When dnd5e newb gamers are aghast about keeping track of arrows, it shows they've been taught wrong about the most fundamental underlying structure of what #ttrpg play is for.
Eh, depends on what you're gaming for.
Do you keep track of Batarangs and gas cylinders for his grapple gun when you're running Batman in a four-color superhero RPG?
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?
If you're interested in running a dungeon-crawl resource management game where xp is based almost exclusively on how much treasure you can carry out of the dungeon, then sure, tracking every last arrow and ration bar makes sense. You could also throw Palladium-style armor damage, weapon maintenance on top too and rolling for the condition of each arrow after its fired.
If you're running a campaign about brave adventurers seeking to infiltrate the blood priest's tower before he has finished his doomsday ritual, caring about the precise arrow count isn't generally seen as all that interesting.
Short-version: There is no one objectively best way to play a Fantasy RPG no matter how many videos you make claiming there is.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?
"'And I,' said Legolas, 'will take all the arrows that I can find, for my quiver is empty.' He searched in the pile on the ground about and found not a few that were undamaged and longer in the shaft than such arrows as the Orcs were accustomed to use."
-Two Towers
[/Tolkien pedant]
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AMShort-version: There is no one objectively best way to play a Fantasy RPG no matter how many videos you make claiming there is.
This.
/thread
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Eh, depends on what you're gaming for.
Do you keep track of Batarangs and gas cylinders for his grapple gun when you're running Batman in a four-color superhero RPG?
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?
If you're interested in running a dungeon-crawl resource management game where xp is based almost exclusively on how much treasure you can carry out of the dungeon, then sure, tracking every last arrow and ration bar makes sense. You could also throw Palladium-style armor damage, weapon maintenance on top too and rolling for the condition of each arrow after its fired.
If you're running a campaign about brave adventurers seeking to infiltrate the blood priest's tower before he has finished his doomsday ritual, caring about the precise arrow count isn't generally seen as all that interesting.
Short-version: There is no one objectively best way to play a Fantasy RPG no matter how many videos you make claiming there is.
Disagree. There are many many plot turns in good stories that hinge on equipment and the exhaustion or loss thereof. I'm sure Bats has been pissed more than once about not packing enough gas or grapples or whatever he uses. Otherwise why the fuck make a belt to have this stuff within reach?
Arrow count is very interesting to track. Do you spend your second last arrow taking down a guard or save it for the blood priest? Spend it now and your buddy charging in for hand-to-hand with the guard will have an easier time. Save it, and your buddy might die, but the blood priest will be easier to assassinate.
Not tracking this stuff is a sign that the game world is too rich with resources or the players are just lazy.
Do you play your video games with infinite ammo?
Quote from: Itachi on December 02, 2020, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AMShort-version: There is no one objectively best way to play a Fantasy RPG no matter how many videos you make claiming there is.
This.
/thread
Okay boss. Let's wind down the forums, cos there's nothing left to talk about. Peeps gonna play how they wanna play and any opinion as to how things should be played is not objective (duh, by definition) and therefore not worth discussing.
As as aside, I like the story of Monopoly, so I'm getting rid of the dice and will choose what numbers I roll.
This is the kind of discussion that makes me think I should just sell off my collection and resign myself to life as a non-gamer, since I'm not particularly interested in doing it 'right.'
On a less self-pitying note, I think Pundit, Jeffro Johnson, et al. are right in one thing--we've got several different hobbies going on here, all trying to use the same tools and claim the same brand identity.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 02, 2020, 12:14:16 PM
Do you play your video games with infinite ammo?
City of Heroes (Homecoming servers), Portal 1/2, and Star Wars The Old Republic on occasion... so, Yes.
This is why the 'ammo check' mechanism in Necromunda might be a good 'middle ground' for tracking this sort of thing.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 12:43:03 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 02, 2020, 12:14:16 PM
Do you play your video games with infinite ammo?
City of Heroes (Homecoming servers), Portal 1/2, and Star Wars The Old Republic on occasion... so, Yes.
And those games have no resource limits at all, like timed recharges?
In Doom, I quite like the need to ration shotgun shells only to run out and then later find a crate. It makes it exciting when you get close to running out.
At the risk of continuing a niche point, I have found that the means of ammo tracking that suits me the best is the one suggested by someone here: The default is if the arrow hits, you get it back. If it misses, you lose it. Then the GM can adjudicate for special circumstances.
For the vast majority of cases, it works out to about the same as more involved methods. It is a great for handling time. Hit and you are rolling damage but have no ammo to track. Miss, you are done and the game is moving onto the next action while you record your lost arrow.
Sure, when fighting a flying target or one that falls off a cliff or sinks into a lake, you need that GM adjudication. Easy enough to drop into more precise tracking when it matters. The main thing is that some form of resource tracking with teeth gives the players those interesting decisions to make. The exact nature of the resource tracking should be more concerned with handling time.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 02, 2020, 12:14:16 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Eh, depends on what you're gaming for.
Do you keep track of Batarangs and gas cylinders for his grapple gun when you're running Batman in a four-color superhero RPG?
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?
If you're interested in running a dungeon-crawl resource management game where xp is based almost exclusively on how much treasure you can carry out of the dungeon, then sure, tracking every last arrow and ration bar makes sense. You could also throw Palladium-style armor damage, weapon maintenance on top too and rolling for the condition of each arrow after its fired.
If you're running a campaign about brave adventurers seeking to infiltrate the blood priest's tower before he has finished his doomsday ritual, caring about the precise arrow count isn't generally seen as all that interesting.
Short-version: There is no one objectively best way to play a Fantasy RPG no matter how many videos you make claiming there is.
Disagree. There are many many plot turns in good stories that hinge on equipment and the exhaustion or loss thereof. I'm sure Bats has been pissed more than once about not packing enough gas or grapples or whatever he uses. Otherwise why the fuck make a belt to have this stuff within reach?
Arrow count is very interesting to track. Do you spend your second last arrow taking down a guard or save it for the blood priest? Spend it now and your buddy charging in for hand-to-hand with the guard will have an easier time. Save it, and your buddy might die, but the blood priest will be easier to assassinate.
Not tracking this stuff is a sign that the game world is too rich with resources or the players are just lazy.
Do you play your video games with infinite ammo?
Mostly agree, but the video game tracks your ammo for you. That takes away the one downside of the approach.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 02, 2020, 12:25:45 PM
This is the kind of discussion that makes me think I should just sell off my collection and resign myself to life as a non-gamer, since I'm not particularly interested in doing it 'right.'
On a less self-pitying note, I think Pundit, Jeffro Johnson, et al. are right in one thing--we've got several different hobbies going on here, all trying to use the same tools and claim the same brand identity.
Yeah, it's amazing how many people use roleplaying games to not roleplay.
This is like arguing that all fantasy novels should use "hard magic" systems because "soft magic" is bad.
It's a matter of preference. I struggle to enjoy a lot of soft-magic fantasy stories but that doesn't mean others are reading novels wrong.
Greetings!
I think Pundit did a good video. I agree with Pundit here.
Telling a story is different from playing a game. Being in an immersive game certainly takes on qualities of some aspects of telling stories--and after playing, a story develops--but fundamentally, being immersed in the world is different from merely telling a story.
Keeping track of arrows is relevant for characters that use bows. Just like characters also need to keep track of their supplies of fresh water, food, healing herbs, spell components, oil, and the like. In the process of using such supplies, important events, choices, and decisions in the game may occur, which if all of that is just otherwise cast aside as irrelevant, in my view a lot of meaningfulness is lost. Not needing to worry about such mundane details seems seductively appealing--and at first glance, it can seem freeing and wonderful. However, over time, the toll is paid, and gradually, the game play reaches a point where there is a negative erosion of the game--something significant and meaningful has been lost.
Not keeping track of arrows and relevant supplies aligns the game more with a novel and video-game--rather than an immersive role-playing game. Pundit is also right on target with there being a fundamental shift in focus to the game being more focused on *you*, the single character--as opposed to *you* being a character in an immersive, emulative world. I can see where that distinction can feel like it gets fuzzy, but the distinction is real. Characters in novels are focused on themselves, as they are the prime protagonist and lens from which everything in the novel revolves around. Characters in an emulative game world are much more than that, as they are emulating a person in a dynamic world.
I also think there are some distinctions between what are different "mediums"--novels are not RPG's. Then there are also distinct influences from different genres of games--you can see this clearly in the whole "supers" or "superhero" genres of games from comic books. In such a genre, superheroes never need to worry about mundane considerations. That is a trivial detail in their interaction through the world, as they are superheroes and are far beyond such worries. In roleplaying games though, particularly D&D, characters are *not* superheroes. They are farm boys, or tribesmen, or a mercenary, or what have you. An ostensibly normal human--or similar humanoid--living in a dynamic world with much of the same laws and dynamics that exist in the real world. Those two foundations are very different lenses from which such games are played, and are largely incompatible.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Rhedyn on December 02, 2020, 02:33:32 PM
This is like arguing that all fantasy novels should use "hard magic" systems because "soft magic" is bad.
It's a matter of preference. I struggle to enjoy a lot of soft-magic fantasy stories but that doesn't mean others are reading novels wrong.
That's because soft-magic is, ironically, harder to write; or more accurately, to write well. As a result there's just a lot more crap soft-magic stories out there because people don't take the time to learn how to do it right.
Hard magic is easy because it's basically a technology. Because it follows hard rules you can also set it up in such a way that it can be used to overcome the main obstacle in the story without feeling like an asspull.
Soft magic by contrast can almost never work for resolving the main conflict of a story because, since it has no hard rules, is always an asspull if used that way. It might play a role peripherally, but if so the main conflict will typically be your protagonist overcoming the real obstacle not using the soft magic directly (ex. The soft magic will obliterate the enemy army, but the conflict is in the mortal hero reaching the magic gem which commands the soft magic).
Deciding which magic system is better for your story depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the story. So too the degree of tracking you do in an RPG.
If your RPG is, as I gave for an example earlier, a treasure recovery operation where you're weighing cost of resources expended relative to value of treasure/xp extracted or a personal-scale battle simulation (ex. RECON or Mechwarrior) then tracking everything makes sense.
By contrast, if you're running a Star Trek campaign (particularly if trying to emulate the better episodes of the series where the technobabble/soft magic exists purely to support placing the PCs into a moral dilemma they must resolve) then tracking ammo adds nothing to the gameplay.
Similarly, for something like Star Wars or Batman's utility belt where depleted ammunition in stories only ever comes up as a plot complication, tying its depletion not to a specific number of uses, but to some sort of critical fumble system also leads to play feeling more like the experience you have watching the films or reading the books.
Another variant where tracking individual resources would feel ridiculous would be running an army at the macro-level (ex. Birthright or Kingmaker) where simple upkeep costs keep the game moving while still simulating the consumption of rations, ammunition, equipment repair and replacement, etc.
So I again return to my initial statement; there is no "one true way" regardless of how many videos get made claiming otherwise.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 03:48:48 PM
...
Similarly, for something like Star Wars or Batman's utility belt where depleted ammunition in stories only ever comes up as a plot complication, tying its depletion not to a specific number of uses, but to some sort of critical fumble system also leads to play feeling more like the experience you have watching the films or reading the books.
...
So I again return to my initial statement; there is no "one true way" regardless of how many videos get made claiming otherwise.
Your utility belt example essentially screws over careful players who properly manage a consumable resource. If it's going to happen randomly why even bother planning? It also misses the mark on the fiction side because Batman is a great planner. He's a fucking boy scout, gear ready, plan in hand. Sorry Bats you fumbled so I guess you forgot to pack the bat spray. Seriously?
A lot of complaints about resource management boil down to an aversion to making tally marks on paper. If a warrior is disarmed, you track there his sword ended up, right? Or does the warrior just have it again for the next attack without effort? How hard is it to do the same for arrows?
There is no "one true way," but there are good ways and bad ways. If the rules drift enough you're not playing the same game. Arguing this point is superficial anyway; this kind of statement is just a rhetorical tool.
Edit: Doh screwed up the quote function on mobile.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 02, 2020, 11:57:31 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?
"'And I,' said Legolas, 'will take all the arrows that I can find, for my quiver is empty.' He searched in the pile on the ground about and found not a few that were undamaged and longer in the shaft than such arrows as the Orcs were accustomed to use."
-Two Towers
[/Tolkien pedant]
Not to mention Bard killing Smaug with his last arrow!
I've been using the blue bar on the tokens in Roll20 to track ammo. Works well.
Quote from: Libramarian on December 02, 2020, 04:37:31 PM
Not to mention Bard killing Smaug with his last arrow!
Maybe he should not have saved his Arrow of Dragon Slaying till his last shot.
(But that is realistic for your typical DnD Player)
Strange video ...
Tracking arrows is good because it make the virtual world feel more real.
And also: Realism is for incels!
Pundit advocates One-Truewayism.
Tea at eleven.
IMHO.
A traditional story like a book or film will have things happen for reasons of story. Legolas runs out of arrows a few times in TT because it has one of the first big battles in the trilogy. Legolas runs through his stock of arrows to heighten the tension and show that they are sorely outnumbered. This is a writer's choice, not one of simulation.
But then, if you've read Stephen King's "On Writing", he talks a lot about emergent situations where his imagination and subconcious create an alchemy where a scene "feels" right or wrong, based on the characters and settings in his mind. Like the old campfire game where everyone takes turns to create a story on the spot, and vote to see if a development feels "fair", we know that it makes sense for Legolas to have to scavenge arrows because he's shot a lot of them at orcs.
Which brings us to RPGs, which are games. There is, ideally, no one person saying how everything goes for reasons of drama. Instead, we simulate those situations with game mechanics intended to replicate situations of tension and atmosphere. Inventory management has it's mechanical reasons, but also informs the player that they can only carry so much supplies in and treasure back from the dungeon. It's a dangerous place that requires planning in order to survive. Legolas runs out of arrows because we know he's got limited space in his inventory.
How crunchy any specific game treats these rules is a matter of taste. But there's a reason for it, and game writers and players should understand that before tossing rules or adding them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?
There are several. Here's another:
'Two?' said Legolas. 'I have done better, though now I must grope for spent arrows; all mine are gone.'
Quote from: Mishihari on December 02, 2020, 01:46:35 PM
Mostly agree, but the video game tracks your ammo for you. That takes away the one downside of the approach.
Yeah - there are a LOT of mechanics which work great in a video game which are just too fiddly for tabletop. When the CPU is doing the legwork, you can get a lot more fiddly without slowing down gameplay. *cough* Phoenix Command. *cough*
Just because something works in a video game is a flawed argument for including it in tabletop.
As for tracking ammo specifically - if a game is specifically focused upon a gritty survivalist tone (whether old-school D&D style about dungeon delving or a sci-fi horror against chest bursting aliens) - I'll track ammo. Otherwise it's a waste of brain-space to track normal ammo. If the PCs are either in traveled lands and/or frequently popping through them - I can assume that they keep themselves topped off with ammo. There are lots of things we can just assume that the PCs can do on their own - like eat a reasonably balanced diet (so as to not get scurvy) and not pee their britches etc.
The Pathfinder Kingmaker computer game doesn't seem to bother with ammo.
Took me a while to realise it. Spent a little bit of time trying to work out where I could find some ammo before I just started shooting.
The easy way to track arrows on the table top is to use cocktail sticks.
Wow. It's hard or a bother to track arrows? I put hash marks on a page after shooting and voila—-the number I subtract.
Scarcity and adversity propel the story. The bowman now has a use for his sword. He is not as good with it but that's the story. Or we have a reason to go back to town. Things happen there too. It's emergent play!
In 1e AD&D, my friend's elf magic user was out of spells. A Minotaur broke through and cornered him. Surely a goner. However he pulled out an+2+3 vs larger than man sized dagger and in terror dealt the final blow to the monster.
Guess we should have had the dm handwave that and let him have a few more spells?
I like 5e but I don't like the like the malleability of some choices and facts. The game for me is more fun with danger weight and adversity. Consequences from choices...
Why use a survival skill and hunt if magically my bag is always full of rations?
Having to forage is part of the story. It might lead to a cool random encounter. It might just let the oft overlooked ranger do his job.
When people complain about non combat or even combat abilities as useless, my question would be whether or not they simply ignore and walk around the times they would be useful. Fast forward a lot to the juicy anime styled fight and forget the light source or provisions and so on.
In the end do what you like of course! But I like some semblance of limitiations and proble solving even in easy mode 5e.
Quote from: mightybrain on December 03, 2020, 06:51:18 AM
The easy way to track arrows on the table top is to use cocktail sticks.
I don't want that many sticks cluttering my table. The typical archer type in the games I've played in carries upwards of 100 arrows because that's only about 10 lb. (and costs only 10 gp to restock from empty) and most game systems make no distinction between the bulk and weight distribution of quivers and armor (which because archers need high Dex in just about any D&D they use much lighter armor that can fully employ that Dex) so they still come out ahead of the guy in plate mail on their load.
At a certain point, it's just easier to stop counting because there's no practical way they'll run out; not with used arrow recovery and taking arrows off defeated enemy archers (because D&D makes zero distinctions between arrow types/lengths... an arrow is an arror an arrow).
The same for the guy with 100 gallons worth of oil flasks (80 gp) or a literal mile of rope (105 gp) in a bag of holding (or just carried on pack animals... a mule is 8 gp).
With the way carrying capacity and treasure rewards relative to item costs (and nothing else to spend treasure on in 5e) the idea of B/X and AD&D style resource tracking being anything but an exercise in bookkeeping for bookkeeping's sake is ridiculous.
Track stuff that's actually meaningful in those editions; spell slots, magic item uses, hit points. For the rest just assign a restocking cost (say 5gp/day adventuring for arrows, oil, rope, pitons, rations, feed, etc.) and call it good. Which, to be fair, 5e pretty much did with their Lifestyle Expenses rules (which are per general day, not just adventuring days).
It's eiter another slow week at the office or Pundit needs to go see a psychologist and get tested as the obsessive hate for storygames is started to come off as an metal health issue. We get it you hate storygames move on and get past the obsession already.
Depending on the genre and type of rpg I am playing unless it's one where resources truly matter like say if I was playing Dead Reign or something similar than I will track ammo. Otherwise it's not something I prefer. I play rpgs to get away from the mundane not play to relive it. In other words I have no interest in playing Accounting and Ammo lists or Spreadsheets. It's not about it being a novel it;s about the game being fun. Take of the stupid metaphorical viking hat as one might actually see things ina new light
Unless one is cut off from being able to buy resources then it's one thing. I would say about 95% of the DMs/GMs I play/played with just handwave that part away. It's not to say no resources are never tracked yet not the equivalent of doing it 24/87. As most DMs/GMs are not anal retentive control freaks and do not treat either the players and their character as idiots.
As for "if you don't track arrows do you give them free spells" nonsensical bullshit. Get over it. Spells are one doing because a character needs both the time to memorize and require components. So no free spells. Arrows unless their is a wood shortage in the rpg world should not be as hard to find or come by as diamond dust. Or plain food for that matter. I will play in such a game yet if the DM is again that anal retentive on tracking everything it's a big warning that I won't have fun at the table.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 08:26:59 AM
At a certain point, it's just easier to stop counting because there's no practical way they'll run out; not with used arrow recovery and taking arrows off defeated enemy archers (because D&D makes zero distinctions between arrow types/lengths... an arrow is an arror an arrow).
Seconded.
Unless their is an in game reason for a shortage of wood or arrows players will never run out. Or if the player is an archer or combat oriented class why would he not have enough common sense to not res-tock on ammo.
Sometimes I find it comes off less as wanting the rpg to be realistic and more the control freak tendencies of the DM/GM. Everything must be controlled down to the players bathroom schedule. Their also has to be a certain amount of trust with the players as wel. Unless the player is new or being distruptive on purpose they will reload. It's also the "well I track everything as a player so everyone else must play exactly as a do " syndrome. It's just not the case.
In hex crawls both food and arrows can be in short supply. If you don't like that play, whatever. Play what appeals. I have had fun trying to get provisions or have felt rewarded when we steal from the enemy.
A spell is an extreme example of DM fiat. But the point is merely that scrambling can be fun. Playing filling armed at full health all the time is one thing I like less about 5e.
Of course resources can be in short supply. that can be fun to a certain extent in moderation.
Unless I am playing in a campaign world where resources and ammo is hard to come by it stops being fun when I have to do it 24/7. spell components especially rare ones should be hard to find. Food and ammo should not be the same. A few times sure after awhile the players just will stay close to home for fear of having to run out of any kind of resource. Again if people want to play Accounts and Ammo lists go right ahead that is not fun for me or most players. We get away from the real world. We don't want our fantasy worlds to act like the real world 24/7 365 days a year.
Hence if you're running a middle or high-fantasy game, ammunition should be a bit more abstracted.
Use something like the ammo check mechanic from Necromunda. If you fire more than one arrow per round, make an ammo check. You get three 'checks'. Fail all three during combat, you're out of arrows. Recovering arrows requires a short rest period and a successful Survival skill check.
Quote from: sureshot on December 03, 2020, 08:46:47 AM
Of course resources can be in short supply. that can be fun to a certain extent in moderation.
Unless I am playing in a campaign world where resources and ammo is hard to come by it stops being fun when I have to do it 24/7. spell components especially rare ones should be hard to find. Food and ammo should not be the same. A few times sure after awhile the players just will stay close to home for fear of having to run out of any kind of resource. Again if people want to play Accounts and Ammo lists go right ahead that is not fun for me or most players. We get away from the real world. We don't want our fantasy worlds to act like the real world 24/7 365 days a year.
Agreed. We only really worry about expensive components. Cricket legs and stuff probably not worth a thought.
It may also depend on the type of game. When we played evil PCs in AD&D and were on the run across the region, as we made enemies, scarcity was fun and a finding stuff was a reward so was emphasized.
I think in general play we are usually not too far from town or the stronghold. It's not totally handwave But almost is de facto I guess.
It also really depends on the game. When you have an essentials-only-mechanics game like the vast majority of OSR, things like tracking arrows, torches, spell slots, and HP drive a lot of the decision making.
Meanwhile, if I am playing the Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds, or D&D 5e after level 4, tracking arrows is just noise. I got a "ranger" in a 5e campaign that carries 100 arrows with him at the start of each adventure. I never run out. The default encumbrance rules in D&D 5e are so generous that they basically don't exist. I have another character in a D&D 4e game with a bow as a back-up weapon. I don't think I even bothered to put arrows on my sheet. It's just not a game where it matters.
In Savage Worlds your ammo only sometimes matters depending on the setting. For fantasy? basically doesn't matter. Modern Savage Worlds the clip size matters a lot, but a good chunk of future weapons go burrr.
I also couldn't imagine keeping track of arrows in the Burning Wheel. It's not that kind of game. But it also has a full-combat engine for conversations.
In 5e, the mending cantrip can ensure that damn near every arrow is recoverable if you're willing to spend 1 minute on it.
