D&D General Taking the "Dungeons" out of D&D

[Asisreo]

It's a role-playing game. You take on the mindset of an imaginary person. Unless you're playing in Star Trek, that means managing resources.

I am contesting the notion that just because there are resources to manage that the game can be called a resource management game. Such a definition is too broad to be useful.

A more precise definition would be that a resource management game's challenge comes from resource management or that the scarcity of resources is a mechanic unto itself.

 

[Asisreo]

Well, if you're always deviating, then, yeah, you probably should be playing a different game that does what you're doing better.


I think they're a pretty strong statement on how the game was intended to be played, though, presumably because the designers thought it would lead to maximum positive play experience. That's not to say there aren't other ways, but it's a pretty strong statement that the advice given on how to structure play will not lead to the best play experience, and one I can't agree with. Following the guidelines will result in a pretty good game, actually.

We can't forget those that have stayed within the guidelines and still find the game unsatisfactory. There are many criticism to the game as you advise, the foremost being how a DM struggles to force 6-8 resource-extensive encounters over the course of a day, even in the midst of a dungeon. Another common complaint is how monotonous the experience can be when you're playing over a day meant to be a literal grind.

I'm not following you, here. You're saying that there has to be the introduction of other resources in an adventure for the game to be have a foundation of resource management? That doesn't make sense to me at all. As for magic items, those are already accounted for as ways to modify the resource management game -- they alter the balance points and are, according to the advice, things that the GM should consider the impacts of on resource balance before handing them out. Most adventures that hand out magic items select those items to impact the balance points of that adventure. I don't even understand what you mean by no pure monster NPC assistants. You mean how they recover resources? Well, with the exception of hitpoint recovery, it's pretty well laid out in their statblocks, so I don't think this is as penetrating an example as you intend. They also have hitdice, and you can rule they recover hp on short and long rests pretty equally to the PCs. How you rule the existing rules apply is up to the GM. And, no, why would an adventure limit rests differently from how the rules do? If they're using a different approach than the rules do, they should say so. If they don't, then the baseline is the baseline.

By NPC monster assistants, I mean NPC's who don't have classes yet join into the fight. A guard, for instance, is not as great at helping the PC's as a Veteran is.

More to the point, Magic Items are meant to be distributed and they even gave an expected number of magic items distributed by tiers yet they don't allow a DM who is curious about to-the-letter balance to introduce magic items without following these "guidelines."

Because there's a difference between 'hey, GMs, the game is balanced here, use that to inform how you choose to play,' and 'hey, GMs, you have to do this.' I mean, balance is an informative tool, not a restriction on play.

But it says neither of these things. It says "Hey, DM, this is the limit to what a party can handle."

Oh, it absolutely does. It's fundamental to how the game is laid out. You can ignore it, as I've said many, many times without acknowledgement, but you should know where it's balanced before you disturb it so that you can anticipate how it might go. Just like I strongly recommend playing the game RAW before adding houserules, I also think that you should recognize how the game is mechanically balance and what assumptions it's premised on before you change them. Do you have to? No, and plenty of people have fun without ever doing so, but plenty more have issues and can't quite figure out why.

What I'm trying to understand is how can you so vehemently swear that these guidelines are what the game is balanced on when all you've been explaining is "context clues are the answer."

I can't say I was in the room where the designers balanced the game but I doubt you can either.

My problem is that you're making a claim unsupported by anything when I'm trying to claim that you need better support for the claim you're making.

If they meant to tell the DM's, explicitly, how many encounters make for a better play experience, why did they remove the sentence that did so in early playtests? It was a purposeful removal because they once did so but they wanted to move away, I imagine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I am contesting the notion that just because there are resources to manage that the game can be called a resource management game. Such a definition is too broad to be useful.

A more precise definition would be that a resource management game's challenge comes from resource management or that the scarcity of resources is a mechanic unto itself.

I can't really argue with that, but if the challenge of D&D isn't in the resource management, then where is it supposed to be?

If you're only saying that the designers weren't clear in conveying that message, then I can't really argue with that either. If you're saying that some people people might be tricked into playing D&D, because they didn't know that it's a game where the primary challenge is in managing resources, then that also makes perfect sense.

If you're saying that there's some other way to play, where resource management isn't an obstacle at all, then I'm not following you. I don't see what other obstacles the game has to put in your way.

 

[Asisreo]

I can't really argue with that, but if the challenge of D&D isn't in the resource management, then where is it supposed to be?

If you're only saying that the designers weren't clear in conveying that message, then I can't really argue with that either. If you're saying that some people people might be tricked into playing D&D, because they didn't know that it's a game where the primary challenge is in managing resources, then that also makes perfect sense.

