Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7760511" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This gets into fairly contentious territory - but my answer is a firm "yes", and it's probably the main reason I'm not very enthusiastic about 5e as a system.</p><p></p><p>I'll elaborate - I've got two reasons, a primary one and a secondary one.</p><p></p><p>The primary reason: in a system (like 5e or 13th Age) with strongly asymmetric suites of player resources, the balance of intra-party mechanical effectiveness can easily be broken - normally by those players with long-rest-recovery deploying them in a nova fashion, and then taking steps to recover them - which means those players with short-rest recovery or at-will resources don't get the benefit of their more rapid recovery times.</p><p></p><p>13th Age solves this problem by sheer stipulation - after 4 combats the players get the benefit of a long rest - but that feature of mechanical pacing puts pressure on the GM to shape the fiction and the in-fiction pacing in such a way that the recovery makes sense.</p><p></p><p>The standard recommended approach in 5e is for the GM to exercise very strong control over the pacing and the availability of rests, which then generates uncertainy on the parts of the players about the prospects of resource recovery, and thus reduces the tendency of players with long-rest-recovery resources to spend them profligately.</p><p></p><p>But that leads into my secondary reason: the result of resource-conservation is that, at least some of the time and perhaps quite a bit of the time, you don't get to <em>play</em> your PC (in the full mechanical sense of that notion). If my conception of my character is as a fireballing blaster then I want to <em>cast</em> fireballs, not conserve them!</p><p></p><p>(I regard classic D&D as an exception to this - in classic dungeon crawling RPGing the PC isn't really a <em>character</em> to be <em>played</em>, but a suite of resources and capabilities to be managed. Converving appropriately is part of that. But it's far from my favourite approach to RPGing - I prefer more contemporary styles where player mechanical resources are the devices whereby the <em>character</em> is <em>played</em> by engaging with the fiction and declaring actions.)</p><p></p><p>The last system I played/GMed in a serious way that had asymmetric resource suites was Rolemaster. In my first long RM campaign we solved the problem by having everyone play wizards (so while there was asymmetry in the rules, there was not very much at our table). In our second long campaign we tweaked some rules and also adopted some conventions which meant that, as a general proposition, a caster had to nova to be on a par with a non-caster - but had a degree of versatility and supernatural capability (eg non-casters can't fly or just turn invisible in the middle of a plain) which made up for this lack of sheer effectiveness.</p><p></p><p>But for the past 10 years I've only played/GMed games with symmetric resource suites, with the exception of a couple of sessions of AD&D (which fall into the paranthetical exception noted above).</p><p></p><p>Edit: Re APs - I would never recommend APs (!) and by all accounts the published ones for 5e don't do a particularly good job of managing these pacing issues.</p><p></p><p>I think not doing dungeon crawls makes the presupposed pacing of 6-8 encounters per adventuring day harder to pull off - a fairly standard solution (that many 4e tables also used) is to upscale short/long rests to 1x/day and 1x/week. (An alternative to 1x/week is <em>you must be at a haven/safe place</em>, but if you mostly play city or courtly adventures that mightn't help.)</p><p></p><p>The real issue is managing pacing so that nova-ing of long-rest-recovery resources doesn't become a dominant strategy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7760511, member: 42582"] This gets into fairly contentious territory - but my answer is a firm "yes", and it's probably the main reason I'm not very enthusiastic about 5e as a system. I'll elaborate - I've got two reasons, a primary one and a secondary one. The primary reason: in a system (like 5e or 13th Age) with strongly asymmetric suites of player resources, the balance of intra-party mechanical effectiveness can easily be broken - normally by those players with long-rest-recovery deploying them in a nova fashion, and then taking steps to recover them - which means those players with short-rest recovery or at-will resources don't get the benefit of their more rapid recovery times. 13th Age solves this problem by sheer stipulation - after 4 combats the players get the benefit of a long rest - but that feature of mechanical pacing puts pressure on the GM to shape the fiction and the in-fiction pacing in such a way that the recovery makes sense. The standard recommended approach in 5e is for the GM to exercise very strong control over the pacing and the availability of rests, which then generates uncertainy on the parts of the players about the prospects of resource recovery, and thus reduces the tendency of players with long-rest-recovery resources to spend them profligately. But that leads into my secondary reason: the result of resource-conservation is that, at least some of the time and perhaps quite a bit of the time, you don't get to [I]play[/I] your PC (in the full mechanical sense of that notion). If my conception of my character is as a fireballing blaster then I want to [I]cast[/I] fireballs, not conserve them! (I regard classic D&D as an exception to this - in classic dungeon crawling RPGing the PC isn't really a [I]character[/I] to be [I]played[/I], but a suite of resources and capabilities to be managed. Converving appropriately is part of that. But it's far from my favourite approach to RPGing - I prefer more contemporary styles where player mechanical resources are the devices whereby the [I]character[/I] is [I]played[/I] by engaging with the fiction and declaring actions.) The last system I played/GMed in a serious way that had asymmetric resource suites was Rolemaster. In my first long RM campaign we solved the problem by having everyone play wizards (so while there was asymmetry in the rules, there was not very much at our table). In our second long campaign we tweaked some rules and also adopted some conventions which meant that, as a general proposition, a caster had to nova to be on a par with a non-caster - but had a degree of versatility and supernatural capability (eg non-casters can't fly or just turn invisible in the middle of a plain) which made up for this lack of sheer effectiveness. But for the past 10 years I've only played/GMed games with symmetric resource suites, with the exception of a couple of sessions of AD&D (which fall into the paranthetical exception noted above). Edit: Re APs - I would never recommend APs (!) and by all accounts the published ones for 5e don't do a particularly good job of managing these pacing issues. I think not doing dungeon crawls makes the presupposed pacing of 6-8 encounters per adventuring day harder to pull off - a fairly standard solution (that many 4e tables also used) is to upscale short/long rests to 1x/day and 1x/week. (An alternative to 1x/week is [I]you must be at a haven/safe place[/I], but if you mostly play city or courtly adventures that mightn't help.) The real issue is managing pacing so that nova-ing of long-rest-recovery resources doesn't become a dominant strategy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top