D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[Corinnguard]

is this not exactly what i was advocating for? just with more motivation for finding skill based solutions with martial's help,

I believe so. In the previous and current campaign adventures I have participated in, I haven't seen any of the party's casters casting magic to deal with an outside-of-combat problem that couldn't be solved by mundane means.

 

[Pedantic]

is this not exactly what i was advocating for? just with more motivation for finding skill based solutions with martial's help,

i mean sure, this doesn't elimiate spells being 'i win' buttons but it'll cut back on them being the go to solution on any mildly difficult roadblock and well, casters wouldn't be punished for casting spells so much as arbitrarially casting them for things that don't require magic, it's not like they don't have infinite magic damage on tap with their cantrips, but given the amount of slots they get and the 24hour adventuring day being pretty much the norm it's not like they're strapped for them, i'm sure they'll still have a good few to throw a fireball or whatever.

i'm confused on what you're trying to say about rituals here, you start off the reply saying casters would be punished for using spell slots (which rituals can be cast without), then you say rituals are a genuine long term investment(negative implication i picked up?) then the next you're complaining about players not using them.

i agree this doesn't solve the resting side of things but i feel you could put casters on a more warlock-esc short rest schedule with their reduced total of slots, recovering multiple times through the day to reduce nova-ing potential, long resting would be less severely desirable than continuing on after a short as it helps equalise slots gained from doing either, at which point martials heightened skill capacities becomes less of a lesser tool and more of an alternate choice of solution for those that don't like tracking resources.

I think you're still just doubling down on the underlying design problem here. The issue remains that spells have the gameplay loop "Assign resources to overcome obstacles" and skills have the gameplay loop "have a percentage chance to overcome a problem." Skills remain a fallback state for inappropriately playing the first game, or a risk you take to better play the first one. If the player were engaging with the game at the level of "a party" instead of "a character" that wouldn't necessarily be an issue, but that isn't how the game is played.

Outside of combat, "mundane solutions" mostly isn't a game, it's a defaulting action when you can't play the game, or occasionally when it's allowed to be powerful, an option that removes a set of obstacles from consideration at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Many of these characteristic critiques are described as catastrophic problems to the future of D&D and that the system needs an entire overhaul to fix it. It's very difficult not to look at the success of 5E and amount of players and not agree with that take.

I have genuinely never said that. Not once.

I have, however, repeatedly said that just because 5e is successful, doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement, or for supporting more playstyles, or various other positive things. I have repeatedly been told that I must be stupid, because I'm clearly asserting that this means people pay tons of money for products they obviously hate.

Even though what I have said, repeatedly, is that often people don't fully know what their preferences are (citing things like extra chunky spaghetti sauce), or have a socially-constructed perspective which pushes them away from things they might actually enjoy more (as with, for example, coffee). Which is not one thing more than "it is doing well, but it might do better, and aspects of what it does might be holding it back, rather than helping it."

It took at least eight years for people to admit so much as "okay, yes, the DMG is terribly written." As recent as 2021, I had people telling me on this very forum that there was nothing wrong with the 5e DMG and clearly its sales indicate that most people agree. It's only been in the last two years that I've seen any progress at all on admitting the many and serious flaws of the 5e DMG we have. I'm not particularly hopeful that the playtest will produce a better one, but would be quite happy to be surprised on that front.

 

[payn]

I have genuinely never said that. Not once.

I have, however, repeatedly said that just because 5e is successful, doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement, or for supporting more playstyles, or various other positive things. I have repeatedly been told that I must be stupid, because I'm clearly asserting that this means people pay tons of money for products they obviously hate.

Even though what I have said, repeatedly, is that often people don't fully know what their preferences are (citing things like extra chunky spaghetti sauce), or have a socially-constructed perspective which pushes them away from things they might actually enjoy more (as with, for example, coffee). Which is not one thing more than "it is doing well, but it might do better, and aspects of what it does might be holding it back, rather than helping it."

