D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes the social aspects and the bad jokes are definitely also part of the fun of D&D.

And, notably, when you're constantly doing the 5MWD, you get a lot fewer of those camaraderie moments. Instant-win buttons and mostly spending your play-time doing bookkeeping and resting just doesn't offer that many moments to be funny or poignant or struggling together.

But if the choice is "have fun social interactions with my friends OR win more, better, faster, safer, etc."...players will choose the latter. Even though losing all those moments of camaraderie will make the game less fun.

 

[payn]

Believe me, I'm quite familiar with 5e claiming to offer stuff in development stages and then quietly dropping it when the rubber actually hit the road and they had to stop dithering and settle on something.

But of course, many, many people derive the lessons they wish to from 5e's success (oftentimes, asserting something that boils down to "every part of 5e was individually necessary and jointly sufficient for its success, so any change of any kind would destroy that success"). Which usually means that any possibility of "maybe 5e could have done something differently and thus improve" gets completely discounted.

I think this greatly depends on the viewpoint. There is a strong element of "5E should really just be X instead" and I dont think folks should be surprised that its not a popular sentiment with some folks. The suggested improvements often amount to cancelling 5E and starting over with an entirely new edition.

Perhaps. I spent over a year trying, by degrees, to find a 4e game, and then a 4e-alike game, and then a "anything but 5e" game, and then a 5e game that was at least remotely compatible with my interests. I came up empty. "I can't find a game because folks only play (a very specific perspective on) 5e" is painfully real for me, personally.

Forming a gaming group itself is difficult before you even consider system. So, I wouldn't discount that element. I would have said some years ago that you are just being too picky, but I have recently landed my unicorn game. I put out a request to play in the War for the Crown AP in PF1. You know the "role play political intrigue" AP? I figured it was yesterdays system and an AP that probably doesn't have a ton of interest like Rise of the Runelords, Kingmaker, etc.. I figured it would sit in the abyss for weeks or months with no answer. It took two days.

Online opens every possibility, but the group dynamic and playstyle issue will remain. I know its a lot of effort and can be discouraging, but the effort will pay off in ways that trying to convince WOTC cancel 5E and start over wont.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think this greatly depends on the viewpoint. There is a strong element of "5E should really just be X instead" and I dont think folks should be surprised that its not a popular sentiment with some folks. The suggested improvements often amount to cancelling 5E and starting over with an entirely new edition.

Forming a gaming group itself is difficult before you even consider system. So, I wouldn't discount that element. I would have said some years ago that you are just being too picky, but I have recently landed my unicorn game. I put out a request to play in the War for the Crown AP in PF1. You know the "role play political intrigue" AP? I figured it was yesterdays system and an AP that probably doesn't have a ton of interest like Rise of the Runelords, Kingmaker, etc.. I figured it would sit in the abyss for weeks or months with no answer. It took two days.

Online opens every possibility, but the group dynamic and playstyle issue will remain. I know its a lot of effort and can be discouraging, but the effort will pay off in ways that trying to convince WOTC cancel 5E and start over wont.

I was looking online. I specifically sought games on four different websites (ENWorld, GITP, Myth-Weavers, Roll20), put out requests, responded to ads from others' games, applied for multiple things. As I said, I slowly widened my parameters from "I'd really like to play 4e specifically, any campaign" to "okay, I'd be fine with 13A as well...or something similar" to "...okay...I guess I can look at SR5 or DW or Savage Worlds...." to ".....okay...I guess...if 5e games are the only ones people are advertising...I could try to find one I might be able to tolerate playing...."

It was literally more than a year of trying. Not one successful game. The games I applied to either didn't accept me, or died after 4 or fewer sessions. Didn't matter if it was regular session play or PbP.

I tried. My ad here on ENWorld for a Shadowrun 5e game is still up. Never got a single response. Pretty sure it's 2-3 years old now. (Having checked, it will be three years old next month.)

 

[payn]

I was looking online. I specifically sought games on four different websites (ENWorld, GITP, Myth-Weavers, Roll20), put out requests, responded to ads from others' games, applied for multiple things. As I said, I slowly widened my parameters from "I'd really like to play 4e specifically, any campaign" to "okay, I'd be fine with 13A as well...or something similar" to "...okay...I guess I can look at SR5 or DW or Savage Worlds...." to ".....okay...I guess...if 5e games are the only ones people are advertising...I could try to find one I might be able to tolerate playing...."

It was literally more than a year of trying. Not one successful game. The games I applied to either didn't accept me, or died after 4 or fewer sessions. Didn't matter if it was regular session play or PbP.

I tried. My ad here on ENWorld for a Shadowrun 5e game is still up. Never got a single response. Pretty sure it's 2-3 years old now. (Having checked, it will be three years old next month.)

That is some bad luck. Have you tried organized play? Hear me out. I had a lot of luck finding gamers whose playstyle matched my own, and had interest outside of PF/D&D. The best part of org play is its low commitment and if you dont dig the folks or game you can easily quit and move on.

 

[kunadam]

And, notably, when you're constantly doing the 5MWD, you get a lot fewer of those camaraderie moments. Instant-win buttons and mostly spending your play-time doing bookkeeping and resting just doesn't offer that many moments to be funny or poignant or struggling together.

We had a full campaign and in most if not all fight we started totally rested. Combat was just not the focus of the story.
Urgency and danger can be conveyed without battering players down to single digit hp. In most if not all group I have played so far, none enjoyed the wargame aspect of D&D. They were there for the story, puzzles, and role-playing.

