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

[AbdulAlhazred]

And for the record, I don't use component bags. For me it is more immersive to use the actual components.

Right, so we played a LOT of D&D/AD&D and there are a LOT of spell component rules. The problem is, they are kinda like the training rules... Honestly I don't even think Gygax really took that stuff too seriously in play. I mean, its not even just a little hard to implement! There's dozens, at high levels hundreds, of components to consider and no rules at all for their acquisition. I mean, it SOUNDS cool, but if you actually religiously attempt to keep any sort of accurate reckoning of what you have its worse than a nightmare! My conclusion was, and mostly how we played was, that the GM sort of just let you slide on exactly what you had. If you need 1000gp pearl, well that might be a problem, but a pinch of bat guano? How much is a pinch? How hard is it to find? Do people sell bat guano? I mean, who knows, dude you got some! Maybe if you devise a plan that somehow involves shooting fireballs all day, you might run into a problem, perhaps, if the GM really wants to go there.

Stuff like spikes and tinderboxes and crap, its pretty much the same thing. Yeah, maybe you write it all down on your sheet at level 1, but you never ever go back and worry about it ever again. When door spiking time comes up, you're covered. Do you ever run out? Hell no! I can attest that 99.9% of all AD&D games ever run work exactly like this, I must have played in AT LEAST 100 different games, with easily 40 different DMs. Yeah, 1 or 2, always new to DMing, did the old GUNG HO INVENTORY! thing, for about the first 3 sessions. Then they learned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, so we played a LOT of D&D/AD&D and there are a LOT of spell component rules. The problem is, they are kinda like the training rules... Honestly I don't even think Gygax really took that stuff too seriously in play. I mean, its not even just a little hard to implement! There's dozens, at high levels hundreds, of components to consider and no rules at all for their acquisition. I mean, it SOUNDS cool, but if you actually religiously attempt to keep any sort of accurate reckoning of what you have its worse than a nightmare! My conclusion was, and mostly how we played was, that the GM sort of just let you slide on exactly what you had. If you need 1000gp pearl, well that might be a problem, but a pinch of bat guano? How much is a pinch? How hard is it to find? Do people sell bat guano? I mean, who knows, dude you got some! Maybe if you devise a plan that somehow involves shooting fireballs all day, you might run into a problem, perhaps, if the GM really wants to go there.

Stuff like spikes and tinderboxes and crap, its pretty much the same thing. Yeah, maybe you write it all down on your sheet at level 1, but you never ever go back and worry about it ever again. When door spiking time comes up, you're covered. Do you ever run out? Hell no! I can attest that 99.9% of all AD&D games ever run work exactly like this, I must have played in AT LEAST 100 different games, with easily 40 different DMs. Yeah, 1 or 2, always new to DMing, did the old GUNG HO INVENTORY! thing, for about the first 3 sessions. Then they learned.

I'm glad you're having fun playing that way, but I frankly don't care how popular my style is. I would rather not be told my way is something you to learn not to do, however.

 

[Malmuria]

I'm glad you're having fun playing that way, but I frankly don't care how popular my style is. I would rather not be told my way is something you to learn not to do, however.

I could see how tracking spell components could be fun. What does that look like in your game? Does the wizard spend turns in the dungeon looking for specific components? How do you organize and keep track of it all? Do they have to have special containers to store the components?

I guess in AD&D a round was 1 minute, so it's more plausible that someone could pull out a component to cast a spell. Plus you could interrupt casters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm glad you're having fun playing that way, but I frankly don't care how popular my style is. I would rather not be told my way is something you to learn not to do, however.

Yeah, and I haven't dissed it. I don't think anyone here has. I think it has somewhat limited applicability in terms of there is a very certain type of game where its a big thing, but IME that is a pretty niche sort of play. Like if you play Torchbearer, then by gosh you will absolutely have a 100% detailed inventory, except even in TB2 you have 'tools' as this sort of weird untracked thing. Still, the game really is about running out of stuff, like that's the main thing that happens "crap, we're out of torches, things are about to get bad..."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I could see how tracking spell components could be fun. What does that look like in your game? Does the wizard spend turns in the dungeon looking for specific components? How do you organize and keep track of it all? Do they have to have special containers to store the components?

I guess in AD&D a round was 1 minute, so it's more plausible that someone could pull out a component to cast a spell. Plus you could interrupt casters.