Quote from: sureshot on December 03, 2020, 08:33:07 AMAs for "if you don't track arrows do you give them free spells" nonsensical bullshit. Get over it. Spells are one doing because a character needs both the time to memorize and require components. So no free spells. Arrows unless their is a wood shortage in the rpg world should not be as hard to find or come by as diamond dust. Or plain food for that matter. I will play in such a game yet if the DM is again that anal retentive on tracking everything it's a big warning that I won't have fun at the table.
This is nonsense. Spells have no mass and just appear out of nothing. Arrows, OTOH, have weight and can be broken or damaged. If there's any argument for something being unlimited, spells will win the day.
Resources are only tracked if the DM feels that limiting such a resource will make the game more enjoyable. And which resources are tracked sets the tone of the game and there is no list of things that must or shouldn't be tracked for the game to be "fun". A game where magic use is unlimited (such as The Last Airbender) can be just as fun as one where magic is limited to a few spells a year.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 03, 2020, 08:50:05 AMUse something like the ammo check mechanic from Necromunda. If you fire more than one arrow per round, make an ammo check. You get three 'checks'. Fail all three during combat, you're out of arrows. Recovering arrows requires a short rest period and a successful Survival skill check.
Ammo checks work great for games where you are controlling multiple characters, such as Necromunda. But in a regular RPG, a character can always look at his quiver to see how many arrows are left. He shouldn't be able to accidentally run out (unless he's a total newb with no fire discipline).
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 03, 2020, 11:28:37 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 03, 2020, 08:50:05 AMUse something like the ammo check mechanic from Necromunda. If you fire more than one arrow per round, make an ammo check. You get three 'checks'. Fail all three during combat, you're out of arrows. Recovering arrows requires a short rest period and a successful Survival skill check.
Ammo checks work great for games where you are controlling multiple characters, such as Necromunda. But in a regular RPG, a character can always look at his quiver to see how many arrows are left. He shouldn't be able to accidentally run out (unless he's a total newb with no fire discipline).
Or he has a full attack that spams arrows. You can build a Pathfinder archer that fires six arrows a round at higher levels, and that doesn't count haste.
Just make hash marks on your character sheet. Jeez, there's no need to track convoluted ammo dice checks and complicate the damn thing.
That reminds me of a situation in game where a character had decided to sabotage another character's rifle. We decided that he could, for example, remove the firing pin.
"That's okay," says the other player, "I have spare firing pins."
"How many?"
"A thousand," said with a completely straight face.
This quickly became the joke answer to all questions of how many at our table.
So, yes, we track our resources.
One one hand, it is rather baffling how the Pundit seems completely ignorant of the reality of subjectivity, variable tastes, and the idea that RPGs are different things to different people. He also doesn't seem to be aware of the problem of One True Wayism - which is so easily debunked with a modicum of post-objectivist thinking and grokking of what "category error" means. (For the sake of full disclosure, I didn't listen to the whole thing - just the first two-thirds or so - but I'm guessing he doesn't change his tune or basic idea).
It is really quite simple: different styles of play are just that. One is not inherently better than the other, in the same way that "dramas" are not inherently better or worse than "comedies," or "science fiction" better or worse than "fantasy." Or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion: low fantasy isn't better or worse than high fantasy.
On the other, at least he's open about his bias and adherence to One True Wayism (even if he seemingly doesn't recognize it as such). On the opposite side of the spectrum, stalwarts of other forums subtly (or not-so subtly) advocate for cultural One True Wayism, that roleplaying feelies is better than killing things, that certain cultural assumptions should infuse every game table, and perhaps the most annoying of all: that the fantasy world should reflect real-world values. The Pundit seems less conflicted, just a bit unaware of his subjective bias.
So I'll give it a shot: Pundit, there are different styles of D&D, different ways to play the game, and different objectives. All styles and approaches share one thing in common: to have fun. How one has fun really depends upon the individual and group. If you find it fun to count arrows, have at it; it facilitates a certain style of play (and in that regard, your advice is good for facilitating a certain style of play). Others don't find it fun, because it detracts from their preferred style.
I mean, you're basically saying: "OK, you're having fun, which is great, but you're doing it wrong, and if you did it right--or rather, the way I do it--you'd have more fun."
Whether you like it or not, D&D has expanded beyond your preferred style of play. It now includes a much broader umbrella of play styles, which can't be anything but a good thing.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 03, 2020, 12:11:36 PM
Just make hash marks on your character sheet. Jeez, there's no need to track convoluted ammo dice checks and complicate the damn thing.
Holy shit! Yeah...if you like to keep track make has marks on paper...easy.
If not whatever but it ain't hard or complicated.
The funniest part to me about this conversation is the presumption that 5e and 4E actually have some sort of "don't track ammo" rule.
They don't. Both 4E and 5e by default rules as written require you to track ammo and other resources just like every other edition of D&D.
It's the individual DMs deciding it's not worth the bother to follow the rules of tracking ammo and other resources for their own campaigns and just hand waving it. Except they're doing so in such numbers that not tracking those things is now seen as normal for play.
Frankly, if you want groups to track arrows you need to give them a reason to.
First and foremost that means realistic encumbrance rules that account for bulk as much, if not more, than weight (ex. 100 arrows might only weigh 10 pounds, but they'd be ridiculously cumbersome to carry compared to wearing a 35 lb. coat of plates).
Second, you need to bring your economics into line. When even third level PCs are hauling in thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, dropping 10 gp on a hundred arrows is barely a footnote. When you can buy a score of arrows for less than a night's stay at a common inn... they're some weird price fluctuations going on, even in modern times for mass-produced machine manufactured ones; hand-made ones can go for $15-20 each).
Third, you need to make using ammunition consuming weapons worth using in a fashion where finite shots are worth tracking. Dealing no more damage than lighter melee weapons means the only way they can be effectively employed is to pepper even weaker targets with multiple arrows in order to drop them.
There's a huge difference between carrying 20 arrows (a reasonable real world number that is small enough for their attrition to be notable and felt) when each will almost certainly drop a humanod foe in a single hit (and many will be recoverable after the fight) and 20 arrows when you need two hits just to reliably drop another human warrior and all those that hit and half of those that miss are destroyed (hence just about any D&D archer who doesn't have a way to produce infinite arrows by magic carrying upwards of five quivers worth of arrows at once).
If arrows did say, 2d10+Dex mod damage, cost 1gp each, and 3/4 of those fired were recoverable if you won, but quiver bulk made carrying more than two-dozen or so at once start to impact your mobility, then you might have something where keeping track of arrows in WotC-era D&D makes some kind of sense. As it stands, they're basically the D&D equivalent of firearm magazines in a James Bond film (with arrows about as effective as bullets vs. named characters in the action genre to boot).
Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
It is really quite simple: different styles of play are just that. One is not inherently better than the other, in the same way that "dramas" are not inherently better or worse than "comedies," or "science fiction" better or worse than "fantasy." Or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion: low fantasy isn't better or worse than high fantasy.
On the other other hand, there are commonalities and not everything is loosey-goosey subjective. A specific comedy or even a specific joke might not make all people laugh, but it might make a lot of people laugh, because they have a shared experience, and a shared taste in comedy.
Likewise, certain rules encourage certain behaviors. Awarding xp for gold, for instance. It might not be for everyone (it certainly isn't my preferred xp system) but we can recognize for a lot of people it incentivices certain behaviors over others. (Avoid fights, grab treasure, flee)
A certain style of play might be better than another at evoking certain behaviors. And a group might find those behaviors fun at the gaming table. Tracking ammo is part of rewarding players who plan ahead and manage their resources well. Whole board and video game genres are built on resource management.
I agree that there is no one true way to play the game, but there are game apsects (rules) that are better or worse at evoking certain playstyles.
Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
Whether you like it or not, D&D has expanded beyond your preferred style of play. It now includes a much broader umbrella of play styles, which can't be anything but a good thing.
Ehhh, you had me until here. Sadly, unlike some versions of D&D, resource depletion is a very real thing in life. There is only so much time, energy, attention, products, etc. Part of what has happened to RPGs in general (and D&D specifically) is that a growing popularity has led to a skewing of the rules and focus shift that naturally comes when more people are trying to pigeon-hole their definition of fun into a single activity. Basically, what I am saying is that there are only so many modules, game rules, and/or options that WotC can publish per year. And the ones they choose to spend their limited resources on are important to those of us who play 5e. Because, in theory, WotC spends all of their time developing, testing, and refining their rules and modules. I, on the other hand, play RPGs as a hobby. So, once again in theory, WotC should be able to produce content that plays better than what I slap together before a session (the fact that they often can't is a whooooole other thread). So I have a vested interest in having WotC produce (at least some) material that follows my definition of fun. So this expansion of styles is NOT an objective good (you can argue that it's a subjective good, "The good of the many..." and all that. But I'll note that Spock dies after saying that...).
The real subject hidden here is that RPGs are fundamentally about players making choices for their characters and facing the consequences (good or bad) thereof. That's it, the whole crux of the hobby (which is why so much is said about "railroady" DMs and adventures). Everything else we do is just to help support that basic feature (rules, dice, settings, all of it). Some players want to make a lot of choices, either because they seek the complexity or a heightened sense of control over the outcomes of their choices. Others want to make few, or broader, choices.
Logistics (which is what Pundit is really talking about here) is the science of choices. The more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter (a roll that determines when you are "out" of ammo might provide a potential seed for a choice, but it is not the product of a choice itself). But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices. What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio. But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
It's the individual DMs deciding it's not worth the bother to follow the rules of tracking ammo and other resources for their own campaigns and just hand waving it. Except they're doing so in such numbers that not tracking those things is now seen as normal for play.
Frankly, if you want groups to track arrows you need to give them a reason to.
In my experience players want to track these things and more often it's the GM who waves it off. So, lazy GM or GM who doesn't want to think of consequences for running out of resources.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
First and foremost that means realistic encumbrance rules that account for bulk as much, if not more, than weight (ex. 100 arrows might only weigh 10 pounds, but they'd be ridiculously cumbersome to carry compared to wearing a 35 lb. coat of plates).
Yes, track encumbrance, I absolutely agree. Not doing so is just lazy video game culture creeping into TTRPGs. Also, who the fuck wants to wear 35 lb plate for longer than absolutely necessary? Oh, right, video game culture.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
Second, you need to bring your economics into line. When even third level PCs are hauling in thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, dropping 10 gp on a hundred arrows is barely a footnote. When you can buy a score of arrows for less than a night's stay at a common inn... they're some weird price fluctuations going on, even in modern times for mass-produced machine manufactured ones; hand-made ones can go for $15-20 each).
I wouldn't artificially make arrows valuable. That just patches over the "problem." Arrows are cheap because they are used by peasants for hunting and are used in massive quantities during war, so much so there is an entire profession dedicated to their manufacture. If fletchers are part of the 1% now and peasants can't afford to hunt, your whole economy is going to change.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
Third, you need to make using ammunition consuming weapons worth using in a fashion where finite shots are worth tracking. Dealing no more damage than lighter melee weapons means the only way they can be effectively employed is to pepper even weaker targets with multiple arrows in order to drop them.
There's a huge difference between carrying 20 arrows (a reasonable real world number that is small enough for their attrition to be notable and felt) when each will almost certainly drop a humanod foe in a single hit (and many will be recoverable after the fight) and 20 arrows when you need two hits just to reliably drop another human warrior and all those that hit and half of those that miss are destroyed (hence just about any D&D archer who doesn't have a way to produce infinite arrows by magic carrying upwards of five quivers worth of arrows at once).
They're worth tracking because you can run out. If you're a prepper, sure, load 200 arrows onto your mule. Carry 20 on your back. Oops, goblins chase mule into bottomless pit and you spend 5 arrows fending them off. Now you have 15. No problem, go back to town to buy more. But wait, the gate to magical fairyland closes at dusk, so you don't have time to go to town. It's not hard to make arrows worth tracking.
I suspect some of the angst at tracking consumables is a symptom of fast and loose GM'ing where there is always a town nearby to stock up, there are no consequences to spending 2 days trekking out for resupply, it's easy to live off the land while travelling, and nobody bats an eye if you walk into the tavern packing 100 arrows as if you're on the battlefield.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
The funniest part to me about this conversation is the presumption that 5e and 4E actually have some sort of "don't track ammo" rule.
They don't. Both 4E and 5e by default rules as written require you to track ammo and other resources just like every other edition of D&D.
It's the individual DMs deciding it's not worth the bother to follow the rules of tracking ammo and other resources for their own campaigns and just hand waving it. Except they're doing so in such numbers that not tracking those things is now seen as normal for play.
Frankly, if you want groups to track arrows you need to give them a reason to.
First and foremost that means realistic encumbrance rules that account for bulk as much, if not more, than weight (ex. 100 arrows might only weigh 10 pounds, but they'd be ridiculously cumbersome to carry compared to wearing a 35 lb. coat of plates).
Second, you need to bring your economics into line. When even third level PCs are hauling in thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, dropping 10 gp on a hundred arrows is barely a footnote. When you can buy a score of arrows for less than a night's stay at a common inn... they're some weird price fluctuations going on, even in modern times for mass-produced machine manufactured ones; hand-made ones can go for $15-20 each).
Third, you need to make using ammunition consuming weapons worth using in a fashion where finite shots are worth tracking. Dealing no more damage than lighter melee weapons means the only way they can be effectively employed is to pepper even weaker targets with multiple arrows in order to drop them.
There's a huge difference between carrying 20 arrows (a reasonable real world number that is small enough for their attrition to be notable and felt) when each will almost certainly drop a humanod foe in a single hit (and many will be recoverable after the fight) and 20 arrows when you need two hits just to reliably drop another human warrior and all those that hit and half of those that miss are destroyed (hence just about any D&D archer who doesn't have a way to produce infinite arrows by magic carrying upwards of five quivers worth of arrows at once).
If arrows did say, 2d10+Dex mod damage, cost 1gp each, and 3/4 of those fired were recoverable if you won, but quiver bulk made carrying more than two-dozen or so at once start to impact your mobility, then you might have something where keeping track of arrows in WotC-era D&D makes some kind of sense. As it stands, they're basically the D&D equivalent of firearm magazines in a James Bond film (with arrows about as effective as bullets vs. named characters in the action genre to boot).
Your second part contradicts your first (not you, really, but WotC). A mechanic that requires arrows to be tracked that is then invalidated by the lack of rules or systems for making that mechanic useful, impactful, or even workable, isn't much of a mechanic. If I have to make all those changes to make resource management usable, then the "default" rules are really just so much wasted space. They exist in name only, not in play. Which is why DMs ignore them...
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
The funniest part to me about this conversation is the presumption that 5e and 4E actually have some sort of %u201Cdon%u2019t track ammo%u201D rule.
They don%u2019t. Both 4E and 5e by default rules as written require you to track ammo and other resources just like every other edition of D&D.
It%u2019s the individual DMs deciding it%u2019s not worth the bother to follow the rules of tracking ammo and other resources for their own campaigns and just hand waving it. Except they%u2019re doing so in such numbers that not tracking those things is now seen as normal for play.
Frankly, if you want groups to track arrows you need to give them a reason to.
First and foremost that means realistic encumbrance rules that account for bulk as much, if not more, than weight (ex. 100 arrows might only weigh 10 pounds, but they%u2019d be ridiculously cumbersome to carry compared to wearing a 35 lb. coat of plates).
Second, you need to bring your economics into line. When even third level PCs are hauling in thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, dropping 10 gp on a hundred arrows is barely a footnote. When you can buy a score of arrows for less than a night%u2019s stay at a common inn... they%u2019re some weird price fluctuations going on, even in modern times for mass-produced machine manufactured ones; hand-made ones can go for $15-20 each).
Third, you need to make using ammunition consuming weapons worth using in a fashion where finite shots are worth tracking. Dealing no more damage than lighter melee weapons means the only way they can be effectively employed is to pepper even weaker targets with multiple arrows in order to drop them.
There%u2019s a huge difference between carrying 20 arrows (a reasonable real world number that is small enough for their attrition to be notable and felt) when each will almost certainly drop a humanod foe in a single hit (and many will be recoverable after the fight) and 20 arrows when you need two hits just to reliably drop another human warrior and all those that hit and half of those that miss are destroyed (hence just about any D&D archer who doesn%u2019t have a way to produce infinite arrows by magic carrying upwards of five quivers worth of arrows at once).
If arrows did say, 2d10+Dex mod damage, cost 1gp each, and 3/4 of those fired were recoverable if you won, but quiver bulk made carrying more than two-dozen or so at once start to impact your mobility, then you might have something where keeping track of arrows in WotC-era D&D makes some kind of sense. As it stands, they%u2019re basically the D&D equivalent of firearm magazines in a James Bond film (with arrows about as effective as bullets vs. named characters in the action genre to boot).
It's the difference between D&D 5e/4e and Wolves of God. 5e's encumbrance rules are super generous so carrying 100 arrows ready to fire is explicitly in the mechanics. In Wolves of God, you can have a number of ready items equal to half your strength score and 5 arrows count as an item. So to have 100 arrows ready to fire would require a strength 40 character. If your hero wanted a bow, sword, shield, and armor, and had 14 strength, he could have 15 arrows at ready for combat. Storing arrows in that system is easier because you can store one item per strength score and arrows can be 3x bundled for storage. So you could easily have 60 arrows stored for only 4 encumbrance. The point being is such things matter in that game, but don't in D&D 5e/4e since the actual limit is beyond what would ever come up.
Handwaving encumbrance systems, spell components, mundane equipment tracking since 1977.
That said, I often use equipment as a victim of combat and bad situations, which makes them become important to have, and the PCs feeling the need to keep on top of what they do/don't have. I just don't deal with it as a system or track it. and if the players forget that their torches fell to their doom on the mountain climb when that peryton jumped them, well ...the adventuring life was never supposed to be easy.
"real" RPG play? I have to chuckle at Pundit on this one.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 03, 2020, 02:29:40 PM
I wouldn't artificially make arrows valuable. That just patches over the "problem." Arrows are cheap because they are used by peasants for hunting and are used in massive quantities during war, so much so there is an entire profession dedicated to their manufacture. If fletchers are part of the 1% now and peasants can't afford to hunt, your whole economy is going to change.
Or you get peasants that all learn the
eldritch blast cantrip for hunting. In some D&D 5e settings, it wouldn't be far fetched at all...
Play styles are sliding scales. Every element you could care to name can be described as a sliding scale. Equipment tracking, death being a slap on the wrist vs a campaign detour, dynamically creating a coherent campaign story vs not caring to do so, GM railroading vs player freedom, creating PC backstories vs treating PCs as disposable, etc.
Trying to satisfy all playstyles simultaneously just results in an incoherent mess. You need specific rules and guidelines for handling different playstyles.
Note that there is a fundamental difference when waving encumbrance between selective hand waving and whole hog waving.
If you throw encumbrance out entirely, then that's removing a whole category of player choices from the game. Your group might not mind at all, because they find the category completely uninteresting compared to other choices, but it is no doubt gone in that case.
Then there are less radical hand waves. For example, the characters are in town (or near it). They are unlikely to get into a protracted skirmish that could plausibly use up their ammunition. No one bothers to track it individually. (Hidden step goes here.) They go back to town. That hidden step could be that the GM adjudicated that resource usage was a waste of time during this particular slice of play, but that resources were consumed and then presumably replaced. If everyone in the group is clear about that hidden step, then you still have some (not all, but some) of the resource usage choices. They've just been abstracted temporarily. They players know that if they do get into a bunch of extensive fights without a chance to restock, the GM is sooner or later going to rule that they are short on resources and then make them start tracking it (or even rule that they are out). It's just now the player decision is at a higher level: Not do I use this arrow at this moment or save it but rather after fighting goblins band 1 do we chase goblin band 2 and then try to ambush goblin bands 3 and 4?
I don't necessarily value the details about resource usage but I do very much value that the players make decisions such that their characters are concerned about it. Therefore, I'll do the minimum necessary to see that the players do act that way. The minimum moves depending on the nature of the adventure. Deep down into a dungeon it is a heck of lot more important than it is traveling between towns.
Some of the points here make good sense. Tracking everything perefectly all of the time is probably not worth it for most groups (e.g. each ball of bat guano for a component pouch) or each damn sip of water.
But I think that is different than paying no attention to ammunition at all or encumbrance. One of my pals is a little ocd and would spend portions of his hoard on every conceivable piece of equipment.
His stash of arrows was absurd. Needless to say we started laughing at this and the dm asked to see his equipment list which made us all laugh more.
The solution was that he bought a mule and a cart. Which in the end was a story element. We had to defend it against theivery trolls, etc which is frost for the fucking mill.
We briefly played fugitives including a drow. To help wi th supplies and avoid town we made sure some of us knew how to repair bows and make arrows, via dungeon and wilderness (1e) guides.
Now that encumbrance is so generous we ballpark it. 200 arrows might be a stretch on a person. But again it's problem solving just like light sources. All of this adds a little bit of problem solving, a little groundedness. And frankly now D&D struggles with this because who doesn't have dark vision or a light spell. Oh well. The grit is in the older iterations...
Lots of good discussion on this thread, including the ones that critique my approach. Good stuff, guys!
I'm I the only DM that tracks all my player's resources? Arrows, hit points, spells, encumbrance, XP, etc. I've been doing this forever but it seems that I'm in a small minority.
Personally, I find that this method works best as the players have full control over their resources but it doesn't slow down the game. Some players track their own ammo (although my sheet has the "real" numbers) if they want to.
In 5E all the spellcasters have infinite arrows so there's no danger of them running out. Probably that's why most people don't track arrows, it's just another way to encourage everyone to play a spellcaster (and god knows that doesn't need more encouragement in 5e).
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 03, 2020, 02:29:40 PM
I wouldn't artificially make arrows valuable. That just patches over the "problem." Arrows are cheap because they are used by peasants for hunting and are used in massive quantities during war, so much so there is an entire profession dedicated to their manufacture. If fletchers are part of the 1% now and peasants can't afford to hunt, your whole economy is going to change.
I wouldn't say its all that artificial, its just that the default D&D pricing on things is so utterly borked... or rather, how they're used NOW is borked.
Gary's was pretty clear back in the day that the cost of goods in the PHB was based on "Boomtown" economics. The locals are selling the adventurers/prospectors everything at grossly inflated prices because they have the supply and the PCs have the demand.
There's no way the local inn is charging 4 gp a night (more than a month's wages for most laborers) to your average farmer staying overnight because he delivered a wagon of produce to the market town, bought a few goods unavailable in his home village, and its too far to make it back home before dark.
But a fancy pants warrior in mail with a longsword, shield, bow and horse comes strolling into that market town with a purple robed wizard in a pointy hat with a bunch of hirelings handling their pack mules laden down with silver and gold? All those 'cp's on the price logs suddenly get a tail on the first letter to make them 'gp's and a couple of sales of these grossly inflated goods lands you more coin than you'd make make in months. Sure the local Lord will tax the lion's share of it, but its still a major windfall for everyone selling 'adventuring goods' in that market town).
