A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

You'll have to elaborate on your point, then. I took it to be that the presence of a whetstone on the gear list is not an implication that weapons need sharpening because it might be for sharpening kitchen knives instead.

That point has been made repeatedly by myself and others for hundreds, if not a thousand posts now. If you don't understand it yet, my telling it to you one more time won't help you.

 

[Lanefan]

It could, sure. It’s not meant to, but there’s no reason you couldn’t select all your gear prior to the score and have that gear be less useful.

The game does push players towards involving their characters flaws....each PC has a vice that influences them, and if they allow it to complicate matters for them, they get XP. PCs Could also suffer traumas through play, which will have a lasting negative impact on their personality.

OK, that helps.

I suppose this could manifest as devoting inventory space to less useful gear. For example, a PC with the Paranoid trauma might feel the need to carry around a ledger that details exactly how everyone is out to get him, or something similar.

One thing leaps to mind: if gear slots are that restricted it'd be hard to mechanically justify carrying items purely for flavour reasons only e.g. a prissy Elf that always has a complete personal-grooming kit on hand, along with his convention adventuring gear.

In a more D&D-like system using encumbrance and item weights, a character is free (or freer, anyway) to carry some non-essential lightweight gear and not be quite as deficient at dungeoneering or survival.

Sure...that’s why I mentioned edge cases. But what we’re talking about is a criminal pulling out some gear to help commit a crime. Not remotely unexpected stuff.

In general, no. In specific, however, there is (to me) a big difference in perception of realism/authenticity between having three open-ended slots which anything of any weight can end up in depending on what the character needs as she goes along, and having what amounts to a pre-determined weight allowance that can be made up of any combination and-or number of pieces of gear the character (pre-)selects.

Well my gaming time is not infinite, so I don’t agree with you there.

Well true, we're all going to die sometime. But unless you're getting close to that point it might as well be infinite - so if something takes three sessions to play through instead of one, so what? As long as everyone is engaged, where's the harm?

Also, I don’t think that’s the sole reason that we typically don’t see characters in fiction agonizing over the choices of what gear to bring. It’s not very entertaining in most cases, and it’s more dramatic for the audience to not know.

Perhaps; but in an RPG we're not the audience, we're the characters. Bit of a difference.

Yeah....all that can still happen in the game. These decisions are constantly coming up throughout play. When your PC runs into the wall he has to scale, he has to decide if the climbing gear is worth the inventory space. If he thinks it is, he marks it off and the character uses it. If not....if he thinks there’ll be other things he’ll need more, then he doesn’t take the climbing gear, and the character decides to look for another way around the wall.

So far, my BitD game has yielded much more meaningful decision points regarding gear. Each character has a good sized list to choose from, but only a few spaces. Where as I think in D&D, each character is more likely to be carrying around the full list of items, and never really has a decision to make. They just bring everything they have with them at all times.

Unless encumbrance rules are strictly enforced, I agree this can become a problem. Even bags of holding have limits.

I can understand that preference. I think you’d be surprised at how the BitD mechanic actually feels when you play it out. All my D&D players reacted similarly; at first they balked at the idea (“seems odd to not pick gear ahead of time”), then they saw it in play and thought it was something to exploit (“well we can just pick whatever gear we want at any time”), then they finally realized that it gave them flexibility and choice....but that their choices could have consequences.

And I can see how that would happen, certainly from an at-the-table point of view where the players have to sometimes agonize over these decisions. And from that aspect alone, it sounds great.

I guess my point is that a system like that seems to take those choices too far out of character - I'd rather see the players role-play their characters agonizing over these same decisions, maybe without as much information as they'd otherwise have.

For example, using the score again:

D&D - the character's done her research and realized she'll very likely need climbing gear, a crowbar, a towel or small blanket to muffle sounds, a bag to put the loot in, and some high-quality lockpicks - and so that (along with a small but nasty weapon and the blacked-out clothes she's wearing) is what she takes; intentionally leaving herself gobs of encumbrance headroom for all the loot she's about to steal! She gets in successfully (and in the process uses all the gear she brought other than her weapon; it turns out her research and casing were spot-on) and grabs the loot.

BitD - the character's done her research and realized there's a score to be had here, so she sets off. Being a cautious sort she decides weight be damned, I'm going 7 slots wide on this one. During the process she finds obstacles that require her to use climbing gear (slot 1), a crowbar to pry some bars loose over a window (2), a towel to muffle the sounds of the crowbar (3), her lockpicks (4), and a bag for the loot (5). She now has the loot in the bag (and thus the loot becomes part of slot 5; her weapon was in slot 6 all along).

Then just as she's making good her escape she meets a guard dog she had no previous knowledge of at all; the character looks for any sort of out-clause and (via whatever means) the GM ends up narrating that the dog looks hungry. The D&D character is likely hosed at this point as, having no idea there was a dog anywhere involved, she didn't think to bring any meat; while the BitD character, having one slot left, can simply put some meat in that slot (7), throw it to the dog, and escape.

