589
I'd prefer to have the unlimited plan
(startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
589 points (97.4% liked)
RPGMemes
10274 readers
153 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is one of the reasons I'm really not happy with DND. I just don't want to play a resource management game. I want to do cool stuff.
There are lots of games that aren't built around resource management and attrition, but unfortunately DND is so popular it sucks all the air out of the room.
I do feel that slowly, edition by edition, D&D is moving closer to it's recourse management being tied to it's round based action economy which I actually enjoy.
As a player, it's already pretty easy to play this way, before counting subclasses, the rogue has literally no abilities that are limited by anything but once per turn, and if you pick some fun narrative spells as warlock and rely on invocations and eldritch blast, you can be totally effective without any resource management. Both of these exclude hitpoints of course but that is a pretty reasonable resource for a combat focussed fantasy game.
My understanding is that OneDnd was moving more towards per-long-rest instead of anything else. I haven't been following it for a few months though.
I would vastly prefer if powers were based on something more granular than long rest.
Oh yeah it is but I'm not really counting that as a new edition, just a minor reshuffling of the 2014 rules.
You can play fighter or warlock. Dnd limits extreme power with spell slots and charges. Otherwise they'd have to nerf the upper power level. Can't have people casting fire storm every few minutes. It'd ruin balance AND ensure you had to cast that every time to deal with increased threats.
Yes, but someone is probably going to play a long rest class and force the entire game to center around that cadence. And the long rest cadence kind of sucks for me.
There are other ways to do game balance.
How do you do long rests that makes it annoying? Usually it's:
Party: We would like to take a long rest.
DM: Sounds good, you are now rested.
If you let players take too many long rests in DND 5e it fucks over short-rest and no-rest classes. Long rest people get more Fun Stuff than everyone else. Feels bad.
Edit: also it does weird things to the story pacing. Any time sensitivity gets weird if the players are going a five minute adventuring day
So you say they can only benefit from a long rest each 24 hours.
They can try to long rest, but they will get an encounter and no benefit from resting.
For my group I have them make sure to secure the area as their rest may get interrupted if they don't
But I also roll on a relevant encounter table when they do and add a modifier based on the groups checks for it being secure (usually a survival check, so usually it's the ranger doing the rolling for that)
Short rests are a lot easier though
Random encounters aren't the most interesting thing to do at the table for most people. Design choices that funnel the play time into them then seems like a poor idea.
If you're playing the game just for the combat itself then it's probably fine. But if you're playing for any sort of story then fighting a random pack of spiders probably pays off less than fighting plot relevant stuff.
That's my secret really, the players never see my random encounter tables. They roll the dice but they don't see the table.
They include a lot of stuff relevant to what's going on more than "random spiders"
A good example is when they were trying to locate an old run down keep that a local band of bandits were using as a hideout. The random encounter table included such things as: group of bandits on their way back after a raid (successful, not, injured, not, etc), group of recent hostages on their way to freedom (escaped, released, escorted, etc), a caravan being raided nearby by the bandits in question (or others), rival bandits on the same mission, etc. A couple entries are (of course) night passes peacefully and usually there's 1 or 2 creature encounters (that can usually be avoided), and hell even a "sounds in the distance (insert kind of sound based on perception check(this may lead back to the earlier table))". And even some stuff that may lead to new adventures.
It's more work than just "creatures roll initiative" but IMO is way more rewarding, and my players seem to enjoy it a lot.
Random encounter tables is a vague term but unfortunately I think may be the correct one in this case.
Yeah it sounds like your "random tables" still hook into the story there. That's not the "random encounter" I was thinking of exactly. I was thinking more of the "You're traveling through the woods when you encounter... four spiders and a dire badger!" Those tend to be kind of shallow.
Personally I prefer to come up with scenarios and not roll on a table at all. Like, instead of thinking about "the bandits came back successfully" and also "they came back injured" I can just pick one and bake it more.
But this is kind of drifting off the topic I was trying to describe. I was objecting to the "Well we need 4-8 medium encounters for the game's assumptions to hold, so I guess you're fighting some random bears now" thing. Doing encounters just to wear down the party's resources is a weird design in my mind.
Most classes are long rest classes. Any caster besides warlock is.
Any suggestions
Fate is a general purpose RPG that doesn't have any assumptions about a rest cadence. There are more specific games that use its rules (I think there's a dresden files one that's popular). Just the core rules work fine, but do require players to be more narratively minded and synchronized for it to really sing.
I don't know gurps very well but I don't think it's built around rests at all.
I don't think pbta games are generally built around a long rest cadence, either. They tend to have a lot of mixed success on ability use, rather than a hard limit.
