D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Thomas Shey]

I assume this is addressed to me?

My character, in BitD, loads up on (say) 3 slots of useful gear. How does that fail to suggest that they might have useful gear?

What part of the phrase "may or may not" was unclear? Clothing is a default assumption for people to have (though whether it is of a nature that can be easily torn into strips is, of course, another thing) and a sword is presumably being kept in something. Thus clothes and a scabbard are something that could be assumed to be present as a default. A given piece of useful gear, barring special circumstances, is not. Its generic nature tells you nothing about specifics. It describes everything and nothing.

I quite understand the purpose that mechanic serves, but to act like there's no significant difference between it and assuming common gear that virtually everyone should have is, again, either being blind to the difference or disingenuous. Its like saying because you assume your character has shoes that they also should be able to assume they have plate armor.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given your admitted unfamiliarity with the rules of BitD, why did you assume that it would not have some mechanism to avoid the absurd thing that you envisage in the first of your posts that I've quoted?

This is @Ovinomancer's point, as I understand it: you have made assumptions without warrant.

Well, if you can't talk about how the BitD work rules, what is your basis for explaining what principles they do or don't conform to, or what problems you do or don't have with the authorship they permit?

If, like @RhaezDaevan, you're just making up your own idea of how they work, and then analysing the thing you've made up, what do you think the value of your contributions is?

In BitD you have to acquire stuff and carry it.

I've posted examples, from completely mainstream D&D play, that contradict what you say here. So has @Ovinomancer.

And in BitD it is established that you have some stuff: you load up with a certain volume/quantity of gear.

To give another example: when you play D&D, do you establish how much wood, leather, metal etc is on the shield your PC buys? What length of leather is available by taking the straps of a character's armour? But all these things can come up from time to time. When your PC buys their fresh rations, what food are they carrying? Do they have the herbs that Sam Gamgee wanted when he was cooking his coneys? Or will they have to go and search for them, hence running the risk of encountering warriors on their mumaks?

I do try to be as detailed with stuff like that as I can be, within time constraints and the patience of my players. Its a goal to strive for, not something to call out as a failure or an impossibility if I can't quite make it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do try to be as detailed with stuff like that as I can be, within time constraints and the patience of my players. Its a goal to strive for, not something to call out as a failure or an impossibility if I can't quite make it.

It also doesn't seem to be part of the game rules. So, there's that. I mean, if it were, presumably there'd be a reference page by now? I wasn't able to find it, but then, D&D has long had a habit of tucking rules in strange places, so maybe I didn't look in the right place. I've certainly never once had this brought up at a table as a thing, though, and there've been enough situations and enough rules keen folk at the table during them that this seems a low-likelihood event if such rules did exist. I think this is rather just a culturally ingrained assumption. There are quite a few of those.

 

[pemerton]

I do try to be as detailed with stuff like that as I can be, within time constraints and the patience of my players. Its a goal to strive for, not something to call out as a failure or an impossibility if I can't quite make it.

The entry on D&D beyond for Disguise Kit says the following:

This pouch of cosmetics, hair dye, and small props lets you create disguises that change your physical appearance.​

It also indicates that it weighs 3 lb. Given that a pouch (according to its entry) weighs 1 lb, that's about 1 kg of cosmetics, dye and props.

How many uses is that good for? What colour(s) of dye does it contain? Eg suppose that the PCs need to quickly mock up a flag in imitation of an enemy's flag so as to send false signals to their enemies, does the disguise kit have what they need?

And what about the props?

These sorts of questions - like the ones about what exactly is in your rations - come up all the time in D&D play. No one thinks that the GM making a decision about the colour or quantity of dye is "popping things into existence". Or "retconning" anything.

So why would those descriptions be used of BitD?

What part of the phrase "may or may not" was unclear? Clothing is a default assumption for people to have (though whether it is of a nature that can be easily torn into strips is, of course, another thing) and a sword is presumably being kept in something. Thus clothes and a scabbard are something that could be assumed to be present as a default. A given piece of useful gear, barring special circumstances, is not. Its generic nature tells you nothing about specifics. It describes everything and nothing.

I quite understand the purpose that mechanic serves, but to act like there's no significant difference between it and assuming common gear that virtually everyone should have is, again, either being blind to the difference or disingenuous. Its like saying because you assume your character has shoes that they also should be able to assume they have plate armor.

So the concern is not about things "popping into existence" or about "retcons", but about the utility of the equipment at issue?

As for gear that everyone should have, shouldn't an experienced crim have the stuff that is useful for their latest gig?

