A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

But there is planning beforehand in both. It's a matter of play focus if that planning is something the player does at the table or the character does before the score, not "authenticity" or "realism". It's a play preference, not one of "realism." Switching to "authenticity" is just more hiding the pea.

This is wrong.

Yes, in both scenarios the groups are picking gear in advance. In real life, however, you will often not have exactly what you need for a given situation. When you pick the gear in advance and know what that gear is, you will often not have exactly what you need for a given situation. When you pick the gear in advance and don't set what that gear is, allowing you to just pick whatever is perfect for you to use in a given situation you encounter later, you will have exactly what you need far more often than you would in real life. It's less realistic than knowing what gear you are picking before you get to a situation.

As many of these things your talking about are narrativist tools, I feel that, once again, Forge-speak is a hinderance to discussion. I have no idea what you mean by "gamist" in this regard. I know what the Forge meant (as well as possible) but tgat diesn't seem to apply here. I'm really getting the vibe that you're using gamist to mean more like a game? That seems counterproductive when discussing ganes, though, so please elaborate.

Gamist is making decision in order to win at the current situation. When I tell the DM I go buy 6 torches, a flint and steel, 50 feet of rope, a hammer and 20 iron spikes, I have no idea if those will come in handy or not. I'm making decision as my character to outfit for things I might have to use or might not. If I tell the DM I go spend 100 gold on 5 slots and can just turn them into whatever I need for a given situation, I'm making my decisions at the point of adversity in order to win at it. That's gamist behavior.

Heh, Forge-speak, again. Numidus is closer to proper usage here than you've been, but your confused by his point (understandably). I'm pretty sure I see his point, but will defer to him (and you) to clarify without leaning on -ist terms.

Er, what was Forge-speak? Adventurers? Equip? Travels? Themselves? Think? I'm not seeing forge specific terms there.

 

[Maxperson]

There is an OSR lite game called "Into the Odd" that does feature damage rolls without attack rolls. Every attack is fundamentally successful such that it contributes to wearing down the hit points of the adventurer. In this way, every attack committed against you drains your endurance, whether you are "hit" or avoiding being hit per the fiction. So this not only speeds up combat but also discourages the perils of combat as the primary means to solve dungeon delving problems due to its lethality. I do not have my copy of the "book" on hand, so I cannot recall the benefits of armor, though I assume it is damage reduction. Despite the lack of "to hit" mechanics we could call this more realistic than AC because it reflects the "realism" of how physically draining combat is regardless of whether you are hit or not. But AC assumes that you do are not losing any HP (in the abstract or meat) regardless of how much you could be running around in combat or how many "hits" you may avoid.

How does hit point recovery work? Because if you dodge 3 "hits"(rounds) before killing the goblin and your hit points are not fully restored 60 seconds later, it does not at all reflect physical drain as it happens in real life. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to recover from a few dodges and swings. 18 seconds of exertion won't tire your for long.

 

[Aldarc]

How does hit point recovery work?

I am amused that you don't let me first answer this before wildly charging blind with your own assumptions about how the game should work or what you deem realistic.

Because if you dodge 3 "hits"(rounds) before killing the goblin and your hit points are not fully restored 60 seconds later, it does not at all reflect physical drain as it happens in real life. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to recover from a few dodges and swings. 18 seconds of exertion won't tire your for long.

You are assuming a lot about the fiction and what the mechanics are meant to reflect.

 

[Maxperson]

I am amused that you don't let me first answer this before wildly charging blind with your own assumptions about how the game should work or what you deem realistic.

You don't understand what "because if" means?

You are assuming a lot about the fiction and what the mechanics are meant to reflect.

Bzzzzt! Reading fail! The words "because if," mean that I'm not assuming any particular state at all. Rather I'm letting you know that if answer that it's the case, then it works that way.

I note that you dodged with a Red Herring, too. You failed to answer the question. Why is that? Could it be because you don't recover from such simple exertions in 60 seconds and it's not as realistic as you claim?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

You don't understand what "because if" means?

