Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
Whether you like it or not, D&D has expanded beyond your preferred style of play. It now includes a much broader umbrella of play styles, which can't be anything but a good thing.

Ehhh, you had me until here.  Sadly, unlike some versions of D&D, resource depletion is a very real thing in life.  There is only so much time, energy, attention, products, etc.  Part of what has happened to RPGs in general (and D&D specifically) is that a growing popularity has led to a skewing of the rules and focus shift that naturally comes when more people are trying to pigeon-hole their definition of fun into a single activity.  Basically, what I am saying is that there are only so many modules, game rules, and/or options that WotC can publish per year.  And the ones they choose to spend their limited resources on are important to those of us who play 5e.  Because, in theory, WotC spends all of their time developing, testing, and refining their rules and modules.  I, on the other hand, play RPGs as a hobby.  So, once again in theory, WotC should be able to produce content that plays better than what I slap together before a session (the fact that they often can't is a whooooole other thread).  So I have a vested interest in having WotC produce (at least some) material that follows my definition of fun.  So this expansion of styles is NOT an objective good (you can argue that it's a subjective good, "The good of the many..." and all that.  But I'll note that Spock dies after saying that...).

The real subject hidden here is that RPGs are fundamentally about players making choices for their characters and facing the consequences (good or bad) thereof.  That's it, the whole crux of the hobby (which is why so much is said about "railroady" DMs and adventures).  Everything else we do is just to help support that basic feature (rules, dice, settings, all of it).  Some players want to make a lot of choices, either because they seek the complexity or a heightened sense of control over the outcomes of their choices.  Others want to make few, or broader, choices.

Logistics (which is what Pundit is really talking about here) is the science of choices.  The more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter (a roll that determines when you are "out" of ammo might provide a potential seed for a choice, but it is not the product of a choice itself).  But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices.  What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio.  But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game. 

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
It's the individual DMs deciding it's not worth the bother to follow the rules of tracking ammo and other resources for their own campaigns and just hand waving it. Except they're doing so in such numbers that not tracking those things is now seen as normal for play.

Frankly, if you want groups to track arrows you need to give them a reason to.

In my experience players want to track these things and more often it's the GM who waves it off. So, lazy GM or GM who doesn't want to think of consequences for running out of resources.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
First and foremost that means realistic encumbrance rules that account for bulk as much, if not more, than weight (ex. 100 arrows might only weigh 10 pounds, but they'd be ridiculously cumbersome to carry compared to wearing a 35 lb. coat of plates).

Yes, track encumbrance, I absolutely agree. Not doing so is just lazy video game culture creeping into TTRPGs. Also, who the fuck wants to wear 35 lb plate for longer than absolutely necessary? Oh, right, video game culture.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
Second, you need to bring your economics into line. When even third level PCs are hauling in thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, dropping 10 gp on a hundred arrows is barely a footnote. When you can buy a score of arrows for less than a night's stay at a common inn... they're some weird price fluctuations going on, even in modern times for mass-produced machine manufactured ones; hand-made ones can go for $15-20 each).

I wouldn't artificially make arrows valuable. That just patches over the "problem." Arrows are cheap because they are used by peasants for hunting and are used in massive quantities during war, so much so there is an entire profession dedicated to their manufacture. If fletchers are part of the 1% now and peasants can't afford to hunt, your whole economy is going to change.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
Third, you need to make using ammunition consuming weapons worth using in a fashion where finite shots are worth tracking. Dealing no more damage than lighter melee weapons means the only way they can be effectively employed is to pepper even weaker targets with multiple arrows in order to drop them.

There's a huge difference between carrying 20 arrows (a reasonable real world number that is small enough for their attrition to be notable and felt) when each will almost certainly drop a humanod foe in a single hit (and many will be recoverable after the fight) and 20 arrows when you need two hits just to reliably drop another human warrior and all those that hit and half of those that miss are destroyed (hence just about any D&D archer who doesn't have a way to produce infinite arrows by magic carrying upwards of five quivers worth of arrows at once).

