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

[Satyrn]

Take your pick-

1. Boredom.
2. SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNETZ!!!11!!!
3. Lots of cocaine.

Now this is why I went to the tea room! I don't care if anyone from the Bone Breaking Sect is here. I'm ordering a #3.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dare I ask, how big?

Was your map laid out on the floor of an aircraft hangar?

If I remember correctly, each of those games requires 2 4x8 plywood game tables (we had something like 20 of these in our club/hobby shop). So it took up a very substantial amount of room, and there are various cards and whatnot that have to be laid out as well. TBH my recollection of the actual mechanics of these games is pretty vague. They are effectively not really playable games, more like battalion level studies in theatre operations, planning, logistics, etc. Probably well-appreciated by the 1970s era Soviet General Staff....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know if I am envious or scared. Terrified or amazed.

Scenvious? Terrimazed?

Hmmmm.... only portmanteaus will do! I may have mentioned this before, but I remember some grizzled wargamers who preferred naval combat (with a table that was, oh, I want to say 30' on one side with long push sticks for the boats). What I truly remember, though, is that they killed time between turns by calculating artillery distances between various landmarks in town.

You know .... as people do. It was a different time.

ROFLMAO! I do remember that I liked the Yamato (Japanese WWII super-battleship) because the 48,000 yard range of its main battery was pretty much off the edge of most tables, even at the scale we used for Sea Power.

 

[Maxperson]

Take your pick-

1. Boredom.
2. EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNETZ!!!11!!!
3. Lots of cocaine.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Maxperson]

Then they'll bring carts full of duplicate weapons, and donkeys to pull them, which isn't a problem for some games.

In some corner case games, sure.

The point is this would narrow the range of playstyles the game supports.

This is wrong. It takes literally 2 seconds to say, "Guys, we're not using the degradation rules." And poof, you don't have to worry about it any longer. Inclusion of such mechanics does no limit playstyles in any way.

As it is, it's in the players' hands to make weapon maintenance a focus of play if that's the sort of game in which they're interested. If not, the game doesn't force it on them.

No it doesn't, as weapon maintenance does not exist. The players can buy a whetstone and have their PCs pretend to fix their weapons, but 5e includes no weapon degradation, so there's nothing to actually maintain.

The existence of weapon degradation as an element of the fiction is in no way dependent on the degradation of weapons belonging to the PCs. I think 5E treats items on the character sheet as within the purview of the player, so it's left to the player to describe his/her weapon as s/he sees fit and is consistent with his/her conception of his/her PC. I can describe my character obsessing over maintaining his weapon and worrying about it failing me in a battle, while you can play a character whose sword always stays sharp without giving it a thought, and both of our character conceptions can stay intact.

You don't see a problem with, "Every NPC's weapons degrade, but the non-magical weapons your PCs have magically do not degrade."?

"Arms, Armor, and Other Equipment
As a general rule, undamaged weapons, armor, and other equipment fetch half their cost when sold in a market. Weapons and armor used by monsters are rarely in good enough condition to sell."

I'm sure that weapons and armor used by monsters were in better condition when they had been freshly crafted and that the inferiority of their condition is due in part to degradation over time due to lack of maintenance.

This is the inconsistency that I'm talking about. It's a fact that PC weapons do not degrade. As I've pointed out multiple times now, I can refuse to have my PC buy a whetstone and let the DM know explicitly that I am not tending to my weapon in any way, and yet my weapon will be in the exact same shape is a someone using a whetstone religiously.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

This is the inconsistency that I'm talking about. It's a fact that PC weapons do not degrade. As I've pointed out multiple times now, I can refuse to have my PC buy a whetstone and let the DM know explicitly that I am not tending to my weapon in any way, and yet my weapon will be in the exact same shape is a someone using a whetstone religiously.

If a player went out of the way to tell me their PC is not buying a whetstone and refusing to care for their weapons, then I'm going to make a weapon degradation an issue for them. Because they just told me specifically that they want weapon degradation to be a plot point! (Alternatively, they just have a preference for more simulation and realism in their games, which I can then flag as a player-DM mismatch.)

In my own games, the NPCs exist in whatever fictional state I deem appropriate, but the NPCs would certainly never be in a fictional state better than the PCs only because they ignore simulative constraints I place on the PCs. If I make the PCs tend their weapons, assume the NPCs do as well. The lack of weapon degradation rules doesn't mean the PCs can't come up with a plan to rust out the contents of an enemy's armory, for example. (Note this doesn't extend to NPC abilities, they can and do have combinations of abilities that PCs would not be allowed to gain through strict character building rules.)

 

[Hriston]

In some corner case games, sure.

Right, and I think a rule that incentivizes a style of play that looks like a corner case is undesirable for obvious reasons.

This is wrong. It takes literally 2 seconds to say, "Guys, we're not using the degradation rules." And poof, you don't have to worry about it any longer. Inclusion of such mechanics does no limit playstyles in any way.

That isn't including the mechanic though. In fact, that's explicitly excluding it.

No it doesn't, as weapon maintenance does not exist. The players can buy a whetstone and have their PCs pretend to fix their weapons, but 5e includes no weapon degradation, so there's nothing to actually maintain.



You don't see a problem with, "Every NPC's weapons degrade, but the non-magical weapons your PCs have magically do not degrade."?



This is the inconsistency that I'm talking about. It's a fact that PC weapons do not degrade. As I've pointed out multiple times now, I can refuse to have my PC buy a whetstone and let the DM know explicitly that I am not tending to my weapon in any way, and yet my weapon will be in the exact same shape is a someone using a whetstone religiously.

You acknowledge that the passage I quoted is inconsistent with your position that weapon degradation isn't an element of D&D 5E, yet you persist in saying it's "a fact" that "5e includes no weapon degradation". The passage shows that weapons do indeed degrade in 5E and that there's a mechanical effect, namely that they lose their re-sale value. The fact that your unmaintained weapon retains as much of its value as my more rigorously cared for weapon doesn't mean that some degradation isn't taking place. It's just not enough to de-value it.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think the default assumption of the game is that PC weapons are routinely maintained, and if the in-game situation doesn't conform to that, I think the DM is well within his/her duties to make a ruling that departs from the published rules.

 

[Satyrn]

Yep!

By the way- people who play that REALLY REALLY hate it when you walk by saying, "You sunk my battleship."

Um.... not that I would know that.

Oh please. You've probably done it enough times, you could publish reliable survey results.

 

[Maxperson]

If a player went out of the way to tell me their PC is not buying a whetstone and refusing to care for their weapons, then I'm going to make a weapon degradation an issue for them. Because they just told me specifically that they want weapon degradation to be a plot point! (Alternatively, they just have a preference for more simulation and realism in their games, which I can then flag as a player-DM mismatch.)

Sure. If you add it in for your game, it will be there. Absent you making it an issue, though, it's just not. That brand spanking new sword the bard bought is going to be in the same condition the fighter's 5 year old, well used sword is in, despite the fighter not caring for it. 5e does not have weapon degradation for PCs, whetstone or not.

The lack of weapon degradation rules doesn't mean the PCs can't come up with a plan to rust out the contents of an enemy's armory, for example.

I agree. I would allow that as well, despite not using a weapon degradation system myself. I don't think such a system is enjoyable to my players and we're all there to have fun.