D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[DEFCON 1]

No. So long as the game is built with multiple classes over many, many levels... you need different ways to do things in order to make those extra classes and extra levels mean something. If your higher levels in the game are run and played exactly as they do at lower levels except that just the numbers are "bigger" across the board... it makes a person wonder what is the point of having those higher levels. If they don't do anything to make the game different-- proportionally OR narratively-- then there's no reason to bother with them. It's the same as the old World of Warcraft problem of your character fighting 5th level spiders at the start of the game and then fighting 89th level spiders that look exactly the same seven expansions in-- the spiders are no different, its just that the numbers are bigger. So what's the point?

Likewise, if you have twelve different classes but the mechanics all work very similarly (because you want less resource management of different types for players to have to learn and remember), it certainly makes them easier to learn across all the classes... but unless the flavor and narrative of them is really strong and can overpower the mechanical similarity... it can make one wonder why it's necessary to have all those classes. If the rules do not do anything to distinguish one class from another, then it comes down to the actual players and DMs to infuse their characters and monsters with enough flavor, personality, and non-mechanical fluff to make these things seem and feel different. And that comes down to description, detail, and acting. If you don't act (or narrate) as though your warrior is different than the wizard (both in how you behave and in what you do and try to accomplish)... then the fact that they both would have the same mechanical rules and same resource management means the characters aren't different.

D&D is a merging of board game and improv game. That's what it is. You need both for it to actually be what it was designed to do. But if you are a table that ignores one side and only focuses on the other... you need that side you focus on to be compelling and different in the places where that difference is meant to be meaningful. If you forsake the improv game and only focus on the board game... AND you want Classes to be meaningfully different from one another... then you HAVE to make the mechanics work differently for each one. Otherwise you get the "tokens in Monopoly" problem, where playing the Shoe or the Iron or the Car means literally nothing to the game other than the aesthetics of the token itself. Those rules of Monopoly better be so engaging as a board game that it doesn't matter that the "class" of your token has no impact to how the game is played and how you enjoy it. Just like how being a Fighter versus a Wizard doesn't matter if the game mechanics for both of them are the same as well.

That D&D board game better be really really good. Otherwise, you're going to want the mechanics for each class or different levels of the game to be different enough to make their individual experiences unique. Either that... or you better really go all-in on the narrative and story and improv because THAT'S how you'll make the Fighter and Wizard different and 3rd level and 16th level different in D&D even if the mechanics are exactly the same.

 

[Reynard]

Let's back up: what is the reason for resource management in the first place. Why do we want to have a limited use of certain abilities and not others, for certain classes and not others. It certainly isn't about "realism" or to emulate anything in the fiction. It's obviously purely gameplay oriented. So what sort of gameplay are we trying to get out of resource management? What do we want to have happen, and how do we use resource management to make that happen?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's back up: what is the reason for resource management in the first place. Why do we want to have a limited use of certain abilities and not others, for certain classes and not others. It certainly isn't about "realism" or to emulate anything in the fiction. It's obviously purely gameplay oriented. So what sort of gameplay are we trying to get out of resource management? What do we want to have happen, and how do we use resource management to make that happen?

Some of it is about realism or at least verisimilitude, but you're right, it is not the main reason. Resources enable tactical play about when to use them. They also enable things to go badly without a complete defeat. A fight starts to go badly, but you burn your big spells and all manoeuvres and make it though with a handful of HP left. A narrow victory with a cost. Except if we have a system where all these resources are encounter based, and are automatically replenished for the next time you need to use them, then there was no cost! This leads outcomes being binary, either you win and are perfectly fine or you get completely defeated, with characters being dead or at least captured.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let's back up: what is the reason for resource management in the first place. Why do we want to have a limited use of certain abilities and not others, for certain classes and not others. It certainly isn't about "realism" or to emulate anything in the fiction. It's obviously purely gameplay oriented. So what sort of gameplay are we trying to get out of resource management? What do we want to have happen, and how do we use resource management to make that happen?

