gotta disagree.

PF2 has a slot system essentially and the effect is more or less 'oh boy, I can not have fun with slightly less math, but more operations!'

I've never met an inventory system, videogame or tabletop that ever managed to get better than 'not onerous' and never one that actually added to my enjoyment. I think logistics puzzles are one of those things that only appeal to people into logistics puzzles and no one wants to admit that.

I normally agree, but I really like slot based systems that are simple. In my version of D&D that I run, I give inventory slots equal to str + int. Strength for carrying it, Intelligence for how well you pack. Then heavy things or armor are 2 slots, light things can share a slot, ammunition isn't counted because who cares about counting ammunition (no offense to those that do).

This has been good for my game. It lets me target the inventory of the players easily, which can be fun, and it has forced them to share things with each other, presenting cool situations and nice teamwork. IT also requires basically no math at all. Its literally how many slots, how many slots does a thing take up -- 1, 2, or half of one.