Yeah, im the type that stops short of telling people what their preferences ought to be, even if I think they don't know what their preferences are. This does sound like you are trying to tell folks you know better, which is probably why you are getting those responses. It's pretty difficult to argue the game is being held back when its more popular than ever. I know you are tired of hearing that, but you keep making an argument that it needs improvement in spite of it.

It took at least eight years for people to admit so much as "okay, yes, the DMG is terribly written." As recent as 2021, I had people telling me on this very forum that there was nothing wrong with the 5e DMG and clearly its sales indicate that most people agree. It's only been in the last two years that I've seen any progress at all on admitting the many and serious flaws of the 5e DMG we have. I'm not particularly hopeful that the playtest will produce a better one, but would be quite happy to be surprised on that front.

This is what im talking about. It's exaggerated and very alarmist. What is worse is the air of pretention that folks get it finally, but are not going to take it seriously. Yes, its an issue that could be improved, no its not wrecking the game to go without correction to your satisfaction. I know the next stop is thousands online think so too, but keep in mind there are millions of players. After that, it will go to them not knowing they shouldn't want extra chunky spaghetti sauce and round and round we go.

My two cents, if you want to get away from these tiresome circular arguments, stop trying to drag everyone into them. You are a smart individual and I really appreciate your perspectives. Making the case that a legion is behind you, or that folks ought to be behind you, but cant understand it, is just going to result in an incendiary interaction. You dont need numbers of people/customers to support your ideas, they are good enough on their own.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I know you are tired of hearing that, but you keep making an argument that it needs improvement in spite of it.

Tell that to the folks who think it's under monetized.

Apparently the 'wild' popularity can be improved on if money and popularity still equal quality somehow.

 

[payn]

Tell that to the folks who think it's under monetized.

Apparently the 'wild' popularity can be improved on if money and popularity still equal quality somehow.

VTT, movies, t-shirts, etc.. They didnt mean overhauling the rules to get even more successful.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They didnt mean overhauling the rules to get even more successful.

Then... why have we done like 8 surveys to overhaul the rules to get even more successful by next year?

 

[payn]

Then... why have we done like 8 surveys to overhaul the rules to get even more successful by next year?

5E 2024 is an update, its not a cancelling and restructure.

 

[Shardstone]

Accepting the rules as they are because people right now enjoy them is the business specifically of a certain subset of consumers. That isn't the attitude that a game designer or creative should have. This doesn't mean that designers/creatives DON'T have this attitude -- many do -- but it's an attitude of needless limitation. There is no benefit in accepting the rules as they are. There is a lot of potential benefit in discussing the nature of the rules, their interaction, and how they could potentially be better or maybe need to be replaced. Things sound alarmist because different people discussing the topic have differing thresholds for what they consider severe. To me, the 5E DMG has good ideas, but could easily be improved in a number of low-effort ways that don't require a rewrite. But since we are getting a rewrite, it's normal to expect that it improves drastically, because why rewrite something if its the same mid-level of quality?

At the root of this is this very strange idea on this forum that it's wrong to want things to be better. That if you want the rules to improve, that's a you problem, and you should maybe go play another game. What a terrible attitude to hold. I enjoy D&D. I want D&D to be a better game. I want D&D to keep doing new things. Because of that, I want WotC to experiment with new takes on old ideas, and also to suggest new ideas in their books that they haven't before.

If your only metric is that people are fine with it now, then you don't have any real metric. You have a conservative opinion on design and art that only benefits you. Because YOU'RE ok with it now, you don't want it to change. But you already have your books. Stop trying to shout down attempts at innovation.

 

[nevin]

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Change can be good change can be bad. Just because you want it better doesn't mean it will be better when you change it. It's very sad that you have reduced everyone who disagree's with you as simply an enemy of change and not people with thier own varied reasons.

And honestly if innovation can't make it through an internet forum it was doomed anyway. Real innovations that are going to be popular usually aren't hard to sell.