They're worth tracking because you can run out. If you're a prepper, sure, load 200 arrows onto your mule. Carry 20 on your back. Oops, goblins chase mule into bottomless pit and you spend 5 arrows fending them off. Now you have 15. No problem, go back to town to buy more. But wait, the gate to magical fairyland closes at dusk, so you don't have time to go to town. It's not hard to make arrows worth tracking.

I suspect some of the angst at tracking consumables is a symptom of fast and loose GM'ing where there is always a town nearby to stock up, there are no consequences to spending 2 days trekking out for resupply, it's easy to live off the land while travelling, and nobody bats an eye if you walk into the tavern packing 100 arrows as if you're on the battlefield.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
The funniest part to me about this conversation is the presumption that 5e and 4E actually have some sort of "don't track ammo" rule.

They don't. Both 4E and 5e by default rules as written require you to track ammo and other resources just like every other edition of D&D.

It's the individual DMs deciding it's not worth the bother to follow the rules of tracking ammo and other resources for their own campaigns and just hand waving it. Except they're doing so in such numbers that not tracking those things is now seen as normal for play.

Frankly, if you want groups to track arrows you need to give them a reason to.

First and foremost that means realistic encumbrance rules that account for bulk as much, if not more, than weight (ex. 100 arrows might only weigh 10 pounds, but they'd be ridiculously cumbersome to carry compared to wearing a 35 lb. coat of plates).

Second, you need to bring your economics into line. When even third level PCs are hauling in thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, dropping 10 gp on a hundred arrows is barely a footnote. When you can buy a score of arrows for less than a night's stay at a common inn... they're some weird price fluctuations going on, even in modern times for mass-produced machine manufactured ones; hand-made ones can go for $15-20 each).

Third, you need to make using ammunition consuming weapons worth using in a fashion where finite shots are worth tracking. Dealing no more damage than lighter melee weapons means the only way they can be effectively employed is to pepper even weaker targets with multiple arrows in order to drop them.

There's a huge difference between carrying 20 arrows (a reasonable real world number that is small enough for their attrition to be notable and felt) when each will almost certainly drop a humanod foe in a single hit (and many will be recoverable after the fight) and 20 arrows when you need two hits just to reliably drop another human warrior and all those that hit and half of those that miss are destroyed (hence just about any D&D archer who doesn't have a way to produce infinite arrows by magic carrying upwards of five quivers worth of arrows at once).

If arrows did say, 2d10+Dex mod damage, cost 1gp each, and 3/4 of those fired were recoverable if you won, but quiver bulk made carrying more than two-dozen or so at once start to impact your mobility, then you might have something where keeping track of arrows in WotC-era D&D makes some kind of sense. As it stands, they're basically the D&D equivalent of firearm magazines in a James Bond film (with arrows about as effective as bullets vs. named characters in the action genre to boot).

Your second part contradicts your first (not you, really, but WotC).  A mechanic that requires arrows to be tracked that is then invalidated by the lack of rules or systems for making that mechanic useful, impactful, or even workable, isn't much of a mechanic.  If I have to make all those changes to make resource management usable, then the "default" rules are really just so much wasted space.  They exist in name only, not in play.  Which is why DMs ignore them...

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 01:34:14 PM
The funniest part to me about this conversation is the presumption that 5e and 4E actually have some sort of %u201Cdon%u2019t track ammo%u201D rule.

They don%u2019t. Both 4E and 5e by default rules as written require you to track ammo and other resources just like every other edition of D&D.

It%u2019s the individual DMs deciding it%u2019s not worth the bother to follow the rules of tracking ammo and other resources for their own campaigns and just hand waving it. Except they%u2019re doing so in such numbers that not tracking those things is now seen as normal for play.

Frankly, if you want groups to track arrows you need to give them a reason to.

First and foremost that means realistic encumbrance rules that account for bulk as much, if not more, than weight (ex. 100 arrows might only weigh 10 pounds, but they%u2019d be ridiculously cumbersome to carry compared to wearing a 35 lb. coat of plates).

