Time to piss off everybody who likes any edition of D&D.

Resource management mechanics, by their nature, are balance mechanics. You can give someone bigger better powers with the stipulation that they can only use these powers sometimes (Vancian magic, as well as many of its substitutes including mana points) or you can make sure people almost always have a chance to win or lose or at least flee with hit points that get depleted over time (yes I know early D&D had death effects, but if it was for reasons of verisimilitude, getting hit in the head with a mace might've had a save-or-die too... death effects were part of a puzzle game where player decisions had an impact on the outcome).

Now, firstly, as soon as magic-like resource management becomes combat useful, the game starts telling you how many fights to have per day. If I run sessions with too few combats, wizards become stupid powerful because they can blow all their spells in one go. Too many combats and wizards become shit at everything and can't contribute meaningfully.

Secondly, the same applies to hit points. Fewer combats means less or no immediate risk of death if I just fight once in a given day. Too many fights and my guy might get taken down by a pissed-off housecat (the whole minimum one damage thing),

In both cases, the "correct" number of fights per day to make combat interesting might vary by level, but that doesn't change the major problem that it's the system that decides how much violence should probably take place in a given day. Even if it doesn't say so explicitly.

You can say that there's greater verisimilitude in varying challenges and including things that can kill you in one hit/require all your magic in one fight/ whatever, and I get that. Sometimes you gotta spend extra juice on the big bad or save said juice in a fight with mooks in a resource management system, and variable challenges are great for verisimilitude. But a system where any individual fight can potentially have no risk of death seems bad for verisimilitude.

And this is ignoring the ten minute adventuring day, and the wandering monster answer (which changes the world to justify the mechanics instead of the other way around).

4e might be slightly better with encounter powers, but dailies are still pretty vancy and all that extra healing exacerbates the hit point problem (if the game made each and every fight potentially deadly and made healing plentiful but only between fights I would've loved that... a risk of death in every fight and no limit on the most or least fights you could have in a day... but they didn't do that).

I've run plenty of one-fight sessions in my mystery/intrigue/social interaction heavy games, and it just sucks to have the one fight be a cakewalk because it's the end of the session and the party knows they can use all their magic on it and there's almost no chance someone dies unless all NPCs are rogues or spellcasters... or unless every fight is unfair in the NPCs' favor.

EDIT: I forgot to mention NPCs built on PC rules! NPC per day limits don't mean shit because NPCs are usually only in one fight per session even if the party's not. This gives an advantage to NPCs of equal level to PCs.

I kind of agree. But it's not so bad design as a design focused on attritional play; the hex by hex, room by room exploration rather than the more fluid scene based style of play that tends to feature in city based/modern day or sci-fi settings.

I started a thread about this a few months ago just about this,  http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=16858 thinking that it would be known problem with a known fix, but turns out not so much.

It's easy (ish) to fix non-attritional combat up. Set damage values higher and curvier (2d8s and 3d4s and such) and include a massive damage value based on con and a random table full of wounds. Wounds can end a fight without killing people and can happen at any time. They set a lower limit on the survivability/duration of individual fights without touching the "fights per day."

The magic's a bit rougher... I've got no solution that isn't scratch-building a new magic system.

The problem with the OP is the premise:

Quote from: beejazz;387307Resource management mechanics, by their nature, are balance mechanics.

No. It depends on the point of view you're choosing to adopt as you look at the game system both on the outside, as a designer, or from the inside, as a player.

Fundamentally, resource management provides choices in the game. Do I use my last torch to walk down the corridor? Should I keep my fireball for later? Do we take that mule down the halls of the dungeon with us? These are all tactical/strategic choices, first and foremost.

It's only when you compare classes/abilities/spells/options in the game system between themselves that you start thinking about not overly advantaging this or that archetype instead of the other. That's when the notion of rules balance comes in, as faulty and theoretical as it may be.

Considerations of rules balance between options in the game are incidental to their existence. They are not their reason to be in the first place.

If you're attempting to cast your net wide enough to troll all editions of D&D, surprise, it's too broad to reel anything in.  Guess what, junior?  Life is resource management.

Find me any aspect, real or fictional, where it doesn't come up, and I'll eat my DM's hat.