 

[Hussar]

The entry on D&D beyond for Disguise Kit says the following:

This pouch of cosmetics, hair dye, and small props lets you create disguises that change your physical appearance.
It also indicates that it weighs 3 lb. Given that a pouch (according to its entry) weighs 1 lb, that's about 1 kg of cosmetics, dye and props.

One doesn't even have to get that specific. None of the Artisan Tools are detailed beyond "These Special tools include the items needed to pursue a craft or trade." So, what exactly is in a "Carpenter's tools"? Or a "Mason's Tools"?

D&D has a long history of being pretty vague about the stuff that isn't specifically related to combat. Even going back to AD&D, there were all sorts of stuff that weren't really specified. And, as D&D has developed over the years in response to how tables actually play the game, rather than trying to force a particular style of play onto the players, it has become more and more vague about the stuff that, most of the time, really doesn't matter.

See, because here's the thing about having "vague equipment" style mechanics. You can absolutely go the other direction and start detailing out every single spell component and whatnot that the character is carrying. There is nothing stopping you from doing that. But, with vague rules, the players can without breaking or changing any rules, just gloss over things and not worry about it too much. That's what DM empowerment actually should mean.

You, the DM, have the power (assuming your players are happy with your rulings) to enforce the idea of tracking all equipment. Or, you can be as vague as you want. Either way, the rules are there to support you. If you go vague, no problem. If you go detailed, that works too.

The problem that I'm seeing with how D&D is progressing over time, is that people want the rules to force everyone to play the way they want to play. They want to be able to point to the rule books and say, "Well, I don't care what you think, this is what the rules say, so, I'm just following the rules!"

It's no different from the floating Racial ASI arguments or any other argument that's been floating around for the past five or six years. All these, "D&D is changing" arguments are based in the notion that DM's need to have specific rules that they can then force their players to follow instead of being open and honest with their players and being open to the conversation that instead of forcing players to "follow the rules" these DM's actually have to justify their decisions and convince the players to go along with them.

And, from what I'm seeing, DM's are suddenly shocked at the notion that instead of the players being groovy with these rules all along they only followed along because that's what the rules told them to do. Relax the rules and suddenly playstyle steps into the void and now the DM can no longer just enforce specific playstyles by leveraging the rules over the heads of their players.

 

[Malmuria]

The entry on D&D beyond for Disguise Kit says the following:

This pouch of cosmetics, hair dye, and small props lets you create disguises that change your physical appearance.​

It also indicates that it weighs 3 lb. Given that a pouch (according to its entry) weighs 1 lb, that's about 1 kg of cosmetics, dye and props.

How many uses is that good for? What colour(s) of dye does it contain? Eg suppose that the PCs need to quickly mock up a flag in imitation of an enemy's flag so as to send false signals to their enemies, does the disguise kit have what they need?

And what about the props?

These sorts of questions - like the ones about what exactly is in your rations - come up all the time in D&D play. No one thinks that the GM making a decision about the colour or quantity of dye is "popping things into existence". Or "retconning" anything.

So why would those descriptions be used of BitD?

So the concern is not about things "popping into existence" or about "retcons", but about the utility of the equipment at issue?

As for gear that everyone should have, shouldn't an experienced crim have the stuff that is useful for their latest gig?

I actually think this last question speaks to the design intent of various editions of dnd. The equipment list in 5e is largely vestigial. Selecting specific items from that list was important in b/x and ad&d, because each item could be used to solve particular problems (throwing ball bearings (?) on the ground while running away, flour for invisible things, multiple ways to set everything on fire, etc). The higher level version of this are the detailed charts for building a stronghold.

But these 1e problems are simply not problems in 5e, especially past 2nd level (to your disguise kit example, my current 5e pc has a disguise kit…which was made irrelevant by a 2nd level invocation that lets me cast disguise self at will). The various packs and kits are there to provide flavor and define the character a bit at the start, but abstract the process so that new players don’t have to pore over equipment lists. Characters can also carry an absurd amount of weight on them while being able to pull any item out of their pack in 6 seconds. However, the thing 5e does care about are magic items, hence the attunement system. In other words, you will probably be able to say to a dm that you had a piece of chalk in your pack and it’s not a big deal, but will not be able to say that your character probably also has a magical shield. So, overall, the level of detail in the inventory system tells us what the game is about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I actually think this last question speaks to the design intent of various editions of dnd. The equipment list in 5e is largely vestigial. Selecting specific items from that list was important in b/x and ad&d, because each item could be used to solve particular problems (throwing ball bearings (?) on the ground while running away, flour for invisible things, multiple ways to set everything on fire, etc). The higher level version of this are the detailed charts for building a stronghold.