Bzzzzt! Reading fail! The words "because if," mean that I'm not assuming any particular state at all. Rather I'm letting you know that if answer that it's the case, then it works that way.

Max, I'm not interested in playing your gotcha games.

I note that you dodged with a Red Herring, too. You failed to answer the question. Why is that? Could it be because you don't recover from such simple exertions in 60 seconds and it's not as realistic as you claim?

The reason why I did not answer the only question you actually asked - "How does hit point recovery work?" - was because I can't recall the HP recovery mechanics by heart and don't have access to the book at work.

 

[Hriston]

That's better, but a whetstone can be used to sharpen cutlery, too. There's no rule about caring for weapons, and further, if I were to go around at the next convention at the open gaming area looking at character sheets, how many do you think would have whetstones? I'm going to go with 0, but I could be wrong. Some people still hold over from 1e and buy just about one of everything for their backpacks. It would definitely be a small minority, which means that weapon care isn't happening for the vast majority.

Here are the claims you made to which I responded:

That does nothing to change the fact that if weapons don't get dull, as they do not in D&D, adding in the ability to get dull is an increase in realism.

<snip>

For you to show a counter example, you would have to show in the D&D rules where care of weapons is a listed part of the game.

If knives can get dull, then so can bladed weapons. I agree there's no rule about caring for weapons, but the whetstone is a listed part of the game the intent of which is clearly the sharpening of dull blades. The proportion of character sheets at a gaming convention that list whetstones in their inventories has zero to do with the presence of whetstones in the published rules or the intent thereof. One place you can find whetstones listed in inventories is on three out of the ten pre-generated character sheets the D&D Next September 20, 2013 Playtest Packet, which I believe was the most recent one. These characters, the Dwarf Fighter, the Halfling Rogue, and the Human Bard, also all happen to carry bladed weapons like battleaxe, short swords, and daggers.

 

[hawkeyefan]

OK, that helps.

One thing leaps to mind: if gear slots are that restricted it'd be hard to mechanically justify carrying items purely for flavour reasons only e.g. a prissy Elf that always has a complete personal-grooming kit on hand, along with his convention adventuring gear.

In a more D&D-like system using encumbrance and item weights, a character is free (or freer, anyway) to carry some non-essential lightweight gear and not be quite as deficient at dungeoneering or survival.

Well, there are some items in BitD that are light enough that they do not count toward the character's load. There's a handful for each playbook, and they are marked by italics, and are freely available. So these are essentially brought on every score, or can be. The same ruling could be applied to other items of negligible weight such as a keepsake or a grooming kit or the like.

Basically, the game doesn't really care about a character being able to carry their mother's necklace or a grooming kit from a mechanical standpoint. If those items add to the character's story, then they can have them.

The reason why I think this works is that there is enough to the system as it exists to give the player meaningful choices to make without having to rely on RP only reasons for them to make the decision.

In general, no. In specific, however, there is (to me) a big difference in perception of realism/authenticity between having three open-ended slots which anything of any weight can end up in depending on what the character needs as she goes along, and having what amounts to a pre-determined weight allowance that can be made up of any combination and-or number of pieces of gear the character (pre-)selects.

Well, it's not really items of any weight. There are some items that count as two inventory slots....such as large weapons and heavy armor, and a few others that would be pretty bulky like climbing gear. And as I mentioned above, some that do not count toward inventory at all. Most items are one slot, some are two, some are zero.

Well true, we're all going to die sometime. But unless you're getting close to that point it might as well be infinite - so if something takes three sessions to play through instead of one, so what? As long as everyone is engaged, where's the harm?

The structure of the game expects that any given session will likely consist of a downtime section, some free play, and a score. This is not absolutely required, but it's kind of the expectation.

This is likely one of the significant differences between Blades and a more traditional D&Desque game. There are specific modes of play and expectations about those modes. They can be bent or broken, but they are an assumed element of the game as designed.

And personally, I prefer that. It helps maintain forward momentum. I've had plenty of D&D games that didn't need help in that area....but I've also had plenty that needed such help.