If you're saying that there's some other way to play, where resource management isn't an obstacle at all, then I'm not following you. I don't see what other obstacles the game has to put in your way.

Within the nature of a game, there are certain win-states and fail-states. Though actually, there ever really needs to be a fail state. In Tetris, you fail when the blocks reach the top of the line. In Pac-man, you fail when your lives are exhausted when you touch a ghost. In skyrim, you fail when your health is depleted. These failures cause you to obtain some sort of penalty. In some games, the penalty is rewinding to a specific moment in time, making you re-do what you've done before. In others, the penalty is making you start the whole game over again.

Death & TPK's are a fail-state in D&D, but they don't need to be the only fail-state. A player can be penalized by failing to prevent their enemy from finishing a rite or by taking too long.

Going over the games I've played, both through modules and homebrew, many of the adventures established a challenge to players without threatening their resources like HP or spell slots.

In fact, the hardest game my players will attest to was one where their characters were never close to the jaws of death, but they repeatedly failed to accomplish the tasks that they intended to do, in which penalties for their failure kept stacking onto one another. They called this particular adventure "unfairly difficult" because they were failing so often.

They were challenged not through scarcity, not through limited resources, but through limited capabilities. The wizard couldn't concentrate on 2 spells, the rogue couldn't complete their task quick enough, the paladin couldn't do enough damage in a short enough amount of time.

While you can say concentration, time, and instantaneous damage is also a form of resource, these seems too broad of a statement as well. Furthermore, these "resources" have nothing to do with a 6-8 encounter day.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Within the nature of a game, there are certain win-states and fail-states. Though actually, there ever really needs to be a fail state. In Tetris, you fail when the blocks reach the top of the line. In Pac-man, you fail when your lives are exhausted when you touch a ghost. In skyrim, you fail when your health is depleted. These failures cause you to obtain some sort of penalty. In some games, the penalty is rewinding to a specific moment in time, making you re-do what you've done before. In others, the penalty is making you start the whole game over again.

Death & TPK's are a fail-state in D&D, but they don't need to be the only fail-state. A player can be penalized by failing to prevent their enemy from finishing a rite or by taking too long.

Going over the games I've played, both through modules and homebrew, many of the adventures established a challenge to players without threatening their resources like HP or spell slots.

In fact, the hardest game my players will attest to was one where their characters were never close to the jaws of death, but they repeatedly failed to accomplish the tasks that they intended to do, in which penalties for their failure kept stacking onto one another. They called this particular adventure "unfairly difficult" because they were failing so often.

They were challenged not through scarcity, not through limited resources, but through limited capabilities. The wizard couldn't concentrate on 2 spells, the rogue couldn't complete their task quick enough, the paladin couldn't do enough damage in a short enough amount of time.

While you can say concentration, time, and instantaneous damage is also a form of resource, these seems too broad of a statement as well. Furthermore, these "resources" have nothing to do with a 6-8 encounter day.

I'm glad I waited, because this does a good bit to helping me understand your position; the post above I really couldn't make heads or tails of about half of it -- just seemed like non-sequiturs and I didn't have enough clues to piece together what was behind it. But, now you've clearly stated it, and I might surprise you: I agree with your statement that PCs can be challenged in many ways AND that D&D is fundamentally a resource management game. I say this because how the game plays is largely independent of what the RP goals of the game are. I can (and do) put the PCs in my game in terribly places of adversity, threatening the goals those PCs have and delivering bitter failures when earned alongside glorious success when earned. None of that has anything to do with resource management -- well said. However, I'm either doing this kind of play in spite of the rules (in which case I should play something else) or within them, in which case resource management is still a part of it. Even if I only toss a few easy fights into a scenario that never strenuously challenge the PCs, I still have lots of other things that do challenge them and those can hinge on the PCs applying their resources. As I mentioned above, take one of the better instances of the play you're talking about and swap in PCs with no limits on spell levels or slots and unlimited hp and see if the play turns out the same way. A lot of the things you're talking about actually occur in the space created by the resource management balance -- else the PCs would just try to murder their way to their goals or spell their way there. It's knowing that they do not have enough resources to do so that constrains play into the space where you, and I, like it.

Frankly, it's this framing of play space by the resource management game structure that is most often the cause of dissatisfaction with high-level play -- the boundaries of what's possible via resource expenditure is greatly (and often suddenly) expanded but GMs still try to run the same kinds of things that worked before, only to see the fall apart and be dissatisfying. The space created by the resource game is almost as important as the parts of the game that use the resource game to run.

 

[Asisreo]

However, I'm either doing this kind of play in spite of the rules (in which case I should play something else) or within them, in which case resource management is still a part of it.

