Resources (and other things you can lose)

While I couldn't possibly summon the audacity to give a single, universal definition of what a "game" is, I wouldn't really want to try. Why get your arm tired holding up a single conceptual umbrella, when you can sit cozy under an endless roof, made of countless different tiles? 

Here's a particular shingle that I've heard, while seated next to an ongoing argument: 

A game is a defined system of rules, under which players must accomplish a set of objectives before they run out of a critical resource. 

While the rest of the argument was fascinating (in its own braying way), this definition has stuck with me, specifically the last bit. The conversation was about board games, but it got me thinking about tabletop roleplaying games and the role resources play therein (sorry). 

What is a resource? 

In the interest of appearing scholastically legitimate, I asked some semi-anonymous well-wishers what they think about when "resources" or "resource management" are brought up in TTRPGs, and I've sorted their answers into three groups.

Many people's first reply was a character's inventory, physical and otherwise. Munitions and rations, torches and rope, potions and scrolls, and of course gold. Magic item charges and spells usually came up, along with the occasional meta-currency. All of these are the obvious "resources" - things we have, that we can use only so much of. All but the most minimalistic games provide some degree of "inventory management", and with good reason. Deciding what to bring, and when to use it, is one of the most basic building blocks of game design.

The (only slightly) less common answer was the more abstract stuff: HP, Sanity, Time, and similar concepts. There's a big difference here; these are not resources that are spent by simple choice, but ones that are "spent" through the process of playing the game, whether we like it or not. And, invariably, playing "poorly" tends to result in these resources running out sooner. 

This second group of resource is fascinating for several reasons: 

• The resources that we have the least direct control over are usually the "critical" ones from our definition. Running out of HP does usually end the game, or at least in some way detriment the players.  
• The risking of these resources, and the choice of which, is a major part of typical gameplay. Do we spend our limited time researching our target, in the hopes of improving our odds? Should we try to shimmy across the narrow ledge and risk a painful fall, in the hopes of intercepting the fleeing thief? The "critical" nature of these resources makes these decisions all the more juicy. 
• These resources innately lend themselves to interaction with the first group, creating the exciting variety of choices that the foundation of TTRPGs has been built upon. By using spells, we could avoid the need for melee combat that we could lose HP in, but we might later face a greater foe spell-less.

The answers that intrigued me most were members of group three, a group that I've defined as "not groups 1 or 2". Contacts, hirelings, valuable equipment, safehouses, reputation, and more. These are not things that you have "only so much of", typically, and they're not something that's "running out" in most games. I imagine that most people, like myself, tend to take these elements for granted. Once you've found a magic blade or made a friend in the mafia, those things are staying on your character sheet, and nothing you do (short of personally stabbing a trusting mobster with your lawfully-aligned singing sword) will result in their removal. 

Typically, these things are taken away from you by the GM, and usually this comes as part of narrative developments. But could these things, too, really be called a resource? 

They can be spent (the knight gifts his enchanted shield to the goblin lord to solidify a peace treaty), they can be risked (the hacker contact will not appreciate being talked into such a dangerous job), and by playing poorly they can be lost (an ignored faulty warp engine gives the imperial strikecraft a trail right to the players' hideout).

So, if we're going by our established ideas, anything that can change can be treated as a resource, to be gained and spent, risked and lost. 

When should resources be used? 

Now that we're aware that we can cripple our players with the fear of losing every single thing on their character sheet, the question is how to implement that in a game. 

This is something that different games handle in different ways. Old-school dungeon crawlers are positively raging with resource management, as are the more rules-heavy roleplaying systems. Since most resolution systems are based on seeing whether an action succeeds or fails, there needs to be something to lose when you don't do well. These games already feature resource-based play, and if we start thinking about it in those terms it becomes easier to build on that. 

Other games, the more narrative-oriented ones, tend to play things more loosely, eschewing elements like counting ammo or HP, or numeric representation for most gameplay features. The less defined nature doesn't mean that the same kind of thinking can't be applied - it simply means that resources are determined by fiction rather than by rules.

Across both of these, and all the games inbetween, there's a crucial similarity - the games are built around players being put into situations where they need to decide how to act, and those actions, succeed or fail, will have some sort of consequence. Whether the consequences might the breaking of a valuable tool, the potential breaking of an alliance, or simply getting punched in the face, the most fun decisions are difficult because of the possible risks, not just the gains.  

So, when should resources be used? Whenever players wish to accomplish something meaningful, it should require spending and/or risking a resource. Whether the players wish to slay the dragon, steal its treasure, seduce it, seduce its treasure, or anything else, something needs to be put on the line.

What's meaningful? That's really up to you and your game. Just make sure that your expenditure is appropriate to the situation. A typical dungeon-diving expedition might involve the risk of equipment damage, the possibility of treasure being lost, or the traditional loss of life and limb; but you might have a hard time justifying the delver's deeds resulting in their banishment from the baker's guild. Not that they couldn't find a way. 

I realize that, on some level, this whole concept strikes very close to a lot of existing praxis for effectively running a game, but I've found the use of resources as a framing device to be extremely helpful. Nothing the players "have" exists in a vacuum, and if you start thinking about how anything could potentially be spent or lost, you too might find yourself with a new appreciation for how to make players' actions feel rewarding, impactful, foolhardy, or all three at once.