This is the sort of thing that would bug me; that the BitD character just happens to have exactly what it needs when an unforseen or unexpected situation arises.

Obviously, had the BitD character foregone the weapon and only gone 5 slots wide the outcome would have been the same as in the D&D example, as she'd be out of slots by the time the dog showed up.

I hope you see what I'm getting at here.

 

[pemerton]

This is the sort of thing that would bug me; that the BitD character just happens to have exactly what it needs when an unforseen or unexpected situation arises.

But it's not unforeseen by the character. That's the point, really.

 

[Lanefan]

Yup. Prefering this kind of sim play is cool, but it doesn't make the fiction any more "realistic". You can do this and still have unrealistic outcomes (the fighter that survives the fireball but none of his gear does, frex).

Actually that example is quite realistic: the gear in effect sacrificed itself for the wearer. Similar to throwing a closed wooden box full of papers into a bonfire and then after a while suddenly realizing you weren't done with the papers yet - when you haul it back out of the fire the box could be burned beyond repair yet the papers inside might be mostly undamaged.

 

[Lanefan]

Well...

Even the 1e 01-30 quality BoH will accommodate 250 pounds worth of gear of up to 30 cubic feet. While you couldn't put ridiculous stuff in that space it is enough to hold a heck of a lot of ordinary dungeoneering type equipment. Enough that only highly unusual situations would require you to keep track of it beyond "when I go to town I replenish whatever was used up." You could carry 100's of feet of rope, dozens of spikes, many bags, backpacks, belts, pairs of spare boots, 100's of torches, dozens of flasks of oil, several lanterns, and many other supplies of a diverse nature without exceeding that limit.

If you are blessed with even an average bag of holding, up that to 500 pounds and 70 cubic feet, which certainly seems like enough to carry many suits of armor, a small arsenal of weapons, and all the stuff mentioned above.

500 pounds doesn't go far once you start racking up coinage.

Our most common uses for devices of holding are either a) a way for otherwise-spindly mage types to carry all their spellbooks or b) treasure holders, empty at the adventure's start and (with any luck!) full to bursting by the end.

And of course if you happen to be lucky enough to have a Portable Hole! Heh, forget it, you're set. The hole is presumably 6' in diameter, by 10' deep, which means a bit over 300 cubic feet in size and there is no weight limit. My 1e Wizard actually figured out how to equip a fairly usable magical laboratory in his!

Yeah, I've seen this sort of thing in play and were I the DM (I wasn't) I'd probably have an issue with it as to me the Hole is just that - a hole. Not a pit, and not a container. It's for sticking on a wall a la Bugs Bunny, to give you a tunnel or passage to somewhere on the other side.

Of course, all of these items could well be quite rare. Still, they do kinda pretty much subvert the basic logistics game.

Agreed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, that helps.

One thing leaps to mind: if gear slots are that restricted it'd be hard to mechanically justify carrying items purely for flavour reasons only e.g. a prissy Elf that always has a complete personal-grooming kit on hand, along with his convention adventuring gear.

I would say, in systems like this, that an item which has no story impact really doesn't NEED to be regulated. The character only carries one or two small 'mementos' because that comports with the dramatic RP aspect of it, but the rules needn't get involved.

In a more D&D-like system using encumbrance and item weights, a character is free (or freer, anyway) to carry some non-essential lightweight gear and not be quite as deficient at dungeoneering or survival.

I would think that something like a "personal grooming kit" would indeed be pretty negligible, but then again its possible for rule systems which are meant to create realism to discourage RP at times. I mean, pretty much any system that lets you pick a limited number of resources will do that, like skill systems. NOBODY has 'stamp collecting' as a skill. Of course my comment above can be applied here too, it is just often people are pretty literal-minded with these types of systems and forget that some leeway can exist and not break things.

 

[Sadras]

But, it's kinda not. The gear mechanic is very tightly tied into all the other mechanics such that, while it may appear super loose, it generates many hard choices as well and isn't nearly as loose in play as it looks in isolation.

When @hawkeyefan first mentioned the mechanic I pretty much realised how it could be used in a game and given your above post, this confirms it. It is an excellent mechanic!

Hard choices and integration can be incorporated in both gamist and more authentic mechanics.

But, that aside, your objection isn't one of "realism" but rather play focus. You may prefer the detailed planning and gearing and detailed encumberance, but in the fiction generated in play there's no realism difference. This is an argument about where we prefer to spend our game time.

Planning beforehand ticks more realism/authenticity boxes.
Play focus does not enter the conversation, it is a completely separate issue in this instance.