Not quite true. You can do both, no resource management while being within the rules of the game. There really isn't any "rules" the DM must follow, is what I'm saying. You're not breaking the rules like you would if you had made ability checks a d100 or something.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not quite true. You can do both, no resource management while being within the rules of the game. There really isn't any "rules" the DM must follow, is what I'm saying. You're not breaking the rules like you would if you had made ability checks a d100 or something.

But, you still kinda are. I get what you're saying. You're saying that you can make things very fraught for PCs by, say, staying in the social pillar where hp don't matter and spells aren't going to be thrown so often that slots make a difference. Sure, but my point is that the space to do that is still constrained by the resources available to the PCs. They don't just fight in to see the King because they know they can't survive that, so the resource management game intrudes by constraining the available play space and making the social engagement binding (because the PCs can't thwart an outcome with violence or extreme resource expenditure a la spells). This is why I suggested looking at the same situation you had that was great and swapping in Tier IV characters to see if it changes any. The wants and desires of the PCs can remain unchanged, but the difference in the resource management arena will drastically alter available options.

 

[Xetheral]

I can't really argue with that, but if the challenge of D&D isn't in the resource management, then where is it supposed to be?

If you're only saying that the designers weren't clear in conveying that message, then I can't really argue with that either. If you're saying that some people people might be tricked into playing D&D, because they didn't know that it's a game where the primary challenge is in managing resources, then that also makes perfect sense.

If you're saying that there's some other way to play, where resource management isn't an obstacle at all, then I'm not following you. I don't see what other obstacles the game has to put in your way.

As someone who has long disagreed with classifying D&D as a "resource management game" I find this question very thought-provoking. By focusing on the source of "the challenge in D&D" you've highlighted what may be a key distinction: I see the challenge as arising from the design of the campaign, not from the game system itself. So my reflexive answer to the question "Where is the challenge of D&D?" is "that's campaign dependent", but clearly you see it differently. If you see the source of the challenge of D&D as uniform across campaigns, it makes more sense to me that common elements of the campaigns you play--such as the source of the challenge--would be ascribed to the game system itself.

To help illustrate what I mean by the source of the challenge being campaign dependent, here are three types of campaigns I've played with wildly different sources of challenge.

First, I've definitely played in campaigns where the challenge was to overcome obstacles by skillful use of on-character-sheet resources. I recently played through Dungeon of the Mad Mage, for example, and I definitely agree that the challenge of that campaign comes from resource management via the 5e mechanics.

But I've also played in, and run, D&D campaigns where the challenge came from overcoming obstacles by skillful use of off-character-sheet resources such as such as influence, wealth (as distinct from cash), minions, and intel. These were resource management campaigns, but not as a result of anything related to the design of D&D.

Finally, I've played in, and run, D&D campaigns where the challenge came not from overcoming obstacles (that was basically a given) but from skillfully choosing which obstacles to face in the first place to best achieve the party's priorities. (Example: sure, you're powerful enough to steamroll that dragon, but would doing so advance your agenda or hinder it in comparison to whatever else you could spend your time on?) Even if a choice ends up leading to a combat difficult enough that the resource management of the combat system comes into play, that's incidental to the broader strategic challenge. In a game like this the party can successfully overcome every obstacle they face, and still not advance their goals if they chose a strategy ill-suited to the current situation. Conversely, if they can pull off a xanatos gambit they might advance their goals even if they fail to overcome any of the obstacles. The challenge in these campaigns definitely isn't originating from the game system.

Importantly, I find 5e D&D to be a fantastic system for each of these types of campaigns. As long as we're modelling the characters in the D&D system and using its core rules for action resolution when they apply, that's enough for me to qualify as "playing D&D". And since in only one of the three types of campaigns above does the challenge arise from the resource management elements in the rules, I can't agree that D&D itself is defined by those elements.

I can definitely see, however, that others might disagree with me in thinking of all three of types of campaigns I described as equally "playing D&D". A case can be made that only the first example is archetypical, and that the other two are off-label uses. From that perspective, when playing on-brand D&D, the challenge always arises from overcoming obstacles through skillful management of the resources defined in the system because anything else wouldn't be on-brand. I can definitely see how that perspective would lead to the view that the challenge arises from the game system itself, and the conclusion that D&D is a resource management game.

So do you think the distinction between seeing the source of the challenge as arising from the campaign, rather than the game system, helps describe the differences in perspective on whether or not D&D is a resource management game? Or am I wildly overthinking this?

