D&D 5E Legends & Lore 03/24/2014

[Bluenose]

IIRC the kender has a chance of having the right tool, not a guarantee. Still, it's at least a controversial ability, not everybody want to see that in play even for a single PC, thus making it generally available in the form of "preparedness" (even if it's just a chance) is indeed not everybody's cup of tea.

You can't really pretend there isn't any difference between:

a) characters with unlimited arrows or food rations
b) characters with (potentially) any inexpensive object that may exist

These are ideas that deliver very distinct 'feel' to the game.

GUMSHOE is a very different game than D&D. I have never played it, so correct me if I'm wrong! But AFAIK GUMSHOE is an investigative game, and not at all a resource-based game! IMHO they included the "preparedness" rules exactly because they don't want resources to have such an impact on the gameplay that it would be detrimental to the main point i.e. investigations. You can port the rule to D&D, but it doesn't really feel to me like it should be the default.

In my experience most systems which treat "Resources" as a skill also make it so there's a chance you won't have a particular item, just as is the case with the Kender ability. Usually there's a roll to make. I'm only familiar with Gumshoe in it's Mutant City Blues version, which is certainly an investigation game. To be honest I don't really see resources (at least, non-magical ones) as having more impact in D&D play than they do in MCB play except in rare circumstances.

 

[Anselyn]

Getting to tell the next story is the reward in a storygame. A game is played to receive that reward. When it's just a mechanic like rolling dice an activity requires players to be calculating odds for it to be a game, like Craps. No calculation, no deciphering whatsoever means no game is being played. Expressing isn't playing a game even if those expressions might follow a script known for being rules in a game.

I suspect we may have fundamentally different ideas on what defines a game and gameplay that it won't be useful to tease out.

However, I suggest that if I sat down with my kids, or some players, for some storytelling then seeing the story develop would be the reward - as you say. I agree that would be more of an activity than a game.

However, if we are talking about GUMSHOE (I was ) then that is a system for investigative games. Possibly best summarised as a way to model procedural stories as seen on TV shows.

So,

Determining what's going on and what to do next to achieve an objective is central to it.

is exactly my experience of playing GUMSHOE-based games. The game mechanism gives you the clues but you're investigating what is going on and have to decide what to next. So, it's at heart the same as that part of the game of D&D.

 

[Li Shenron]

In my experience most systems which treat "Resources" as a skill also make it so there's a chance you won't have a particular item, just as is the case with the Kender ability. Usually there's a roll to make. I'm only familiar with Gumshoe in it's Mutant City Blues version, which is certainly an investigation game. To be honest I don't really see resources (at least, non-magical ones) as having more impact in D&D play than they do in MCB play except in rare circumstances.

Well, they can have as much impact as you prefer.

When I explain what D&D is to non-gamers, usually my first sentence is "it's a fantasy narrative, problem-solving and resource-management game"

 

[pemerton]

GUMSHOE is a very different game than D&D. I have never played it, so correct me if I'm wrong! But AFAIK GUMSHOE is an investigative game, and not at all a resource-based game!

What do you mean by resources?

GUMSHOE, like D&D, involves managing player resources (in D&D these include hit points, gold pieces, spells etc; in GUMSHOE these include uses of various abilities).

D&D, at low levels, can also involves managing character resources. But it need not. And at mid to high levels frequently does not. Counting arrows and rations has certainly never been at the heart of my D&D play. And letting a player make a roll to have chalk ready-to-hand would not fundamentally change D&D for me.

 

[Cyberen]

Yet another issue where the old concept of tiered play should apply.
In BECMI, the Companion ruleset explicitly mentioned that, from Name Level upward, characters are assumed to have base competency in everything they do. Thus, a name level character in BECMI is supposed to carry a rope, a pole, a mirror, some flour, etc. when dungeoneering, if he had time to prepare. 4E Heroic, Paragon and Epic Tiers are built around the same assumptions, and I would say the 3E Master Rogue abilities (taking 10 on some skills), too. Some (**OPTIONAL**) kind of "level check", with DCs set by the equipment list, would feel traditional and appropriate to me.
Tracking basic resources can be great fun in some circumstances : survival, or Apprentice Tier. Otherwise, it feels to me like jumping through (very old) loopholes, unnecessary tedium, and insulting to my *character* if he's supposed to be of mid- to high level dude.