Second, you need to bring your economics into line. When even third level PCs are hauling in thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, dropping 10 gp on a hundred arrows is barely a footnote. When you can buy a score of arrows for less than a night%u2019s stay at a common inn... they%u2019re some weird price fluctuations going on, even in modern times for mass-produced machine manufactured ones; hand-made ones can go for $15-20 each).

Third, you need to make using ammunition consuming weapons worth using in a fashion where finite shots are worth tracking. Dealing no more damage than lighter melee weapons means the only way they can be effectively employed is to pepper even weaker targets with multiple arrows in order to drop them.

There%u2019s a huge difference between carrying 20 arrows (a reasonable real world number that is small enough for their attrition to be notable and felt) when each will almost certainly drop a humanod foe in a single hit (and many will be recoverable after the fight) and 20 arrows when you need two hits just to reliably drop another human warrior and all those that hit and half of those that miss are destroyed (hence just about any D&D archer who doesn%u2019t have a way to produce infinite arrows by magic carrying upwards of five quivers worth of arrows at once).

If arrows did say, 2d10+Dex mod damage, cost 1gp each, and 3/4 of those fired were recoverable if you won, but quiver bulk made carrying more than two-dozen or so at once start to impact your mobility, then you might have something where keeping track of arrows in WotC-era D&D makes some kind of sense. As it stands, they%u2019re basically the D&D equivalent of firearm magazines in a James Bond film (with arrows about as effective as bullets vs. named characters in the action genre to boot).

It's the difference between D&D 5e/4e and Wolves of God. 5e's encumbrance rules are super generous so carrying 100 arrows ready to fire is explicitly in the mechanics. In Wolves of God, you can have a number of ready items equal to half your strength score and 5 arrows count as an item. So to have 100 arrows ready to fire would require a strength 40 character. If your hero wanted a bow, sword, shield, and armor, and had 14 strength, he could have 15 arrows at ready for combat. Storing arrows in that system is easier because you can store one item per strength score and arrows can be 3x bundled for storage. So you could easily have 60 arrows stored for only 4 encumbrance. The point being is such things matter in that game, but don't in D&D 5e/4e since the actual limit is beyond what would ever come up.

Handwaving encumbrance systems, spell components, mundane equipment tracking since 1977.

That said, I often use equipment as a victim of combat and bad situations, which makes them become important to have, and the PCs feeling the need to keep on top of what they do/don't have. I just don't deal with it as a system or track it. and if the players forget that their torches fell to their doom on the mountain climb when that peryton jumped them, well ...the adventuring life was never supposed to be easy.

"real" RPG play? I have to chuckle at Pundit on this one.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 03, 2020, 02:29:40 PM
I wouldn't artificially make arrows valuable. That just patches over the "problem." Arrows are cheap because they are used by peasants for hunting and are used in massive quantities during war, so much so there is an entire profession dedicated to their manufacture. If fletchers are part of the 1% now and peasants can't afford to hunt, your whole economy is going to change.

Or you get peasants that all learn the eldritch blast cantrip for hunting. In some D&D 5e settings, it wouldn't be far fetched at all...

Play styles are sliding scales. Every element you could care to name can be described as a sliding scale. Equipment tracking, death being a slap on the wrist vs a campaign detour, dynamically creating a coherent campaign story vs not caring to do so, GM railroading vs player freedom, creating PC backstories vs treating PCs as disposable, etc.

Trying to satisfy all playstyles simultaneously just results in an incoherent mess. You need specific rules and guidelines for handling different playstyles.

Note that there is a fundamental difference when waving encumbrance between selective hand waving and whole hog waving. 

If you throw encumbrance out entirely, then that's removing a whole category of player choices from the game.  Your group might not mind at all, because they find the category completely uninteresting compared to other choices, but it is no doubt gone in that case.