 

[Lanefan]

As someone who has long disagreed with classifying D&D as a "resource management game" I find this question very thought-provoking. By focusing on the source of "the challenge in D&D" you've highlighted what may be a key distinction: I see the challenge as arising from the design of the campaign, not from the game system itself. So my reflexive answer to the question "Where is the challenge of D&D?" is "that's campaign dependent", but clearly you see it differently. If you see the source of the challenge of D&D as uniform across campaigns, it makes more sense to me that common elements of the campaigns you play--such as the source of the challenge--would be ascribed to the game system itself.

To help illustrate what I mean by the source of the challenge being campaign dependent, here are three types of campaigns I've played with wildly different sources of challenge.

First, I've definitely played in campaigns where the challenge was to overcome obstacles by skillful use of on-character-sheet resources. I recently played through Dungeon of the Mad Mage, for example, and I definitely agree that the challenge of that campaign comes from resource management via the 5e mechanics.

But I've also played in, and run, D&D campaigns where the challenge came from overcoming obstacles by skillful use of off-character-sheet resources such as such as influence, wealth (as distinct from cash), minions, and intel. These were resource management campaigns, but not as a result of anything related to the design of D&D.

Finally, I've played in, and run, D&D campaigns where the challenge came not from overcoming obstacles (that was basically a given) but from skillfully choosing which obstacles to face in the first place to best achieve the party's priorities. (Example: sure, you're powerful enough to steamroll that dragon, but would doing so advance your agenda or hinder it in comparison to whatever else you could spend your time on?) Even if a choice ends up leading to a combat difficult enough that the resource management of the combat system comes into play, that's incidental to the broader strategic challenge. In a game like this the party can successfully overcome every obstacle they face, and still not advance their goals if they chose a strategy ill-suited to the current situation. Conversely, if they can pull off a xanatos gambit they might advance their goals even if they fail to overcome any of the obstacles. The challenge in these campaigns definitely isn't originating from the game system.

Importantly, I find 5e D&D to be a fantastic system for each of these types of campaigns. As long as we're modelling the characters in the D&D system and using its core rules for action resolution when they apply, that's enough for me to qualify as "playing D&D". And since in only one of the three types of campaigns above does the challenge arise from the resource management elements in the rules, I can't agree that D&D itself is defined by those elements.

I can definitely see, however, that others might disagree with me in thinking of all three of types of campaigns I described as equally "playing D&D". A case can be made that only the first example is archetypical, and that the other two are off-label uses. From that perspective, when playing on-brand D&D, the challenge always arises from overcoming obstacles through skillful management of the resources defined in the system because anything else wouldn't be on-brand. I can definitely see how that perspective would lead to the view that the challenge arises from the game system itself, and the conclusion that D&D is a resource management game.

So do you think the distinction between seeing the source of the challenge as arising from the campaign, rather than the game system, helps describe the differences in perspective on whether or not D&D is a resource management game? Or am I wildly overthinking this?

First off, good and thoughtful post; even if I'm about to disagree with some of it.

I think all three campaigns you describe fall well inside the aegis of 'playing D&D'. However, I also think all three very much involve managing resources; with the primary difference simply being which resources are most important to track.

In the first one, obviously the important resources are supplies, ammo, etc. - very down-to-the-moment stuff. In the second one, you detail the resources well - wealth, influence, etc. But the third one also involves resource management, and your example directly points one of them out: time. The resources they're managing in the third one - maybe without even overtly realizing it - are character time, success-failure probabilities, and goal achievement probabilities.

Further, in all three cases the game to some extent provides/withholds these resources. In the first one, you're tracking ammo and if the game doesn't give you any more when you've run out you're a bit hooped. In the second you're tracking wealth, and it's hard to manage wealth as a resource if you haven't got any thus you're relying on the game to in some way provide you with some. In the third, the game - here much more directly in form of the DM, as opposed to the other two examples - can provide or withhold time for the PCs and can (in most cases) greatly determine the number and extent of the obstacles they're trying to navigate through and-or around; and so the players/PCs are tracking time as a resource and, somewhat parafdoxically, tracking obstacles almost as a negative-resource.

Another difference is that you note you're coming at this entirely (it seems) from a 5e D&D perspective; mine is much more old-school.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But I've also played in, and run, D&D campaigns where the challenge came from overcoming obstacles by skillful use of off-character-sheet resources such as such as influence, wealth (as distinct from cash), minions, and intel. These were resource management campaigns, but not as a result of anything related to the design of D&D.

Obvious follow-up questions: Why did you choose to use D&D for that campaign, instead of some other system? Do you think the basic points would have played out differently, had you chosen GURPS or Warhammer?

To the extent that you can use D&D to run a campaign where the system doesn't matter, I don't think that such a campaign is any reflection on D&D.