Perhaps; but in an RPG we're not the audience, we're the characters. Bit of a difference.

Well I would say that participants in an RPG very much do serve as an audience. I just don't think their role is solely that. But certainly we are entertained by the story the game is building, right? Certainly, we can be surprised by what happens? If there isn't some aspect of being an audience, I'm not exactly sure what the point of playing would be.

Unless encumbrance rules are strictly enforced, I agree this can become a problem. Even bags of holding have limits.

Well, I would say that the encumbrance rules do try to mirror the real world to the extent that there is weight involved, and a character's strength is involved and so on.....I don't know how accurate a representation it really may be. How much can a person carry and still remain mobile enough to wade into combat? I would guess that the average inventory list for the average D&D character would likely be very limiting if we gave it much thought. A backpack alone is restrictive. Add 50' of rope and a hammer and pitons and a bedroll and waterskin and a whetstone (just in case! ) and so on.....the label "realistic" starts to break down.

I think abstracting all those weights and strength scores and the like into simple inventory boxes works just as well. Both are representing the real world fact that a person can only carry so much. So in that regard, they're appealing to the same thing, one's just more abstract.

And I can see how that would happen, certainly from an at-the-table point of view where the players have to sometimes agonize over these decisions. And from that aspect alone, it sounds great.

I guess my point is that a system like that seems to take those choices too far out of character - I'd rather see the players role-play their characters agonizing over these same decisions, maybe without as much information as they'd otherwise have.

Here's the thing....in your D&D game, what choice do the players have to make in regard to their characters' gear? Do they generally have to decide what to bring with them into a dungeon? Or is it more a case that each character has basically come up with a default inventory that they have with them at all times and it rarely if ever changes?

My experience....which I know is limited....is that it's more the second case. 90% of the characters roll around with the same gear at all times. Yes, every now and then they may be going on some specific mission where slight changes will be made. But is it agonizing to decide to bring your +1 Undead Bane Longsword versus your +2 Flaming Battleaxe just because you're expecting to face some undead?

For example, using the score again:

D&D - the character's done her research and realized she'll very likely need climbing gear, a crowbar, a towel or small blanket to muffle sounds, a bag to put the loot in, and some high-quality lockpicks - and so that (along with a small but nasty weapon and the blacked-out clothes she's wearing) is what she takes; intentionally leaving herself gobs of encumbrance headroom for all the loot she's about to steal! She gets in successfully (and in the process uses all the gear she brought other than her weapon; it turns out her research and casing were spot-on) and grabs the loot.

BitD - the character's done her research and realized there's a score to be had here, so she sets off. Being a cautious sort she decides weight be damned, I'm going 7 slots wide on this one. During the process she finds obstacles that require her to use climbing gear (slot 1), a crowbar to pry some bars loose over a window (2), a towel to muffle the sounds of the crowbar (3), her lockpicks (4), and a bag for the loot (5). She now has the loot in the bag (and thus the loot becomes part of slot 5; her weapon was in slot 6 all along).

Then just as she's making good her escape she meets a guard dog she had no previous knowledge of at all; the character looks for any sort of out-clause and (via whatever means) the GM ends up narrating that the dog looks hungry. The D&D character is likely hosed at this point as, having no idea there was a dog anywhere involved, she didn't think to bring any meat; while the BitD character, having one slot left, can simply put some meat in that slot (7), throw it to the dog, and escape.

This is the sort of thing that would bug me; that the BitD character just happens to have exactly what it needs when an unforseen or unexpected situation arises.

Obviously, had the BitD character foregone the weapon and only gone 5 slots wide the outcome would have been the same as in the D&D example, as she'd be out of slots by the time the dog showed up.

I hope you see what I'm getting at here.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at....you seem to understand the systems in a general way. The specific slots would work out differently because of the way some items are lumped together as "Burglary Gear" and so on, but for discussion, you seem to get the way the system works. Yes, in the BitD example, the character could choose to have brought some kind of food that the dog would want, and they could use that to distract the animal long enough to escape.