The problem comes in when later editions took the inflated Boomtown economy and made it the DEFAULT economy without taking into account which items were running the inflation markup (and how big that markup was from item to item).
* * * *
Also worth noting... Peasants most certainly DON'T go hunting with bows and arrows unless they want to be strung up for poaching in the Lord's forest. Even if he did allow the peasants to hunt small game like rabbits and the like, anything big enough for an arrow to not be complete overkill on would still be protected as "For the Lord's Use Only."
Your best bet for a peasant to get small game would be snare traps or, if you had good aim, a sling to peg them from a distance.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 03, 2020, 01:53:03 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
It is really quite simple: different styles of play are just that. One is not inherently better than the other, in the same way that "dramas" are not inherently better or worse than "comedies," or "science fiction" better or worse than "fantasy." Or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion: low fantasy isn't better or worse than high fantasy.
On the other other hand, there are commonalities and not everything is loosey-goosey subjective. A specific comedy or even a specific joke might not make all people laugh, but it might make a lot of people laugh, because they have a shared experience, and a shared taste in comedy.
Likewise, certain rules encourage certain behaviors. Awarding xp for gold, for instance. It might not be for everyone (it certainly isn't my preferred xp system) but we can recognize for a lot of people it incentivices certain behaviors over others. (Avoid fights, grab treasure, flee)
A certain style of play might be better than another at evoking certain behaviors. And a group might find those behaviors fun at the gaming table. Tracking ammo is part of rewarding players who plan ahead and manage their resources well. Whole board and video game genres are built on resource management.
I agree that there is no one true way to play the game, but there are game apsects (rules) that are better or worse at evoking certain playstyles.
Yes, agreed - which I think I said. It depends upon what sort of play-style you want to evoke. If you're playing gonzo Exalted-esque fantasy, then tracking arrows is beyond tedious (unless they're special magical arrows). If you're starting with the classic, "You wake up in a forest, naked and not knowing who you are" trope, then every little bit of equipment matters.
So while you seem to think I'm saying "loosey-goosey," I'm actually saying the same thing, and that the Pundit is advocating that what works for his play-style should work for all, which ignores the fact that not everyone wants the same play experience that he does.
Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 06:18:20 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 03, 2020, 01:53:03 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
It is really quite simple: different styles of play are just that. One is not inherently better than the other, in the same way that "dramas" are not inherently better or worse than "comedies," or "science fiction" better or worse than "fantasy." Or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion: low fantasy isn't better or worse than high fantasy.
On the other other hand, there are commonalities and not everything is loosey-goosey subjective. A specific comedy or even a specific joke might not make all people laugh, but it might make a lot of people laugh, because they have a shared experience, and a shared taste in comedy.
Likewise, certain rules encourage certain behaviors. Awarding xp for gold, for instance. It might not be for everyone (it certainly isn't my preferred xp system) but we can recognize for a lot of people it incentivices certain behaviors over others. (Avoid fights, grab treasure, flee)
A certain style of play might be better than another at evoking certain behaviors. And a group might find those behaviors fun at the gaming table. Tracking ammo is part of rewarding players who plan ahead and manage their resources well. Whole board and video game genres are built on resource management.
I agree that there is no one true way to play the game, but there are game apsects (rules) that are better or worse at evoking certain playstyles.
Yes, agreed - which I think I said. It depends upon what sort of play-style you want to evoke. If you're playing gonzo Exalted-esque fantasy, then tracking arrows is beyond tedious (unless they're special magical arrows). If you're starting with the classic, "You wake up in a forest, naked and not knowing who you are" trope, then every little bit of equipment matters.
So while you seem to think I'm saying "loosey-goosey," I'm actually saying the same thing, and that the Pundit is advocating that what works for his play-style should work for all, which ignores the fact that not everyone wants the same play experience that he does.
I guess we agree to agree then? :)
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 03, 2020, 02:26:22 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
Whether you like it or not, D&D has expanded beyond your preferred style of play. It now includes a much broader umbrella of play styles, which can't be anything but a good thing.
Ehhh, you had me until here. Sadly, unlike some versions of D&D, resource depletion is a very real thing in life. There is only so much time, energy, attention, products, etc. Part of what has happened to RPGs in general (and D&D specifically) is that a growing popularity has led to a skewing of the rules and focus shift that naturally comes when more people are trying to pigeon-hole their definition of fun into a single activity. Basically, what I am saying is that there are only so many modules, game rules, and/or options that WotC can publish per year. And the ones they choose to spend their limited resources on are important to those of us who play 5e. Because, in theory, WotC spends all of their time developing, testing, and refining their rules and modules. I, on the other hand, play RPGs as a hobby. So, once again in theory, WotC should be able to produce content that plays better than what I slap together before a session (the fact that they often can't is a whooooole other thread). So I have a vested interest in having WotC produce (at least some) material that follows my definition of fun. So this expansion of styles is NOT an objective good (you can argue that it's a subjective good, "The good of the many..." and all that. But I'll note that Spock dies after saying that...).
The real subject hidden here is that RPGs are fundamentally about players making choices for their characters and facing the consequences (good or bad) thereof. That's it, the whole crux of the hobby (which is why so much is said about "railroady" DMs and adventures). Everything else we do is just to help support that basic feature (rules, dice, settings, all of it). Some players want to make a lot of choices, either because they seek the complexity or a heightened sense of control over the outcomes of their choices. Others want to make few, or broader, choices.
Logistics (which is what Pundit is really talking about here) is the science of choices. The more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter (a roll that determines when you are "out" of ammo might provide a potential seed for a choice, but it is not the product of a choice itself). But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices. What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio. But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game.
A few things from your thoughtful post.
One, you are talking more generally than the Pundit did, and what you say can be applied in a variety of ways and differently depend upon play-styles and the basic assumptions of the game. You can completely ignore arrow count and encumbrance (etc), but still have a very strong work-to-consequence ratio, still offer significant choices, depending upon what the focus is.
We can look at the difference between low/gritty fantasy and high/epic fantasy. What the Pundit talks about is suited for the former, but both involve work-to-consequence, both involve choices that can be the difference between death and glory. It is just that the scope is focused on different things.
Or we can frame it in another polarity: survivalist vs. save-the-world. In a survivalist campaign, the point is to survive, and maybe accumulate wealth to get out of survival mode. Obviously counting arrows is important. In a save-the-world campaign, getting bogged down in minutiae like tracking arrows may actually diminish the focus of the campaign, and de-emphasize the more important--and consequential--choices that need to be made. But the point is, either way there are stakes, there is a tension that is nourished through situations involving meaningful choice - and I think that is what you are getting at.
(And of course you could mix the two, so that the world depends upon how many arrows you have, or you can only survive if you save the world...but the point is that the underlying principle can be applied in different ways, to serve the specifics of the campaign)
I hear what you are saying about WotC, but I think that is a somewhat different issue. What you are saying, as I see it, is that you aren't their primary clientele anymore. Actually, on another board I emphasized that point: that we 40+ year olds (Gen Xers) are a much smaller portion of the current edition's fan-base than we've ever been. Their primary customer base are Millenials and even older Gen Z (teenagers). So we're being left behind a bit.
With the surge in popularity of D&D over the last six years, they have a new player base to focus on (and make money from), so don't really need to publishing stuff that suits grognards and quasi-grognards. But we don't need them, either. There are so many great games, and even you want to play 5E, you can pretty easily adapt stuff from Hyperborea or S&W or DCC, or other OSR and non-D&D games (e.g. Forbidden Lands).
So regardless of what you or I think about WotC product, it works. It is more popular than ever before, and most of the complaints seem to come from older folks, who feel left behind or marginalized. "This product isn't for me." While I can commiserate, I can understand why WotC is doing what they're doing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and in this case, "broke" means not selling product, and that isn't the case.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 05:33:56 PM
I wouldn't say its all that artificial, its just that the default D&D pricing on things is so utterly borked... or rather, how they're used NOW is borked.
...
Also worth noting... Peasants most certainly DON'T go hunting with bows and arrows unless they want to be strung up for poaching in the Lord's forest. Even if he did allow the peasants to hunt small game like rabbits and the like, anything big enough for an arrow to not be complete overkill on would still be protected as "For the Lord's Use Only."
Your best bet for a peasant to get small game would be snare traps or, if you had good aim, a sling to peg them from a distance.
Yeah, I figured you'd call me on the hunting thing. As a defense, I think it varied from place to place in real medieval Europe. But definitely, the forest was pretty much the Lord's to hunt.
I agree about price lists. Even in other games besides D&D, they are usually pretty whack. The need to be taken as approximations. Price and availability vary from to town.
Now hopefully I don't contradict myself here, but when I GM, I often just tell the players what the whole stay cost when the leave, rounding up to the nearest 10. I find that they usually want details!
Gamers will track ammo in a revolver. Beyond that, not so much.
20 arrows in a quiver + a 2nd second quiver nearby = a zillion arrows
For resource management to work IN ACTUAL PLAY, I have only seen success with very low counts of resources. "You have 3 days of food, 4 grenades, and 2 potions of healing" will get tracked.
In my experience, MOST (not all) players will go into handwavium after 10 items, and MANY (not all) players can't keep be bothered to track of things beyond their number of fingers on one hand.
Resource rolls are a good idea BUT have plenty of issues, and can easily lead to situations that break immersion (I couldn't buy a burger last turn, but now I bought a yacht?)
Resource management is one area that computer games do better.
Quote from: EirikrauthaThe more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.
Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.
A long long time ago, there was a Console Cowboy...
Several decades ago, when World Of Darkness was the 'cult of the new', I made an argument that I still stand behind, namely that SOMETHING happened to Roleplaying Games. Something bad and terrible.
What I surmised by watching the then current groups, was a lack of general understanding of what a GAME is. ( https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gametheory.asp )
To simplify, there must be a goal to reach, and once reached there must be a state or condition which can be considered a win draw or loss (Taken to the extreme end of the spectrum, this explains the 1970s Players vs GM Dungeon play type, certainly an asymmetrical experience and a deadly one at that!). What many were doing was not playing a 'game', but were instead PLAY ACTING. Understandably, whenever I pointed this out, I was told to shut up. Now that the quote-unquote "STORYGAME" genre has come about, I can safely and undoubtedly claim these are NOT GAMES, but ACTIVITIES, and I call them Roleplaying Activities (RPAs). Unfortunately, too many RPGs are falling in that category as well or are (at the very least) played that way. I suppose I'll never understand the railroading mentality NOR the win/lose-it-all campaign style (a campaign world is NOT just a foozle hunt - losing the campaign does not equate to losing the campaign world, but that's an argument I refuse to get into at the moment!). Understanding that a GAME is not a STORY nor a PUZZLE, but is a strategic and tactical challenge with a goal, having randomized elements to provide challenges unplanned for, and to create scenarios with win/loss conditions other than just "TPK = Game Over" is essential for both players and GMs. Scenarios do not necessarily have to interlock and be part of a flowchart to accomplish this, nor go down a rabbit-hole of minutia. Only a conscious effort to ensure consequences to player actions. So that if a player describes what they play, that then a 'story' appears to be told. But I won't hold my breath. Too many people WANT to play a story, not a game, because of both the fear of LOSING (Risk-Aversion) and an aversion to COMPETITION (player v. GM / player v. player), both of which having been taught to children by two decades of 'PROGRESSIVE' schooling.
To put it bluntly, I believe RPGs are a dead shark at this point, there is no way to just move forward to keep it alive. Meaning, while I agree with going BACK to the foundations - I believe the foundations to be gold mixed with shit (mainly with the lack of a cohesive and unified skirmish/battle system which can be scaled up or down as needed). My own endeavors have been an examination of wargame rules from that period, and I have found connections which suggest the original intent of play was to overly abstract what historians of that period did NOT know about medieval warfare, in particular close range man-to-man combat and what factors into hitting an opponent with a damaging blow (explains why Gygax wanted a focus on unit-type tactical outdoor combats - since much has been written about this). IMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage. I know I'm in a minority of one with this, but, I have come to the conclusion: there is currently no way to fix this without people ignoring the fix/patch. Because of this, RPGs will eventually either fade out (when the current Grognards are too old and crumbly to maintain a coherent thought) OR will become RPAs whereby everyone who participates is a WINNAR! With that said, I would urge the OSR to take a closer examination of the old mechanics and compare them to the old tabletop skirmish combat rules of other games. I believe a detailed analysis is in order to 'FIX' these problems or to at least mitigate them!
RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.
I take it everybody tracks magic arrows. Where do you draw the line?
- rations / water
- torches
- encumbrance
- throwing daggers / axes
- ammunition
- magic ammunition
- potions / scrolls
- hit points
- hit dice / healing surges
- exhaustion
- death saves
- limited powers
- spell slots
- gold
- treasure items
- item spell charges
Quote from: mightybrain on December 04, 2020, 05:35:03 AM
I take it everybody tracks magic arrows. Where do you draw the line?
- rations / water
- torches
- encumbrance
- throwing daggers / axes
- ammunition
- magic ammunition
- potions / scrolls
- hit points
- hit dice / healing surges
- exhaustion
- death saves
- limited powers
- spell slots
- gold
- treasure items
- item spell charges
I notice that you didn't include experience points in your list. While not a consumable, they are something that was once tracked diligently and are often now handwaved away in favor of "paced leveling" or "milestones." That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that leveling is now more of a participation trophy (especially as dead characters are often replaceable by "new" characters having the same level/capability as the previous character).
Quote from: Itachi on December 03, 2020, 11:44:02 PM
Quote from: EirikrauthaThe more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.
Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.
The inability to understand and grasp the consequences of actions, followed by the later connection of those actions to their consequences has a name... it's called "learning." And, at least until middle and high school beats it out of them, most people like to learn. It's one of the foundations of gaming. A game that is completely random or involves no real possibility of learning becomes stale very quickly (do you still play tick-tack-toe regularly?). So I disagree strongly that player investment and knowledge of consequences are necessary initially. They will become invested when the consequences get in their way. You have the cart before the horse.
We do learn to track ammo and other consumables. Yet unless the campaign is centered around limited resources both at the start and during gameplay most do not keep track of it. Not unless the item is rare or hard to find.
It's the common complaint from micromanaging DMs/GMs that in players at least in D&D stop being afraid of darkness because of too easy access to spells and resources. At the start and early levels most parties track and tend to that as they don't have the gold or resources. At higher levels even in earlier editions most parties can afford a wand of light or at the very least multiple torches. I keep track of how much money I have in my bank account. I am not going to track it down to every last penny.
It's not failing to understand consequences of actions it's controlling DMs expecting that a Level 1 player is on par with a Level 10 character. In 2E a Fighter can get a keep if he has to put money aside to maintain it why would said character also not make sure that his hirelings are also not well equipped or even himself. Consequences do matter at all levels yet a 10th level character imo has no business needing to track food and ammo. Not unless it's a resource poor campaign.
"players need to learn consequences" just shows to me that a DM has to micromanage everything down to the slightest detail. What is forgotten is that players do learn yet their levels also matter. With such levels also mean players should track less. So all that gold from adventuring is for what decor. Give me a break. No enemies ever have arrows or bolts lying around. Worry more about crafting and running a better adventure and less about tracking inconsequential items. I am at the table to have fun. not be an outlet for the DM un-diagnosed case of OCD
Quote from: consolcwby on December 04, 2020, 01:13:32 AM
To put it bluntly, I believe RPGs are a dead shark at this point, there is no way to just move forward to keep it alive. Meaning, while I agree with going BACK to the foundations - I believe the foundations to be gold mixed with shit (mainly with the lack of a cohesive and unified skirmish/battle system which can be scaled up or down as needed). My own endeavors have been an examination of wargame rules from that period, and I have found connections which suggest the original intent of play was to overly abstract what historians of that period did NOT know about medieval warfare, in particular close range man-to-man combat and what factors into hitting an opponent with a damaging blow (explains why Gygax wanted a focus on unit-type tactical outdoor combats - since much has been written about this). IMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage. I know I'm in a minority of one with this, but, I have come to the conclusion: there is currently no way to fix this without people ignoring the fix/patch. Because of this, RPGs will eventually either fade out (when the current Grognards are too old and crumbly to maintain a coherent thought) OR will become RPAs whereby everyone who participates is a WINNAR! With that said, I would urge the OSR to take a closer examination of the old mechanics and compare them to the old tabletop skirmish combat rules of other games. I believe a detailed analysis is in order to 'FIX' these problems or to at least mitigate them!
Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 04, 2020, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 04, 2020, 01:13:32 AM
To put it bluntly, I believe RPGs are a dead shark at this point, there is no way to just move forward to keep it alive. Meaning, while I agree with going BACK to the foundations - I believe the foundations to be gold mixed with shit (mainly with the lack of a cohesive and unified skirmish/battle system which can be scaled up or down as needed). My own endeavors have been an examination of wargame rules from that period, and I have found connections which suggest the original intent of play was to overly abstract what historians of that period did NOT know about medieval warfare, in particular close range man-to-man combat and what factors into hitting an opponent with a damaging blow (explains why Gygax wanted a focus on unit-type tactical outdoor combats - since much has been written about this). IMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage. I know I'm in a minority of one with this, but, I have come to the conclusion: there is currently no way to fix this without people ignoring the fix/patch. Because of this, RPGs will eventually either fade out (when the current Grognards are too old and crumbly to maintain a coherent thought) OR will become RPAs whereby everyone who participates is a WINNAR! With that said, I would urge the OSR to take a closer examination of the old mechanics and compare them to the old tabletop skirmish combat rules of other games. I believe a detailed analysis is in order to 'FIX' these problems or to at least mitigate them!
Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.
RPGs have a special problem. If a "combat round" take 30 minutes, it immediately jumps to 45 minutes as everyone zones out before their turn and has to zone back in. So even in medium games like D&D 5e or Savage Worlds, a serious combat will end up with hour long rounds if the GM isn't careful and doesn't pace well.
When I was running Maze-Rats and has some small slug-like creature craw up the PCs weapons, it really highlighted how the simple to-hit/damage-to-hp dynamic added risk, tension, and uncertainty without actually limiting how much could go on in a fight. So while it's nice to have hit-locations, wounds, DR, etc. It's not needed and if your RPG group passes the critical time threshold of 30-minutes for intense mechanics like the combat round, the RPG is useless.
It was also really satisfying when I ran Maze Rats again and kept interrupting one player's Switch time because he was so use to having 30 minutes or more in-between actions in combat. If you play a slow system too long, it just becomes the habit that some people immediately zone out as soon as combat starts.
Though I have a bone to pick with players that both zone-out and complain when they "don't have a lot of options" in combat. Pick one to care about.
Quote from: sureshot on December 04, 2020, 08:44:27 AM
We do learn to track ammo and other consumables. Yet unless the campaign is centered around limited resources both at the start and during gameplay most do not keep track of it. Not unless the item is rare or hard to find.
It's the common complaint from micromanaging DMs/GMs that in players at least in D&D stop being afraid of darkness because of too easy access to spells and resources. At the start and early levels most parties track and tend to that as they don't have the gold or resources. At higher levels even in earlier editions most parties can afford a wand of light or at the very least multiple torches. I keep track of how much money I have in my bank account. I am not going to track it down to every last penny.
It's not failing to understand consequences of actions it's controlling DMs expecting that a Level 1 player is on par with a Level 10 character. In 2E a Fighter can get a keep if he has to put money aside to maintain it why would said character also not make sure that his hirelings are also not well equipped or even himself. Consequences do matter at all levels yet a 10th level character imo has no business needing to track food and ammo. Not unless it's a resource poor campaign.
"players need to learn consequences" just shows to me that a DM has to micromanage everything down to the slightest detail. What is forgotten is that players do learn yet their levels also matter. With such levels also mean players should track less. So all that gold from adventuring is for what decor. Give me a break. No enemies ever have arrows or bolts lying around. Worry more about crafting and running a better adventure and less about tracking inconsequential items. I am at the table to have fun. not be an outlet for the DM un-diagnosed case of OCD
If only there were numbers between zero and infinity, we wouldn't have to choose just one extreme. Or, maybe, as characters level, the kinds of logistics they have to make choices about change.
No one here is arguing (at least I'm not) that you must track arrows. I am arguing that choosing not to include arrows does reduce the number of choices that players have to make. If your fun comes from making fewer choices than are necessary in my campaign, then more power to you. But the players
are making fewer choices, and there are fewer consequences thereby. No matter how much money you have, there's a limit to the number of arrows you can carry into a dungeon (and supply trains create their own choices), and this limit causes choices. It's why magic classes have gotten even more powerful with at-will cantrips. They now can just blast away with no consequences...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 08:06:49 AM
Quote from: Itachi on December 03, 2020, 11:44:02 PM
Quote from: EirikrauthaThe more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.
Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.
The inability to understand and grasp the consequences of actions, followed by the later connection of those actions to their consequences has a name... it's called "learning." And, at least until middle and high school beats it out of them, most people like to learn. It's one of the foundations of gaming. A game that is completely random or involves no real possibility of learning becomes stale very quickly (do you still play tick-tack-toe regularly?). So I disagree strongly that player investment and knowledge of consequences are necessary initially. They will become invested when the consequences get in their way. You have the cart before the horse.
You're missing my point, which is: The only requirement for choices having meaning in a RPG is player investment (which usually means this choice needs to be informed). Beyond that its purely subjective - this includes system granularity (your logistics), which some players will like while others won't.
If your statement was true ("the more logistics the more choices matter"), only complex games would be successful or popular, which is not the case, as there are successful games all over the spectrum of complexity.
Quote from: Rhedyn on December 04, 2020, 11:04:40 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 04, 2020, 10:49:45 AM
Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.
RPGs have a special problem. If a "combat round" take 30 minutes, it immediately jumps to 45 minutes as everyone zones out before their turn and has to zone back in. So even in medium games like D&D 5e or Savage Worlds, a serious combat will end up with hour long rounds if the GM isn't careful and doesn't pace well.
When I was running Maze-Rats and has some small slug-like creature craw up the PCs weapons, it really highlighted how the simple to-hit/damage-to-hp dynamic added risk, tension, and uncertainty without actually limiting how much could go on in a fight. So while it's nice to have hit-locations, wounds, DR, etc. It's not needed and if your RPG group passes the critical time threshold of 30-minutes for intense mechanics like the combat round, the RPG is useless.
It was also really satisfying when I ran Maze Rats again and kept interrupting one player's Switch time because he was so use to having 30 minutes or more in-between actions in combat. If you play a slow system too long, it just becomes the habit that some people immediately zone out as soon as combat starts.
Though I have a bone to pick with players that both zone-out and complain when they "don't have a lot of options" in combat. Pick one to care about.
I find players zone out in simple systems (that are often billed as fast) because there's not much to think about when it's not your turn. You just wait for everyone else to roll d20 against the nearest foe. The well-designed more complex systems are more engaging, at least to the people I game with. There are held actions to think about when to use, as well as defensive actions that can be held or used to interrupt an attack. 30-45 minute rounds? Where does this come from? We recently had a 4v5 combat in Aquelarre that took 4 rounds for a total of 1 hour that flew by and people were engaged the whole time. Time is not the issue; it's whether or not the players have anything interesting to think about and whether or not the system allows and encourages them to cook up a plan and try to carry it out. If the combat is engaging, nobody cares how long it takes.