(Note: You won't.)

Quote from: BenoistNo. It depends on the point of view you're choosing to adopt as you look at the game system both on the outside, as a designer, or from the inside, as a player.

Mechanics influence gameplay regardless of intent or perspective, as long as they are used as written.

What we call them doesn't change what they do. If there are daily limits on spells and hp, there is a point before which the game is too easy and a point past which the game is too challenging.

QuoteFundamentally, resource management provides choices in the game. Do I use my last torch to walk down the corridor? Should I keep my fireball for later? Do we take that mule down the halls of the dungeon with us? These are all tactical/strategic choices, first and foremost.

Torches, money, mules, and carrying capacity are not character mechanics. Players don't decide the rate at which they refresh spells or hit points, except as part of "rest or push forward" in a dungeon full of combat/traps, and the incentive for this is the threat of more combat in the form of a monster.

Outside of the dungeon, wilderness, or combat, you see no problem with this? It's an inflexible method.

QuoteIt's only when you compare classes/abilities/spells/options in the game system between themselves that you start thinking about not overly advantaging this or that archetype instead of the other. That's when the notion of rules balance comes in, as faulty and theoretical as it may be.

It's not about balance *between* classes. It's just that one class is more affected. It's a mismatch between mechanics and gameplay. Resource management is more limited in the types of games it can handle than its alternatives.

QuoteConsiderations of rules balance between options in the game are incidental to their existence. They are not their reason to be in the first place.

Hit points feel right. People get worn down. The second I learned about Vancian magic I WTFd. Before D&D I had never encountered the notion of a powerful wizard running out of magic like it was gas.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;387327If you're attempting to cast your net wide enough to troll all editions of D&D, surprise, it's too broad to reel anything in.  Guess what, junior?  Life is resource management.

Find me any aspect, real or fictional, where it doesn't come up, and I'll eat my DM's hat.

(Note: You won't.)

Managing time, money, or what have you, is not what I'm talking about.
What do you do for a living? When was the last time you ran out of the ability to do it?

Magic is made up, so it gets a pass more than 4es fighters who can run out of fight, but I still think there are better ways of handling it... like making it not automatically successful or making it potentially dangerous.

Resource management isn't intrinsically tied, nor does it automatically result in balance.  Even in 4e they do not "balance" the classes, they create a resource management cycle to handle the flow of play.

Like Ben said, they're there to provide choices, and in some games they're also there to help pace the game.  Hell, Dogs in the Vineyard involves resource management, but is in no way balanced (nor does it pretend to be).

I think in this case, the scale of how the resource management is applied may be bothering you, not resource management itself.  There are games that force you to use resource management within specific fights or scenes, but de-emphasize long-term resource management, and you can have as many fights (or conflicts) as you want without running out of juice.

@ Beejazz: You are choosing to look at resource management as a set of limits, and not opportunities for choices in game play. It's a problem with the point of view you're choosing to adopt, which seems to come from too much theoretical design groupthink most modern games are victims of. That's what I'm trying to tell you. So long as you keep looking at it as a set of limits, you'll feel limited. When you choose to look at them as opportunities for you to make choices in the game, you'll feel they fulfill their function admirably.

The problem's with your vantage point, not with resource management per se.

That's what I'm trying to say.

More than a few gamers like their system to emulate reality. When you do this you get resource management because in reality you don't have infinite anything.  The more gamey  the rule system is the more divorced it is from reality. The less appealing it is to these types of gamers.

For example many of the 4e daily and encounter power don't make sense as 1/day or 1 every 10 minutes. They are that way because 4e has a hierarchy of power and it works (well) as a game.

This is different than abstraction where a bunch of real elements are represented by a simple mechanics.

Then there is the issue of game time vs real time. Some sessions of a RPG may go on for years of game time, while others can be only minutes despite in real time you are talking about the same 4 to 6 hours of gaming. A DM that doesn't keep track of this and allow a reset every session is going to have a bunch of issues that the DM who keeps track of time doesn't.