The wod/cofd games aren't centered around long rests, either. In vampire: the requiem, for example, the cool vampire powers are pretty much all at-will, require blood, or sometimes willpower. Blood is mostly narratively limited - you can get it whenever you can find someone to bite, generally. Willpower comes back over time but faster if you hit narrative beats. But generally if you have, say, Dominate, you can just do the vampire dominating gaze on people. The games typically aren't played as dungeon crawlers though, and the limits tend to be more social or "should you?" rather than DND's "can you?".
One of the problems with the long rest cadence is the first fight is typically not a real threat. It's only the last one where you're strapped for resources that has real at hand tension. That kind of sucks, honestly. You see posts sometimes where people complain about filler fights that are just there to drain resources are kind of boring.
Making everything per-encounter is probably the easiest fix for a dnd-like game. Make some classes ramp-up, some ramp-down, and some steady.
4th edition had a lot of that, but it doesn't really fit for the dungeon crawler gameplay, which they were trying to make more possible again with 5th edition. Part of that story archetype is seeing resources whittled down as you get deeper and deeper into the dungeon, always wondering if you should go back up or if you should push deeper to get that big score. That's where the tension comes from for that style of play. Same thing for wilderness travel expedition-type games.
Those types of games aren't for everyone, but DnD 5th edition has always been about trying to be everything for everyone. "Everyone's 2nd favorite edition." indeed lol.
You touch on an important point. The D&D long rest resource resource management system can make sense when you're doing a dungeon crawl and you're actually into the whole "do we have enough supplies to go deeper or do we turn back thing?" But my understanding is that's not how most people actually play. There was a poll going around a couple months ago that revealed most D&D groups do one fight per long rest.
If you're just doing one fight per long rest, you're doing per-encounter powers badly. That screws over the on-paper short-rest classes, and forces the story's pacing to be slow to account for the "ok you sleep for another day" thing.
Haha ya, I actually do it properly and I've had players think my style nerfed spellcasters too much by spacing out long rests between encounters. No, I'm just playing it as designed and giving chances for everyone to shine, the fights where spellcasters can nova and the fights where martial classes or warlocks can pull their weight, too.
Nice reply. Good content
Yeah, I hate that DnD is such a resource management game too. (More so that is is the ONLY game my group will consider playing.)
I tend to horde any limited resource. TTRPG or video game.
Is this group of mooks big enough to justify using power/spell/item X? Is there a bigger group around the corner? Is this just a lieutenant or the BBEG? Oh, this guy is monologueing, he must be the BBEG. But does his fight have multiple phases? OR is he just a puppet and the real BBEG is waiting for us to blow all our abilities.
Doesn’t matter how narratively I’m engaged in the plot. I’ve got a tactically aware mind and these thoughts are always there.
Same.
In my last DND game, where the wizard was extremely fast and loose with his spell slots, the DM gave him a free long rest in the middle of the final boss fight. It kind of sort of made sense for story reasons but not really. I was honestly kind of pissed. Like on the one hand the wizard was having fun. On the other like what's the point if we're going to do that. I've been here doing the tactical "this is how we can solve this problem with the fewest resources spent" and no one else is, and he gets this? Ugh.
Even Baldur's gate 3 betrayed me like this. There's a lengthy sequence that I did with like no resources spent. It was slow and cautious but I knew there was a big boss at the end of it. And then they put a fucking full-rest fountain right before the boss fight. I could've been fireballing everything instead of playing smart!
When it was my turn to DM, before the scene I just complained about, that wizard was practically begging for a long rest. No sir. You get multiple hard encounters and a race against enemies. Maybe don't blow Hold Person on the fleeing civilian when the rogue has expertise and is ready to grapple next time.
I'm much happier now that we're playing a different system.
Most abilities should be either "per round/turn" or "per encounter".
Abilities that are too powerful for that should either not exist or require significant preparation (enough for the opposition to have a chance to discover and interrupt it).
Abilities that fall in the second category should automatically come with a less powerful variant in the first category.
Maybe as a middle ground some player abilities could use the "roll for recharge" mechanic from powerful monster abilities.
I kinda disagree with all of this. Big abilities that come with in-universe complications are the bread and butter of RPGs. E.G. Connection: Mafia: You know a guy in the mafia you can ask for help, but he might want a favor later...
Or think of things like Wish, etc.
It kinda sounds like you want a wargame with a bit of story connecting the battles. Which is fine, but then just play a wargame I guess?
I think we don't actually disagree and I was just not precise enough in my original post.
What I described above applies to abilities that are relevant in combat and any other type of encounter that the respective system mechanically treats as a conflict similar to combat. That absolutely does not mean other abilities should not exist, just that they should not be practically usable during an ongoing combat-like short term conflict.
Also: Abilities that are useful in short term combat-like conflicts and abilities that are not should not compete for mechanical resources of any kind, that is never fun.