Hit locations, wounds, and armor durability add about 2 minutes to the typical round. The gain of being able to cripple a foe or purposely destroy his shield or disarm him is well worth the marginal extra time.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 04, 2020, 12:01:05 PM
Quote from: Rhedyn on December 04, 2020, 11:04:40 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 04, 2020, 10:49:45 AM
Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.
RPGs have a special problem. If a "combat round" take 30 minutes, it immediately jumps to 45 minutes as everyone zones out before their turn and has to zone back in. So even in medium games like D&D 5e or Savage Worlds, a serious combat will end up with hour long rounds if the GM isn't careful and doesn't pace well.
When I was running Maze-Rats and has some small slug-like creature craw up the PCs weapons, it really highlighted how the simple to-hit/damage-to-hp dynamic added risk, tension, and uncertainty without actually limiting how much could go on in a fight. So while it's nice to have hit-locations, wounds, DR, etc. It's not needed and if your RPG group passes the critical time threshold of 30-minutes for intense mechanics like the combat round, the RPG is useless.
It was also really satisfying when I ran Maze Rats again and kept interrupting one player's Switch time because he was so use to having 30 minutes or more in-between actions in combat. If you play a slow system too long, it just becomes the habit that some people immediately zone out as soon as combat starts.
Though I have a bone to pick with players that both zone-out and complain when they "don't have a lot of options" in combat. Pick one to care about.
I find players zone out in simple systems (that are often billed as fast) because there's not much to think about when it's not your turn. You just wait for everyone else to roll d20 against the nearest foe. The well-designed more complex systems are more engaging, at least to the people I game with. There are held actions to think about when to use, as well as defensive actions that can be held or used to interrupt an attack. 30-45 minute rounds? Where does this come from? We recently had a 4v5 combat in Aquelarre that took 4 rounds for a total of 1 hour that flew by and people were engaged the whole time. Time is not the issue; it's whether or not the players have anything interesting to think about and whether or not the system allows and encourages them to cook up a plan and try to carry it out. If the combat is engaging, nobody cares how long it takes.
Hit locations, wounds, and armor durability add about 2 minutes to the typical round. The gain of being able to cripple a foe or purposely destroy his shield or disarm him is well worth the marginal extra time.
Oh sure, but it actually has to be quick which is something to design around.
Try that same combat out in The Dark Eye, GURPS with all the rules, D&D 3.5, The Burning Wheel Fight!, etc.
I can have pretty good results in Savage Worlds when its 7v14, but 7v7 wild cards, or 7v21 or 7v42 start to take some time. I once did a 14v128 combat and that took the whole session.
Quote from: Spinachcat on December 03, 2020, 11:19:38 PM
Resource management is one area that computer games do better.
This so much. Tracking your resources in a survival horror game can be riveting and terrifying, whether that's
Silent Hill,
Resident Evil,
The Void,
Darkwood, or even
Subnautica.
In a tabletop game where you're sitting around a table with your friends, or video chatting or whatever, then this can easily become tedious and annoying.
Using examples of drama like "do you use these arrows to fight some monsters now or for the main villain later" feel cherrypicked imo. How often would that come up, and would it be as emotional as it would be in a survival horror game?
I don't know the answers.
Quote from: Itachi on December 04, 2020, 11:50:59 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 08:06:49 AM
Quote from: Itachi on December 03, 2020, 11:44:02 PM
Quote from: EirikrauthaThe more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.
Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.
The inability to understand and grasp the consequences of actions, followed by the later connection of those actions to their consequences has a name... it's called "learning." And, at least until middle and high school beats it out of them, most people like to learn. It's one of the foundations of gaming. A game that is completely random or involves no real possibility of learning becomes stale very quickly (do you still play tick-tack-toe regularly?). So I disagree strongly that player investment and knowledge of consequences are necessary initially. They will become invested when the consequences get in their way. You have the cart before the horse.
You're missing my point, which is: The only requirement for choices having meaning in a RPG is player investment (which usually means this choice needs to be informed). Beyond that its purely subjective - this includes system granularity (your logistics), which some players will like while others won't.
If your statement was true ("the more logistics the more choices matter"), only complex games would be successful or popular, which is not the case, as there are successful games all over the spectrum of complexity.
You are ignoring the context of what you quoted. It is followed by the statement: "But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices. What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio. But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game."
Nothing you have said invalidates the
whole quote, which is simply saying that the more you elide choices, the less control you have over consequences. The more details you include, the more important choices you have (because all of those choices could potentially have consequences). Everyone is going to have a different level of elision they enjoy. But that doesn't change the fact that you are giving up some control for ease of use. Where you plant that flag is personal, but it is not true that you have the same level of choice at every interpretation of the rules.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 02:25:12 PM
You are ignoring the context of what you quoted. It is followed by the statement: "But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices. What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio. But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game."
Nothing you have said invalidates the whole quote, which is simply saying that the more you elide choices, the less control you have over consequences. The more details you include, the more important choices you have (because all of those choices could potentially have consequences). Everyone is going to have a different level of elision they enjoy. But that doesn't change the fact that you are giving up some control for ease of use. Where you plant that flag is personal, but it is not true that you have the same level of choice at every interpretation of the rules.
The logic here is flawed, because taking away *specific* details and choices doesn't mean that there are less choices and consequences overall. The choices taken away can be replaced by higher-level choices.
Even in some super-detailed wargames like Squad Leader, you don't necessarily track how many bullets each individual soldier has.
Furthermore, detailed item tracking *in no way* indicates that a game is more about consequences. The game of Go, for example, has extremely simple rules - just placing black and white stones on a grid. It's vastly less complicated than something like Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles, which have hundreds of pages of rules and complicated forms to fill out every turn.
But that doesn't mean that playing Go is just like watching a movie, and that your choices have less consequences than in Squad Leader. If anything, it's the opposite. The streamlined rules mean that there is *more* focus on choices and consequences in Go. It is an incredibly intricate game in play.
Within RPGs, I would contrast, say, playing Rolemaster in full gory detail with playing Amber Diceless. Rolemaster has hundreds of pages of rules and dozens of charts to follow. You can track every arrow. Amber Diceless has no dice-rolling, no charts, and the rules are condense. I've never seen an Amber game where players were keeping track of how many arrows they have, for example. But Amber can still have plenty of focus on choice and consequence.
There are no "high level" choices available to a more abstract game that are not available to a more detailed logistical game. You may spend more time on one or the other, high or low, depending on your preference, but that is preference. But, objectively, there are fewer choices available (high vs high+low). To take Go as an example, there are, in fact, a limited number of board-states in Go (but more than chess, which is why we have computers that can beat chess grandmasters but not Go champions). But Star Fleet Battles has a near infinite number of "board-states". So there are objectively more choices to be had playing SFB than Go. Do you find one more enjoyable than the other? Personal taste. But, objectively, SFB has more choice than Go, which has more choice than Chess.
No one (at least not me) is saying that less logistical games are inferior to more logistical games. But, when you talk about the difference between modern and OSR games, once reason they may feel different is the reduction in the focus on logistics, which forces all of your choices to be "high level." Not everyone enjoys that equally. There's no harm in pointing out that you might enjoy a game more if there was more low level choice. You might not. But for those looking to recapture an OSR feel, that is useful information and something to try.
We actually do have a.i. that can beat go masters now as an aside. Its fairly recent though and its not absolutely dominant.
Eirikautha, a more reasonable way to frame your argument would be "heavy logistics matter for those who value it, but gaming trends these days are away from that", which I would agree with.
There's a tendency to make RPGs more accessible and quicker to prep and play these days, which I find great myself as I don't have the time anymore to invest in it as I did when I was 15, and I got videogames now that give more of the tactical richness that I used to look for in the hobby. But I can see the issues this ensues for those who prefer more complex forms of play.
Quote from: jhkim on December 04, 2020, 03:08:35 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 02:25:12 PM
You are ignoring the context of what you quoted. It is followed by the statement: "But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices. What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio. But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game."
Nothing you have said invalidates the whole quote, which is simply saying that the more you elide choices, the less control you have over consequences. The more details you include, the more important choices you have (because all of those choices could potentially have consequences). Everyone is going to have a different level of elision they enjoy. But that doesn't change the fact that you are giving up some control for ease of use. Where you plant that flag is personal, but it is not true that you have the same level of choice at every interpretation of the rules.
The logic here is flawed, because taking away *specific* details and choices doesn't mean that there are less choices and consequences overall. The choices taken away can be replaced by higher-level choices.
Even in some super-detailed wargames like Squad Leader, you don't necessarily track how many bullets each individual soldier has.
Furthermore, detailed item tracking *in no way* indicates that a game is more about consequences. The game of Go, for example, has extremely simple rules - just placing black and white stones on a grid. It's vastly less complicated than something like Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles, which have hundreds of pages of rules and complicated forms to fill out every turn.
But that doesn't mean that playing Go is just like watching a movie, and that your choices have less consequences than in Squad Leader. If anything, it's the opposite. The streamlined rules mean that there is *more* focus on choices and consequences in Go. It is an incredibly intricate game in play.
Within RPGs, I would contrast, say, playing Rolemaster in full gory detail with playing Amber Diceless. Rolemaster has hundreds of pages of rules and dozens of charts to follow. You can track every arrow. Amber Diceless has no dice-rolling, no charts, and the rules are condense. I've never seen an Amber game where players were keeping track of how many arrows they have, for example. But Amber can still have plenty of focus on choice and consequence.
Go has a lot of emergent complexity though. As does Chess. That's really the holy grail of rpg combat design.
If someone could create a good system that rewards mastery and allows for emergent complexity, then it would put other combat systems in the shade.
(Of course this does mean that the player with more skill would be more effective then those with less, - and people would whine and whine - but achieving mastery is one of the big things that motivates people, so it's really a benefit - and at least this way mastery would come from playing the game and not through pouring through endless books and SRD for ways to make the killer build)
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
There are no "high level" choices available to a more abstract game that are not available to a more detailed logistical game. You may spend more time on one or the other, high or low, depending on your preference, but that is preference. But, objectively, there are fewer choices available (high vs high+low). To take Go as an example, there are, in fact, a limited number of board-states in Go (but more than chess, which is why we have computers that can beat chess grandmasters but not Go champions). But Star Fleet Battles has a near infinite number of "board-states". So there are objectively more choices to be had playing SFB than Go. Do you find one more enjoyable than the other? Personal taste. But, objectively, SFB has more choice than Go, which has more choice than Chess.
No one (at least not me) is saying that less logistical games are inferior to more logistical games. But, when you talk about the difference between modern and OSR games, once reason they may feel different is the reduction in the focus on logistics, which forces all of your choices to be "high level." Not everyone enjoys that equally. There's no harm in pointing out that you might enjoy a game more if there was more low level choice. You might not. But for those looking to recapture an OSR feel, that is useful information and something to try.
Not all "board-states" matter.
I could set a rule that you select your characters RGB shade every round. Mathmatically, I've added X16581375*#PCs "board-states" to the game.
If I'm playing D&D 5e and carry 100 arrows ready-to-go, keeping track of them is as useless as selecting his RGB shade. If the arrows never drop to zero between re-fills, then tracking them did nothing. I do track them btw, the only way I can stomach D&D 5e is if I pretend it's an OSR game where things like that matter. They don't in 5e, but I keep track of them anyways for shits and giggles.
Quote from: Itachi on December 04, 2020, 02:56:09 AM
RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.
The problem is a game that tries to be everything to everyone often fails at being one thing for one type of player.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 04, 2020, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: Itachi on December 04, 2020, 02:56:09 AM
RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.
The problem is a game that tries to be everything to everyone often fails at being one thing for one type of player.
And yet that was 5e's path to success and dominance. Its not entirely accurate, but there is some truth to the description of 5e as "everyone's second favorite edition of D&D."
It IS some people's genuinely favorite edition, but after the edition wars 5e c. 2015 was bland and inoffensive enough with enough common D&D-isms that those who weren't Edition diehards could at least put up with it and that's how it basically crippled Pathfinder and basically reasserted itself as the dominant RPG.
So don't completely discount the idea of a "compromise edition" being an automatic failure. That said, very few RPGs have the audience, lifespan and degree of changes between editions so as to NEED a compromise edition.
The RPG side of Battletech is the only other one I can think of and few people were ever playing the system for anything other than the big stompy robots so the personal RPG level mechanics were pretty peripheral and so could be changed without rocking the boat while the core Mech vs. Mech rules have been unchanged from the beginning and the only real debate is which Era (and therefore specialized equipment) is best to play.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 04, 2020, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: Itachi on December 04, 2020, 02:56:09 AM
RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.
The problem is a game that tries to be everything to everyone often fails at being one thing for one type of player.
That's not my point, which actually is: the hobby already has games to all styles. Even if new trends favor simplicity or abstractness, there's pdf copies of old games available, and remakes of old ones being released left and right. See the OSR movement or the BRP renaissance that produced Mythras, Runequest Glorantha and a ton of similar games, in recent years.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 11:43:52 AM
No one here is arguing (at least I'm not) that you must track arrows. I am arguing that choosing not to include arrows does reduce the number of choices that players have to make. If your fun comes from making fewer choices than are necessary in my campaign, then more power to you. But the players are making fewer choices, and there are fewer consequences thereby. No matter how much money you have, there's a limit to the number of arrows you can carry into a dungeon (and supply trains create their own choices), and this limit causes choices. It's why magic classes have gotten even more powerful with at-will cantrips. They now can just blast away with no consequences...
The problem is those choices don't matter imo. Maybe at low levels and in resource poor campaign worlds. Otherwise past a certain point unless their are major restrictions most players should not be worried about resupplying. Level is not just about more hit points in bonuses it's also about the ability of acquiring more resources. Unless the characters are in siege or out in the middle of nowhere with no weapons. Arrows and food imo should not really be that hard to come by. Honestly what you thinl old warriors talk about aroundin the fire in fantasy campaign worlds. "Remember that time we almost all died fighting that dragon" or " remember that exciting that we wasted or lives counting arrows or keep track of how many quarts of water remained in our water skins"
I get your point yet I feel that your also deliberately ignoring or downplaying just how much access to resources character have at high levels. You make it sound level 1 Fighter and level 15 fighter should both be tracking ammo.
A few times I had to crack down on players carrying too much. The worst I can remember is the player carrying two heavy suits of armor and wearing one. While carrying six weapons and wanted to try and ignore the encumbrance rules. I am pretty lenient yet that was too much for me and he had to let some of the weight go and had to start tracking encumbrance.
Yeah encumbrance is another one that requires certain circumstances to be in play to really be worth tracking.
Hauling loot out of the dungeon? - Yeah that's worth tracking because you're on foot and it might necessitate a second trip.
Travelling overland? If we start adding up numbers the players might realise they need some mules or packhorses or something along those lines. Often it's easier to just cut to the chase and suggest they consider that or I will start tracking encumbrance.
Which is often how I use it. I tend to let it slide, but with the proviso that I will enforce it if I feel the players are being unreasonable or if circumstances arise when it becomes important.
Quote from: sureshot on December 04, 2020, 06:18:21 PMA few times I had to crack down on players carrying too much. The worst I can remember is the player carrying two heavy suits of armor and wearing one. While carrying six weapons and wanted to try and ignore the encumbrance rules. I am pretty lenient yet that was too much for me and he had to let some of the weight go and had to start tracking encumbrance.
I remember making pipe cleaner figures to use as miniatures when I was a kid. My friend decided to make all of his barbarian's weapons and place them on the figure to show where they were in the game. There were a lot. When he couldn't find places to put them all, and there was no way to keep the figure standing up, we decided that maybe he had too many.
I think the point about wanting to track things if there are just a few of them is important. And when it comes to arrows, I have a fair amount of experience with a bow, and I don't think I would want to carry more than 20 - those things actually take up quite a bit of room. To me it makes a lot of sense to track arrows. I happen to like resource management, and in a typical D&D dungeon I would expect that running out of arrows would be really common.
It really depends on what type of experience you want in your game. I'm thinking of the journey through Mirkwood in The Hobbit. The group was out of food and ran out of arrows to hunt more. It was really tense, and I think would be cool to do in a game. You can't do this particular event if you are not tracking food and arrows.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
So there are objectively more choices to be had playing SFB than Go. Do you find one more enjoyable than the other? Personal taste. But, objectively, SFB has more choice than Go, which has more choice than Chess.
No one (at least not me) is saying that less logistical games are inferior to more logistical games. But, when you talk about the difference between modern and OSR games, once reason they may feel different is the reduction in the focus on logistics, which forces all of your choices to be "high level." Not everyone enjoys that equally. There's no harm in pointing out that you might enjoy a game more if there was more low level choice. You might not. But for those looking to recapture an OSR feel, that is useful information and something to try.
I think my disagreement was more with Pundit, and the implication that less choices in Go means that playing Go is more like passively watching a movie, and less of a game at all.
I agree - some people prefer more detailed logistic-type games, like SFB, and some people like more streamlined games like Go. They're just different styles of games. In the board game world, there are more streamlined Eurogames like Settlers of Catan or Power Grid. In the RPG world, there are streamlined modern systems like D&D5e, Numenera, and Dungeon World.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 04, 2020, 06:51:36 PM
I remember making pipe cleaner figures to use as miniatures when I was a kid. My friend decided to make all of his barbarian's weapons and place them on the figure to show where they were in the game. There were a lot. When he couldn't find places to put them all, and there was no way to keep the figure standing up, we decided that maybe he had too many.
LOL I know what you mean
The player in my previous post was so whiny about it. Then again he played his character like himself. The expression read the room in this case the entire campaign applies more. The player was a hardcore Atheist who decides hiss character is the same in the setting of Golarian. Then wondered why all the churches in the AP banned him. Gee well I don't know when you tell the head Cleric "Religion is for suckers" in a campaign world where the gods avatars walk the Earth was just stupid. Just like wanting to move at full speed as human with all that equipment in my previous past.
The guy complaining that wizards are too strong and martials suck is the guy not tracking spell components.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on December 05, 2020, 05:34:33 AM
The guy complaining that wizards are too strong and martials suck is the guy not tracking spell components.
To be fair, the Eschew Materials feat in 3e, Implements in 4E and spell focuses in 5e mean that the only components you had to track were ones with an explicit gold piece value. So the guy complaining about wizards vs. martials actually does have a point.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on December 05, 2020, 05:34:33 AM
The guy complaining that wizards are too strong and martials suck is the guy not tracking spell components.
This is spot on. And also in 5e the contention is that missile weapons are too much....with their belt fed bows of machine gun doom.
How many arrows are being carried into the dungeon?
Why do people assume that the default is to never track anything. I get told my position is extreme lol.
Unless the component is rare or at the very least uncommon most spell components are not that hard to find. Not unless it's a rule of the setting, official or home brewed. Even then unless most adventuring groups can restock the main adventure plot comes to a standstill whether the DM likes it or not. Myself and most groups I played, play and will play with are not going to go off adventuring being unable to cast most spellsor zero ammo. If the world ends it ends. Rocks fall and kills everybody...ciao we find another DM. I don't do stupid or play suicidal characters. Not for any DM. Absolutely non-negotiable or up for any debate.
In pathfinder at least 20 arrows are 6 pounds a fighter or similar class should be able to lug around 40 with some encumbrance. Ammo even in a dungeons should not be too easy or that difficult to find either. Unless the racial lore states that the race weapons are really that different bolts and arrows seems to be universal. As from what I can see from some posters they either play resource poor and/or magic low campaigns as at least in some form or another in later versions of D&D Handy Haversacks are a thing. A lesser bag of holding that can hold 20 pounds and the party can pool their resources abd buy one or two. Efficent quivers cost 200 less then the sack and can hold much more ammo.
Why posters insist on acting like characters especially high level characters have negative options with dealing with ammunition is beyond me. First or tenth level all each can afford is a rusty dagger and loincloth.
Quote from: sureshot on December 05, 2020, 09:13:59 AM
Why do people assume that the default is to never track anything. I get told my position is extreme lol.
Unless the component is rare or at the very least uncommon most spell components are not that hard to find. Not unless it's a rule of the setting, official or home brewed. Even then unless most adventuring groups can restock the main adventure plot comes to a standstill whether the DM likes it or not. Myself and most groups I played, play and will play with are not going to go off adventuring being unable to cast most spellsor zero ammo. If the world ends it ends. Rocks fall and kills everybody...ciao we find another DM. I don't do stupid or play suicidal characters. Not for any DM. Absolutely non-negotiable or up for any debate.
In pathfinder at least 20 arrows are 6 pounds a fighter or similar class should be able to lug around 40 with some encumbrance. Ammo even in a dungeons should not be too easy or that difficult to find either. Unless the racial lore states that the race weapons are really that different bolts and arrows seems to be universal. As from what I can see from some posters they either play resource poor and/or magic low campaigns as at least in some form or another in later versions of D&D Handy Haversacks are a thing. A lesser bag of holding that can hold 20 pounds and the party can pool their resources abd buy one or two. Efficent quivers cost 200 less then the sack and can hold much more ammo.
Why posters insist on acting like characters especially high level characters have negative options with dealing with ammunition is beyond me. First or tenth level all each can afford is a rusty dagger and loincloth.
Frankly at higher level most of the logistics game is gone for our group anyway. Bags of holding etc. change a lot. The exception for us would be the expensive spell components . I guess we assume the parts of bugs and plants get collected periodically.
However in lower levels I like the tighter game with a some logistics. So much so that I wonder if 5e is the absolute best fit for me. Everyone and their brother has a light spell etc.
But I also think the dm can make it harder by pushing some limitations on bow users etc. if the sharpshooter of 5e is too dominant, I would be looking to complicate their life a little in the sake of more fun.
Quote from: Warpiglet on December 05, 2020, 09:49:04 AM
Frankly at higher level most of the logistics game is gone for our group anyway. Bags of holding etc. change a lot. The exception for us would be the expensive spell components . I guess we assume the parts of bugs and plants get collected periodically.
However in lower levels I like the tighter game with a some logistics. So much so that I wonder if 5e is the absolute best fit for me. Everyone and their brother has a light spell etc.
But I also think the dm can make it harder by pushing some limitations on bow users etc. if the sharpshooter of 5e is too dominant, I would be looking to complicate their life a little in the sake of more fun.
Good thing is with 5E you can modify to suit your needs so it might still be a good edition to play with.
Again I am not against restrictions of any kind and complications within moderation can be fun and interesting. What I take issue with is the general lack of understanding that unless the players are complete idiots most make sure to at the very least do so minimal bookkeeping in terms of resources. Unless I am mistaken it seems that no matter the level a player never has access to anything. Diamond dust or just the diamonds to make them time go adventuring for it or a side quest. Food and arrows...I play rpgs to get away from that kind of real life bookkeeping. I will do it if the campaign is built around it say like a Walking Dead style campaign. In Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance it should not be that hard to find common items. Defeating the Lich, rescuing slaves, leveling up and becoming better at what i do have meaningful impact to me as a player. Tracking arrows is something I need to do not want to do as an adventurer. A player with a bat familiar provides the required bat guano for spells. In Pathfinder at least one can get one as early as first level.
