D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, I always felt that in a game that doesn't worry about whet stones, wrecked armour and has shields that last indefinitely, it's kind of rough to make wizards worry about spell components, spellbooks and special expensive inks, etc. Plus a lot of components are just silly and impractical. I feel it'd be best to ditch the whole concept, except for rituals and the rare spells that require expensive components because they punch above their weight class.

I would and do have rules covering gear maintenance as well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not seeing how this is very different from BitD inventory, except instead of a check, availability is based around a GM judgement call.

Because it happens when you're acquiring the items, and not during the op. Again, the BitD way is fine, for that game. But its not for everybody (clearly).

 

[Thomas Shey]

But to the best of my understanding every PC in BitD is an experienced crim. That's the premise of the game.

That actually in no way meaningful to the people responding, and thus changes my statement not really at all.

I have not asserted that there is no difference between any of these systems.

I've asserted two things:

(1) D&D (and CoC, and other "traditional" RPGs) is not a game where every bit of detail of what is carried has to be established prior to a player hoping to have it on their inventory list - and I've given numerous examples

And for the most part the examples you've used are either trivial or not on the same scale as what has been discussed. Assuming someone with a sword has a scabbard is not in the same class as assuming someone has a collapsible ladder just because they're a thief.

(2) BitD does not involve "retcons" of gear, nor gear "popping into existence".

While that's hyperbole on the people's part, the first part while not what I'll call a "retcon" is absolutely deciding things out of temporal sequence, and its certainly at least Shroedinger's Object.

You seem to agree with (1) in this post:

Only in the sense that I think the people using that are misusing the term, but I still understand what they're getting at; that the item is decided at the point of use, not at the point of acquisition.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, and I haven't dissed it. I don't think anyone here has. I think it has somewhat limited applicability in terms of there is a very certain type of game where its a big thing, but IME that is a pretty niche sort of play. Like if you play Torchbearer, then by gosh you will absolutely have a 100% detailed inventory, except even in TB2 you have 'tools' as this sort of weird untracked thing. Still, the game really is about running out of stuff, like that's the main thing that happens "crap, we're out of torches, things are about to get bad..."

Well, like I said, I suspect in most cases the "tools" issue is that even the designers don't really know what the hell to include there. This gets even more of a problem with specialized materials for, in some cases, fictional functions (what all is in a portable alchemy kit? Maybe a chemist could come up with some sort of a plausible list, but I doubt many other people could).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally, I always felt that in a game that doesn't worry about whet stones, wrecked armour and has shields that last indefinitely, it's kind of rough to make wizards worry about spell components, spellbooks and special expensive inks, etc. Plus a lot of components are just silly and impractical. I feel it'd be best to ditch the whole concept, except for rituals and the rare spells that require expensive components because they punch above their weight class.

Honestly, I suspect it was a combination of a subconscious recognition that even back in the day moderate level wizards could end up being the all-purpose power tools compared to other casters, and a bias lean in to sword and sorcery.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

While that's hyperbole on the people's part, the first part while not what I'll call a "retcon" is absolutely deciding things out of temporal sequence, and its certainly at least Shroedinger's Object.

Yeah, I should have thought of Schrodinger's Object instead of using the term retcon. My bad.

So um...sorry to...the universe? Yeah that'll cover everyone..I think...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thinking about "genre conventions" and what mechanics I would want in a game emulating one of my favorite series...

The written Nero Wolfe detective stories are always narrated from the character Archie's point of view. And after a while it would be odd to find that he didn't have his lock picks/key set on him if investigating, or his gun if it was a murder case... but would be odd to have them if those things weren't true. And I think everything he carries or has is always pretty obvious and never bolstered by flashback. So the well planned but unspecified inventory doesn't feel like it would work in this very particular genre.

On the other hand, Archie can call on a few people for things that feel a bit fortuitous sometimes. Lon Cohen at the newspaper is often a vast source of knowledge on just about anything. And Lily Rowan often has contact with the monied. He also knows the house detectives at pretty much any hotel in Manhattan that it's needed and always seems to have a few (apparently) preset contacts to help him or a client shake a tail.

As for the other main character - Wolfe (who almost never leaves the house himself for business) often explicitly excludes Archie (and thus the reader) from some of the arrangements. So often the only clue that some piece of evidence might show up via another source is that Archie might notice some cash missing from the safe with a note that it was given to some other agent, or that he is told to get off a call. If it was a solo game playing Archie that would need to be worked in somehow too.