But these 1e problems are simply not problems in 5e, especially past 2nd level (to your disguise kit example, my current 5e pc has a disguise kit…which was made irrelevant by a 2nd level invocation that lets me cast disguise self at will). The various packs and kits are there to provide flavor and define the character a bit at the start, but abstract the process so that new players don’t have to pore over equipment lists. Characters can also carry an absurd amount of weight on them while being able to pull any item out of their pack in 6 seconds. However, the thing 5e does care about are magic items, hence the attunement system. In other words, you will probably be able to say to a dm that you had a piece of chalk in your pack and it’s not a big deal, but will not be able to say that your character probably also has a magical shield. So, overall, the level of detail in the inventory system tells us what the game is about.

Well, it certainly matters to me, and is a major factor in my love of Level Up, which has a much more robust gear system and equipment list. That version of D&D is certainly not interested in vagueness to anywhere near WotC's level.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I haven't hidden it; I've addressed it all along.

I appreciate the attempt to look like you're being magnanimous in taking what I say as what I mean and for dropping the argument you put forwards. It's a really favor you've done me?

Oh, man, this is ironic. I mean, I could actually go through and point out where you're taking things out of the full context, attempted to recontextualize them, and then build a different narrative, but I think I'll stick to the much easier point -- if you afforded this thinking to my posts as well, then your complaints are as groundless as you say mine are. That's a nice heaping of special pleading.

Mod Note:

You COULD have responded to FrogReaver’s posts solely based on their content. Instead, in this and several other posts you made in response to FR were made personal. Sometimes more than once in a post.

So, for multiple infractions of making the discussion about the poster instead of the content of their posts, you’re no longer welcome in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

One doesn't even have to get that specific. None of the Artisan Tools are detailed beyond "These Special tools include the items needed to pursue a craft or trade." So, what exactly is in a "Carpenter's tools"? Or a "Mason's Tools"?

D&D has a long history of being pretty vague about the stuff that isn't specifically related to combat. Even going back to AD&D, there were all sorts of stuff that weren't really specified. And, as D&D has developed over the years in response to how tables actually play the game, rather than trying to force a particular style of play onto the players, it has become more and more vague about the stuff that, most of the time, really doesn't matter.

The rest of your post gets into stuff about the culture of D&D play and D&D GMing that I'm not really qualified to comment on.

But this is directly relevant to the discussion of inventory rules: one difference between D&D and BitD is that the latter permits the fleshing out of equipment details to take place in respect of stuff that clearly does matter. And without any ambiguity over what the process is for doing that.

That's an interesting difference that might be worth discussing. But it has nothing to do with "retconning" or with things "popping into existence".

I actually think this last question speaks to the design intent of various editions of dnd. The equipment list in 5e is largely vestigial.

<snip>

The various packs and kits are there to provide flavor and define the character a bit at the start, but abstract the process so that new players don’t have to pore over equipment lists.

<snip>

the thing 5e does care about are magic items, hence the attunement system. In other words, you will probably be able to say to a dm that you had a piece of chalk in your pack and it’s not a big deal, but will not be able to say that your character probably also has a magical shield.

I've snipped your post down to these core bits, because - unless I've misunderstood your overall point quite badly - they seem to suggest the gap between D&D and BitD in respect of specificity of authorship of equipment is more narrow than some posters in this thread have implied.

But they also suggest that the (or at least a) key difference is when authorship of the possession of equipment that matters takes place at the table, in relation to when it matters.

A typical crunch point in D&D, I think, would be when - for whatever bizarre reason - having the piece of chalk would be crucial to saving the PCs' lives, and no equipment list mentions chalk, but there seems to be no particular reason why a PC couldn't have some. That is, some piece of equipment that typically doesn't matter suddenly, and unexpectedly, does.

Different tables might go different ways, from if it's not already on your list, you don't have it to make a percentage chance roll, to OK, fair enough - you've thought of a clever solution and I'm not going to stymie it just because everyone was careless about something we don't normally care about, namely, mundane equipment. But no one would think that the second or third option meant that the chalk suddenly "popped into existence"! Which is my point - BitD is a systematised variant on the second and third options, but no different from them in respect of the nature of the authorship of the relevant fiction.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why do you constantly talk like this?

Again, why do you constantly talk like this?

Mod Note:

And here, we have FrogReaver getting personal, again, more than once.

People, if you’re feeling the urge to post like this, DON’T. Address the substance of the post, or if you find it to be some kind of bait, leave it alone and- if necessary- report it.

Because honestly, getting personal with another poster because they got personal with you first is NOT a defense against moderation.