 

[Dausuul]

With regard to preparedness, my preference would be to have something like the adventurer's kit from 4E, and assume that the purchase cost includes money set aside for future maintenance. If you have the adventurer's kit, you maintain your supply of everything in it. You have 10 days of rations and are assumed to replenish them whenever you get a chance, so you only have to worry about food if you're more than 10 days on the road. You have rope, flint and steel, a bedroll, and so forth. If you leave your 50-foot rope behind in a dungeon, you have to go through the rest of the dungeon without it, but you're assumed to get a new one once you get back to town.

However, if you want a pet parakeet, you're going to have to pay for that separately and note it on your character sheet.

There could even be "basic adventurer kits" and "advanced adventurer kits." The basic kit would be cheap, simple gear; rope, a couple of torches, rations, bedroll, waterskin, flint and steel. The advanced kit would include expensive and esoteric stuff; a hand mirror, a flask of alchemist's fire, a signet ring, a spyglass, pen, paper, ink, and so on. Of course, the advanced kit would be priced to put a huge dent in a newbie adventurer's budget.

WotC: "We're making B the default and A the option, instead of the other way around like it's been in the past, but they'll both still be in the game, OK?"

Nerdragers: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!"

To be fair, as Kamikaze Midget is fond of pointing out, defaults are important. There are many cases in which the choice of default has a substantial impact.

This is not one of those cases.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To be fair, as Kamikaze Midget is fond of pointing out, defaults are important. There are many cases in which the choice of default has a substantial impact.

This is not one of those cases

Yeah, as fond as I am of being devil's advocate, some of the comments over on the WotC boards are just kind of hostile. No, they're not going to make a game revolving around random tables, they never SAID they would, and even if they did, why would that automatically be a BAD thing?!

The worst ENWorld generally offers is some snark and occasional passive-aggressive BS. There are marriages that have to deal with with worse.

Some (**OPTIONAL**) kind of "level check", with DCs set by the equipment list, would feel traditional and appropriate to me.
Tracking basic resources can be great fun in some circumstances : survival, or Apprentice Tier. Otherwise, it feels to me like jumping through (very old) loopholes, unnecessary tedium, and insulting to my *character* if he's supposed to be of mid- to high level dude.

I'm fond of the way your mind's at work here.

Personally, the level of detail I want in my gear is a reflection of the kind of game I'm running. Brutal dungeon survival? You better track every arrow and ounce of lantern oil. Action movie bang-zoom? I think a check to see if you're "out" could add some fun tension, but no one's counting shots and rations. Character-development narrative? Not something I need broad mechanics for, not something I want to devote mental resources to.

The playtest kender ability would work fine in the last two games, but kind of muck up the first.

 

[Tovec]

I just want to start by saying the random item tables can be a really cool thing. I don't know that I necessarily need every single one of my players having a random item - but having it as a default option won't really stifle my options either and so I kind of like it.

Yet another issue where the old concept of tiered play should apply.
In BECMI, the Companion ruleset explicitly mentioned that, from Name Level upward, characters are assumed to have base competency in everything they do. Thus, a name level character in BECMI is supposed to carry a rope, a pole, a mirror, some flour, etc. when dungeoneering, if he had time to prepare. 4E Heroic, Paragon and Epic Tiers are built around the same assumptions, and I would say the 3E Master Rogue abilities (taking 10 on some skills), too. Some (**OPTIONAL**) kind of "level check", with DCs set by the equipment list, would feel traditional and appropriate to me.
Tracking basic resources can be great fun in some circumstances : survival, or Apprentice Tier. Otherwise, it feels to me like jumping through (very old) loopholes, unnecessary tedium, and insulting to my *character* if he's supposed to be of mid- to high level dude.

I have a problem with this for a couple of reasons. First, you say "etc." like there is some universal set of items every player should have. I have a hard time coming up with such a set for a group to have, but every player is expected to have a rope, pole, mirror, flour AND other unlisted things? Every one? That seems like an odd list. I've certainly had PCs who have those items, but I would hardly say that most of them have had even half of those items on their sheets - even when money and carrying capacity aren't issues. So how can you always assume people have all of these items?