Yeah, I am not 100% sure how I would handle all of that, based on just not having thought it through and not being an avid player of RPGs that are designed for that sort of genre. Thus I don't know what techniques have been developed. Still, its clearly a 'mystery of the week' sort of setup, and Archie doesn't generally decide what he's going to get involved in, his boss/patron does that (although some stories might not start out with Nero being the source of a 'quest'). I'd consider using a type of "Archie has what he needs" sort of system, personally. Likewise with contacts and such. I mean, maybe the mechanics involve being able to invoke them for help, but also needing to expend some 'social credit' or something for that, and maybe earning that in some manner, etc. Likewise with inventory, maybe he can have his 'usual stuff' basically as-needed but if he really suddenly needs a crowbar or some gold rings then it would be maybe some sort of resource mechanic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, like I said, I suspect in most cases the "tools" issue is that even the designers don't really know what the hell to include there. This gets even more of a problem with specialized materials for, in some cases, fictional functions (what all is in a portable alchemy kit? Maybe a chemist could come up with some sort of a plausible list, but I doubt many other people could).

As a chemist by education, yeah maybe I could suggest some things, but since alchemy is 'magical' it COULD include most anything in terms of say, reagents. In terms of say climbing gear, I have very little idea beyond 'ropes, pitons, and carabiners', but I have only really a notional idea how those are used, not having done any serious climbing. I suspect anyone could suggest some plausible carpenter's tools. One difficulty is that many of these items have a wide variety of potential 'off label' uses. I mean, hammers are surely part of carpenter's tools, but they also make a serviceable emergency weapon. The way games like 5e and TB2 handle this there's no provision for using them that way. It certainly isn't disallowed, but its not exactly clear how that would work. Beyond that, couldn't my carpentry hammer and some spikes help with a climbing task? I mean, maybe that kind of 'cross label use' isn't SUPER effective, but it could be better than nothing!

You can see why classic early Dungeon Crawl D&D wasn't super excited by the idea of having these sorts of 'kits', since it primarily wanted to use a pure 'solve problems narratively' kind of approach. Obviously that is where the whole 'everything must be exactly specified' point of view comes from.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To comment on the Blades in the Dark gear/loadout discussion, I’ll just say that while I understand that it’s not for everyone (no rule really is, right?) I have to say that I’ve found the Blades inventory management to be a far more compelling way of handling inventory than most games I’ve played.

The reason for this is that nearly every game I’ve ever played, there is at least some amount of handwaving going on. @Micah Sweet provided an example of spell components and how if the player hasn't restocked them in a while, the GM can just say that they no longer have those items. This is not an exact method….it’s a GM judgment call. One GM may decide one way, and another may make the opposite call.

And although maybe that example was incompletely described, many loadout/inventory rules involve a similar amount of handwaving. Many are not exact. Many others are absurd for any number of other reasons (usually carrying capacity combined with unrestricted movement and similar elements).

So, accepting that most systems fail any kind of realism sniff test, I’d rather use a system that actually creates meaningful decision points in play, and which also evokes the feeling of the world and its characters, instead of just being a test of player preparedness that’s (very often in my experience) highly contingent upon the GM being a generous, reasonable, and fair interface between the fiction and the players. Often much more so than is reasonable to expect.

I’ve played that game and one of two things happen. One, It’s tedious and annoying; or two, in order to avoid it becoming tedious and annoying, most of the rules get ignored anyway.

So give me an inventory system that will actually be relevant to play, isn’t tedious or overly complex, and feels like it fits the game being played all day.

 

[pemerton]

I would abstract that a bit. Make note of the components you have, refill them when you can, and use them in your descriptive text when you cast a spell. If you go a long time without refilling them, I would be fine if the DM called that out and said I no longer had what I needed, and if I could have done so and didn't, it would be my fault.

I'm not seeing how this is very different from BitD inventory, except instead of a check, availability is based around a GM judgement call.

Because it happens when you're acquiring the items, and not during the op.

I've reposted your earlier remark, and my reply.

You refer to "abstracting". You envisage players using them in descriptive text, and if they have gone a long time without refilling them, the GM calls it out.

I don't know what you are saying happens "when you acquire the items".