I like tracking supplies and encumbrance in a game. I agree with those who feel it can result in some interesting situations for making some tough decisions.
It's getting so easy to automate things using a phone or laptop these days it doesn't seem too much to ask players to track their items: it usually is just ticking off a radio box or just a pencil mark on a sheet. If they can track HP and roll dice, I don't see any real hardship but a lot of reward or adding some interesting variables to a dungeon delve, etc. that can't be predicted ahead of time. To me, that's exciting for all involved.
If your players can't do that, then I would question their interest in the DM's approach and if they're enjoying it.
I would do the same for torches staying lit, etc. and anything else that is a limited commodity.
For modern takes on the idea, I found Macchiato Monsters had some good ideas on how to use dice for these matters.
If you want spamming Pew-Pew, make the PC work for it and hunt down or have built a Quiver of Holding. You can have 179 different types of arrows in there and the one you grab will always be the one you want. Done.
Otherwise, it's been simple since forever. Some jackass wants to carry a barrel of 100 arrows strapped to their back, you model how stupid that is when stealth and mobility are necessary, same as you do when the guy in plate mail holding a great flail wants to sneak past someone.
Otherwise, you just go with the old "hits are recoverable, missed arrows are broken", or if you want to go deeper make an Item Saving Throw.
Unlimited anything without magic is 4-color baloney.
The item saving throw for item being damaged is something that seems to get forgotten a lot: like the items a character uses are impervious to harm.
If someone has a bushel of arrows in a quiver and they get hit with a fireball, dragon breath, etc. you can bet I'm going to make sure that those items, being mainly wood sticks, get tested with an item saving throw.
Some might deem such a DM maneuver as nasty, but I would deem it something that is applicable to both sides of a melee, allowing adventurers to take heed of this factor to their benefit if they can craft a good solution.
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on December 05, 2020, 04:21:07 PM
The item saving throw for item being damaged is something that seems to get forgotten a lot: like the items a character uses are impervious to harm.
If someone has a bushel of arrows in a quiver and they get hit with a fireball, dragon breath, etc. you can bet I'm going to make sure that those items, being mainly wood sticks, get tested with an item saving throw.
Some might deem such a DM maneuver as nasty, but I would deem it something that is applicable to both sides of a melee, allowing adventurers to take heed of this factor to their benefit if they can craft a good solution.
I like item saving throws conceptually. In practice, it takes a lot of extra time to make all those rolls, and I'm not willing to slow down my game for that.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 05, 2020, 07:21:46 PM
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on December 05, 2020, 04:21:07 PM
The item saving throw for item being damaged is something that seems to get forgotten a lot: like the items a character uses are impervious to harm.
If someone has a bushel of arrows in a quiver and they get hit with a fireball, dragon breath, etc. you can bet I'm going to make sure that those items, being mainly wood sticks, get tested with an item saving throw.
Some might deem such a DM maneuver as nasty, but I would deem it something that is applicable to both sides of a melee, allowing adventurers to take heed of this factor to their benefit if they can craft a good solution.
I like item saving throws conceptually. In practice, it takes a lot of extra time to make all those rolls, and I'm not willing to slow down my game for that.
Yeah, making a roll for every arrow and bit of equipment would be tiresome.
For re-using arrows, I usually use a quick and dirty 50% rule. Half the mundane arrows used are recoverable. Magic arrows are always intact.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 04, 2020, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: consolcwby on December 04, 2020, 01:13:32 AM
To put it bluntly, I believe RPGs are a dead shark at this point, there is no way to just move forward to keep it alive. Meaning, while I agree with going BACK to the foundations - I believe the foundations to be gold mixed with shit (mainly with the lack of a cohesive and unified skirmish/battle system which can be scaled up or down as needed). My own endeavors have been an examination of wargame rules from that period, and I have found connections which suggest the original intent of play was to overly abstract what historians of that period did NOT know about medieval warfare, in particular close range man-to-man combat and what factors into hitting an opponent with a damaging blow (explains why Gygax wanted a focus on unit-type tactical outdoor combats - since much has been written about this). IMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage. I know I'm in a minority of one with this, but, I have come to the conclusion: there is currently no way to fix this without people ignoring the fix/patch. Because of this, RPGs will eventually either fade out (when the current Grognards are too old and crumbly to maintain a coherent thought) OR will become RPAs whereby everyone who participates is a WINNAR! With that said, I would urge the OSR to take a closer examination of the old mechanics and compare them to the old tabletop skirmish combat rules of other games. I believe a detailed analysis is in order to 'FIX' these problems or to at least mitigate them!
Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.
That's definite. I used to really like Rune Quest, et al. Yet, I still see certain problems inherent in all RPGs - I guess I'm just fighting windmills looking for that 'Perfect RPG' that will never exist! ;D
Frankly, these days if I want to scratch my itch for tactical combat, videogames offer a much more practical and usually deeper solution. So no, I dont look for complex tactical combat system in tabletop RPGs.
Quote from: Itachi on December 06, 2020, 08:07:52 PM
Frankly, these days if I want to scratch my itch for tactical combat, videogames offer a much more practical and usually deeper solution. So no, I dont look for complex tactical combat system in tabletop RPGs.
Sure video games are more efficient at taking care of the fiddly numbers. But if I want a tactical game _and_ the social situation of sitting around a table with my friends, then tactical RPGs, or even wargames, are the way to go.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2020, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: Itachi on December 06, 2020, 08:07:52 PM
Frankly, these days if I want to scratch my itch for tactical combat, videogames offer a much more practical and usually deeper solution. So no, I dont look for complex tactical combat system in tabletop RPGs.
Sure video games are more efficient at taking care of the fiddly numbers. But if I want a tactical game _and_ the social situation of sitting around a table with my friends, then tactical RPGs, or even wargames, are the way to go.
That even spills over into video games for me. I enjoy multiplayer "couch co-op" with two+ playing the game in the same room (e.g., Borderlands split screen), but I find that the far more common online play doesn't appeal to me at all. Even then, I tend to have more fun with a tabletop game, whether RPG or other (currently playing a lot of ADB's Federation Commander).
Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2020, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: Itachi on December 06, 2020, 08:07:52 PM
Frankly, these days if I want to scratch my itch for tactical combat, videogames offer a much more practical and usually deeper solution. So no, I dont look for complex tactical combat system in tabletop RPGs.
Sure video games are more efficient at taking care of the fiddly numbers. But if I want a tactical game _and_ the social situation of sitting around a table with my friends, then tactical RPGs, or even wargames, are the way to go.
Oh yeah, I'm with you here. The social aspect of a group of friends playing a tabletop rpg or boardgame is really great.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 07, 2020, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: Itachi on December 06, 2020, 08:07:52 PM
Frankly, these days if I want to scratch my itch for tactical combat, videogames offer a much more practical and usually deeper solution. So no, I dont look for complex tactical combat system in tabletop RPGs.
Sure video games are more efficient at taking care of the fiddly numbers. But if I want a tactical game _and_ the social situation of sitting around a table with my friends, then tactical RPGs, or even wargames, are the way to go.
100% agree. Give me the crunchiest tactical game and with the right group around the table it's magic that you can't get from a computer game.
I like blending the styles, with a stronger focus on the "game" aspect than the story aspect. If anything I'd describe the story as emergent from gameplay, and the last thing I want is be forced into acting out an amateur writers crappy fan fic novella. Although it also dosent have to be anywhere near a pure sandbox either, as I have enjoyed games where the overarching structure has been railroady (DMing moving us from adventure A to adventure B). The requirements for me are player agency, divergent outcomes, and risk/consequences being present. These are non negotiable deal breakers.
My "story vs game" attitude mirrors my preference on "old vs new school" games. I like my games closer to oldschool but dislike save or die, prodding at every corner with ten foot poles, players mapping or getting lost over their inaccurate mapping, or 3d6 down the line But I also dislike feats, a cosmopolitan light hearted critical role world where tielflings and dragon born are hanging out with humans in bars. I dislike magic being so commonplace it basically acts as a stand in for technology. I like resource management, random encounters, and a risk of death always being present. I like caution from the players, but not paranoia where exploration can become a grind. Boldness is rewarded but stupidity is punished.
IME it dosent need to be a binary choice in extremes whether its story vs game, or oldschool vs newschool. The right attributes of each can be combined to complement each other.
Quote from: deathknight4044 on December 08, 2020, 12:30:46 AM
a cosmopolitan light hearted critical role world where tielflings and dragon born are hanging out with humans in bars. I dislike magic being so commonplace it basically acts as a stand in for technology.
Hey there. Welcome to the forum!
I have to agree with most of what you said. Though I do like 3d6 down the line, as playing flawed characters is its own special kind of fun. It can be very rewarding to have a 7 STR fighter succeed. Stat advantage is not as important as people tend to think.
Your quote above. LOL. 100%. I'll go extreme here and say that's not even playing an RPG. It's more like cosplay or superficial dress-up where everyone is the same person they are IRL the just have "cool" affectations and neat gear. Role play is hard! I've got a cleric going in a game and I have to constantly remind myself to behave like a zealot. Like actively try not to be just a regular guy who happens to be able to heal everyone. You want healing? You must first accept my god into your heart (or at least pretend to).
Watch out though. If that cosmopolitan world where tieflings and dragonborn meet at bars is the city of Sigil from planescape, chances are they follow some of the setting's factions, meaning they adhere to codes of conduct and must uphold those personal values, which may result in an interesting game of conflicting philosophies and agenda, not unlike a Vampire the masquerade urban sandbox, only with factions clashing instead of clans.
Of course, you may not appreciate that either, but it's a valid mode of play that a lot of players find fun to engage. ;)
Quote from: deathknight4044 on December 08, 2020, 12:30:46 AM
But I also dislike feats, a cosmopolitan light hearted critical role world where tielflings and dragon born are hanging out with humans in bars. I dislike magic being so commonplace it basically acts as a stand in for technology.
I dislike feats as implemented 3e/4E (too many, too general, too minor in effect), but I do think a "feat-like object" can be a useful tool in creating distinctive characters; the weapon style selection for the 5e fighters are basically "feats", but they're limited only to choosing specific combat options instead of anything under the sun.
As to the cosmopolitan; I think many settings would benefit from having a distinction between the "general population" and the "adventuring population" ratios.
As an extreme example, in my world both humans and dragons can be PCs. There's a million humans for every dragon, but every dragon is equivalent to a PC while only one-in-a-million humans meets that standard. Thus the adventuring population ratio is 1 PC human for every PC dragon, even though humans are a million times more common than dragons in the general population.
For a sci-fi equivalent; Stargate SG-1 just got back on Netflix. Teal'c is a quarter of the team we follow, but that doesn't mean a quarter of Stargate Command is Jaffa. Indeed, he's literally the only Jaffa in a population of seven billion people on the planet.
The point being that just because Tieflings and Dragonborn might be equally available to PCs (akin to protagonists of a series) doesn't mean they have to have the same mix in your general population. They can just as easily be a Teal'c or a Commander Data.
As to magic in my settings; I honestly prefer "magic" to be relatively common, at least certain kinds of it. But I run with a decidedly post-apocalyptic world (which was previously a magi-tech utopia) where small bits of mostly useless magic help establish what's been lost; the owner of the tavern has an old recording crystal that has a few pre-Cataclysm musical performances (about three hours worth) that he plays for his patrons when a live bard or performer isn't available. The locals treat it as background elevator muzak because they've heard it so many times before, but new travelers are always amazed.
The same with an arcane forge that requires no fuel used by one vilage smith, but it ways a dozen tons so it's not at all something that could be carted off. Or Lord Nicholis, whose golem horse, while slower than the real thing (so not great for travel), never tires when pulling a plow and so he rents it out to his farmers to make their planting and harvesting easier and produces a bigger harvest of which he gains a share.
Things like that really help establish the theme that the PCs are living in the ashes of a once mighty civilization and who knows what they might find if they risk exploring the ruins beyond the safe walls of civilization.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 08, 2020, 10:29:16 AM
You want healing? You must first accept my god into your heart (or at least pretend to).
You want me to stop the Troll chewing on you?
Should have thought about that when I wanted some healing.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 08, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 08, 2020, 10:29:16 AM
You want healing? You must first accept my god into your heart (or at least pretend to).
You want me to stop the Troll chewing on you?
Should have thought about that when I wanted some healing.
Ha! Corporeal death by a mere troll is infinitely more preferable to the eternal damnation my spirit would have received by healing an infidel! Smite me oh great God, you who works your wonders through this troll, so that I may pay for my sin of even considering healing this unbeliever!
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 08, 2020, 03:03:29 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 08, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 08, 2020, 10:29:16 AM
You want healing? You must first accept my god into your heart (or at least pretend to).
You want me to stop the Troll chewing on you?
Should have thought about that when I wanted some healing.
Ha! Corporeal death by a mere troll is infinitely more preferable to the eternal damnation my spirit would have received by healing an infidel! Smite me oh great God, you who works your wonders through this troll, so that I may pay for my sin of even considering healing this unbeliever!
I love the roleplaying of Int as your dump stat.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 08, 2020, 04:17:06 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 08, 2020, 03:03:29 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 08, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 08, 2020, 10:29:16 AM
You want healing? You must first accept my god into your heart (or at least pretend to).
You want me to stop the Troll chewing on you?
Should have thought about that when I wanted some healing.
Ha! Corporeal death by a mere troll is infinitely more preferable to the eternal damnation my spirit would have received by healing an infidel! Smite me oh great God, you who works your wonders through this troll, so that I may pay for my sin of even considering healing this unbeliever!
I love the roleplaying of Int as your dump stat.
Intelligence is an illusion! It is only by faith that we can acquire our rightful place in the endless spirals of creation and destruction. After this troll tears me asunder, surely he will show you the one true way. Or the next troll will. Or the next. Goodbye friend! Moloch is with you even if you deny Him! Aaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggg.......<splat>.
I guess the ones that freaked out over tracking of arrows they shouldn't freak out if I don't keep track of the gold I spend or the spells I cast or the potions I drink right? Sweet!
Quote from: Krugus on December 08, 2020, 08:18:36 PM
I guess the ones that freaked out over tracking of arrows they shouldn't freak out if I don't keep track of the gold I spend or the spells I cast or the potions I drink right? Sweet!
Sure, as long as your potions and spells cost 1gp for every 20 uses. :)
I've had an interesting counter-example on this subject. Whille playing call of Cthullhu we encountered a strange creature that was attacking people in a library, due to an amazing series of two brilliant initiative rolls, 2 impaling attack rolls and 2 sets of max damage the monster went down in the first round of combat.
Had the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.
Definitely an example of how story can be better than game.
Quote from: Altheus on December 09, 2020, 09:18:24 AM
I've had an interesting counter-example on this subject. Whille playing call of Cthullhu we encountered a strange creature that was attacking people in a library, due to an amazing series of two brilliant initiative rolls, 2 impaling attack rolls and 2 sets of max damage the monster went down in the first round of combat.
Had the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.
Definitely an example of how story can be better than game.
In an old Earthdawn campaign, I had spent months setting up a Big Bad. Like Darth Vader style, where an NPC was abducted by a Horror and turned into a villian, and in the final showdown, one of the PCs rolled a critical hit and knocked him on his ass.
I rolled with it. A traditional story can have a meticulously crafted climax payoff for a plot setup, but in an RPG, we trade that for the freedom for character actions to have meaningful impact on the world and their part of it. I'll take an anticlimax in exchange for that freedom every time.
Quote from: Altheus on December 09, 2020, 09:18:24 AM
I've had an interesting counter-example on this subject. Whille playing call of Cthullhu we encountered a strange creature that was attacking people in a library, due to an amazing series of two brilliant initiative rolls, 2 impaling attack rolls and 2 sets of max damage the monster went down in the first round of combat.
Had the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.
Definitely an example of how story can be better than game.
I think you have that reversed...that is a perfect example of the game (random dice) creating a much cooler story than would otherwise have happened....even if it does mean you wasted some time prepping as the DM
Isn't that the whole point of rpgs with dice...the randomness 'creates' a unique story.
Quote from: Itachi on December 08, 2020, 12:20:01 PM
Watch out though. If that cosmopolitan world where tieflings and dragonborn meet at bars is the city of Sigil from planescape, chances are they follow some of the setting's factions, meaning they adhere to codes of conduct and must uphold those personal values, which may result in an interesting game of conflicting philosophies and agenda, not unlike a Vampire the masquerade urban sandbox, only with factions clashing instead of clans.
Of course, you may not appreciate that either, but it's a valid mode of play that a lot of players find fun to engage. ;)
I think games with strange settings and an abundance of non humans like planescape or dark sun can be fun. Playing a crippled character can be fun too. What I'm being critical of is moreso about the default d&d setting and how they all look like this now:
https://ibb.co/jLFwXSG
https://ibb.co/wckX5kZ
https://ibb.co/KmdsKkh
Quote from: deathknight4044 on December 11, 2020, 01:51:41 AM
Quote from: Itachi on December 08, 2020, 12:20:01 PM
Watch out though. If that cosmopolitan world where tieflings and dragonborn meet at bars is the city of Sigil from planescape, chances are they follow some of the setting's factions, meaning they adhere to codes of conduct and must uphold those personal values, which may result in an interesting game of conflicting philosophies and agenda, not unlike a Vampire the masquerade urban sandbox, only with factions clashing instead of clans.
Of course, you may not appreciate that either, but it's a valid mode of play that a lot of players find fun to engage. ;)
I think games with strange settings and an abundance of non humans like planescape or dark sun can be fun. Playing a crippled character can be fun too. What I'm being critical of is moreso about the default d&d setting and how they all look like this now:
https://ibb.co/jLFwXSG
https://ibb.co/wckX5kZ
https://ibb.co/KmdsKkh
God, I think the intention behind the "Combat Wheelchair"(tm) is good, but I've got this image in my head of an orc pushing one of those things over and laughing at the occupant.
QuoteNot tracking this stuff is a sign that the game world is too rich with resources or the players are just lazy.
As a 33 y.o. player and GM I am lazy indeed. If I want to play resource management game I'm gonna play Dwarf Fortress, not game about epic wuxia like fights with demons in Underdark :P
QuoteOn a less self-pitying note, I think Pundit, Jeffro Johnson, et al. are right in one thing--we've got several different hobbies going on here, all trying to use the same tools and claim the same brand identity.
Simply speaking, Armchair, we have one hobby that exists in a large spectrum and several points are closer to games outside of hobby rather than other RPGs around. Which makes things more confusing I can agree. Some equivalents of political compass would be neat.
QuoteI can see where that distinction can feel like it gets fuzzy, but the distinction is real. Characters in novels are focused on themselves, as they are the prime protagonist and lens from which everything in the novel revolves around. Characters in an emulative game world are much more than that, as they are emulating a person in a dynamic world.
Yes. But also putting spotlight on your players, and making them important for changing status quo is 101 advice given to DM's even in a game where counting arrows matters. So there's that.
Just a character in immersive world can end very easily with Elminster disease.
QuoteWhat many were doing was not playing a 'game', but were instead PLAY ACTING. Understandably, whenever I pointed this out, I was told to shut up. Now that the quote-unquote "STORYGAME" genre has come about, I can safely and undoubtedly claim these are NOT GAMES, but ACTIVITIES, and I call them Roleplaying Activities (RPAs).
Now of course WOD crowd have a tendency to make theatre out of WOD RPGs, but ultimately Vampire, Werewolf and so on - were Games.
You had rolls resolving conflicts, conflicts has stakes, mechanics decided outcomes - that's GAME.
QuoteI suppose I'll never understand the railroading mentality NOR the win/lose-it-all campaign style (a campaign world is NOT just a foozle hunt - losing the campaign does not equate to losing the campaign world, but that's an argument I refuse to get into at the moment!). Understanding that a GAME is not a STORY nor a PUZZLE, but is a strategic and tactical challenge with a goal, having randomized elements to provide challenges unplanned for, and to create scenarios with win/loss conditions other than just "TPK = Game Over" is essential for both players and GMs.
Primo, with more story driven game you still do not have to railroad players, nor go win/lose-it-all. You can certainly go into win/lose it all option during OSR dungeon crawl, that depends what stakes of specific crawl are.
Second, I'd argue that new wave do win/loss conditions better with rules like Roll only when it really matters and with methods of rolling that allows for wider spectrum of results.
I'm myself is experimenting with 5d20 own mechanics to get large swath of possible results.
QuoteToo many people WANT to play a story, not a game, because of both the fear of LOSING (Risk-Aversion) and an aversion to COMPETITION (player v. GM / player v. player), both of which having been taught to children by two decades of 'PROGRESSIVE' schooling.
That's applying really low intentions to people. Most people want to play stories - because all popculture is story driven for once, and stories are just overall more interesting than random strings of events without anything interconnecting them really. And RPG came from popculture.
Let's also remember we live in times of massive popularity of non RP - board games of various kinds, and of figure wargames. Simply in a long run full blown competition and full blown storytelling shall defeat half-assed crossbreeds of two in many cases :P (Not to say there's no place for it.)
QuoteIMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage.
And that's what cause for D&D style RPG to evolve into fantasy wuxia superheroes rather than OSR - you have abstract fight, you have abstract hitpoints, wounds does not matter on your effectiveness in combat, and even in older D&D there is still a lot of power-creep and high-level heroes are quite super-heroic in many regards. But then you have many RPGs designed more for story-driven aspect - even Warhammer who always in published scenario had this aspect of quasi-occult investigation/exploration - who do damage better, and it hurts more.
QuoteHad the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.
And it's good. Even better if characters will treat such beings as not that dangerous and get a bitter revelation later they were just very lucky one time.
Quote from: Krugus on December 08, 2020, 08:18:36 PM
I guess the ones that freaked out over tracking of arrows they shouldn't freak out if I don't keep track of the gold I spend or the spells I cast or the potions I drink right? Sweet!
We also dont freak out about hit points either so you know what to do.
::)
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 11, 2020, 06:22:12 AM
QuoteNot tracking this stuff is a sign that the game world is too rich with resources or the players are just lazy.
As a 33 y.o. player and GM I am lazy indeed. If I want to play resource management game I'm gonna play Dwarf Fortress, not game about epic wuxia like fights with demons in Underdark :P
QuoteOn a less self-pitying note, I think Pundit, Jeffro Johnson, et al. are right in one thing--we've got several different hobbies going on here, all trying to use the same tools and claim the same brand identity.
Simply speaking, Armchair, we have one hobby that exists in a large spectrum and several points are closer to games outside of hobby rather than other RPGs around. Which makes things more confusing I can agree. Some equivalents of political compass would be neat.
