OK, sounds good.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.
Something here doesn't make sense to me, or maybe I'm reading you wrong, but shouldn't all decisions and choices ideally be based on RP-only reasons, if one is indeed assuming the role of one's character?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.
OK, again sounds good.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.
In short, from the way you put this BitD is designed to be episodic rather than serial in play. How hard does the system fight back if you try to make it more serial in play e.g. what was intended to be a score turns into something more resembling a full-on dungeon crawl that takes several sessions to play out?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.
Agreed. My point was that we're not just the audience (which to me implies passivity and non-participation), we're also collectively and individually the active entertainers participating in - and often improvising - the show.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.
We always assume that the reason characters (and often their foes) almost never get full attack sequences in the first round* is that part of that first round is spent shrugging off and-or dropping such bulky gear and getting ready to fight; along with drawing weapons, fishing out spell components, etc.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.
* - probably a house rule, I forget where it came from but we've done it that way forever.
More abstract, and from what I can tell also somewhat more metagame. The decisions seem to be more play-based than character-based, if that makes any sense.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.
Once the low-level days have passed each character tends to settle in to having its own standard inventory that doesn't change often; but said inventory is different for every character. We haven't really ever gone in for things like standardized "adventuring kits".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?
For characters who own more than they can carry - i.e. most of 'em! - it's ideally expected that the character sheet shows what's on board in the field vs what's been left back at home or base. Ideally. Player recordkeeping deficiencies sometimes make things less than ideal...some are far more meticulous about this than others...
Thing is, in our games bringing gear into the field carries the risk that it'll be blown up by a lucky AoE spell of some sort (which is another common reason we need to know what you're carrying!). Some players have their characters intentionally leave backup resources at home or base for just this reason.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?
But yes, most of the time the characters pack along everythng they can.
My hypothetical example, however, was trying to show the difference in what would happen in a situation that was unforeseen or unexpected.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.
If the system in effect mandates that the first [number of slots available] situations encountered will always be assumed to have been foreseen and-or expected, that to me blows authenticity out of the water. Sometimes in a real situation it might be the very first obstacle that catches the character unprepared - in my example, maybe she meets the unexpected guard dog on the way in rather than on the way out - and unless there's more to it I can't see how BitD can reflect this provided the character has any unallocated slots left.
From a meta perspective it also comes down to a table-level guessing game for both the player(s) and the GM as to how many slots to have vs how many different types of obstacles* to throw at them. Teh same can be said for D&D, of course, but it's not as cut-and-dried.
* - if the max number of slots is 7 does that in effect limit the GM as to how many different-gear-requiring types of obstacles she can put in the way, or is a truly nasty GM allowed to put in 8 or more and thus guarantee failure?
EDIT TO ADD: Another aspect is information. The BitD version seems to assume that if the character happens to have some meat on hand then the character knew there was (or could be) a dog involved. The D&D version allows for this information to either have been a) kept intentionally hidden or b) be available to discover but outright missed during the research-and-casing phase. To me this makes the D&D version more authentic in that the character can make a mistake or be caught by an oversight.