Then there are less radical hand waves.  For example, the characters are in town (or near it).  They are unlikely to get into a protracted skirmish that could plausibly use up their ammunition.  No one bothers to track it individually. (Hidden step goes here.)  They go back to town.  That hidden step could be that the GM adjudicated that resource usage was a waste of time during this particular slice of play, but that resources were consumed and then presumably replaced.  If everyone in the group is clear about that hidden step, then you still have some (not all, but some) of the resource usage choices.  They've just been abstracted temporarily.  They players know that if they do get into a bunch of extensive fights without a chance to restock, the GM is sooner or later going to rule that they are short on resources and then make them start tracking it (or even rule that they are out).  It's just now the player decision is at a higher level:  Not do I use this arrow at this moment or save it but rather after fighting goblins band 1 do we chase goblin band 2 and then try to ambush goblin bands 3 and 4?

I don't necessarily value the details about resource usage but I do very much value that the players make decisions such that their characters are concerned about it.  Therefore, I'll do the minimum necessary to see that the players do act that way.  The minimum moves depending on the nature of the adventure.  Deep down into a dungeon it is a heck of lot more important than it is traveling between towns.

Some of the points here make good sense.  Tracking everything perefectly all of the time is probably not worth it for most groups (e.g. each ball of bat guano for a component pouch) or each damn sip of water.

But I think that is different than paying no attention to ammunition at all or encumbrance.  One of my pals is a little ocd and would spend portions of his hoard on every conceivable piece of equipment.

His stash of arrows was absurd.  Needless to say we started laughing at this and the dm asked to see his equipment list which made us all laugh more.

The solution was that he bought a mule and a cart.  Which in the end was a story element.  We had to defend it against theivery trolls, etc which is frost for the fucking mill.

We briefly played fugitives including a drow.  To help wi th supplies and avoid town we made sure some of us knew how to repair bows and make arrows, via dungeon and wilderness (1e) guides.

Now that encumbrance is so generous we ballpark it.  200 arrows might be a stretch on a person.  But again it's problem solving just like light sources.  All of this adds a little bit of problem solving, a little groundedness.  And frankly now D&D struggles with this because who doesn't have dark vision or a light spell.  Oh well.  The grit is in the older iterations...

Lots of good discussion on this thread, including the ones that critique my approach. Good stuff, guys!

I'm I the only DM that tracks all my player's resources? Arrows, hit points, spells, encumbrance, XP, etc. I've been doing this forever but it seems that I'm in a small minority.

Personally, I find that this method works best as the players have full control over their resources but it doesn't slow down the game. Some players track their own ammo (although my sheet has the "real" numbers) if they want to.

In 5E all the spellcasters have infinite arrows so there's no danger of them running out.  Probably that's why most people don't track arrows, it's just another way to encourage everyone to play a spellcaster (and god knows that doesn't need more encouragement in 5e).

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 03, 2020, 02:29:40 PM
I wouldn't artificially make arrows valuable. That just patches over the "problem." Arrows are cheap because they are used by peasants for hunting and are used in massive quantities during war, so much so there is an entire profession dedicated to their manufacture. If fletchers are part of the 1% now and peasants can't afford to hunt, your whole economy is going to change.

I wouldn't say its all that artificial, its just that the default D&D pricing on things is so utterly borked... or rather, how they're used NOW is borked.

Gary's was pretty clear back in the day that the cost of goods in the PHB was based on "Boomtown" economics. The locals are selling the adventurers/prospectors everything at grossly inflated prices because they have the supply and the PCs have the demand.

There's no way the local inn is charging 4 gp a night (more than a month's wages for most laborers) to your average farmer staying overnight because he delivered a wagon of produce to the market town, bought a few goods unavailable in his home village, and its too far to make it back home before dark.

But a fancy pants warrior in mail with a longsword, shield, bow and horse comes strolling into that market town with a purple robed wizard in a pointy hat with a bunch of hirelings handling their pack mules laden down with silver and gold? All those 'cp's on the price logs suddenly get a tail on the first letter to make them 'gp's and a couple of sales of these grossly inflated goods lands you more coin than you'd make make in months. Sure the local Lord will tax the lion's share of it, but its still a major windfall for everyone selling 'adventuring goods' in that market town).