I like the idea of having a few OP abilities, but having them require non-trivial preparation within an encounter. E.g. "charging" for several turns without moving or taking damage.
That sounds nice in theory, but actually charging stuff for several rounds while the encounter is already ongoing practically just means one player is doing nothing for most of the encounter. Not ideal.
I was thinking more along the lines of preparation before the actual encounter even starts, e.g. setting up an ambush or the magical equivalent of building a trebuchet during a siege.
That seems pretty easy to design around. You could have powers that ramp up over turns instead of being nothing for several turns and then the big effect.
So like a maelstrom spell. The second round reduces movement speed of enemies, the third round does small damage, the third round immobilizes, the fourth round does big damage.
You can tweak a lot of variables there to make it tactically interesting. How many rounds before the first effect. How good are the intermediate effects. Consequences of being interrupted. Choices to make mid-channel. It could be a very cool way of doing spellcasters and it doesn't need to be per-rest at all.
Spells that need a longer out of combat prep time would also be interesting, like your magical trebuchet.
Honestly if I was going to do a dnd-like game, sorcerers would be like my ramp up and wizards would be like your trebuchet. Wizards would be bad if they were surprised but they could build very specific spells ahead of time.
It sounds like the MCDM RPG will have abilities that charge up over the course of a battle, which kind of reminds me of your idea. It might be a good one, can't wait to see how the playtests go.
I don't think I'm familiar with this one. This one? https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mcdm-productions/mcdm-rpg
Yup! He had a video where he described some basic mechanics it will have, including one where classes will gain their resources over time as the battle continues - making players ramp up as the battle goes on. It seems to me like a clever way of letting them nova on big bosses and stuff, while theoretically the smaller encounters wouldn't go long enough to do so, saving the drama for more appropriate battles.
Those abilities would not be able to be used outside of combat then.
Then you have casters blowing max slot every fight and trivializing them.
Then you're going to have boring spells that do damage akin to cantrips. No one wants homogenization.
I absolutely do want mechanical homogenization. Interesting variants can be handled with flavor without forcing everyone to learn completely new rules for every ability. The existence of generic rule systems (e.g. Savage Worlds) proves I am not alone with that view.
Cool. And that exists in that game. But that's not the core of dnd.
It was my impression that we are at this point discussing (rp)game design in general, not specifically D&D. If your context was D&D specifically, that explains a lot of the disagreement between us.
Unpopularly, me and my friends actually enjoyed 4e and I'll probably start up a campaign again sometime soon... But I can see how it could be perceived as more of a boardgame-resource-managing type of game.
But oh well if we enjoy ourselves, why not?
We played like 3 sessions and didn't like it, but I've been thinking about trying it again soon to give it another try. The trick is to find players who want to play with me who aren't like "Eewww 4th edition".
It's funny how there are so many people that are like "ew 4th edition", but there are also many threads where people propose fixes for 5e that reinvent 4th edition.
Yes, that can be the trick. Luckily, back then I worked with new, Dutch players, who didn't know anything about 4e or its controversy in the first place.
NGL if you take out what's left of the resources in 5e you'll reduce the game to exclusively standing in front of the enemy taking turns hitting each other, instead of just mostly.
The truth is if you want a resourceless game you're gonna have to play a different system, and if you're gonna play a different system you're gonna have to run it. Luckily, it's very easy to get groups for new systems, because you just tell the 5e players it's D&D and they probably won't even notice the rules changed.
I'd love to play other systems. My weekly group finally agreed to try other things on the regular, and so far everyone has really enjoyed it. I think the core engine is called Year Zero? Honestly the guy running it maybe did a smart thing by giving the group a short Google doc with the rules summarized instead of the actual rule book. Getting players to read is embarrassing difficult.
Also, are you me? Because I have often half jokingly said that you could just change from 5e to another system and the average player wouldn't notice because they're so bad at the rules anyway.
I'm slightly joking, but it's a lot less than half. My respect for 5e players took a massive nosedive after I actually played it, so I have run a few oneshots that have started with "oh by the way we're using Pathfinder 2e tonight" because I just told the 5e players we were playing "D&D".
If you like large power scales and epic stories I very much recommend Earthdawn.
Sounds like you want to be a thief, a fighter, or a warlock that casts Eldridtch Blast all day.
Someone else said similar in here, but as I said to them: that wouldn't really solve the problem. Someone's probably going to play a long-rest class, and the game will still have to be centered on that cadence.
Though a game of no long rest classes does sound pretty good. Fighter, rogue, warlock... different warlock? Pinning everything to short rests I think would work much better for how people actually want to play.
That aside, there's a whole universe of other ways to balance games than per-rest. DND mostly just has the one and frankly I don't enjoy it.