Older Edition D&D is a mostly abstract system where referee are expected to use common sense and experience in making rulings. Games like Runequest, GURPS, Rolemaster, etc have the same focus except they choose to make the system more detailed (mostly combat). Because simulation of reality can be messy these system often have complicated subsystems. But these games also make it easy the referee to adjudicate players that try stuff that you can do in real life but not directly covered by the rules.

An RPG like D&D 4th edition focus a lot more on the game itself and has SOME mechanics that make sense in terms of the game but doesn't relate to anything in the real work. Notably the At-will, encounter, Daily setup of powers.  This Wizards a cleaner way of fine tuning the game side and allows them to add a great deal of variety without a lot of complexity. When players try something not covered by the rules there is often a disconnect as the referee struggle to relate the action to the game mechanics.

In the end is about what you prefer as a gamer. Do you want to only learn a game or have a game that make sense in real world terms. There are tradeoff on both sides and it not the only consideration.

aaaaand you didn't.  Net result, DM's hat safe, stomach unfilled.

(Seriously how long does it take chicken to marinate FROWNY FACE)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;387341aaaaand you didn't.  Net result, DM's hat safe, stomach unfilled.

(Seriously how long does it take chicken to marinate FROWNY FACE)

Time makes everything into resource management. It's finite and everything uses it.

I'm complaining about the specific implementation more.

Cooking takes time, so you can't bake an infinite quantity of cookies. But cookies do not become impossible after 40 either.

I'm also not sure what gave you the impression that the goal was to troll.

Quote from: PeregrinI think in this case, the scale of how the resource management is applied may be bothering you, not resource management itself.  There are games that force you to use resource management within specific fights or scenes, but de-emphasize long-term resource management, and you can have as many fights (or conflicts) as you want without running out of juice.

I don't know. Encounter based resources might mitigate the worst of it, but I'd still prefer some other method for keeping magic in check.

Encounter based hp and random wounds would mean individually scary fights without pace constraints, and it wouldn't be hard. Hell, skip random wounds and drop the confirmation roll on crits and you're there.

The problem I personally have is with too many resources and a preference for cities, not too few and an appetite for constant combat.

Quote from: Benoist;387335@ Beejazz: You are choosing to look at resource management as a set of limits, and not opportunities for choices in game play. It's a problem with the point of view you're choosing to adopt, which seems to come from too much theoretical design groupthink most modern games are victims of. That's what I'm trying to tell you. So long as you keep looking at it as a set of limits, you'll feel limited. When you choose to look at them as opportunities for you to make choices in the game, you'll feel they fulfill their function admirably.

The problem's with your vantage point, not with resource management per se.

That's what I'm trying to say.

My vantage point is informed only by the games I run and what I read in the books. Without an elaborate justification, vance, racial level limits, etc. all look metagamey and unlike iconic fantasy as I know it. Without replacing them entirely, the experience rules favor dungeons too. Old experience at least encouraged bypassing fights when possible.

And my problem with hp and spell slots as written only exists because it's been problematic in game. I run investigation and social intrigue. 3 fights per session is the most violent it gets for me.

Like I said... it's not the limits... it's that the limits can potentially become meaningless if you've got a slower paced game.

Estar: I'm either not getting what you said or not getting how it relates. I get that some games' rules are concrete/abstract and that some games have elements that represent game artifacts / real world things. The main thrust of my complaint is not where resource management falls on either of those scales. It's on its strong effect on the pace of the game, where a different set of mechanics would not directly influence the pace of the game and therefore would allow for greater flexibility in the kinds of adventures that could be handled.

Quote from: beejazz;387365My vantage point is informed only by the games I run and what I read in the books.

Absolutely. When you write "resource management mechanics, by their nature, are balance mechanics", you are informed by loads of obsessive-compulsive BS that infected game design since 2000. I agree.

Quote from: beejazz;387365Without an elaborate justification, vance, racial level limits, etc. all look metagamey and unlike iconic fantasy as I know it. Without replacing them entirely, the experience rules favor dungeons too. Old experience at least encouraged bypassing fights when possible.