In my opinion it is to make the mechanical gameplay different in the places where the categories have been demarcated as those differences being important... so that you aren't reliant on the players' and DM's narration and improvisation to carry the load. "Classes" have been demarcated in the game as wanting and needing to be greatly different from one another (based upon the number of levels and the huge amount of rules written for those "classes" specifically)... so all those rules and levels HAVE to make each "class" look and play different, otherwise there's no point. One might say that for players, their "Class" is the MOST important differential you will have. So if they don't play differently, then they lose their purpose in being important.

 

[payn]

No, but resource systems should be unified when possible. Meaning that instead of having several independent "use X times per short/long rest" features, give the class some sort of resource points that can be used for such features as the player pleases. Resource systems don't need to be similar between the classes, but similar classes might use same resource system.

I did like use per day and round that PF1 had. I do prefer resource pools a player manages by day, over encounter based ones. Though I am much more into the adventure day. I think the issue with 5E is they are trying to have the ice cream and the cake. They created an odd encounter and day based system. I dont think anybody is particularly happy about it, but plenty seem to not care either.

If you look over at PF2, it has really leaned into the encounter direction, but bent over backwards to pretend to be an adventuring day system. I think a bit of this has to do with legacy and gamer perception. Paizo seems to be emboldened by PF2 success and OGL debacle though and continues to shed these items. Not the game I want, but I'm glad its available for folks who do.

 

[Reynard]

Some of it is about realism or at least verisimilitude, but you're right, it is not the main reason. Resources enable tactical play about when to use them. They also enable things to go badly without a complete defeat. A fight starts to go badly, but you burn your big spells and all manoeuvres and make it though with handful of HP left. A narrow victory with a cost. Except if we have a system where all these resources are encounter based, and are automatically replenished for the next time you need to use them, then there was no cost! This leads outcomes being binary, either you win and are perfectly fine, you get completely defeated, with characters being dead or at least captured.

I agree. if you use "per encounter" resource management, then the outcomes of those encounters will tend toward the binary (although "win" and "lose" will still have multiple forms). The texture and nuance to play comes from the aggregate wins and losses in the scenario. The mountain defeated us so we had to go through Moria.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Not to be that guy, but there are other rpg systems that do things differently. D&D does D&D well but for massive overhauls, just use something created for how you want to play (or close to)

 

[Voadam]

I am hugely into per round choices between at wills and shorter term resources and do not enjoy longer term per day resource management. Choosing between appropriate powers is where the fun is for me, not juggling daily resource management pools and metagaming the expected encounters per day and challenge of them.

I loved 3.5 psionics and soulknives with move action recharge mechanics that could be done in combat regularly. I really liked 3e warlocks with at will blasts and always on magic.

I liked 3.5 Unearthed Arcana recharge magic so that magic always got used, but less all in one novaing of top level spells in a fight.

I really liked Pathfinder Beta having the class little powers be at will and enjoyed that and was annoyed when Pathfinder 1e went with x/day and daily point pools for most of that.

Big fan of 4e at wills and encounter powers and I really liked 4e essentials moving towards more at wills and encounters and less dailies.

I played in a 4e game with house rules to trade in dailies for lower level dailies as encounter powers and encounters into at wills. Also making healing surges per encounter. It was fantastic and really hit my resource management preferences.

I love players going all out every fight instead of hoarding resources and metagaming how many fights per day versus how big a fight something is so they can nova appropriately versus characters who nova all the time first thing and push into 5 minute adventuring days.

I prefer encounter pacing to be based on the narrative and setup, not designed around x encounters per day for appropriate daily resource management challenge.

I would really like 5e short rest powers to be flat out encounter based.

 

[Reynard]

D&D does D&D well

That depends one what you mean by D&D, and what you mean by D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

At the very least, it should move to a resource system that matches better with the encounter system than the current asymmetric per-rest model that only continues because inertia.