QuoteI can see where that distinction can feel like it gets fuzzy, but the distinction is real. Characters in novels are focused on themselves, as they are the prime protagonist and lens from which everything in the novel revolves around. Characters in an emulative game world are much more than that, as they are emulating a person in a dynamic world.
Yes. But also putting spotlight on your players, and making them important for changing status quo is 101 advice given to DM's even in a game where counting arrows matters. So there's that.
Just a character in immersive world can end very easily with Elminster disease.
QuoteWhat many were doing was not playing a 'game', but were instead PLAY ACTING. Understandably, whenever I pointed this out, I was told to shut up. Now that the quote-unquote "STORYGAME" genre has come about, I can safely and undoubtedly claim these are NOT GAMES, but ACTIVITIES, and I call them Roleplaying Activities (RPAs).
Now of course WOD crowd have a tendency to make theatre out of WOD RPGs, but ultimately Vampire, Werewolf and so on - were Games.
You had rolls resolving conflicts, conflicts has stakes, mechanics decided outcomes - that's GAME.
QuoteI suppose I'll never understand the railroading mentality NOR the win/lose-it-all campaign style (a campaign world is NOT just a foozle hunt - losing the campaign does not equate to losing the campaign world, but that's an argument I refuse to get into at the moment!). Understanding that a GAME is not a STORY nor a PUZZLE, but is a strategic and tactical challenge with a goal, having randomized elements to provide challenges unplanned for, and to create scenarios with win/loss conditions other than just "TPK = Game Over" is essential for both players and GMs.
Primo, with more story driven game you still do not have to railroad players, nor go win/lose-it-all. You can certainly go into win/lose it all option during OSR dungeon crawl, that depends what stakes of specific crawl are.
Second, I'd argue that new wave do win/loss conditions better with rules like Roll only when it really matters and with methods of rolling that allows for wider spectrum of results.
I'm myself is experimenting with 5d20 own mechanics to get large swath of possible results.
QuoteToo many people WANT to play a story, not a game, because of both the fear of LOSING (Risk-Aversion) and an aversion to COMPETITION (player v. GM / player v. player), both of which having been taught to children by two decades of 'PROGRESSIVE' schooling.
That's applying really low intentions to people. Most people want to play stories - because all popculture is story driven for once, and stories are just overall more interesting than random strings of events without anything interconnecting them really. And RPG came from popculture.
Let's also remember we live in times of massive popularity of non RP - board games of various kinds, and of figure wargames. Simply in a long run full blown competition and full blown storytelling shall defeat half-assed crossbreeds of two in many cases :P (Not to say there's no place for it.)
QuoteIMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage.
And that's what cause for D&D style RPG to evolve into fantasy wuxia superheroes rather than OSR - you have abstract fight, you have abstract hitpoints, wounds does not matter on your effectiveness in combat, and even in older D&D there is still a lot of power-creep and high-level heroes are quite super-heroic in many regards. But then you have many RPGs designed more for story-driven aspect - even Warhammer who always in published scenario had this aspect of quasi-occult investigation/exploration - who do damage better, and it hurts more.
QuoteHad the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.
And it's good. Even better if characters will treat such beings as not that dangerous and get a bitter revelation later they were just very lucky one time.
You're actually conflating SYSTEM as GAME. As well as being confused on basic game design principles.
Don't take my word on it, though:
QuoteYou're actually conflating SYSTEM as GAME.
Care to elaborate?
QuoteDon't take my word on it, though:
I generally agree with this gentleman in terms of definitions.
But I think that a) cRPGs are basically always stories, maybe branching stories, but nature of C in cRPG generally forces you to some amount of choices - not infinite possibilities.So the difference between free narrative and story is getting more murkier. b) this is centred on video game design and numbers of choices it's giving to players - but it's quite a different thing in narrative RPG.
Because narrative-based RPG does not have to use well any railroading really. Now of course comparing it to Mercer Effect we have this drive for subtle railroad in community, I agree it's problematic - but also you have lot of new games that give mechanic solutions to make narrative more story-like while also strongly - more strongly than old school - enforcing player choices in shaping such narrative. And as I said this is gonna be naturally getting more and more popular - because same ROLE-PLAYING aspect is the thing that differs RPGs from other games, so games promoting most RP and elements supporting it shall dominate (or D&D which pretends to be everything for everyone) because if you want strong gamism effect you play game without all this uncessary RP element.
If people nowadays were afraid of competition - traditional board games would not be as popular as they are. Video games, multiplayers would not be growing and growing each year.
The reason why people turn for RPG to impose story-creation elements is because only RPG can do it - while you can just wander through dungeons in some board game, card game or video game. The difference of RPG is bringing characters some artificial persona to live. And that's why this aspect dominates more and more strongly - everything else is somewhere else.
Where does resource counting 'end'? Every arrow? Every bowstring? Every use of the bow before it needs maintenance? Every type of arrow? Every type of bowstring? Every microgram of food compared to output to measure cramps relative to muscle mass and height and dietary requirements?
I could imagine that in an Archery enthusiasts game, tracking all bow related stuff is great fun. But not everybody. And even the people that insult others for not tracking ammo have a limit where they just finally handwave SOMETHING.
And if they don't, then present them to the physics convention for discovering how to perfectly simulate universes without mega-scale computers.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2020, 11:24:09 PM
Where does resource counting 'end'? Every arrow? Every bowstring? Every use of the bow before it needs maintenance? Every type of arrow? Every type of bowstring? Every microgram of food compared to output to measure cramps relative to muscle mass and height and dietary requirements?
I could imagine that in an Archery enthusiasts game, tracking all bow related stuff is great fun. But not everybody. And even the people that insult others for not tracking ammo have a limit where they just finally handwave SOMETHING.
And if they don't, then present them to the physics convention for discovering how to perfectly simulate universes without mega-scale computers.
Also do you track the weather to see how this affects bowstrings and assume the players have unstrung their bows and put the strings somewhere safe if it is raining?
If they are using mongol style lacquered composite bows are you rolling to see if the glue holding the bow together is damaged in wet climates?
We're just talking about different levels of abstraction. Not fundamentally different styles of play.
Quote from: TJS on December 13, 2020, 02:16:22 AM
We're just talking about different levels of abstraction. Not fundamentally different styles of play.
In a sense, the execution, the level, and the type of abstraction a game has determine the gameplay style and everything else. A game is all about what and how you abstract.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 13, 2020, 04:00:40 AM
Quote from: TJS on December 13, 2020, 02:16:22 AM
We're just talking about different levels of abstraction. Not fundamentally different styles of play.
In a sense, the execution, the level, and the type of abstraction a game has determine the gameplay style and everything else. A game is all about what and how you abstract.
Yes. Which is why in some games I'm not tracking ammo at all while in others we track such things and I
am enforcing that characters can't walk around with bows strung all the time (and weapons in hand, for that matter). Admittedly, both extremes are rare, but I've done both with reasons.
Another way to say what both of you are saying is that in a given game session, there is a limit to how much detail the group can manage. So pick your details carefully to be useful for that group playing that game.
Accordingly, you can play a game where you need to track things like arrows more easily when the game system isn't already having you track a bunch of other things by default. Which is why an old-school D&D game or something similar is going to make that easier than other games.
"Forbidden Lands" have interesting quite abstract way to count food, water, arrows and torches.
Each time you use one - you rolled a dice written in your card (max d12).
If you rolled 1-2, you were changing dice to lower 12->10->8->6->4.
Roll 1-2 on d4, you're out of stuff.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 13, 2020, 11:34:34 AM
"Forbidden Lands" have interesting quite abstract way to count food, water, arrows and torches.
Each time you use one - you rolled a dice written in your card (max d12).
If you rolled 1-2, you were changing dice to lower 12->10->8->6->4.
Roll 1-2 on d4, you're out of stuff.
The main issue with that approach is that it makes the PCs look incompetent; that they just guess how much food or ammunition they're carrying.
My feeling is generally that you either need to track it (because its important enough to) or don't track it at all (because its a trivial thing the PCs are presumably competent enough with to ensure they have enough to never run out outside of extreme circumstances).
Cutsie dice mechanisms that turn your arrow supply into Schrodinger's Quiver just really throw immersion out the window; particularly when edge cases of probability come up (ex. the DM and four other players watched me roll a Str 17, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 17 on straight 3d6 in order... roll up enough characters and someone somewherewill legitimately get a character with straight 18s at some point).
Because your hero is a cautious sort who stocks up a LOT of arrows (enough for that d12), but on his first shot rolls a 1, then a 2 on his second (d10), a 1 (d8), 2 (d6) and a final 2 (d4). So our extremely prepared archer only brought FIVE arrows with him into a dungeon because random dice said so.
Sorry, that's a stupid mechanic for anything that can be quantified (though for something like spellcasting it might make a fine limiter if you wanted it to be unreliable).
QuoteThe main issue with that approach is that it makes the PCs look incompetent; that they just guess how much food or ammunition they're carrying.
It's more putting this aspect on meta-level. Character knows how much he bears, Player know whether he is close to running out, or not.
You have just d4 of food, or water - you forage to get more, and so on. Easier than counting every ration separatedly, while still making it resource than can run out.
QuoteBecause your hero is a cautious sort who stocks up a LOT of arrows (enough for that d12), but on his first shot rolls a 1, then a 2 on his second (d10), a 1 (d8), 2 (d6) and a final 2 (d4). So our extremely prepared archer only brought FIVE arrows with him into a dungeon because random dice said so.
But chances for it are rather low.
And then you can say arrows were subpar and they did not survived harshness of travel or smth.
There is chance 1 per 720, your d12 quiver shall allow you for only 5 arrows. That's not much.
The way to make the die "ammo use" mechanic work in D&D is to not roll every arrow but at the end of each fight. Obviously, you use a smaller die for this. Then the GM makes a judgment call for special situations. Take one or two shots, don't roll. Shoot like mad all fight, make 2 or 3 rolls. Then the players know between fights what kind of situation they are in. For magic arrows, I used a larger die, on the grounds that it is more difficult for them to break. It gives a little shoot out vibe where the characters can't keep track of the shots during the excitement of combat.
I used this for some time and got the effect I wanted (players being careful about resources but not paranoid). Then I started using the "mark it off when you miss" technique which gives that same effect (if a different vibe) with about the same overall results, but the players understand it better.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 13, 2020, 11:34:34 AM
"Forbidden Lands" have interesting quite abstract way to count food, water, arrows and torches.
Each time you use one - you rolled a dice written in your card (max d12).
If you rolled 1-2, you were changing dice to lower 12->10->8->6->4.
Roll 1-2 on d4, you're out of stuff.
That's more work than ticking off an arrow as you use it.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2020, 11:24:09 PM
Where does resource counting 'end'? Every arrow? Every bowstring? Every use of the bow before it needs maintenance? Every type of arrow? Every type of bowstring? Every microgram of food compared to output to measure cramps relative to muscle mass and height and dietary requirements?
I could imagine that in an Archery enthusiasts game, tracking all bow related stuff is great fun. But not everybody. And even the people that insult others for not tracking ammo have a limit where they just finally handwave SOMETHING.
And if they don't, then present them to the physics convention for discovering how to perfectly simulate universes without mega-scale computers.
I draw the line by only counting things that are easy to count; like arrows. The standard issue for an archer in the English army in the 15th century was one bow, 2 to 5 bowstrings, and two sheaves of 24 arrows. Why would they ever need more than 1 bowstring?
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 13, 2020, 01:51:24 PM
But chances for it are rather low.
And then you can say arrows were subpar and they did not survived harshness of travel or smth.
There is chance 1 per 720, your d12 quiver shall allow you for only 5 arrows. That's not much.
1 in 720 is actually A LOT, particularly when there's a lot of rolls being made. A thousand tables that play once a week will have that result somewhere among them about 70 times a year and that's if there's only one person making one set of five rolls each session.
Also, it also ignores the odss of getting six or seven shots total from a d12 worth of arrows which is still way less than just having 20-40 arrows.
In fact, just for kicks, I just used the rules on my dice roller app starting from a d12 and got 10, 12, 20, 18, 20, 26 and 35 shots out of a d12 worth of arrows (with screencaps available if needed). So the best result was still less than just two sheafs of arrows and the average was barely one sheaf from the max the system allows you to carry.
And you still have to track which die you need to roll on.
So it's more work (roll vs. tik mark) AND gives you fewer shots at max load than just an archers' standard two sheafs of 20 arrows (not even taking into account arrow recovery after a battle).
That is the textbook definition of a bad mechanic; needless complexity that doesn't even provide a benefit for using it.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 12, 2020, 09:07:55 PM
The difference of RPG is bringing characters some artificial persona to live. And that's why this aspect dominates more and more strongly - everything else is somewhere else.
The artificial persona included in an RPG need not be literary. In fact, in many (maybe most) cases I see, players treat their character's individual role as purely (or primarily) mechanical, and it doesn't make the game any less interesting or engaging.
In my experience, players who are thoroughly engaged with their own character as a literary vehicle are not necessarily more engaged with the game world around them, or even the immediate scenario. They aren't more likely to notice relevant details, or to come up with clever strategies or to solve puzzles. Nor in my own experience does a more theatrical "attitude" (not necessarily "demeanor", a la Critical Role) result in better stories. The best stories I've experienced have emerged from players noticing relevant details, devising clever strategies, or solving difficult puzzles.
What sets RPGS apart for me is the immersion factor, and here again my own experience is that immersion is best served by a sense of danger via potential loss, and the strategic engagement therefrom. My own experience with more story based games has been that they result in a more disjointed and narcissistic sort of immersion, as each player dwells more on how their own character looks in the story, rather than what their character might achieve in the game.
As to what aspect of RPGs is currently trending towards domination ... I think evaluating that based on what is popular
to watch might be drastically misleading.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2020, 11:24:09 PM
Where does resource counting 'end'? Every arrow? Every bowstring? Every use of the bow before it needs maintenance? Every type of arrow? Every type of bowstring? Every microgram of food compared to output to measure cramps relative to muscle mass and height and dietary requirements?
I could imagine that in an Archery enthusiasts game, tracking all bow related stuff is great fun. But not everybody. And even the people that insult others for not tracking ammo have a limit where they just finally handwave SOMETHING.
And if they don't, then present them to the physics convention for discovering how to perfectly simulate universes without mega-scale computers.
I'm your huckleberry for this one. It depends on the kind of game you're running.
Something gritty and serious -- say, Twilight 2000 -- yeah, you're gonna have to track every bullet, bean, and bandage. Part of the game and part of the setting. Deal with it.
Now, if you play something high-fantasy or cinematic -- a superhero RPG, maybe, or Exalted, or something else -- then yeah, tracking mundane ammunition can be handwaved. Ever notice how the Punisher never seems to run low on bullets except as the plot demands?
It's all in the playing of the game.
Quote from: mightybrain on December 13, 2020, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 13, 2020, 11:34:34 AM
"Forbidden Lands" have interesting quite abstract way to count food, water, arrows and torches.
Each time you use one - you rolled a dice written in your card (max d12).
If you rolled 1-2, you were changing dice to lower 12->10->8->6->4.
Roll 1-2 on d4, you're out of stuff.
That's more work than ticking off an arrow as you use it.
Apparently hash marks are difficult.
Quote from: Zalman on December 14, 2020, 10:11:05 AM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 12, 2020, 09:07:55 PM
The difference of RPG is bringing characters some artificial persona to live. And that's why this aspect dominates more and more strongly - everything else is somewhere else.
The artificial persona included in an RPG need not be literary. In fact, in many (maybe most) cases I see, players treat their character's individual role as purely (or primarily) mechanical, and it doesn't make the game any less interesting or engaging.
In my experience, players who are thoroughly engaged with their own character as a literary vehicle are not necessarily more engaged with the game world around them, or even the immediate scenario. They aren't more likely to notice relevant details, or to come up with clever strategies or to solve puzzles. Nor in my own experience does a more theatrical "attitude" (not necessarily "demeanor", a la Critical Role) result in better stories. The best stories I've experienced have emerged from players noticing relevant details, devising clever strategies, or solving difficult puzzles.
What sets RPGS apart for me is the immersion factor, and here again my own experience is that immersion is best served by a sense of danger via potential loss, and the strategic engagement therefrom. My own experience with more story based games has been that they result in a more disjointed and narcissistic sort of immersion, as each player dwells more on how their own character looks in the story, rather than what their character might achieve in the game.
As to what aspect of RPGs is currently trending towards domination ... I think evaluating that based on what is popular to watch might be drastically misleading.
Bingo!
There is a difficulty in discussing the concept of immersion, because of a variation in the personal definitions of the term. I agree with your statements that suggest play-acting or story-generation are not helpful, necessary, or exclusive components of immersion. I find that immersion works far better as a concept when it describes players that are focused on the imaginary world as described by the DM (as opposed to focusing primarily on themselves or their characters). Additionally, the focus on the character's choices or moral systems as guides for choices seems the best method of achieving immersion, as opposed to the character-behavior focus I see on internet "shows" about gaming. I don't have to be "in the moment" in my characters head, or talk in funny voices, to be immersed in them. I need to understand how they would react to the present situation, what choices and priorities they would make, and how those choices relate to their moral and personal goals. That's what "playing your character" looks like to most players, I think.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 14, 2020, 11:11:30 AM
Apparently hash marks are difficult.
In one homebrew I ran, you had a percentile skill, and difficult/good circumstances acted as a multiplier. Say you had 50% rifles, you fire one-handed that's x1/2, you fire in poor light that's another x1/2, but you take an action aim that's x2, and so on.
Now, if your roll succeeded and got doubles (11, 22, etc) you had a critical success; if your roll failed and got doubles, you had a critical failure. For firearms the critical failure was, "You now have to spend a round reloading or clearing a stoppage."
So a "to-hit roll" wasn't necessarily a single shot - it was firing a number of rounds to try to get a hit. If you blaze away blindly you tend to go through your mags quickly, if you take careful well-aimed shots you tend not to. Likewise an unskilled person needs more shots to strike the target than the skilled one.
I've taken a similar approach in the rpg I'm writing now.
Looking at boring old reality (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf) (lengthy but interesting pdf link) we find,
QuoteOfficers involved in gunfights fired, on average, 7.6 rounds, compared with an average of 3.5 for officers who fired against subjects who did not return fire.
Between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate was 18 percent for gunfights.
Between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate in situations in which fire was not returned was 30 percent. In 2006, the hit rate against subjects who did not return fire was 27 percent.
Accuracy improves at close range, with officers hitting their targets 37 percent of the time at distances of seven yards or less; at longer ranges, hit rates fall off sharply, to 23 percent.
If you're only hitting 18% of the time in a firefight, then firing 7.6 rounds will net you 1.4 hits on average. If you're hitting 30% of the time when they're not firing back, then 3.5 rounds will net you 1.05 hits on average. Essentially they're firing enough to get 1 hit, maybe 2. But they're taking quite a few rounds to do so. However, they are not in danger of running out of ammunition.
With that in mind, you can either ignore ammunition entirely ("After the fight you collect some more arrows or buy some in town") or else just count magazines/quivers/pouches for the really long combats - since the police-suspect firefights do not typically involve large numbers of combatants over many hours.
Quote from: Zalman on December 14, 2020, 10:11:05 AM
What sets RPGS apart for me is the immersion factor, and here again my own experience is that immersion is best served by a sense of danger via potential loss, and the strategic engagement therefrom. My own experience with more story based games has been that they result in a more disjointed and narcissistic sort of immersion, as each player dwells more on how their own character looks in the story, rather than what their character might achieve in the game.
Zalman - can you say more about what specifically your experience of "more story based games" is? I find it is used to refer to some very different sorts of games. One type would be more "themed" traditional RPGs, like Star Wars D6 or Call of Cthulhu -- where there is more of a storyline to the written adventures. Another type is the post-2000 design trend of small-press games with explicit story mechanics, like Sorcerer or Dungeon World or Fiasco. These are more about story, but they still often have a high sense of danger in that PCs can be killed abruptly. Another type is playing traditional games like D&D, but with a railroading GM.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 14, 2020, 10:56:37 AM
It depends on the kind of game you're running.
Something gritty and serious -- say, Twilight 2000 -- yeah, you're gonna have to track every bullet, bean, and bandage. Part of the game and part of the setting. Deal with it.
Now, if you play something high-fantasy or cinematic -- a superhero RPG, maybe, or Exalted, or something else -- then yeah, tracking mundane ammunition can be handwaved. Ever notice how the Punisher never seems to run low on bullets except as the plot demands?
This may be a tendency -- that higher-power and/or higher-abstraction games tend to be less serious, but it's not definitional. As I noted, there are plenty of dedicated wargames where you don't track individual soldier ammunition. That's not to be non-serious, that's because they're focused more on strategic decision-making and less on detailed counting. There are serious and/or dark games that can be focused more on the strategic level.
For a specific example, I've been playing in a Call of Cthulhu campaign using the Masks of Nyarlathotep campaign. We haven't been counting ammo there either. The reason is that at this point we're relatively well-supplied (some high Credit Rating PCs plus an NPC backer), and in practice, we're dead or close to dead long before we run out of ammunition. We'll track rare items like dynamite, but not supply of individual bullets.
Quote from: moonsweeper on December 10, 2020, 02:45:11 AM
Quote from: Altheus on December 09, 2020, 09:18:24 AM
I've had an interesting counter-example on this subject. Whille playing call of Cthullhu we encountered a strange creature that was attacking people in a library, due to an amazing series of two brilliant initiative rolls, 2 impaling attack rolls and 2 sets of max damage the monster went down in the first round of combat.
Had the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.
Definitely an example of how story can be better than game.
I think you have that reversed...that is a perfect example of the game (random dice) creating a much cooler story than would otherwise have happened....even if it does mean you wasted some time prepping as the DM
Isn't that the whole point of rpgs with dice...the randomness 'creates' a unique story.
I was one of the players, not the GM and I would much rather have had an entertaining evenings play for myself and my friends, rather than a quick session that some of them didn't get to do much in.
The tale of "Someone summoned this thing and we blew it away in two shots" is much less fun than "Someone summoned this thing and, after a lengthy struggle to keep it from hurting anyone our researchers found the spell and banished it at the last minute".
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 14, 2020, 06:52:04 PM
If you're only hitting 18% of the time in a firefight, then firing 7.6 rounds will net you 1.4 hits on average. If you're hitting 30% of the time when they're not firing back, then 3.5 rounds will net you 1.05 hits on average. Essentially they're firing enough to get 1 hit, maybe 2. But they're taking quite a few rounds to do so. However, they are not in danger of running out of ammunition.
If it takes 3.5 or 7.6 rounds to drop a single target depending on range, then it would be plenty easy to run out of ammunition in the course of a day's adventuring. To drop someone with one hit would likely require a larger caliber round, which a police officer would typically carry something like 37 of. So that would be enough to fight 7 opponents on average, at varying ranges. Heck, one band of goblins could use that up.
Browsing some forums where police officers (and ex-officers) hang out, it becomes readily apparent to me that in real life, folks who fire missile weapons for a living pay
a lot of very careful attention to how much ammunition they are carrying.
