Yeah, that's kind of the intention. The setting is designed to promote the play style and the mechanics. The city is for all intents and purposes closed off from the rest of the world. So the Crew can't simply get out of dodge when things start to get hairy. They have to deal with the repercussions of their actions. This is why I wouldn't say that the game is not a serial because new events very much flow from what's already happened. This happens both mechanically, and in what the players and GM decide to bring to the game.Ah, OK.
So a completely different setting as well, then, from the typical pseudo-medieval or pseudo-renaissance D&D. Got it.
Given this, then short missions being the basis of (most) play makes much more sense.
So an area of attack spell could basicalyl destroy all their stuff? Do you ever have someone run off with one of their backpacks? I would assume that theft would be a motivator for at least some opponents...bandits or goblins and the like....so the PCs dropping their gear would seem a prime opportunity to grab some and go. Do you use a map and minis? Do you mark where the PCs have dropped their gear?What is this thing you call "flee"?
Unless there's extenuating curcumstances it's easy to assume they swoop by and at least pick up their packs on the way out. Where it gets nasty is if the foe has a teleporting effect when it hits an opponent...but even then not all their gear is lost - they'd still have whatever they were wearing, and what they had in hand, and what they had in small containers e.g. belt pouches or scabbards. But it's still a headache for the characters.
One effect dropping gear does have is that if the dropped gear gets hit by an AoE effect its saves are "unattended" i.e. it doesn't get any bonuses that the owner might give it were it being carried.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's perfect. It just seems a little better than ignoring it all.
It sounds to me like you've kind of abstracted this for ease of playing a game, is that right?
I think it's fine if that's the case.....but again, this seems really more a question of preference. There's a nod to cause and effect, but ultimately what you're doing is more about making the game simpler to play.
Right....this seems to me an acknowledgement that it's about play preference. "I like my inventory management system to be a bit more involved" versus "I like my inventory management system to be simplified".In a broad sense, I agree. The question then is one of granularity in detail.
Well the classic idea of "murderhobos" is based on the idea that the PCs are wanderers. And I don't mean to say your game is anything like that, but I think the idea of the party wandering from location to location and getting into adventures is still relevant even when not taken to that extreme.IME that would be unusual. The home base might not be the same for every character, mind you, but most if not all characters have a base of some sort.
Your PCs have castles that they use as bases of operations. My D&D party does as well....but they still tend to leave their base with everything they think they'll need, and that list generally remains static for each character except maybe for some consumable items, or the occasional piece of specific gear based on their expected destination. I admit that we don't track inventory very closely because as a group we've found that to be more tedious than engaging, but that's just our preference. So we kind of eyeball it, so to speak.
Yeah, this is a big part of it. Each playbook/class in the game has an area of focus, and their XP triggers, abilities, and gear are all themed on that focus. So the lock picks are only available to the Lurk (similar to a thief or rogue) as a free inventory item, any other playbook would have to spend an inventory slot on Burglary Gear to have access to lockpicks. The other playbooks have access to other specific items suited to their focus, and so on.To keep the example simple I've been assuming this score was being done by a character acting alone. Once you get a whole party involved then yes, it would be possible to cover way more eventualities in either system simply by having different people carry different things: "Joe, you take the cracker tools. Cindy, you're on ropes. Bobbie, pitons and grapnels are yours. Pips, you're the bagman once we get in. I'll worry about lights and covers. Everyone got a weapon and face charcoal? Right, let's go!"
And that's where the choice comes into play. In a D&Desque game, the resolution of the dog situation is pretty much decided when the player picks his gear before the adventure starts. He either has some food that the dog may like or he doesn't (obviously there are other class abilities and so on that can be used, but just for the sake of argument let's say no magic and no ranger abilities are available). In Blades, this challenge of how to deal with the dog creates a decision for the player....do I devote inventory space to deal with this dog effectively, or do I try to sneak around it or fight it, and risk it alerting the bad guys? This may be an easy decision for some, or a difficult one for others, depending on other factors at play.But yes, the character could decide to kill the dog - or try to - and risk a lot of noise; or could even try to tame or befriend the dog, again at some risk if the attempt fails.
So this is a game mechanic that provides the player with a meaningful decision as a player...which is good for a game....but which can be supported by the fiction either way.
I get that these "quantum inventory slots" seem unrealistic at the surface, but I think when you consider what they are meant to represent, then they make a lot more sense....much like HP or AC make sense but are abstractions.