In the same vain one could have weapon slots so when you face undead, you can replace a weapon slot with an appropriate weapon that does significant damage to undead (i.e. bludgeoning).
Is this more authentic to you? I find the more you deviate from how things occur in RL, the more you tend towards a gamist system. Hard choices and integration are still there, and play focus has shifted, but this type of deviation leans more towards abstraction.

@Sadras Players that choose gear all by themselves before approaching a challenge, without a sort of linkage to how their characters would do it in their fictional world, looks pretty gamist to me.

In what way? I'm not following.
I would think adventurers would equip themselves between their travels. Are you inferring that they do not confer with each other or with others/specialists before equipping?

 

[Ovinomancer]

When @hawkeyefan first mentioned the mechanic I pretty much realised how it could be used in a game and given your above post, this confirms it. It is an excellent mechanic!

Hard choices and integration can be incorporated in both gamist and more authentic mechanics.

Planning beforehand ticks more realism/authenticity boxes.
Play focus does not enter the conversation, it is a completely separate issue in this instance.

But there is planning beforehand in both. It's a matter of play focus if that planning is something the player does at the table or the character does before the score, not "authenticity" or "realism". It's a play preference, not one of "realism." Switching to "authenticity" is just more hiding the pea.

In the same vain one could have weapon slots so when you face undead, you can replace a weapon slot with an appropriate weapon that does significant damage to undead (i.e. bludgeoning).
Is this more authentic to you? I find the more you deviate from how things occur in RL, the more you tend towards a gamist system. Hard choices and integration are still there, and play focus has shifted, but this type of deviation leans more towards abstraction.

As many of these things your talking about are narrativist tools, I feel that, once again, Forge-speak is a hinderance to discussion. I have no idea what you mean by "gamist" in this regard. I know what the Forge meant (as well as possible) but tgat diesn't seem to apply here. I'm really getting the vibe that you're using gamist to mean more like a game? That seems counterproductive when discussing ganes, though, so please elaborate.

In what way? I'm not following.
I would think adventurers would equip themselves between their travels.

Heh, Forge-speak, again. Numidus is closer to proper usage here than you've been, but your confused by his point (understandably). I'm pretty sure I see his point, but will defer to him (and you) to clarify without leaning on -ist terms.

 

[Aldarc]

Would you agree though, for the sake of the argument, if we look at D&D solely and said the next edition of D&D will either have an AC mechanic (as it does now) or every attack will be considered successful, no die roll required. If you have to compare those two scenarios - is one more realistic/authentic than the other or do you feel that still comes down to preferences: those that wish to role dice and those that don't.
Personally I feel at this point it cannot be just preferences and that there is a case for insert preferred buzzword, either wearing armour protects your character in some way, however abstract, or it is just cosmetic.

I apologize if it sounds as if I am talking about this obliquely or without candor, as I think that this issue is more complicated than more/less realism.

If we look at D&D solely, then we are looking at a system (or series of related systems throughout time) that has its own set of assumptions about the cultural norms, rationalities of the game, and how it nominally should function. However, if the next edition did not "have an AC mechanic (as it does now) or every attack will be considered successful, no die roll required" then I could not say with any certainty that the game is more or less realistic. Let me break the whole "D&D solely" stipulation.

There is an OSR lite game called "Into the Odd" that does feature damage rolls without attack rolls. Every attack is fundamentally successful such that it contributes to wearing down the hit points of the adventurer. In this way, every attack committed against you drains your endurance, whether you are "hit" or avoiding being hit per the fiction. So this not only speeds up combat but also discourages the perils of combat as the primary means to solve dungeon delving problems due to its lethality. I do not have my copy of the "book" on hand, so I cannot recall the benefits of armor, though I assume it is damage reduction. Despite the lack of "to hit" mechanics we could call this more realistic than AC because it reflects the "realism" of how physically draining combat is regardless of whether you are hit or not. But AC assumes that you do are not losing any HP (in the abstract or meat) regardless of how much you could be running around in combat or how many "hits" you may avoid.

(Also, armor is mostly cosmetic in Fate, but it include optional armor/weapon rules in Extras. And differences in combat ability is accounted for in the opposed rolls system. )

 

[Maxperson]

I would say, in systems like this, that an item which has no story impact really doesn't NEED to be regulated. The character only carries one or two small 'mementos' because that comports with the dramatic RP aspect of it, but the rules needn't get involved.

Until they are stuck and need a sharp implement to pick a lock, then suddenly the tooth of a comb or the tip of the grooming scissors can come in handy. The thing with picking gear in advance is that sometimes you will have what you need, and sometimes you have to be very creative. There have been countless times that I've poured over my character sheet over and over, wracking my brain for some way to use something on my sheet to get us out of our current situation.

When you pick gear in advance, creative thinking comes into play a lot. I don't see that happening as often if you just have a bunch of nebulous objects that will become whatever you need, unless you run out of those objects and just have the things you already morphed those objects into. How often can you restock on slots, and what happens to the objects you've created with the slots you've already used?