The problem comes in when later editions took the inflated Boomtown economy and made it the DEFAULT economy without taking into account which items were running the inflation markup (and how big that markup was from item to item).

* * * *

Also worth noting... Peasants most certainly DON'T go hunting with bows and arrows unless they want to be strung up for poaching in the Lord's forest. Even if he did allow the peasants to hunt small game like rabbits and the like, anything big enough for an arrow to not be complete overkill on would still be protected as "For the Lord's Use Only."

Your best bet for a peasant to get small game would be snare traps or, if you had good aim, a sling to peg them from a distance.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 03, 2020, 01:53:03 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
It is really quite simple: different styles of play are just that. One is not inherently better than the other, in the same way that "dramas" are not inherently better or worse than "comedies," or "science fiction" better or worse than "fantasy." Or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion: low fantasy isn't better or worse than high fantasy.

On the other other hand, there are commonalities and not everything is loosey-goosey subjective. A specific comedy or even a specific joke might not make all people laugh, but it might make a lot of people laugh, because they have a shared experience, and a shared taste in comedy.

Likewise, certain rules encourage certain behaviors. Awarding xp for gold, for instance. It might not be for everyone (it certainly isn't my preferred xp system) but we can recognize for a lot of people it incentivices certain behaviors over others. (Avoid fights, grab treasure, flee)

A certain style of play might be better than another at evoking certain behaviors. And a group might find those behaviors fun at the gaming table. Tracking ammo is part of rewarding players who plan ahead and manage their resources well. Whole board and video game genres are built on resource management.

I agree that there is no one true way to play the game, but there are game apsects (rules) that are better or worse at evoking certain playstyles.

Yes, agreed - which I think I said. It depends upon what sort of play-style you want to evoke. If you're playing gonzo Exalted-esque fantasy, then tracking arrows is beyond tedious (unless they're special magical arrows). If you're starting with the classic, "You wake up in a forest, naked and not knowing who you are" trope, then every little bit of equipment matters.

So while you seem to think I'm saying "loosey-goosey," I'm actually saying the same thing, and that the Pundit is advocating that what works for his play-style should work for all, which ignores the fact that not everyone wants the same play experience that he does.

Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 06:18:20 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 03, 2020, 01:53:03 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:53 PM
It is really quite simple: different styles of play are just that. One is not inherently better than the other, in the same way that "dramas" are not inherently better or worse than "comedies," or "science fiction" better or worse than "fantasy." Or, perhaps more relevant to this discussion: low fantasy isn't better or worse than high fantasy.

On the other other hand, there are commonalities and not everything is loosey-goosey subjective. A specific comedy or even a specific joke might not make all people laugh, but it might make a lot of people laugh, because they have a shared experience, and a shared taste in comedy.

Likewise, certain rules encourage certain behaviors. Awarding xp for gold, for instance. It might not be for everyone (it certainly isn't my preferred xp system) but we can recognize for a lot of people it incentivices certain behaviors over others. (Avoid fights, grab treasure, flee)

A certain style of play might be better than another at evoking certain behaviors. And a group might find those behaviors fun at the gaming table. Tracking ammo is part of rewarding players who plan ahead and manage their resources well. Whole board and video game genres are built on resource management.

I agree that there is no one true way to play the game, but there are game apsects (rules) that are better or worse at evoking certain playstyles.

Yes, agreed - which I think I said. It depends upon what sort of play-style you want to evoke. If you're playing gonzo Exalted-esque fantasy, then tracking arrows is beyond tedious (unless they're special magical arrows). If you're starting with the classic, "You wake up in a forest, naked and not knowing who you are" trope, then every little bit of equipment matters.

So while you seem to think I'm saying "loosey-goosey," I'm actually saying the same thing, and that the Pundit is advocating that what works for his play-style should work for all, which ignores the fact that not everyone wants the same play experience that he does.

I guess we agree to agree then?