Quote from: Zalman on December 15, 2020, 12:15:40 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 14, 2020, 06:52:04 PM
If you're only hitting 18% of the time in a firefight, then firing 7.6 rounds will net you 1.4 hits on average. If you're hitting 30% of the time when they're not firing back, then 3.5 rounds will net you 1.05 hits on average. Essentially they're firing enough to get 1 hit, maybe 2. But they're taking quite a few rounds to do so. However, they are not in danger of running out of ammunition.
If it takes 3.5 or 7.6 rounds to drop a single target depending on range, then it would be plenty easy to run out of ammunition in the course of a day's adventuring. To drop someone with one hit would likely require a larger caliber round, which a police officer would typically carry something like 37 of. So that would be enough to fight 7 opponents on average, at varying ranges. Heck, one band of goblins could use that up.
Browsing some forums where police officers (and ex-officers) hang out, it becomes readily apparent to me that in real life, folks who fire missile weapons for a living pay a lot of very careful attention to how much ammunition they are carrying.
Few tabletop games model any kind of DoT. The bullet might not drop you instantly, but you'll be looking at bleeding and shock soon IRL, not so much in the game. In most games, if an attack doesn't instantly down you, it's not going to take you down a few minutes later (unless you take another hit a few minutes later).
Quote from: Zalman on December 15, 2020, 12:15:40 PM
If it takes 3.5 or 7.6 rounds to drop a single target depending on range, then it would be plenty easy to run out of ammunition in the course of a day's adventuring. To drop someone with one hit would likely require a larger caliber round, which a police officer would typically carry something like 37 of. So that would be enough to fight 7 opponents on average, at varying ranges. Heck, one band of goblins could use that up.
Browsing some forums where police officers (and ex-officers) hang out, it becomes readily apparent to me that in real life, folks who fire missile weapons for a living pay a lot of very careful attention to how much ammunition they are carrying.
I believe that. But it's also true that in real life, sword fighters pay
a lot of careful attention to their footing and stance. That doesn't necessarily mean that the player of a sword fighter in an RPG should always be tracking what their character's footing and stance is. It's something that could be abstracted away, like many other factors.
RPGs don't always have to match real life. But even in cases when they do try to match real life, it's not necessarily true that the best way is to track every detail. The most accurate wargames aren't always the most detailed ones.
There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on here to justify not tracking things like arrows. Combat is a big part of most fantasy TTRPGs and you are literally inserting arrows into your enemies to kill them. Here's a thought experiment:
As your GM, I will track your arrows and buy arrows for you automatically when the need arises, I will also buy extra arrows for you when it looks like you will be in the wilderness or a dungeon for an extended period of time, I will tell you your arrow count whenever you ask, I will warn you when your remaining arrows are N <= 5, and at any time you may change the value of N just by telling me.
If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?
Come up with all the highfalutin game theory reasons to excuse not tracking arrows, but at the end of the day, if you are playing a game where arrows are on the price list, and you are declaring a shot, then rolling a die, then doing mental arithmetic, then announcing a hit or a miss, and then the GM has to fucking update some hit points, you sure as hell can also make a tally mark you lazy bastard. Christ some people are babies.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 04:54:32 PM
If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?
Dude. It's a game we play for fun. It's not supposed to be work.
The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?
Some people enjoy that tracking because they are into that level of detail. But other people don't enjoy it. Some people enjoy it or not depending on the type of game. Like how some people enjoy painting their miniatures, and other people just use miniatures out of the box.
Quote from: Zalman on December 15, 2020, 12:15:40 PM
If it takes 3.5 or 7.6 rounds to drop a single target depending on range, then it would be plenty easy to run out of ammunition in the course of a day's adventuring.
Yes, as I said: if you have longer combats, or combats with many combatants, then it's an issue.
QuoteBrowsing some forums where police officers (and ex-officers) hang out, it becomes readily apparent to me that in real life, folks who fire missile weapons for a living pay a lot of very careful attention to how much ammunition they are carrying.
That's true. But in real life, 82% of your shots will miss - unless he's not shooting back, then it's only 70%. In real life, someone who is wounded can't have someone else wave their hands over them and get better. In real life, a single combat is extraordinarily fatiguing, and if it involves someone else's serious injury or death will lead to 6+ months of legal investigations and drama - with no more opportunities for combat for a long time. In real life, even a well-justified use of force can lead to depression, marriage breakups, and loss of employment.
Now, who'd like a game where we simulate all of that?
In rpgs we tend to be very, very selective in the things we want to be "realistic". We pick and choose - that's okay, that's the same thing we all do with religions. But what I would suggest for rpgs is to add "realistic" things where they make the game more interesting, not where they make the game more tedious or depressing. The interesting part about counting ammo is running out. That can be dealt with by counting ammo, certainly. But there are other game mechanics we can use for it, too.
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM
The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?
What do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.
This is why I posed the question the way I did.
I have a vague playground memory playing "war" with one kid who, no matter what the situation, always seemed to have one last grenade. It wasn't particularly fun. But it was quite funny now I recall it.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM
The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?
What do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.
This is why I posed the question the way I did.
Sometimes I'm GM, and sometimes I'm a player -- it varies depending on the game.
The "we" in that sentence is whatever group is playing. If some people in the group have different preferences, then they have to compromise somehow. Specifically, let's say the GM has more fun if the players track individual arrows -- but the players enjoy the game more if they don't. Either the GM can stick to his demand and the players compromise so the GM can have more fun, or the maybe the GM relaxes and the players get to have more fun.
Being GM can be work - and they should definitely have fun. Still, when I GM, I take into account what the players enjoy, and try to find common ground.
For example, right now the main game I'm in is Call of Cthulhu (as player, not a GM). The GM hasn't asked that we track how many individual bullets we are carrying, and we haven't been. Another group might enjoy it better if they did -- whatever they enjoy is fine.
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 04:54:32 PM
If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?
Dude. It's a game we play for fun. It's not supposed to be work.
One of the worst arguments. There's lots of 'work' involved in 'fun'. Tracking the stats of your favorite baseball team. Creating spreadsheets of stats for encounters. Collating data on the efficiency of ship upgrades. Calculating the most effective use of an action.
Notably the GM is usually involved in a lot of 'work' to create a campaign and each adventure. Players have to create characters.
Leagues have practice nights and guilds have lots of prep work to get ready for a raid.
I could go on and on.
Every 'fun' involves 'work' to make it happen.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2020, 07:31:04 PM
Every 'fun' involves 'work' to make it happen.
That's exactly what I said later in my reply. I noted that some people enjoy painting their miniatures, while other people just use miniatures out-of-the-box.
I'm not denying that some people genuinely get more enjoyment out of the game by putting in that effort. But it's false to say that if someone doesn't paint their own miniatures, that they are lazy and should put in the effort even if they don't enjoy it.
The point is that the effort *should* be enjoyable. If it's not enjoyable, then it's reasonable to just not do it.
The main difference between the pro tracking of ammo and the opposite side is the first insists on engaging in onetruwayism and everyone and anyone who plays differently is wrong and lazy. The second at least acknowledges some may like to track ammo and others no. Either side can use whatever the like at the table. I am in the middle I will track it if I have too and it is the rules of the current table I am at. Not a fan of that kind of bookkeeping so I either adapt or find another table.
As Jhkim as had said and speaking for myself I play to have fun and I find tracking every single detail to be not so much fun. Arrows, food, spells sure. Every single detail feels like filling out a tax form and more like work than a hobby.
This where I really don't regret there being not too hard to acquire magic items that just supply infinite ammo or return when thrown (which balances out nicely with the unlimited cantrips/attack spells). Sure, they cost more than a thousand arrows do, but for some, it's a worthwhile expense.
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 07:49:15 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2020, 07:31:04 PM
Every 'fun' involves 'work' to make it happen.
That's exactly what I said later in my reply. I noted that some people enjoy painting their miniatures, while other people just use miniatures out-of-the-box.
I'm not denying that some people genuinely get more enjoyment out of the game by putting in that effort. But it's false to say that if someone doesn't paint their own miniatures, that they are lazy and should put in the effort even if they don't enjoy it.
The point is that the effort *should* be enjoyable. If it's not enjoyable, then it's reasonable to just not do it.
Buuut we have a shared agreement on the rules to facillitate play. We agree that characters get X actions per turn, that a strength score means Y modifier to damage.
If I want to play D&D, but I dislike tracking ammo, but there's a rule to track ammo, who gets to decide if we track ammo as a party or not? Do we each get to decide which rule to use for our characters? How does that work?
The question is, is someone willing to put up with a rule they don't like in order to participate in the rest of the game? I'd bet this equation comes up for every RPG over some rule or other.
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 04:54:32 PM
If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?
Dude. It's a game we play for fun. It's not supposed to be work.
The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?
Some people enjoy that tracking because they are into that level of detail. But other people don't enjoy it. Some people enjoy it or not depending on the type of game. Like how some people enjoy painting their miniatures, and other people just use miniatures out of the box.
just my own opinion, but i've always preferred tracking arrows and rations and water and candles and spell components...has a certain "feel", similar to early NES rpg games like shadowgate (where you die when you run out of torches).
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 12, 2020, 09:07:55 PM
QuoteYou're actually conflating SYSTEM as GAME.
Care to elaborate?
QuoteDon't take my word on it, though:
I generally agree with this gentleman in terms of definitions.
But I think that a) cRPGs are basically always stories, maybe branching stories, but nature of C in cRPG generally forces you to some amount of choices - not infinite possibilities.So the difference between free narrative and story is getting more murkier. b) this is centred on video game design and numbers of choices it's giving to players - but it's quite a different thing in narrative RPG.
--snipp--
Sure. Let me illustrate my point.
Right in front of me is the ALIEN RPG book. Inside the book are the rules for the game. The system. As I am watching the book, I do not find it playing itself. It can't. You need players to play it. When players interact with the system, they are playing the game. The results of that game is the player/player character's own stories. If you ask most players: "What happened in the game?" Most will skimp on their system interactions, and instead talk about what happened in a narrative way. That's my point. Too many times, people conflate the SYSTEM with the PLAY. They are NOT the same thing. But sometimes people conflate one with the other, failing to realize they are doing that. Think of it this way: How many times have GMs changed/altered/augmented the rules (the system) in order to streamline or facilitate play (the game)? You see? They are NOT the same thing. That's my point.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 15, 2020, 08:31:01 PM
This where I really don't regret there being not too hard to acquire magic items that just supply infinite ammo or return when thrown (which balances out nicely with the unlimited cantrips/attack spells). Sure, they cost more than a thousand arrows do, but for some, it's a worthwhile expense.
A good example of where not tracking arrows (in the name of "fun") can nerf other items and spells in the game. Another would be not tracking food and water making create food and water spells and items irrelevant.
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 03:11:15 PM
But it's also true that in real life, sword fighters pay a lot of careful attention to their footing and stance. That doesn't necessarily mean that the player of a sword fighter in an RPG should always be tracking what their character's footing and stance is. It's something that could be abstracted away, like many other factors.
I'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 15, 2020, 08:31:01 PM
This where I really don't regret there being not too hard to acquire magic items that just supply infinite ammo or return when thrown (which balances out nicely with the unlimited cantrips/attack spells). Sure, they cost more than a thousand arrows do, but for some, it's a worthwhile expense.
We wound up doing precisely that for the Pathfinder archer I mentioned (it was an NPC henchman, but still). Mostly because otherwise, we had to hire a guy whose sole job was to carry multiple quivers of arrows and hand them off.
Which, I suppose, is sorta realistic (modern infantry units with an MG will have one guy carry the gun and another carrying ammo), but still.
QuoteI'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.
Burning Wheel has a famously involved and tense combat system where the participants secretly choose dueling stances and attack gambits prior to striking, complete with a rich chart of outcomes for different strategy match-ups and mismatches.
It totally falls apart depicting anything aside form 1-on-1 duels. There's an unfortunate rule of diminishing returns to this level of detail.
Ultimately the question becomes, do you want more tactically intense swordfights between fewer participants, or less engaging but more epic-scoped encounters?
I mean, there's thankfully a game for either answer and probably one for many along the spectrum of the extremes. But there are real trade-offs when we're talking about using our simple meat-computer-brains to make something function at a table.
Quote from: Azraele on December 16, 2020, 08:57:03 AMBurning Wheel has a famously involved and tense combat system where the participants secretly choose dueling stances and attack gambits prior to striking, complete with a rich chart of outcomes for different strategy match-ups and mismatches.
We did try that but didn't find it very functional. Also, The One Ring has different stances / positions that confer various bonuses and penalties. But in both cases these systems didn't work in combination with miniatures. (That's not a problem for me, but my group gets lost without a tactical visualisation.)
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 06:55:20 PM
The "we" in that sentence is whatever group is playing. If some people in the group have different preferences, then they have to compromise somehow. Specifically, let's say the GM has more fun if the players track individual arrows -- but the players enjoy the game more if they don't. Either the GM can stick to his demand and the players compromise so the GM can have more fun, or the maybe the GM relaxes and the players get to have more fun.
I've played at many different tables and I can't recall a discussion taking player with regard to "fun" as to arrows or other consumables. When consumables are brought up, it's often the GM stating his table rules for this stuff.
Or what often happens is one player says, "Gee, how many arrows did this bow come with? Sorry I haven't been keeping track" and then the GM says something like "Don't worry about it" probably because there's no practical way to retcon 3 combats just to account for arrows and the GM has more important things on his mind at the moment. And so it's decided. Players who do enjoy a more detailed level of play are drawn into the compromise by a lazy or innocently clueless player and a complacent and overworked GM.
Look at it this way, since you also GM: Imagine if all your players tracked this stuff without being asked or reminded. You suddenly have a zero-effort and possibly interesting story hook when someone announces they've run out of arrows/food/torches/spell components. If this was handed to you as GM, would you really just ignore it in the name of "fun"?
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2020, 09:40:40 AM
We did try that but didn't find it very functional. Also, The One Ring has different stances / positions that confer various bonuses and penalties. But in both cases these systems didn't work in combination with miniatures. (That's not a problem for me, but my group gets lost without a tactical visualisation.)
Part of that is because playing with miniatures is at cross-purpose to the kind of design you're asking for, which helps to enrich a purely descriptive combat space. The development for tac mini's games went off in a different design direction, like 4th edition or 13th age (both fun as hell to play with minis, but difficult without). L5R 4th edition has some development in the "take a stance and it gives you benefits/tradeoffs" direction too, but again, it's designed to be lightweight and playable in a theatre-of-the-mind style way; it'd probably be extremely tedious in put miniatures out for it.
As a bit of advice, you may find something like Fate's "Zones" concept to be a good bridge of the gap, because it combines simple mapping with meaningful description. You may be able to use that rules-tech with a game like those mentioned upthread and get the best of both worlds. I wish you luck in your quest at any rate; when and if you find your grail, I hope you'll share it around so your fellow questers can benefit from it as well.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 16, 2020, 09:59:12 AM
Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 06:55:20 PM
The "we" in that sentence is whatever group is playing. If some people in the group have different preferences, then they have to compromise somehow. Specifically, let's say the GM has more fun if the players track individual arrows -- but the players enjoy the game more if they don't. Either the GM can stick to his demand and the players compromise so the GM can have more fun, or the maybe the GM relaxes and the players get to have more fun.
I've played at many different tables and I can't recall a discussion taking player with regard to "fun" as to arrows or other consumables. When consumables are brought up, it's often the GM stating his table rules for this stuff.
Or what often happens is one player says, "Gee, how many arrows did this bow come with? Sorry I haven't been keeping track" and then the GM says something like "Don't worry about it" probably because there's no practical way to retcon 3 combats just to account for arrows and the GM has more important things on his mind at the moment. And so it's decided. Players who do enjoy a more detailed level of play are drawn into the compromise by a lazy or innocently clueless player and a complacent and overworked GM.
In my experience, it's also not usually been something explicitly discussed - but rather, players just do it or not, and the GMs speak up only to imply they should be doing it. But when I say "don't worry about it" as a GM -- it's not because I'm complacent and/or overworked. It's because I genuinely mean that I'm genuinely not into that level of detail for the game, and am happy to handwave it.
This is the problem of differing preferences and experiences. I believe you when you say that you prefer to always track exact ammunition counts. You probably gravitate to groups with similar preferences to you, and our experiences are different. But neither your experiences nor mine represent everyone's preferred way of playing.
I believe you when you say about your preferred way to play and have fun. But in my experience, I've played with a lot of gamers who were happy to leave off those sort of details. I have been in games where I've done that level of tracking, as well as games where I haven't. For me, when I choose not to do the detailed tracking, it's because I understand that it's more fun for me that way.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 16, 2020, 09:59:12 AM
Look at it this way, since you also GM: Imagine if all your players tracked this stuff without being asked or reminded. You suddenly have a zero-effort and possibly interesting story hook when someone announces they've run out of arrows/food/torches/spell components. If this was handed to you as GM, would you really just ignore it in the name of "fun"?
If my players preferred to track everything, then I'd be willing to accommodate them - so yes, I'd be fine with accepting that they were out of arrows or food. But conversely, if they weren't tracking that level of detail, then I'd also be fine with it. It's not that I'm secretly seething and wishing that they would track it.
I had a player say they wanted to use a spell, I don't remember which one. But at the time I remembered that he'd already used that spell 3 times in the adventure. So I asked how many spell slots he had left. And it was at that point that we realised that he hadn't been tracking them. In fact, it turned out he'd never tracked them, going back decades of play and editions, and no one had noticed or mentioned it before.
He tracks them now. The other players make sure of it.
I have just now written about my stoppage rules here (https://vikinghatgm.blogspot.com/2020/12/conflict-stoppage.html).
Quote from: jhkim on December 16, 2020, 02:54:57 PM
In my experience, it's also not usually been something explicitly discussed - but rather, players just do it or not, and the GMs speak up only to imply they should be doing it. But when I say "don't worry about it" as a GM -- it's not because I'm complacent and/or overworked. It's because I genuinely mean that I'm genuinely not into that level of detail for the game, and am happy to handwave it.
Seconded. I am both and playing running PF 1E and at higher levels their is much more to keep track of in terms of npcs and encounters. Unless it's important to the story at the time I don't keep track of ammo or supplies
Quote from: jhkim on December 16, 2020, 02:54:57 PM
This is the problem of differing preferences and experiences. I believe you when you say that you prefer to always track exact ammunition counts. You probably gravitate to groups with similar preferences to you, and our experiences are different. But neither your experiences nor mine represent everyone's preferred way of playing.
To be honest it't not really a problem. It way too many players in rpgs especially D&D where their style of play and/or running the game is the right and only way to play. The difference between both sides is the side that handwaves or does not want to track ammo and supplies takes a live and left be attitude. The other "your doing it wrong and it's because your lazy, your players are entitled, you want to play video games... (insert more rationalizations as to why their way is the one true way) . That kind of bullshit is not going to convince me or anyone else of your position.
Quote from: sureshot on December 17, 2020, 08:29:40 AM
The difference between both sides is the side that handwaves or does not want to track ammo and supplies takes a live and left be attitude.
Dude, you are apparently new to the internet.
You may take a "live-and-let-live" attitude towards those who want to track ammo, but that is not representative of the discussions I've had on the matter. There's pretty equal amounts of "one true way"-ism on both sides of pretty much any argument about RPGs. Ain't nobody on the side of angels in this hobby. I'll need serious documentation of any assertion to the contrary...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2020, 10:58:30 AMthat is not representative of the discussions I've had on the matter.
We are not having
those discussions, we are having
this discussion. It's always more productive to contend with what people have actually said in the conversation you're having now, rather than bringing your baggage from previous discussions, opening it up and scattering it everywhere to get in people's way.
QuoteWhat sets RPGS apart for me is the immersion factor, and here again my own experience is that immersion is best served by a sense of danger via potential loss, and the strategic engagement therefrom. My own experience with more story based games has been that they result in a more disjointed and narcissistic sort of immersion, as each player dwells more on how their own character looks in the story, rather than what their character might achieve in the game.
There is such risk, but still story-based game can be very risky, more than simulationist one, and aspects of narcissism exist in any kind of games as a risk - I've seen lot of stories about narcissistic drama-queens who manage to disrupt game without any story-based-mechanics to help them. I mean D&D 5e is not storytelling game mechanically speaking.
Good solution is strict system of believes, virtues, vices, relationships within team, and GM keeping good spotlight division on such things.
QuoteApparently hash marks are difficult.
And boring ;)
QuoteAdditionally, the focus on the character's choices or moral systems as guides for choices seems the best method of achieving immersion, as opposed to the character-behavior focus I see on internet "shows" about gaming. I don't have to be "in the moment" in my characters head, or talk in funny voices, to be immersed in them. I need to understand how they would react to the present situation, what choices and priorities they would make, and how those choices relate to their moral and personal goals. That's what "playing your character" looks like to most players, I think.
I'd not call it as much character-behaviour focus - as your system also encompass it maybe even more, and more "bad acting focus".
QuoteCome up with all the highfalutin game theory reasons to excuse not tracking arrows, but at the end of the day, if you are playing a game where arrows are on the price list, and you are declaring a shot, then rolling a die, then doing mental arithmetic, then announcing a hit or a miss, and then the GM has to fucking update some hit points, you sure as hell can also make a tally mark you lazy bastard. Christ some people are babies.
YES. WE ARE LAZY. Get over it, simulationist bastard. We're here to have fun, not make chores :P
QuoteWhat do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.
This is why I posed the question the way I did.
Not necessarily. Both GM and players can ditch counting arrows both for PCs and enemies.
QuoteOne of the worst arguments. There's lots of 'work' involved in 'fun'. Tracking the stats of your favorite baseball team. Creating spreadsheets of stats for encounters. Collating data on the efficiency of ship upgrades. Calculating the most effective use of an action.
Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not.
QuoteNotably the GM is usually involved in a lot of 'work' to create a campaign and each adventure. Players have to create characters.
Depends. I mean you can play without campaign and adventures - New Style games like Blades in the Dark promotes it quite much, which limits amount of Game Master prep.
Or you can take ready adventure / campaign, there are quite a lot - I'm running D&D 3.5/Pathfinder game, and bless people for various ready content because damn it would be a chore :P
QuoteBuuut we have a shared agreement on the rules to facillitate play. We agree that characters get X actions per turn, that a strength score means Y modifier to damage.
If I want to play D&D, but I dislike tracking ammo, but there's a rule to track ammo, who gets to decide if we track ammo as a party or not? Do we each get to decide which rule to use for our characters? How does that work?
Simply - you ignore rules your team dislike. That's called houserules. For instance my table houseruled changing spell slots for mana points.
As long as it's not one player changing rules - who cares really? It's not official sports, you can change things a lot.
One of my fellow players/GM is working on D&D with 12 attributes for instance. Sure it's not official and by the book - but... who cares?
