D&D 5E Does anyone actually track rations?

discosoc said:

I don't recall goodberry nullifying the need for food and water for an entire day.

Click to expand...

Goodberry in 1st edition had several significant limitations compared to 5th:


1) It was a second level spell, not first.

2) It didn't create up to 10 berries, it only enchanted 2-8 freshly picked berries.

3) HP gains were limited to 8HP per character per day in a 24 hour period.

4) A berry was equivalent to a single full meal instead of providing nourishment for an entire day, and then only if it didn't provide any healing. In 5th every berry provides both effects.

MG.0 said:

If players can't be bothered to track stuff they absolutely need (how hard is it to say you picked up that weapon you dropped?) when I as the DM have no problem tracking all of them, that says more about their interest in the game than anything.

Click to expand...

Counterpoint: If players are so excited about whatever events are actually going on in your shared play experience that they have forgotten to mention a few small details before moving on to the exciting development ahead... why throw in the speed bump to that excitement which is taking a strict stance that because they were more concerned with "oh my goodness, we have to hurry to the village before that dragon destroys the place!" (or the equivalent) as a player than they were with "I need to pick up my sword, and the two javelins I threw during that fight." that they are now without those things

MG.0 said:

I've found enforcing it is not a chore. dropping isn't rampant and once players get the idea, the other problems disappear as well.

Click to expand...

It isn't about whether it is a chore or not. It isn't a chore to enforce the rule, but it also isn't a chore to let the little stuff slide. And there is no problem except where you are making one in this regard, since I don't enforce a strict "you didn't say it, so it didn't happen" rule and yet I don't run into the problem that you describe where the players are being unreasonable about what they expect to have hand-waved.

MG.0 said:

In-game I think having the character care about vital equipment is a far cry from worrying about trivial stuff like remembering to wash.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is a difference in-character - but that doesn't change the fact that both things are equally trivial to the players.

MG.0 said:

I don't like doing that (I've tried), because it inevitably seems to lead to players auto-assuming more and more of their actions and getting annoyed when I finally start enforcing things. It starts with dropped items, but it spreads to equipment they 'would have bought', and searches they 'would have made', and precautions they 'would have taken'. It got so frustrating I went back to enforcing a strict "If you didn't say it, you didn't do it" policy. I've found that with such a policy players take a greater interest in preparing for things instead of handwaving everything until I arbitrarily draw a line somewhere.

Click to expand...

As a time-saving measure, I'm fine with players saying they would have picked up or bought this or that. I don't want to play out those scenes and don't want to spend time talking about it, so if it's reasonable to the player that this would have happened, it's okay by me. I trust my players to engage with the game in good faith and so I have no fear of a slippery slope.

I only require specificity when it comes to taking action during a scene involving conflict (not necessarily combat).

If something doesn't require a meaningful decision--that is, one where there are significant pros and cons each way--I don't feel it's worth my time or my players' time to keep track of it. 90% of the time, rations don't meet the "meaningful decision" bar: If the party has the carrying capacity (mostly they do), and if they have the money to afford rations (mostly they have that, too), then packing enough rations for the trip is a no-brainer, so why not just assume they do it and don't worry about it?

The other 10% of the time, where the party is short on carrying capacity, loses their pack mule, et cetera, I'd probably call for tracking rations.

I do feel like this is a longstanding weak point of D&D, going back across all the editions. It would be nice to have wilderness survival rules that acknowledged this distinction: Most of the time, you don't have to worry about rations, but when rations suddenly become a concern, there should be a way to "engage" the survival rules without having to go back and figure out just how many days' worth the PCs would have purchased in town.

(Of course, with spells like goodberry around, it hardly matters. I may be banning goodberry. We'll see.)

iserith said:

As a time-saving measure, I'm fine with players saying they would have picked up or bought this or that. I don't want to play out those scenes and don't want to spend time talking about it, so if it's reasonable to the player that this would have happened, it's okay by me. I trust my players to engage with the game in good faith and so I have no fear of a slippery slope.

I only require specificity when it comes to taking action during a scene involving conflict (not necessarily combat).

Click to expand...

Letting players retroactively say what they bought isn't the only or best way to save time. In my games, if nobody wants to play out a shop scene, The players can automatically buy any available standard equipment and track their own gold, etc. We keep printed equipment lists with standard prices on the table for all to use in a self-serve manner. The players have literally zero excuse to say "I would have bought that". I typically finish up with a final - "Has everyone bought all the gear they need?" before moving on.

The slippery slope isn't really about good faith (or lack thereof) as I trust my players not to cheat when purchasing things, it's more about general human laziness. Given the option, players (myself included) will handwave a lot of stuff. It can be tempting to say "Oh yeah, I meant to do that" to almost anything. In my experience, enforcing a few little things like picking up vital equipment after a battle really does pull player's minds more into focus on what they are actually doing and on the consequences of their actions. I find they consider things around their characters more carefully, leading to a better game overall. Your mileage may vary.

My players love to tell me that they would always do this and that and I should always assume they always do all these actions. I tell them "sure you do all those things when you tell me you do all those things". Don't tell me "well I would have been moving silent","I would have did this action instead of that action but I was distracted by talking to Bob about how much he hates Donald Trump!". I just tell them to keep their heads in the game we are all putting aside time to play and you won't forget all this stuff.

AaronOfBarbaria said:

I don't enforce a strict "you didn't say it, so it didn't happen" rule and yet I don't run into the problem that you describe where the players are being unreasonable about what they expect to have hand-waved.

Click to expand...

It may depend on the type of campaign you run. Mine tend toward the gritty and realistic where thngs like food and shelter are regularly big issues. It can be difficult to get players to engage with that if you handwave a lot of stuff. Like I said, once players experience their characters msising important equipment, they rarely ever do it again and in my experience it has made our games better for doing it.

AaronOfBarbaria said:

I agree that there is a difference in-character - but that doesn't change the fact that both things are equally trivial to the players.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be. Making the player care about things that are important to the character can be useful.

Only when relevant. If the party could easily have access to food, I don't bother worrying about rations. But if they go on an interdimensional, Underdark, or otherwise "lost in space" adventure, I make sure food is considered. However, the most common magic items in my worlds are always devices of holding (BoH, HHH, PH), items that make food (the Spoon, a bag of treats (partner to the bag of tricks), etc...), and things that summon servants that can tale care of these needs (such as a figurine that can summon a Halfling chef that will gather local food items and make great meals out of it for you).

Generally, this adds to the game really early on and in specific situations, but you're best off quickly making it a non-issue and just moving on....

MG.0 said:

It can be tempting to say "Oh yeah, I meant to do that" to almost anything.

Click to expand...

Sure, it can be tempting, but I trust my players not to abuse the faith I have in them such that when they say "I meant to do X" or "I would have done Y" I can take them at their word. It doesn't make a lick of sense to me that the rogue, Chuck Dagger, would leave his favorite blade in the hobgoblin's belly simply because the player failed to mention retrieving it. I don't need a declared action to establish it.

I don't sweat picking up weapons, or if they later say I would have bought a a standard item while in town. I don't go with "I would have done X action instead of Y".