Why I like this is that it makes the character look competent and capable. The character's preparation as a living being in their world is not affected by my limited knowledge. To me, that's a more authentic way to portray things. The character is more capable of making decisions about the score than I am.....which makes sense to me. This is not "unforseen or unexpected" to the character.

 

[Lanefan]

How does hit point recovery work? Because if you dodge 3 "hits"(rounds) before killing the goblin and your hit points are not fully restored 60 seconds later, it does not at all reflect physical drain as it happens in real life. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to recover from a few dodges and swings. 18 seconds of exertion won't tire your for long.

If I'm reading [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] correctly, that system doesn't have any means of completely avoiding damage ("endurance drain") - though it seems you can try in the fiction to avoid being hit, you'll be hit anyway. Put another way, every attack hits at least to some extent with the only variable being how much damage is inflicted.

That said, a question for [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] : [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] may have a valid point, I think, in questioning how long it takes to recover endurance loss suffered through avoided attacks (i.e. simple combat exertion) vs non-avoided attacks.

I say "may have" above in that the answer will largely depend on the answer to a bigger question: whether endurance drain is seen as fatigue (easy to recover) or "meat" damage (not so easy to recover) or a combination of both, or whether the game system bothers with such distinctions. In the realism-authenticity debate this matters because 99% of the time fatigue "damage" is easier to recover from than "meat" damage - after hard exertion you can recover for a few minutes and be good to go again (e.g. a hockey player does a shift on the ice, recovers for a few minutes on the bench, and is good to go for another shift) but if your finger gets mashed that's gonna hurt for days.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When @hawkeyefan first mentioned the mechanic I pretty much realised how it could be used in a game and given your above post, this confirms it. It is an excellent mechanic!

Hard choices and integration can be incorporated in both gamist and more authentic mechanics.

I agree with you here. And I also want to point out that in both games, it is certainly possible that the question of load or encumbrance or carrying capacity may not come up in a given session/adventure. I have found that Blades and the way it works makes the choice of gear a more meaningful decision overall, but there have been several instances where a character never even came close to hitting their max load with items they needed. Sometimes, all they've had to do is mark off a weapon and the Score was completed with nothing more on their part.

Planning beforehand ticks more realism/authenticity boxes.
Play focus does not enter the conversation, it is a completely separate issue in this instance.

Planning beforehand ticks a box of doing things in a sequential order, which corresponds to real life. But I don't know if that means "more boxes". The Blades system ticks the "character knowledge" box for me, which seems more real or authentic to me because I am not a criminal nor would I know what to pack to break into the Dimmer Sisters' mansion to steal an artifact.

So, because we can't really apply some objective number of realism boxes to these systems, then it actually becomes a matter of play focus. Some participants may enjoy planning a lot. Others may prefer to get to the action.

In the same vain one could have weapon slots so when you face undead, you can replace a weapon slot with an appropriate weapon that does significant damage to undead (i.e. bludgeoning).
Is this more authentic to you? I find the more you deviate from how things occur in RL, the more you tend towards a gamist system. Hard choices and integration are still there, and play focus has shifted, but this type of deviation leans more towards abstraction.

I'm not sure I understand this example....I could just be misreading.....I don't see swapping one weapon type out for one that would be more effective against an expected enemy to be problematic. Either method we're discussing would allow for this. Blades has the option for certain playbooks/classes to carry ammunition that is effective against ghosts, but it costs an inventory slot to have that ammo be available.

In what way? I'm not following.
I would think adventurers would equip themselves between their travels. Are you inferring that they do not confer with each other or with others/specialists before equipping?

I can't answer for [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION], but my take on what was meant was that this sounds like a case of a player making a choice, rather than the character making a choice. Sure, there is some overlap in what the character would know and what the player would know.....but if you think about who would make a more informed opinion about what to bring on a mission, I think it's clear that it would be the character.

So a game that lacks some way to evoke or emulate the character deciding, then it feels very much like a player making a decision....and therefore, seems like a game.