 

[Shardstone]

There's this weird idea in this thread that looking for really cool loot and stuff belongs only in the OSR. Yes, most adventures don't prioritize loot anymore, but that isn't because player's don't want cool stuff. Most video games actually prove that as false, and reveal that players almost always will try and get at least a few really cool things to wear or use. The problem is, for some reason, people just think that isn't true. They think everyone is just in it for the story or just in it for some combat or just in it to see their friends. But all those things can be true + players wanting to get cool stuff too. Because that's why people tend to pick their character options -- they find the selection to be cool (either cool in style, cool to play, cool to RP as, cool as a raw idea, etc etc).

So, the idea that adding more really cool loot to further incentize players IMO is a sound idea. I think people would love it if going deeper into a difficult dungeon rewarded you with slick, rad magical items. Do I want to try and kill this boss so I get the Rainbow'd Cape of the Elf God??? OF COURSE!

I wish WotC could see this specific post and inject it into everything coming out next year. An adventure that ends without me getting cool stuff from it feels like it's missing something in D&D.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There's this weird idea in this thread that looking for really cool loot and stuff belongs only in the OSR. Yes, most adventures don't prioritize loot anymore, but that isn't because player's don't want cool stuff. Most video games actually prove that as false, and reveal that players almost always will try and get at least a few really cool things to wear or use. The problem is, for some reason, people just think that isn't true. They think everyone is just in it for the story or just in it for some combat or just in it to see their friends. But all those things can be true + players wanting to get cool stuff too. Because that's why people tend to pick their character options -- they find the selection to be cool (either cool in style, cool to play, cool to RP as, cool as a raw idea, etc etc).

So, the idea that adding more really cool loot to further incentize players IMO is a sound idea. I think people would love it if going deeper into a difficult dungeon rewarded you with slick, rad magical items. Do I want to try and kill this boss so I get the Rainbow'd Cape of the Elf God??? OF COURSE!

I wish WotC could see this specific post and inject it into everything coming out next year. An adventure that ends without me getting cool stuff from it feels like it's missing something in D&D.

People read "you don't need magic items" as "the game works best without magic items," when the designers meant to say "we tried to make it that you don't need any particular magic items so you can just get whatever and it'll work fine."

In my experience, the designers were right - random drops can be fun, or players can buy/quest for whatever would be coolest/best fit their theme, and the game will run just fine.*

*well, as well as it ever does, at least - I know people have varied opinions on that.

 

[Shardstone]

People read "you don't need magic items" as "the game works best without magic items," when the designers meant to say "we tried to make it that you don't need any particular magic items so you can just get whatever and it'll work fine."

In my experience, the designers were right - random drops can be fun, or players can buy/quest for whatever would be coolest/best fit their theme, and the game will run just fine.*

*well, as well as it ever does, at least - I know people have varied opinions on that.

It runs better than fine IMO, but I feel what you're saying. I've done a lot of playtesting specifically on magical items and how early you can give someone something crazy, like Blackrazor. I've had two campaigns now where I specifically gave a magic item inspired by Blackrazor but just as powerful at 3rd level, and it really didn't break anything. It made the party able to surprise me sometimes, especially as I experimented with handing out more magical items, but HP really gate keeps a lot at low levels, and by time you hit tier 3, having something like Blackrazor doesn't make a huge mechanical impact on the encounters anymore.

A lot of people have had different experiences I'm sure, but I've been working on this kind of play since 2018 and have yet to find anything that really made me regret handing out potentially iconic magic items at early levels. To me, it's what Fantasy is all about -- I've been seeing cool magical weapons in everything since I was a little kid. So when I'm playing and I only have just my sword and some superpowers, it feels like I'm not really engaging all the aspects of the genre I like. And it usually feels that a lot of other people would also enjoy this, if DMs weren't so paranoid of magic items on the power budget.

 

[Vaalingrade]

People read "you don't need magic items" as "the game works best without magic items," when the designers meant to say "we tried to make it that you don't need any particular magic items so you can just get whatever and it'll work fine."

They tacitly encouraged this by giving zero guidance for gaining magic items when the game first came out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We had a full campaign and in most if not all fight we started totally rested. Combat was just not the focus of the story.
Urgency and danger can be conveyed without battering players down to single digit hp. In most if not all group I have played so far, none enjoyed the wargame aspect of D&D. They were there for the story, puzzles, and role-playing.

I do not, and never have, enjoyed D&D "for the wargame aspect."

The 5MWD problem is a problem for much deeper reasons than that. Like sidelining other characters (as I said above), or trivializing the process of getting from challenge to conclusion (as was my initial argument), or erasing opportunities for people to socialize here in meatspace because everything is resolved with a few pushes of a button.

Non-combat is exactly as susceptible as combat here, because D&D spells are even more overpowered outside of combat. In combat, at least the Fighter can do things on her own that are unique to being a Fighter and moderately impactful, even if they never measure up to a generically strong spell used with a modicum of strategy.

What can a Fighter do out of combat that compares to a zone of truth or a speak with dead to solve a mystery? Or with create food and water in a survival setting? Or with a tongues and a comprehend languages when negotiating with monsters? Or two spellcasters cooperating, one casting greater invisibility, the other silence over the area where the party intends to infiltrate? Or, or, or...

Having your entire daily loadout of spells every time you do something challenging means the people who don't have spells have rather little to contribute.