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

[Numidius]

It's like playing D&D has to be a cargo-cult homage to the experience of designing D&D.

See also: Phylogeny and Ontogeny of D&D

 

[Numidius]

Egads! If you're throwing arrows you might as well not even have them! [emoji14]

[emoji14] Right

I don't always throw my arrows, but, when do, I keep track of them.

 

[Aldarc]

This is why I don't agree with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] that D&D-style resource tracking is more realistic. That degree of rational control over one's resources is unrealistic even for a modern bureaucracy, let alone the notional fiction of a typical fantasy RPG.

To [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s credit, I believe that he does attempt to account for this, at least along some axes of play. He has alluded to the destruction of resources and spellbooks caused by AoE spells. But these are part of his own house rules rather than a representation of RAW.

I was also struck by the irony of this:

D&D is full of elements whose principle function is to circumvent what would otherwise - at least notionally - be an element of play:

If tracking encumbrance is boring, then why make it (pseudo-)mandatory for the first N levels of each campaign before dropping it?

I agree. I'm not the biggest fan of these magical work-arounds for this reason. It is definitely interesting how so many "classic" magical items or spells were likely created for the sole purpose of the players and GM to circumvent the resource management mini-game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s credit, I believe that he does attempt to account for this, at least along some axes of play. He has alluded to the destruction of resources and spellbooks caused by AoE spells. But these are part of his own house rules rather than a representation of RAW.

I agree. I'm not the biggest fan of these magical work-arounds for this reason. It is definitely interesting how so many "classic" magical items or spells were likely created for the sole purpose of the players and GM to circumvent the resource management mini-game.

Yeah, I agree. As time has gone on, I've looked at those kinds of elements over the years and thought about the value of introducing some kind of complication (carrying capacity/encumbrance) which was mostly annoying to track and manage, and then introducing a solution to the problem in the form of a magic item. It just seems annoying, and then the resolution of the problem comes from some external boon from the DM anyway, so it's not even like a limitation that the PCs work to overcome.

I decided a long time ago to simply remove the carrying capacity/encumbrance rules as they were, and simply allow people to carry whatever they wanted, and apply only a kind of "common sense" limit to the items.

Then, when players would invariably try to "add" an item to their character's inventory when that item proved to be needed in play, I just started allowing it. Why wouldn't they have a rope? Would it be better for play to deny them the rope? Probably not.

Then when games started tinkering with the idea of inventory slots, or load, it was just a more formalized method of what my group had already started doing.

Thinking about the different sides of the discussion, I think this kind of captures a big part of the divide. So many folks have tweaked D&D to make it do what they want to avoid these kinds of "fiddly" or otherwise boring (for them) mechanics. But they're just used to this because it's been something they've kind of done over time, and it's more like a house rule which maybe makes it less real or official in some way, maybe?

But if you formalize it and put it in the rules from the start, it seems odd because it basically immediately does what most are used to doing themselves over time, with all manner of minor justifications along the way.

Just a thought.

 

[chaochou]

You keep projecting these pejorative onto peoples’ Preferences.

Well, then. Why don't you react when people's play gets called 'ridiculously unrealistic' completely without foundation.

Your sense of the perjorative is utterly one-sided and one-eyed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, then. Why don't you react when people's play gets called 'ridiculously unrealistic' completely without foundation.

Your sense of the perjorative is utterly one-sided and one-eyed.

If you point out this post, I am happy to react. I don't read every post on a given thread. I read mainly the posts that are responses to my own or ones that catch my eye. I simply don't have the time to follow every response. I've tried to be clear that I don't think there is anything wrong with these other types of play. I am just trying to put forward what I like. But I don't see you reacting to the pejoratives used by your side of the debate either.

 

[chaochou]

But I don't see you reacting to the pejoratives used by your side of the debate either.

That's because I'm not the one bleating about perjoratives - that's you.

I'm simply highlighting the hypocrisy of complaining about just one set of perjoratives while feigning ignorance of the rest.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's because I'm not the one bleating about perjoratives - that's you.

I'm simply highlighting the hypocrisy of complaining about just one set of perjoratives while feigning ignorance of the rest.

I am not a fan of pejoratives in these discussions, regardless of who it is from. And the few times I've seen someone on my side say something I disagree with, I've posted a response. I am focusing more on one side, because I've been in a debate with Pemerton. So that is where my focus is. Plus I am not omnipotent and have not read every single post. If you have a post you want me to react to, feel free to share it.

 

[pemerton]

You keep projecting these pejorative onto peoples’ Preferences. Is it any wonder they don’t embrace your ideas?

When you start policing tone and courtesy without discrimination (eg where is your outrage at [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] calling the levels of drama in my game ridiculous?) then I might take these sorts of comments seriously.

As far as embracing my ideas is concerned, I'm very happy with the number of posters who, over the years, have acknowledged my contributions and/or thanked me for ideas that they have adapted into their games.

EDIT: I notice that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] has made the same comment as I have done. Thanks chaochou!

 

[Bedrockgames]

When you start policing tone and courtesy without discrimination (eg where is your outrage at [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] calling the levels of drama in my game ridiculous?) then I might take these sorts of comments seriously.

As far as embracing my ideas is concerned, I'm very happy with the number of posters who, over the years, have acknowledged my contributions and/or thanked me for ideas that they have adapted into their games.

EDIT: I notice that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] has made the same comment as I have done. Thanks chaochou!

Your ideas are great. I have no problem with your ideas. But you have a tendency to be extremely dismissive and insulting to people who have different gaming preferences than you.

And if Maxperson said that, I disagree with him. But it is also coming after two threads of you crapping on what he likes in games.