D&D General Weapons should break left and right

How many hunters used a sword? Compared to using a spear? After all, many of the things D&D characters fight are not humanoid. Swords would be my last choice of a weapon vs most non-humanoids. Imagine trying to fight a wyvern with a sword. But, the romance version of swords makes it not just a viable option, but, in most versions of D&D, the best option.

Characters can go from fighting humans to wyverns to oozes to rat swarms. The game doesn't get into the level of detail to give people a reason to equip their characters with weapons to have specific weapons for each.

And, as far as academics go, might I suggest reading The ARMA site? It's by far the best research there is on things weapony and medieval.

Thanks for proof positive that you obviously ignored the article I linked to because apparently you've already decided and no evidence or expert opinion is going to change your mind. The article was from the ARMA site. https://www.thearma.org/essays/The_Sword_in_War.html
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The question is therefore - could we develop an inventory system that's of fairly low overhead at the table (so the cost of using it is fairly low) that produces the same kind of compelling questions for the player and evokes the similar "realistic" concerns for the characters?
i don't think slot based carry capacity is something that would jive all that well in DnD because characters tend to pick up all sorts of weird bits and bobs but i think simplifying encumbrance into basic weight points could work, a longsword is 3 weight, an adventurer's pack is 5, combine that with depletion die mechanic for things like rations, ammo and torches, no tracking individual weights you either have them or you don't and they all weigh whatever they weigh until you use up 'your last one'.
 

Keep in mind Lanefan has zero issue with a character being or becoming useless randos with a crossbow. The notion is you go into a dungeon with six spells, 20 pieces of ammo, a dagger and a reinforced walking stick and Gods help you if you don't make it back out by the time you are used or broken all of that.
And my point is that this is very gamist approach that doesn't really mesh with pretty much any arguments about why pcs should be forced to trace ammo and weapons should break. All arguments about what it takes to be able to construct an arrow we had for last several pages, are arguments for simulationist approach, where game tries to built most realistic world possible. None of that works with the "old school osr" approach you are describing, at their core they want two different things.
 

And my point is that this is very gamist approach that doesn't really mesh with pretty much any arguments about why pcs should be forced to trace ammo and weapons should break. All arguments about what it takes to be able to construct an arrow we had for last several pages, are arguments for simulationist approach, where game tries to built most realistic world possible. None of that works with the "old school osr" approach you are describing, at their core they want two different things.
Oh, I agree 110%. I'm just pointing out OS players are very attached to the idea that a class should be good at exactly one thing and dog water in all others rather than a general competence with areas of specialization like modern gaming assumes.
 

One of the most compelling inventory management systems I've seen comes in the computer game Darkest Dungeon - for those unfamiliar it's a cosmic horror dungeon crawling game where the player manages a roster of heroes, choosing 4 each week to traverse procedurally generated dungeons to recover loot which they need to upgrade their home base, unlocking upgrades for the heroes which are then needed to challenge more difficult dungeons until they are ready to face the eponymous Darkest Dungeon itself. They begin each traversal by purchasing supplies and end each with (hopefully!) bags full of loot. It's a model we can recognise in structure if not detail from a fairly stereotypical D&D-like RPG.

The inventory system has a few major factors
  • Slot based - every item stacks to a different amount (so food stacks to 12 units, torches to 8, firewood for camping to 1, loot gems to 5, "permanent magic items" (trinkets) to 1 and so on) and is unique in a slot
  • Limited slots - you have 16 total slots to hold both provisions and loot
  • Any inventory item discarded is lost
  • Any loot obtained must be picked up before moving on from an encounter is lost (there's a slight exception to this with camping, but it's quite minor)
  • All provisions have defined and useful mechanical effects
  • Running out of provisions leaves the party very vulnerable
  • Provisions are (fairly) expensive and cannot be stockpiled between runs - any left at the end are sold at a fraction of their cost
  • Obtaining more provision in a dungeon is possible but unreliable - plus it often relies on additional provision usage (medicinal herbs to make safe tainted food, for example)
  • Possibly most importantly, It is not possible to significantly escape the confines of the system (there's a couple of minor things that allow you to increase the stack sizes, but that's it) No bags of holding, no hirelings carrying loot, no mules or carts.
These together are largely utterly unrealistic - purely gamist constructs. Why shouldn't I be able to put a ruby and emerald in the same pocket? Why can't I hang on to my unused torches and shovels? Why can't I leave caches of supplies or loot behind and pick them up later (we might posit wandering monsters clearing them up, the game has them, but it happens immediately with no chance of failure)?