They are not, if you choose not to look at them from a metagame point of view. In my games, spells that are cast in a Vancian way are the result of magic users basically imprinting the occult patterns of spells in their minds during their preparations, and releasing them through their gestures, vocals etc if need be (whereas spells may be cast straight from books and other sources without being imprinted on the mind, in which case it takes much longer to cast them). Touching the Middle World/Eidos/Dreamlands during sleep erases the patterns imprinted on someone's mind, and requires new preparations to make these spells readily available to release.

It's all a question of point of view.

Level-limits function the same way. In my campaign world, humans are the center of the cosmos, the ultimate pawns and prize of the ongoing fight between forces of Law and Chaos. Their potential is limitless. Other sentient beings in the world are reflections of some aspects of the world itself, and though they may experience life and learn new things as well, there will always be some point at which they basically reach their full potential and are set in their place in the world.

Once again. Question of point of view.

Quote from: beejazz;387365And my problem with hp and spell slots as written only exists because it's been problematic in game. I run investigation and social intrigue. 3 fights per session is the most violent it gets for me.

Like I said... it's not the limits... it's that the limits can potentially become meaningless if you've got a slower paced game.

Then you've got to choose whichever argument you're trying to make, from my POV. It sounds like you're saying that some resource management like Vancian casting break verisimilitude for you, which I just addressed in my previous paragraphs, but then, you turn around to tell me it's all because they're problematic in the game. Which is it?

If you mean the latter, you'll have to explain to me how problematic Vancian casting is to your particular games. When you say the limits can potentially become meaningless, it sounds to me that you're thinking about a theoretical problem, an argument in a vacuum, rather than a concrete game problem you encountered in actual play.

If I am misunderstanding your argument, give me actual examples of the problems you encountered in actual play. Not in theory. Then maybe we'll find a solution/explanation to them.

Quote from: beejazz;387365T
Estar: I'm either not getting what you said or not getting how it relates. I get that some games' rules are concrete/abstract and that some games have elements that represent game artifacts / real world things. The main thrust of my complaint is not where resource management falls on either of those scales. It's on its strong effect on the pace of the game, where a different set of mechanics would not directly influence the pace of the game and therefore would allow for greater flexibility in the kinds of adventures that could be handled.

You are looking at from a pure game point of view and that is not the only consideration for including mechanics.  For many they use certain mechanics because it more realistic which helps be more immersed into the game. I got into the different scales because it not absolute. Every group and players likes differing levels of realism.

In real life you only have X items and only make stuff in Y time. If you handwave that away in the name of pacing, balance, game design then your system loses realism. And losing this particular bit of realism is a dealbreaker for many as it destroys their sense of immersion.

Pacing issues should be dealt with by the DM. Some DMs will make you struggle through every second and torch while other go "OK you go back into town replenish and now you are back at the door."

Quote from: beejazz;387365My vantage point is informed only by the games I run and what I read in the books. Without an elaborate justification, vance, racial level limits, etc. all look metagamey and unlike iconic fantasy as I know it. Without replacing them entirely, the experience rules favor dungeons too. Old experience at least encouraged bypassing fights when possible.

As Benoist says Level Limits represent the dominance of human in a typical D&D setting. I personally think it is a crude way of dealing with the issue. I prefer giving human a XP Bonus or demi-human a XP penalty to represent that humans advance faster.

Vancian magic works as is and can be easily justify by your techno-babble of choice. RPG Magic systems are highly subjective as far as what players like best.  My own theory is laid out in the Majestic Wilderlands.

the caster usES spellbooks to create forms in their mind which they hold until they need to cast the spell. They pour energy (mana) into the forms which releases the spell which also dissipates the form. The more skill the caster has (i.e. higher level) the more forms he can hold in his mind and they be of greater complexity.

Spontaneous casters (like D20's Sorcerers) hold form elements in their mind which they can combine on the fly to pour the spell energy into. However the variety of spells they can cast is less as they can only have some many elements floating around. Plus after a certain number of casting they are jumbled around enough that the caster has to rest and mediate so they are reordered enough for him to use them again the next day.

For both types of magic about 8 hours of rest and study are required. So in theory you can get up at 6 am cast everything by 6:30am, rest, start casting at a 2:30 pm finishing at 3:00pm rest, and cast everything again at 11:00pm.


AD&D is probably the most restrictive in regaining spells. A high level spell caster can spend days memorizing everything again.