Is Resource Management “Fun?”

[The Shadow]

I think the increasing tendency to abstract away exact counts of supplies (which I thoroughly approve of) is part and parcel of the increasing tendency to separate character from player (which I mostly, but not entirely, approve of).

In the old days, a puzzle was there for the players, not so much the characters. Nowadays, you're more likely to see people roll on character skills to figure things like that out.

How does this apply to supplies? Simple: My character is the expert in adventuring, not me. He's the one who is handling all that side of things, and he's better at it than I am. I'm fine with letting him handle it in the fiction, frankly. A generic, abstracted cost of X per Y time to handle depleted stuff is fine with me. (Or, as someone mentioned, Ironsworn's rather fun, but still punishing, Supply mechanic!)

The one part of player/character separation that I do still have occasional issues with is interaction skills. Presumably, since this is a game about playing roles, we don't want to handle all interactions with die rolls in the absence of any roleplaying. At least, I sure don't! But then, there's a valid point to be made about characters more charismatic than their players, or vice versa. I don't entirely know where the happy medium is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think resource management may be fun. Or it may not be. It depends on hoe it’s handled in a given game and how that impacts play.

So if you’re playing an archer in old school D&D, you’ll simply count the number of arrows you carry based on your carrying capacity, subtracting one for each attack made. Pretty straightforward, and pretty in line with the way the game handles all resources.

In a game like The Black Hack, you have a resource die. Whenever you use arrows, you make a resource check by rolling your current resource die. If you roll a 1 or a 2, your resource die drops down to the next die lower, so from a d8 to a d6 for example. Once you’re down to a d4 and you roll a 1 or 2, you’re out of ammo. This is abstracted a bit, but it involves dice to help determine the outcome.

In Stonetop, when you Let Fly and get a partial hit (meaning you get a 7-9 on 2d6+DEX) you have three options; you can put yourself in danger, you can roll damage with disadvantage (rolling two dice and taking the lower), or you can mark the next ammo box on your character sheet (the first is “low ammo” and the second is “no ammo”). So this is abstracted, but also gives the player a lot of say about how it goes.

There are other methods, certainly, but I think the three above give enough variety to consider how different systems work and why they may or may not appeal to different players, and how they mag or may not suit a certain game.

I don’t think that we can say that resource management in and of itself can or cannot be fun because there are different ways to implement it and they’ll appeal to different people.

 

[Lanefan]

Management of mundane resources is realistic; meaning the bigger question is really about whether realism in the game, where it applies or can apply, is fun.

My answer is yes.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Resource management is the condiment of the RPG meal.

It is a big part of the trifecta of the RPG Challenge: Resource management, scenario-placed obstacles, and Stupid Player Ideas.

 

[Blue]

D&D combat has always been an attrition-based minigame, with 5e being moreso then any other edition in the past few decades. I find that any players enjoy the resource management that is in that subgame, but not other resource management like rations or whatever.

From that I generalize that players do actually like resource management as part of the Game part of RP"G" when it's important. There's no generalized outcry to track waterskins used at every table every session, but there might be when the characters are traversing a desert and that's a matter of life vs. death. In the same way that in general we don't have an outcry about "I need to track my HPs and my spell slots?!" - both of those are generally important every time they come up.

So just like board games where the number of trains of what color, dragons making sandwiches, armies, or whatever resource you have is important to the fun and managing those is part of that, then it's good. But when it's not a real factor of "the game", it's busywork or a chore.

 

[bloodtide]

I think recourse management and attrition has a huge impact on game play. That is why I make it a huge part of my games. Players need to keep track of every little thing they have. And chances are they will loose stuff often, plus use stuff. Resources also require the players to engage and be immersed in the game world.

And it is amazing how a player will keep track of spells, powers and abilities on spreadsheets and aps, but they will complain if you ask them to keep track of the water in the characters flask.

