• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Khrux@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Landsharkgun@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.