Taken together however, they produce an experience that I think evokes the thoughts and behaviours that we'd like to experience with an inventory system

  • Preparation is important - too few supplies is dangerous, too many is wasteful. The right mix of supplies is also of critical importance.
  • Rationing of supplies is important - it's often possible to obtain extra loot by non-critical use of a provision but doing so may lead to danger later when the provision is needed. Conversely, not taking advantage of opportunities risks the provision being wasted
  • Choosing what loot to take and what to leave is important - because of the stacking rules picking up a ruby might prevent you from picking up a jade, but if you never find another ruby and find several jades, you'll have missed out on an opportunity for more value
  • Choosing when to discard provisions in favour of loot is a continual battle - there's typically more loot in a dungeon than you can carry out, but if you wait until your provisions run out naturally then you risk leaving behind valuable or rare pieces that you might not find again.
  • You are incentivised to use provisions - any left over are lost so there's no hanging onto a potion forever for "just the right time"
Overall, this results in an experience where the player can learn and exhibit skill at play and where they are continually faced with weighty and fairly difficult choices. It also invokes what we might feel is a fairly "realistic" set of pressures - our heroes, in a treacherous and deadly environment scrabbling for what resources they can, leaving dead weight behind for the valuables they seek.

To bring it to the topic of the actual thread, it's worth noting that weapon degradation and ammunition tracking are not part of this at all, but in theory could be.

The question is therefore - could we develop an inventory system that's of fairly low overhead at the table (so the cost of using it is fairly low) that produces the same kind of compelling questions for the player and evokes the similar "realistic" concerns for the characters?

Yeah, but your scientists game designers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. ;)
 

Why? It doesn't make sense for an archmage to simply forget how to do most basic things, because he did one of them five times this very day. Cantrips are realistic and beleivable about worldbuilding regarding magic users.
I'm not saying cantrips are a worldbuilding problem (although infinite elemental damage from even the least experienced caster could be a setting issue). I'm saying my aesthetic preference is for magic to not be omnipresent, that sometimes you run out of juice and have to resort to mundane means. If you want magic pew-pew, have there be a leveled spell that let's you make magical attacks for like 1 minute. You can still do it, but it actually costs you something.
Then you want nothing to do with D&D, at least until they own the IP. And they're not giving it up.
Not moving forward, no. They did invent a ruleset (5e) I quite like when other people develop it though.
 

But it does fit the simulationsit approach. If you want the game where you need to track every arrow and weapons break, then it doesn't make sense for wizard to be operating by video game logic where he spots being wizard, turns into a Joe Schmoe and picks a crossbow once he runs out of arbitrary number of spells to cast.
Why not? So long as your rules for magic are consistent they can be perfectly simulationist. It's just preference.
 

Yes but my experience was that unless you were a sword and boarder with heavy armour it was easy to just not think about it since we weren't going for a survival campaign in a 2014 campaign.

I had a oneshot with 2024 but we weren't even tracking it.
So it wasn't important in the specific style of campaign you were in? Good for you. Survival elements are always part of my campaigns.
 

I'm not saying cantrips are a worldbuilding problem (although infinite elemental damage from even the least experienced caster could be a setting issue). I'm saying my aesthetic preference is for magic to not be omnipresent, that sometimes you run out of juice and have to resort to mundane means. If you want magic pew-pew, have there be a leveled spell that let's you make magical attacks for like 1 minute. You can still do it, but it actually costs you something.

Not moving forward, no. They did invent a ruleset (5e) I quite like when other people develop it though.
You could have climate change due to runaway elemental damage.
 

Because Lanefan believes in the idea that it's easier to remove than add in houserules, so any kind of old rule shouldn't be abandoned or removed--good or bad for the customer base's play experience. Especially since he's a fan of the old-style

I however, am an anti-fan, so I want those stuff removed or marginalized since I want D&D to move towards the 'new-school' style where long-term resource management and down-to-earth survival style of play is practically excised. I'm the Tyrant of Fun basically.
Couldn't you just play a game that operates in your preferred approach already, or play D&D that way at your own table? Why does D&D have to change for everybody to suit your desires?
 

Remove ads

Top