Second, I like having things missing from my sheet. I don't play survival and I don't dungeon crawl constantly but I do a nice RP mix and it seems odd to be carrying around 120 lbs (I made a character that had exactly that much in his bag, so I know) of gear constantly. Some people may want to have every eventuality covered in items, but in my experience most don't. That's not to say that people won't pick up food (though again, I've seen that happen) but my issue comes up in the cases when you lack an item during play. What happens when you come to a ledge and you need a way down. You don't have rope? Sucks to be you, go back to town and get some. Don't have time? Then try to scale it by hand. That adds a level of fun that just saying "you always have rope" doesn't.

Third, I would like to see a greater emphasis on the party having certain items - or explaining the true value of having certain items and pointing out when certain ones may overlap and when they may no longer be as valuable (such as higher level abilities or magic). Heck, I've had characters who would always carry around their own mug, utensils and a cooking pot. Do you know how often that does come up? Hardly ever. How often it should come up is probably all the time - but so few DMs actually enforce it there is almost no point in having those items in the book for me to buy. But if there was greater importance for something like that then that is another case entirely. If the book pointed out that having rope is always a good investment and that several characters should carry some just in case, then that changes the mindset of newer players in a good way. Similarly if they said that a portable ram is situational and that probably only one person in a group needs one then that is good to know as well.

And so I think it would help to know which items are a must, which are a possible, which are situational or suck (never come up). It is a must to have arrows and rations, by most standards I hear - but how many? Is 7 days the norm? 10? 3? That seems like a decision that will vary per DM/game. How important is a grappling hook? How about having your own cup (I've had games where this is essential or else you'll get poisoned). The list is too large and too varied to be able to just assume all players of a certain level have certain things - it simply can't work that way.

With regard to preparedness, my preference would be to have something like the adventurer's kit from 4E, and assume that the purchase cost includes money set aside for future maintenance. If you have the adventurer's kit, you maintain your supply of everything in it. You have 10 days of rations and are assumed to replenish them whenever you get a chance, so you only have to worry about food if you're more than 10 days on the road. You have rope, flint and steel, a bedroll, and so forth. If you leave your 50-foot rope behind in a dungeon, you have to go through the rest of the dungeon without it, but you're assumed to get a new one once you get back to town.

However, if you want a pet parakeet, you're going to have to pay for that separately and note it on your character sheet.

There could even be "basic adventurer kits" and "advanced adventurer kits." The basic kit would be cheap, simple gear; rope, a couple of torches, rations, bedroll, waterskin, flint and steel. The advanced kit would include expensive and esoteric stuff; a hand mirror, a flask of alchemist's fire, a signet ring, a spyglass, pen, paper, ink, and so on. Of course, the advanced kit would be priced to put a huge dent in a newbie adventurer's budget.

I would like to see packages set. But my main issue is how you make them. I recently made a character in pathfinder and it has a starter kit that included two smokesticks (I think they were) and a couple of torches and so on. The problem is that I have never used smokesticks in my entire DnD career. I almost always buy an everburning torch and so those torches were useless. After looking through the package I realized I need more food (DM said to get more) than what it provided as well. I realized after gathering the gear I actually needed - that actually fit my character, that I could afford and carry, and that I actually wanted (everburning vs. regular) that my "default package" would have looked wildly different from the one provided. That is alright though, I didn't fault them on that - but I found it odd how advanced the basic package was. Mine would have included a waterskin, bedroll, backpack, whetstone, maybe two torches and some rope. But the extras the starting kit included just seemed so off - sort of an intermediate pack I guess. But my point remains that I include whetstone but I don't think that a lot of my friends would. I ALWAYS buy a winter blanket (been burned once or twice before) and an extra set of clothes - but I wouldn't include those in a basic kit.

So it seems to me that the basic kit should include the BASIC of what you need. Not what you need for dungeoneering, but maybe a little of what you will absolutely need for traveling. Then make more advanced kits for different activities. A spellcaster's kit - with your choice of focus/implement. A warrior's kit with whetstone and metalworking tools? A climber's kit that has everything you could ever need for climbing - including some better rope. A survival kit for hunting and foraging. Maybe even an "advanced" kit that will include more general gear. But the basic one should be BASIC. And any advanced kits should be open enough to allow variation - since not all people/groups are going to need or value all aspect of advanced kits the way the designer envisions.