It was clearly intended to limit and possibly foil casters, yes. You had to have pouches such on your person, which could obviously be lost. If you were captured or whatever then you are suddenly limited to either scrounging for materials, or coming up with spells that don't require them (there are some). While there were no explicit rules for doing things like substitutions or skimping on stuff that would be a whole other dimension that is opened up. However, none of that is really enhanced by super assiduous tracking of every owlbear feather or pinch of dust. I mean, you CAN definitely track EVERYTHING, though you will run into some issues. The problem is, what are you then playing, clerks and cupboards? I mean, is it really the exciting game you want to play where it basically rewards super-accurate book keeping? Generally, no.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, and I haven't dissed it. I don't think anyone here has. I think it has somewhat limited applicability in terms of there is a very certain type of game where its a big thing, but IME that is a pretty niche sort of play. Like if you play Torchbearer, then by gosh you will absolutely have a 100% detailed inventory, except even in TB2 you have 'tools' as this sort of weird untracked thing. Still, the game really is about running out of stuff, like that's the main thing that happens "crap, we're out of torches, things are about to get bad..."

I would abstract that a bit. Make note of the components you have, refill them when you can, and use them in your descriptive text when you cast a spell. If you go a long time without refilling them, I would be fine if the DM called that out and said I no longer had what I needed, and if I could have done so and didn't, it would be my fault.

Component bags are a "spells on" button, and they bug me, so I don't use them. I just built a wizard for a new campaign who doesn't use attack cantrips, because imo they're cheap (although i wouldn't force that one on players). Its just how I roll.

 

[Arilyn]

Personally, I always felt that in a game that doesn't worry about whet stones, wrecked armour and has shields that last indefinitely, it's kind of rough to make wizards worry about spell components, spellbooks and special expensive inks, etc. Plus a lot of components are just silly and impractical. I feel it'd be best to ditch the whole concept, except for rituals and the rare spells that require expensive components because they punch above their weight class.

 

[pemerton]

I would abstract that a bit. Make note of the components you have, refill them when you can, and use them in your descriptive text when you cast a spell. If you go a long time without refilling them, I would be fine if the DM called that out and said I no longer had what I needed, and if I could have done so and didn't, it would be my fault.

I'm not seeing how this is very different from BitD inventory, except instead of a check, availability is based around a GM judgement call.

 

[Morrus]

Oh, that's a great point! You can't understand a game without reading the whole thing -- just a chapter isn't enough. I suppose, now that you have had this revelation, you'll stop asking people to explain play to you piecemeal and accept you don't get it at all until you've had time for serious reading?

Or was that just a specious argument thrown out because you have no intention of looking at it and just want someone to say some magical set of words that you can put together to dismiss the whole thing. Like how you have a very bad take on the BitD loadout system but yet feel confident in dismissing it as an unserious game only suited for zany cartoon antics? Which, by the way, is extremely dismissive of anyone that feels BitD actually delivers on it's promise of grim and gritty life of a criminal. So, yeah, protip, if you don't want to look like you're dismissing people's play, don't use terms to describe it like not "serious" or "cartoon" or "zany" or "unpleasant." No amount of appealing to the Dude makes this less dismissive.

Back off, please.

 

[Cadence]

Trying to completely drop my D&D thoughts and thinking of crime/mystery/action movies...

For a system like BitD, if the players are searched competently, I assume any sizable unspecified-inventory object would have been found. (Similarly for a metal object if they went through a metal detector). If they haven't specified they're carrying the object by that time, can they have it stashed ahead somewhere due to good planning (say they had access to the building last week and have it hidden above one of the hundreds of ceiling tiles that surely wouldn't be).

If yes to that, but they didn't have personal access to the building could they have bribed a janitor to put it in? Or sent it by courier to arrive Friday just at close for someone they knew left the office early? If it's a building they didn't know they were going to in advance are they SOL, or can it be likely to be found in some places in the building if it is plausible it would be there?

---

Thinking about "genre conventions" and what mechanics I would want in a game emulating one of my favorite series...

The written Nero Wolfe detective stories are always narrated from the character Archie's point of view. And after a while it would be odd to find that he didn't have his lock picks/key set on him if investigating, or his gun if it was a murder case... but would be odd to have them if those things weren't true. And I think everything he carries or has is always pretty obvious and never bolstered by flashback. So the well planned but unspecified inventory doesn't feel like it would work in this very particular genre.

On the other hand, Archie can call on a few people for things that feel a bit fortuitous sometimes. Lon Cohen at the newspaper is often a vast source of knowledge on just about anything. And Lily Rowan often has contact with the monied. He also knows the house detectives at pretty much any hotel in Manhattan that it's needed and always seems to have a few (apparently) preset contacts to help him or a client shake a tail.

As for the other main character - Wolfe (who almost never leaves the house himself for business) often explicitly excludes Archie (and thus the reader) from some of the arrangements. So often the only clue that some piece of evidence might show up via another source is that Archie might notice some cash missing from the safe with a note that it was given to some other agent, or that he is told to get off a call. If it was a solo game playing Archie that would need to be worked in somehow too.