Level Up (A5E) You don't hate exploration, you hate survival

[lichmaster]

To fix survival, you need to fix the adventuring day. To fix the adventuring day, you need to fix resources per day and XP to next level. That would require an overhaul so extensive that no class or player supplement would go untouched.

In a system like D&D, IMO the simplest and most effective solution is to ignore XP and go for milestones, but that's a taboo for most people.
IMO XP make sense in level-less (and probably class-less) games, which also tend to have more unified systems instead of specific designs for each class.

Resources per day are more tricky to change for the same reason: a unified system needs to be tweaked in one place only and all players will experience the same effect (assuming they use that specific resource at all), while a in a heavily class-based design this can be very hard and time consuming, because all possible interactions should be considered (and because even if classes have access to the same resource, they may not share the same basic progression)

Case in point: if one wanted to change the number of spell slots, with a unified system one would simply change that table and the effect would be the same for all classes that use spell slots. With the current design, where each class has it's own spellcasting progression table (even if most of them are identical!), such a change needs much more work.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I think its pretty wildly agreed that if you need home rules to run a certain style of gameplay, that that game engine does not support that style of gameplay. That said, I think I agree with your statement about the "base 5e engine" not being at fault, but it depends on how you define that phrase.

IMO, you don't need home rules to run an exploration style game, you mostly do for survival style games (though the alternate rules in the DMG can work for some).

To create this functionality, you need to issue major overhauls across the system. Any addon or fully-backwards-compatible system would be hard-pressed to meet that goal. Core assumptions of resource management must be addressed.

IMO, resource management is not a big concern with exploration style games, it is for survival style games though.

 

[lolsworth]

Without resource management/survival, exploration tends to be less exciting. Survival adds a "push your luck" element, and puts challenge into survival.

A simple fix in 5e is gritty realism, or an adaptation of haven resting rules from a5e. There are still spells and abilities that negate the very few and minor survival factors in 5e, but having to manage spell slots and hp does go a long way to creating a meaningful exploration and survival experience

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Without resource management/survival, exploration tends to be less exciting. Survival adds a "push your luck" element, and puts challenge into survival.

That is not universal. My group likes exploration, but is absolutely not interested in resource management. We like to investigate, research, and discover new things, but are not interested in tracking our rations, supplies, etc.

 

[PJ Coffey]

That is not universal. My group likes exploration, but is absolutely not interested in resource management. We like to investigate, research, and discover new things, but are not interested in tracking our rations, supplies, etc.

So you like challenges and journeys which are lots of fun and often well supported.

You don't like the survival parts. Well, good to see I've not misjudged.

 

[PJ Coffey]

I thought this was a pretty interesting article. And I have to agree that I hate survival in games but exploration can be exciting, providing there's something to find.

And I also get how you were just using hyperbole with your title.

Thanks I am interested in fairly nerdy parts of the game so I use some rhetorical flourishes to make my writing more interesting to read.

 

[nevin]

In a system like D&D, IMO the simplest and most effective solution is to ignore XP and go for milestones, but that's a taboo for most people.
IMO XP make sense in level-less (and probably class-less) games, which also tend to have more unified systems instead of specific designs for each class.

Resources per day are more tricky to change for the same reason: a unified system needs to be tweaked in one place only and all players will experience the same effect (assuming they use that specific resource at all), while a in a heavily class-based design this can be very hard and time consuming, because all possible interactions should be considered (and because even if classes have access to the same resource, they may not share the same basic progression)

Case in point: if one wanted to change the number of spell slots, with a unified system one would simply change that table and the effect would be the same for all classes that use spell slots. With the current design, where each class has it's own spellcasting progression table (even if most of them are identical!), such a change needs much more work.

the problem with milestones is the design of the game and it's increasing difficulty for the DM to juggle things at High level is that Milestones enable lazy DM's who want to play something epic like save the world but don't want to deal with High level to just ignore leveling. And even when the DM is being fair about the Milestones it can sometimes appear to be unfair. That's why people don't like Milestones it just appears unfair from the surface and most DM's don't put effort into making sure everyone knows that it is being done fairly. And far too many just don't use it fairly and use it as a way to avoid high level without restarting thier game, or getting table buy in to quit leveling.

 

[Undrave]

The problem with survival is that you're not expending effort to succeed, you're expending effort to not fail. It's just not an exciting feeling. It's also very binary: you have food or you don't, you have water or you don't. There's no strategy or interesting decision to make, you don't even have any incentive to pick different types of food since anything will do. 'Food' might as well be a non-descript mush you can put in ration sized jar.

And exhaustion as it exist is too debilitating to be something you could decide to accept for the sake of expediency, it just lacks granularity.

And survival is already something we do everyday, no matter how fancy our dwellings and food get, it lacks a certain allure.

 

[nevin]

The problem with survival is that you're not expending effort to succeed, you're expending effort to not fail. It's just not an exciting feeling. It's also very binary: you have food or you don't, you have water or you don't. There's no strategy or interesting decision to make, you don't even have any incentive to pick different types of food since anything will do. 'Food' might as well be a non-descript mush you can put in ration sized jar.

And exhaustion as it exist is too debilitating to be something you could decide to accept for the sake of expediency, it just lacks granularity.

And survival is already something we do everyday, no matter how fancy our dwellings and food get, it lacks a certain allure.

This says it better than I ever had. The trying not to fail is just exhausting and not fun. It's also a bit too close to real world BS that we are all trying to avoid.

 

[LordBP]

The good analogy is found in some computer games that have a hardcore mode and a regular mode.

Most people prefer the regular game as it's not as punishing as the hardcore mode as they don't have to worry about dying and having to start over.

The interesting thing is that the hardcore mode tends to attract the best players as they are looking for extra difficulty/challenge in the game.