QuoteRight in front of me is the ALIEN RPG book. Inside the book are the rules for the game. The system. As I am watching the book, I do not find it playing itself. It can't. You need players to play it. When players interact with the system, they are playing the game. The results of that game is the player/player character's own stories. If you ask most players: "What happened in the game?" Most will skimp on their system interactions, and instead talk about what happened in a narrative way. That's my point. Too many times, people conflate the SYSTEM with the PLAY. They are NOT the same thing. But sometimes people conflate one with the other, failing to realize they are doing that. Think of it this way: How many times have GMs changed/altered/augmented the rules (the system) in order to streamline or facilitate play (the game)? You see? They are NOT the same thing. That's my point.
Ok, so here we have a problem with duality of word game. Because in my understanding depends of context within sentence it can mean both System or Play/Session. Maybe that's relic of Polish, but I'm not sure. I mean most of not-RP boardgames are called boardgames not systems. So I think it can be safely argue game can be used as a synonym of System as well.
I agree with Play / System difference clearly.
For instance if you check various RPG's on Wikipedia they are in abstract described as games. Even those very abstract that are more like basic system like BRP is called "Game".
QuoteA good example of where not tracking arrows (in the name of "fun") can nerf other items and spells in the game. Another would be not tracking food and water making create food and water spells and items irrelevant.
That reminds me how I hate this spell :P
QuoteI'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.
PAG.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 17, 2020, 06:47:34 PM
QuoteWhat sets RPGS apart for me is the immersion factor, and here again my own experience is that immersion is best served by a sense of danger via potential loss, and the strategic engagement therefrom. My own experience with more story based games has been that they result in a more disjointed and narcissistic sort of immersion, as each player dwells more on how their own character looks in the story, rather than what their character might achieve in the game.
There is such risk, but still story-based game can be very risky, more than simulationist one, and aspects of narcissism exist in any kind of games as a risk - I've seen lot of stories about narcissistic drama-queens who manage to disrupt game without any story-based-mechanics to help them. I mean D&D 5e is not storytelling game mechanically speaking.
Good solution is strict system of believes, virtues, vices, relationships within team, and GM keeping good spotlight division on such things.
QuoteApparently hash marks are difficult.
And boring ;)
QuoteAdditionally, the focus on the character's choices or moral systems as guides for choices seems the best method of achieving immersion, as opposed to the character-behavior focus I see on internet "shows" about gaming. I don't have to be "in the moment" in my characters head, or talk in funny voices, to be immersed in them. I need to understand how they would react to the present situation, what choices and priorities they would make, and how those choices relate to their moral and personal goals. That's what "playing your character" looks like to most players, I think.
I'd not call it as much character-behaviour focus - as your system also encompass it maybe even more, and more "bad acting focus".
QuoteCome up with all the highfalutin game theory reasons to excuse not tracking arrows, but at the end of the day, if you are playing a game where arrows are on the price list, and you are declaring a shot, then rolling a die, then doing mental arithmetic, then announcing a hit or a miss, and then the GM has to fucking update some hit points, you sure as hell can also make a tally mark you lazy bastard. Christ some people are babies.
YES. WE ARE LAZY. Get over it, simulationist bastard. We're here to have fun, not make chores :P
QuoteWhat do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.
This is why I posed the question the way I did.
Not necessarily. Both GM and players can ditch counting arrows both for PCs and enemies.
QuoteOne of the worst arguments. There's lots of 'work' involved in 'fun'. Tracking the stats of your favorite baseball team. Creating spreadsheets of stats for encounters. Collating data on the efficiency of ship upgrades. Calculating the most effective use of an action.
Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not.
QuoteNotably the GM is usually involved in a lot of 'work' to create a campaign and each adventure. Players have to create characters.
Depends. I mean you can play without campaign and adventures - New Style games like Blades in the Dark promotes it quite much, which limits amount of Game Master prep.
Or you can take ready adventure / campaign, there are quite a lot - I'm running D&D 3.5/Pathfinder game, and bless people for various ready content because damn it would be a chore :P
QuoteBuuut we have a shared agreement on the rules to facillitate play. We agree that characters get X actions per turn, that a strength score means Y modifier to damage.
If I want to play D&D, but I dislike tracking ammo, but there's a rule to track ammo, who gets to decide if we track ammo as a party or not? Do we each get to decide which rule to use for our characters? How does that work?
Simply - you ignore rules your team dislike. That's called houserules. For instance my table houseruled changing spell slots for mana points.
As long as it's not one player changing rules - who cares really? It's not official sports, you can change things a lot.
One of my fellow players/GM is working on D&D with 12 attributes for instance. Sure it's not official and by the book - but... who cares?
QuoteRight in front of me is the ALIEN RPG book. Inside the book are the rules for the game. The system. As I am watching the book, I do not find it playing itself. It can't. You need players to play it. When players interact with the system, they are playing the game. The results of that game is the player/player character's own stories. If you ask most players: "What happened in the game?" Most will skimp on their system interactions, and instead talk about what happened in a narrative way. That's my point. Too many times, people conflate the SYSTEM with the PLAY. They are NOT the same thing. But sometimes people conflate one with the other, failing to realize they are doing that. Think of it this way: How many times have GMs changed/altered/augmented the rules (the system) in order to streamline or facilitate play (the game)? You see? They are NOT the same thing. That's my point.
Ok, so here we have a problem with duality of word game. Because in my understanding depends of context within sentence it can mean both System or Play/Session. Maybe that's relic of Polish, but I'm not sure. I mean most of not-RP boardgames are called boardgames not systems. So I think it can be safely argue game can be used as a synonym of System as well.
I agree with Play / System difference clearly.
For instance if you check various RPG's on Wikipedia they are in abstract described as games. Even those very abstract that are more like basic system like BRP is called "Game".
QuoteA good example of where not tracking arrows (in the name of "fun") can nerf other items and spells in the game. Another would be not tracking food and water making create food and water spells and items irrelevant.
That reminds me how I hate this spell :P
QuoteI'd prefer that. Sword fighting in D&D has always seemed lacking to me. Which is a shame considering how much of your time you spend enganged in it as a fighter.
PAG.
So where's your line? Do you track hit points? Do you use stats? Aren't those just boring number tracking?
Honestly, my sister and her friends used to play a kind of storytelling game where there were no rules, just them saying stuff. Which is fine, but there's really no game to it. And one of the letter in the acryonym is Game for a reason.
Greetings!
Hmmm. It seems that some people for the sake of argument like to argue from the absurd. Of course non-relevant supplies, how often you get a headache, how many bow strings you have, etc, I mean, come on. The essentials are tracked because they are worthwhile and meaningful, and can potentially have an impact on player choices and decisions. So, supplies of rations, water, arrows, flasks of oil--all of these things have a relevant impact not only on the capabilities of the individual, but also have an impact on the group functioning successfully as a team.
If players run out of rations, they need to spend time, effort, and resources hunting animals. That right there is an opportunity. On the other hand, if the players ensure they are well-stocked on rations, then they don't have to spend time, effort, and resources on hunting--they can devote such time, effort and resources towards something else, like exploring further into the Necromancer's Tower, or whatever.
Same thing with arrows. If your Ranger player runs out of arrows, the group loses a considerable source of firepower and tactical flexibility. In addition, if the Fighter or Barbarian also run out of arrows, the group can then be at a serious and even fatal disadvantage, depending on the terrain they are in and the likely opposition. Thus, not stocking up enough on arrows requires the group to cease their immediate operations, and make a return trip to the nearby town for additional restock of arrows and such. Again, why is this such a bad thing? In groups back in the day--to right now--being forced to make return trips into town for supplies is *EXCELLENT* It provides the group opportunities to roleplay more with each other, interact with group NPC's, gather information in the town or along the road, learn more knowledge, and so on. Again, all good things. In addition, being forced to actually attend to such details increases *IMMERSION* and makes the gameplay more real and meaningful, and less like a video game.
In video games, many such details are glossed over and done away with. RPG's and D&D in articular are not video games. So, embrace the details, and enjoy playing the game, and *being* a character in a fantastic world!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2020, 10:58:30 AM
Dude, you are apparently new to the internet. You may take a "live-and-let-live" attitude towards those who want to track ammo, but that is not representative of the discussions I've had on the matter. There's pretty equal amounts of "one true way"-ism on both sides of pretty much any argument about RPGs. Ain't nobody on the side of angels in this hobby. I'll need serious documentation of any assertion to the contrary...
I an not new to the Internet. Gamers don't ahve to be assholes to each other simply because of the "Interent". It's a lame and pathetic excuse to just use the Internet as an excuse for bad behavior. Is their a gun to one head no then no reason to be an asshole to one another. I am not saint when it comes to such bad behavior yet I also don't hide behind the Internet as an excuse. Nor am an "Angel" in the hobby going by this thread alone the track ammo side seems to be engaging in more Onetruewayism than the other. To be honest not interested.
As Kyle Aaron has said we are not having those other discussions we are having this one. Sorry to hear but not every gamer in the hobby is an asshole or engages in One truewayism. That is all the proof your going to get.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 17, 2020, 05:58:27 PM
We are not having those discussions, we are having this discussion. It's always more productive to contend with what people have actually said in the conversation you're having now, rather than bringing your baggage from previous discussions, opening it up and scattering it everywhere to get in people's way.
Very much agreed and seconded.
@ Shark again I am not saying don't track arrows yet unless I am playing with absolute beginners most can and will stock up on ammunition and supplies. I have played over the years with a handful who could not be bothered to track anything even after subtle hints about the enemy leaving arrows or food behind after combat. They are exception and not the norm. I am not going to be telling 5 year+ veterans of the hobby who I know will stock up on supplies to track everything. Again I make sure to tell them to stock up when and where supplies are to be had. If they don't they are shit out of luck. What joins a group and their dynamic together imo is not tracking ammo and supplies it's the adventures they have been with their player characters.
We still talk about the time the Half-Orc Lawful Evil Fighter through good roleplaying and a natural 20 on their Diplomacy roll convinced the group of Paladins to use the secret passage (read back door to the evil dragons lair) to attack the dragon. They were all wiped out except for one who decided to do the worst thing imaginable pay bards and storytellers far and wide the exploits of the group and the so called "heroic" Orc Fighter. The character who before was spit on became a celebrity overnight. To his hero and dismay lol. Made worse when one of his enchantments on his Full Plate was defective in that it worked (I think it was glamered) and turned his suit in a bright shining heroic suit of full plate. That is what makes interesting stories between players. Running out of arrow that one time at Orc Band camp is remembered and quickly forgotten as a foot note.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 17, 2020, 06:47:34 PM
YES. WE ARE LAZY. Get over it, simulationist bastard. We're here to have fun, not make chores :P
Good on you to own it. Lazy is not necessarily an insult. I'm lazy about drawing up detailed character backstories (aka, I don't). Others spend hours on that shit.
I get that it's a chore to track arrows. There are a lot of chores that go with most TTRPGs, which is why pencils and erasers are used.
I'm curious though, why draw the line at arrows? There's a crap ton of ammo in these games like
javelins
throwing knives
hand axes (could be thrown)
sling bullets
arrows
bolts
darts
nets
and they could be poisoned, silvered, magical, etc. In a combat, barbarian hurls two javelins and ranger fires five arrows. Track the javelins but not the arrows because the arrows are smaller/cheaper? Or track neither? Or thief poisons one of his three throwing knives. I assume we'd track that, right? Or not? I suppose I'm looking for some general principle, but maybe it's just track what gets tracked and don't track what doesn't.
QuoteSo where's your line? Do you track hit points? Do you use stats? Aren't those just boring number tracking?
Honestly, my sister and her friends used to play a kind of storytelling game where there were no rules, just them saying stuff. Which is fine, but there's really no game to it. And one of the letter in the acryonym is Game for a reason.
Between "no rules storytelling" and "full simulationism" there is array of possibilities.
And there are many games with shooting units not counting ammo - where gamist element is centred on different elements.
QuoteHmmm. It seems that some people for the sake of argument like to argue from the absurd. Of course non-relevant supplies, how often you get a headache, how many bow strings you have, etc, I mean, come on. The essentials are tracked because they are worthwhile and meaningful, and can potentially have an impact on player choices and decisions. So, supplies of rations, water, arrows, flasks of oil--all of these things have a relevant impact not only on the capabilities of the individual, but also have an impact on the group functioning successfully as a team.
I see no reason to exclude bow-strings from it. They are way more important supply than non-magical arrows, and can way easier fuck archer up. At least if we try to make D&D archery simmilar to real one at least a bit :P
What is worthwile and meaningful in specific game RP or not depends well on what game we play, and what's important in specific one for your success (assuming you play to succeed and not die horribly like in horror games).
QuoteSame thing with arrows. If your Ranger player runs out of arrows, the group loses a considerable source of firepower and tactical flexibility. In addition, if the Fighter or Barbarian also run out of arrows, the group can then be at a serious and even fatal disadvantage, depending on the terrain they are in and the likely opposition. Thus, not stocking up enough on arrows requires the group to cease their immediate operations, and make a return trip to the nearby town for additional restock of arrows and such. Again, why is this such a bad thing? In groups back in the day--to right now--being forced to make return trips into town for supplies is *EXCELLENT* It provides the group opportunities to roleplay more with each other, interact with group NPC's, gather information in the town or along the road, learn more knowledge, and so on. Again, all good things. In addition, being forced to actually attend to such details increases *IMMERSION* and makes the gameplay more real and meaningful, and less like a video game.
Then where are rules for fatigue of meelee weapons? Or how after rebounding few hits your armour can be way less effective and have weak spots? No one cares, but suddenly arrows are crucial supply because immersion. Maybe it's immersive for people not knowing sword is rarely permanent supply :P
(Also actually most of video games limits various supplies - ammo is limited, you have to find it, special equipment - limited, superpowers limited. Both RPGs and shooter games I played - all had management of supplies in them - so if anything counting arrows makes it more like video game).
QuoteIn video games, many such details are glossed over and done away with. RPG's and D&D in articular are not video games. So, embrace the details, and enjoy playing the game, and *being* a character in a fantastic world!
D&D in particular is one of most video gamey RPGs that's why it's one of few RPGs with good supply of decent PC games.
Imagine turning Call of Cthulhu of any game with long list of skills and practical professions into video game. Utter nightmare.
QuoteGood on you to own it. Lazy is not necessarily an insult. I'm lazy about drawing up detailed character backstories (aka, I don't). Others spend hours on that shit.
I have mixed opinions. I like random tables of pre-adventure past, and some diagrams describing starting relationship in a team, because playing a team of total strangers is usually total chore, better to force them to create team, not just PCs.
I get that it's a chore to track arrows. There are a lot of chores that go with most TTRPGs, which is why pencils and erasers are used.
QuoteI'm curious though, why draw the line at arrows? There's a crap ton of ammo in these games like
javelins
throwing knives
hand axes (could be thrown)
sling bullets
arrows
bolts
darts
nets
and they could be poisoned, silvered, magical, etc. In a combat, barbarian hurls two javelins and ranger fires five arrows. Track the javelins but not the arrows because the arrows are smaller/cheaper? Or track neither? Or thief poisons one of his three throwing knives. I assume we'd track that, right? Or not? I suppose I'm looking for some general principle, but maybe it's just track what gets tracked and don't track what doesn't.
I do not acquire some absolute logic and consistency to it, or I end like those lefties who from their belief in autonomy of human derive absolute autonomy of animals and go mad vegans :P
Depends on how big ones there are, and how expensive compared to party economic status.
I'd definitely count special ammo, that's for sure.
But normal bolts, arrows, slingshots - maybe at beginner levels which are kinda deadly. But on level 10 of D&D 3.5 my players are starting to getting wuxia heroes and then into superheroism.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 18, 2020, 09:16:06 AM
I'm curious though, why draw the line at arrows? There's a crap ton of ammo in these games like; javelins, throwing knives, hand axes (could be thrown), sling bullets, arrows, bolts, darts, nets.
I go back and forth on tracking depending on the campaign, but if we aren't rigorously tracking ammo I can give you our general guidelines.
Basically, it comes down to... if it's something you're likely to run out of in a single combat (the guy with a pair if throwing axes on his belt), then track it. If they have enough to not run out in a battle (a guy with more than a dozen throwing knives strapped to various easy to reach places) then we generally don't bother tracking... particularly if the item is recoverable as soon as the fight's over (throwing knives, axes, javelins).
Also, the more expensive the item the more likely we are to track it. Track each ordinary arrow (at 1 sp each) ? Probably not. Track the three "arrows of slaying" the character got as their share of the treasure? Heck, yes.
We tend to play fairly high magic games though so bows that create their own ammo and thrown weapons that magically return to your hand are pretty common past the first few levels (so are everburning torches/lanterns, everfull waterskins, endless rations, instant campsites and trollskin ropes... keep you magic swords, my main group prefers magic utility items).
Track or don't track doesn't matter much to me. The only thing I go a bit "onetruewayist" on is "non-tracking" mechanics more complex than just making tick marks (that roll a diminishing die after each shot was particularly bad design since it adds a roll to each attack and still requires you to track which die type you're using for each thing). They slow the game down and due to the law of large numbers WILL produce nonsense results for some table often enough to be counterproductive.
That sort of trash design can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.
We recently had a game where we had two consecutive combats with no ability to re-supply in between. Our Ranger ran out of arrows in the second combat. He wasn't likely to run out in the first combat (and didn't) but if he hadn't tracked it then he wouldn't have known how many he had left in the second one. The point at which he ran out changed the enemy tactics significantly, with the enemies using more ranged attacks. It was a pretty close fight.
For want of a nail and all that...
Quote from: mightybrain on December 18, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
We recently had a game where we had two consecutive combats with no ability to re-supply in between. Our Ranger ran out of arrows in the second combat. He wasn't likely to run out in the first combat (and didn't) but if he hadn't tracked it then he wouldn't have known how many he had left in the second one. The point at which he ran out changed the enemy tactics significantly, with the enemies using more ranged attacks. It was a pretty close fight.
For want of a nail and all that...
Well, that gets into resource depletion in general, right? Apparently, a lot of people play later editions of D&D with not only no wandering monsters but will seldom have more than 1 encounter (random or otherwise) per day in the wilderness when traveling to and from the adventure location. (I think part of that might be habit left over from 3.*/4E days when, admittedly, setting up a random encounter was a lot of trouble. Old habits die hard for people that started gaming that way.) Point being, if you play such that resources almost never get depleted, then tracking them doesn't add much.
Of course, running a game where resource depletion matters is a choice that involves a lot more than tracking arrows, or even tracking resources. It has to be a game where running out of things can matter, restocking is a choice with consequences (at least when and how much based on opportunity costs if nothing else), and part of the operational strategy is handling such decisions. No operational game, much less point in tracking resources. There might be lingering tactical reasons for tracking, depending on the exact resource scarcity and such, but that can be thin gruel.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 18, 2020, 10:26:22 AM
QuoteSo where's your line? Do you track hit points? Do you use stats? Aren't those just boring number tracking?
Honestly, my sister and her friends used to play a kind of storytelling game where there were no rules, just them saying stuff. Which is fine, but there's really no game to it. And one of the letter in the acryonym is Game for a reason.
Between "no rules storytelling" and "full simulationism" there is array of possibilities.
And there are many games with shooting units not counting ammo - where gamist element is centred on different elements.
That's why I asked. For example, Star Wars D6 uses wound states. Intead of tracking hit points, you're either stunned, wounded, or incapacitated. No need to track hit points in that system.
So do you track hit points? If so, why?
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 18, 2020, 10:49:28 AM
Track or don't track doesn't matter much to me. The only thing I go a bit "onetruewayist" on is "non-tracking" mechanics more complex than just making tick marks (that roll a diminishing die after each shot was particularly bad design since it adds a roll to each attack and still requires you to track which die type you're using for each thing). They slow the game down and due to the law of large numbers WILL produce nonsense results for some table often enough to be counterproductive.
That sort of trash design can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.
I'm with you on this. Some of these things are too clever by half.
So, another question for the non-trackers out there. Does the GM track monster ammo? There are rule sets that call for range-equipped monsters to have 2d6 ammo or whatever. An orc that fires off his ration of 3 crappy arrows and then charges in with his axe is just fucking cool IMO.
It could be interesting if a long-ish combat sees archers drop their bows and wade into the fray because they're out of arrows or snapped their bow string (which I believe can actually happen on a fumble in DCC RPG, per RAW). Yeah, you can't build a god-like sniper, you have to have some balance in the character so he doesn't die easily if this happens.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 18, 2020, 12:29:47 PM
So, another question for the non-trackers out there. Does the GM track monster ammo? There are rule sets that call for range-equipped monsters to have 2d6 ammo or whatever. An orc that fires off his ration of 3 crappy arrows and then charges in with his axe is just fucking cool IMO.
It could be interesting if a long-ish combat sees archers drop their bows and wade into the fray because they're out of arrows or snapped their bow string (which I believe can actually happen on a fumble in DCC RPG, per RAW). Yeah, you can't build a god-like sniper, you have to have some balance in the character so he doesn't die easily if this happens.
Again, speaking for myself... when we don't track something, its across the board. If we aren't tracking arrows we don't track monster arrows either.
That said we also don't tend to use rulesets that give monsters very limited random starting ammo either. The orcs will generally be presumed to have full quivers at the start of a fight so between their own supply and plundering their fallen allies' quivers we don't generally bother tracking.
We also presume our archers restock out of the leftovers when the fight's done in the same way that the shorthand "We Greyhawk the bodies" means "our party spends the next several minutes stripping our fallen opponents of everything even remotely of value."
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 18, 2020, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 18, 2020, 10:49:28 AM
Track or don't track doesn't matter much to me. The only thing I go a bit "onetruewayist" on is "non-tracking" mechanics more complex than just making tick marks (that roll a diminishing die after each shot was particularly bad design since it adds a roll to each attack and still requires you to track which die type you're using for each thing). They slow the game down and due to the law of large numbers WILL produce nonsense results for some table often enough to be counterproductive.
That sort of trash design can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.
I'm with you on this. Some of these things are too clever by half.
So, another question for the non-trackers out there. Does the GM track monster ammo? There are rule sets that call for range-equipped monsters to have 2d6 ammo or whatever. An orc that fires off his ration of 3 crappy arrows and then charges in with his axe is just fucking cool IMO.
It could be interesting if a long-ish combat sees archers drop their bows and wade into the fray because they're out of arrows or snapped their bow string (which I believe can actually happen on a fumble in DCC RPG, per RAW). Yeah, you can't build a god-like sniper, you have to have some balance in the character so he doesn't die easily if this happens.
In most fantasy games, I don't track monster ammo (I made an exception for the tail spikes of a trio of manticores). However, when playing a setting where scarcity is a big thing (like many post-apocalyptic settings including Gamma World and Twilight 2000, but also for "tight" gear games like Dark Heresy), then I often do set ammo for monsters/NPCs and keep track of it, often because it will become meaningful loot if the PCs overcome the encounter.
I remember a room in The Sunless Citadel where the characters need to get across a floor full of caltrops before they can get into melee with a group of goblin archers that have cover. The number of monster arrows was information the players wanted to know. And the druid was able to get that information by turning into a spider and walking across the roof to spy on them.