Though a lot of games don't keep track of any mundane equipment. The characters just get a 'special pocket' where they can pull any mundane item they want out of thin air. Though, also, in this type of game the characters won't need any mundane items. The DM will never set up any encounter that needs anything mundane.

This has the effect of reducing the game to just pointless fluff and combat. I guess that is where that 30 minutes of fun stretched into three hours comes from. Everyone in this game want to do little more then endless mindless combat, but feels they must do the boring "plot ans role play" so the game makes at least a tiny bit of sense.

 

[MGibster]

I loathe tedious resource management like keeping track of how much beef jerky and soda pop I'm carrying while on my road trip. I don't dislike keeping track of ammunition for survival type games were replenishment can get difficult. When it comes to resource management, it's fun when it adds something to the game.

In Free League's Aliens, characters might need to keep track of Energy and Oxygen depending on the scenario. Engery is going to be used to keep some of their tools working and Oxygen is used for, well, breathing obviously. The thing is, you don't know how much Energy or Oxygen you'll use with any absolute certainty. You might spend some time welding a door and lose 2 Energy or maybe you won't lose any. Oxygen works the same way, maybe after exerting yourself of 10 minutes you lose 1 Oxygen but then maybe you don't depending on how the dice roll. This serves to heighten the tension which is a fairly important part of the game.

So what does resource management add to the game? i.e. In what way does it make the game more fun? Examples are appreciated.

 

[Jd Smith1]

So what does resource management add to the game? i.e. In what way does it make the game more fun? Examples are appreciated.

Well, firstly, I see using dice to determine your supply as incredibly jarring, and silly. I've lived rough in the military, hiking, etc. How much water, food, etc. you have is not a variable. You don't take a drink out of a canteen and suddenly it is empty.

Secondly, it adds drama and tension. In our current campaign, set in 1776-7, the PCs have several times found themselves in a situation where they have completed their intended task, and discovered new information that is time-sensitive. Acting on it, with supplies of food, vinegar, flints, and ammunition running low, is a decision that is not taken lightly, and involves serious risk.

Another good example came up last session: confronted by a locked door, with the PC with lockpicking skills down with camp fever (couldn't make the game), the group had to pry the door open with knife blades at great risk of noise & broken knives, because none were carrying a pry bar.

On several occasions they have unexpectedly rescued captives, and are not carry rations enough for a large group. Instant problem which needs to be solved.

Period shoes are poor quality (a problem that will continue for another century+); bad weather and long marches have ruined a lot of PCs footgear in this campaign, and in the first few sessions caused considerable hardship.

Restocking while passing through small villages and towns not only exposes PCs to the time-honored tradition of price-gouging, but also affords the perfect opportunity to NPC interaction and the insertion of side-operations.

By tracking supplies, you force the PCs to ponder what may happen, and plan accordingly. Sure, most times they get through a scenario with sufficient supplies, but as the campaign goes on they will have had bitter experience of poor planning and unexpected events.

Most importantly, it adds depth and substance to a campaign. The players are not getting the 'OK, you travel to trhe ruins. You're there. OK, you're at the first room, check for traps. OK, inside..."

Now, if all you want is simply an endless room-clearing and corpse-looting operation, that's fine, but if you want more, you need to add more. I believe the PCs should consider the weather, the nature and conditions of travel, the possible problems that might arise. Generally, we split duties up among the group so everyone has things to consider. Fifteen days slogging through virgin timber should not be incident-free. There's going to be weather issues, false alarms at night, equipment breakage, minor injuries, insects, food-stealing wildlife, wildlife food opportunities, and the like. Encounters with other travelers.

The journey, and its complications, and a big part of any story.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Tracking rations and torches is usually unfun. But I will start up Abomination Vaults in Pathfinder 2e as a system test, and will try to run it totally RAW including encumbrance etc, we'll se how it goes.

 

[reelo]

Tracking rations and torches is usually unfun.

What makes it unfun? The actual tracking itself, or the consequences when you run out?

The former can usually be remedied by a dedicated tracking sheet, the latter by making the consequences interesting in their own right.