Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 03, 2020, 02:26:22 PM

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.

A few things from your thoughtful post.

One, you are talking more generally than the Pundit did, and what you say can be applied in a variety of ways and differently depend upon play-styles and the basic assumptions of the game. You can completely ignore arrow count and encumbrance (etc), but still have a very strong work-to-consequence ratio, still offer significant choices, depending upon what the focus is.

We can look at the difference between low/gritty fantasy and high/epic fantasy. What the Pundit talks about is suited for the former, but both involve work-to-consequence, both involve choices that can be the difference between death and glory. It is just that the scope is focused on different things.

Or we can frame it in another polarity: survivalist vs. save-the-world. In a survivalist campaign, the point is to survive, and maybe accumulate wealth to get out of survival mode. Obviously counting arrows is important. In a save-the-world campaign, getting bogged down in minutiae like tracking arrows may actually diminish the focus of the campaign, and de-emphasize the more important--and consequential--choices that need to be made. But the point is, either way there are stakes, there is a tension that is nourished through situations involving meaningful choice - and I think that is what you are getting at.

(And of course you could mix the two, so that the world depends upon how many arrows you have, or you can only survive if you save the world...but the point is that the underlying principle can be applied in different ways, to serve the specifics of the campaign)

I hear what you are saying about WotC, but I think that is a somewhat different issue. What you are saying, as I see it, is that you aren't their primary clientele anymore. Actually, on another board I emphasized that point: that we 40+ year olds (Gen Xers) are a much smaller portion of the current edition's fan-base than we've ever been. Their primary customer base are Millenials and even older Gen Z (teenagers). So we're being left behind a bit.

With the surge in popularity of D&D over the last six years, they have a new player base to focus on (and make money from), so don't really need to publishing stuff that suits grognards and quasi-grognards. But we don't need them, either. There are so many great games, and even you want to play 5E, you can pretty easily adapt stuff from Hyperborea or S&W or DCC, or other OSR and non-D&D games (e.g. Forbidden Lands).

So regardless of what you or I think about WotC product, it works. It is more popular than ever before, and most of the complaints seem to come from older folks, who feel left behind or marginalized. "This product isn't for me." While I can commiserate, I can understand why WotC is doing what they're doing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and in this case, "broke" means not selling product, and that isn't the case.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 05:33:56 PM
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.
...
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.

Yeah, I figured you'd call me on the hunting thing. As a defense, I think it varied from place to place in real medieval Europe. But definitely, the forest was pretty much the Lord's to hunt.

I agree about price lists. Even in other games besides D&D, they are usually pretty whack. The need to be taken as approximations. Price and availability vary from to town.

Now hopefully I don't contradict myself here, but when I GM, I often just tell the players what the whole stay cost when the leave, rounding up to the nearest 10. I find that they usually want details!

Gamers will track ammo in a revolver. Beyond that, not so much.

20 arrows in a quiver + a 2nd second quiver nearby = a zillion arrows

For resource management to work IN ACTUAL PLAY, I have only seen success with very low counts of resources. "You have 3 days of food, 4 grenades, and 2 potions of healing" will get tracked.

In my experience, MOST (not all) players will go into handwavium after 10 items, and MANY (not all) players can't keep be bothered to track of things beyond their number of fingers on one hand.

Resource rolls are a good idea BUT have plenty of issues, and can easily lead to situations that break immersion (I couldn't buy a burger last turn, but now I bought a yacht?)

Resource management is one area that computer games do better.

Quote from: EirikrauthaThe more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.

Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.

A long long time ago, there was a Console Cowboy...

Several decades ago, when World Of Darkness was the 'cult of the new',  I made an argument that I still stand behind, namely that SOMETHING happened to Roleplaying Games. Something bad and terrible.
What I surmised by watching the then current groups, was a lack of general understanding of what a GAME is. ( https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gametheory.asp )
To simplify, there must be a goal to reach, and once reached there must be a state or condition which can be considered a win draw or loss (Taken to the extreme end of the spectrum, this explains the 1970s Players vs GM Dungeon play type, certainly an asymmetrical experience and a deadly one at that!). What many were doing was not playing a 'game', but were instead PLAY ACTING. Understandably, whenever I pointed this out, I was told to shut up. Now that the quote-unquote "STORYGAME" genre has come about, I can safely and undoubtedly claim these are NOT GAMES, but ACTIVITIES, and I call them Roleplaying Activities (RPAs). Unfortunately, too many RPGs are falling in that category as well or are (at the very least) played that way. I suppose I'll never understand the railroading mentality NOR the win/lose-it-all campaign style (a campaign world is NOT just a foozle hunt - losing the campaign does not equate to losing the campaign world, but that's an argument I refuse to get into at the moment!). Understanding that a GAME is not a STORY nor a PUZZLE, but is a strategic and tactical challenge with a goal, having randomized elements to provide challenges unplanned for, and to create scenarios with win/loss conditions other than just "TPK = Game Over" is essential for both players and GMs. Scenarios do not necessarily have to interlock and be part of a flowchart to accomplish this, nor go down a rabbit-hole of minutia. Only a conscious effort to ensure consequences to player actions. So that if a player describes what they play, that then a 'story' appears to be told. But I won't hold my breath. Too many people WANT to play a story, not a game, because of both the fear of LOSING (Risk-Aversion) and an aversion to COMPETITION (player v. GM / player v. player), both of which having been taught to children by two decades of 'PROGRESSIVE' schooling.

To put it bluntly, I believe RPGs are a dead shark at this point, there is no way to just move forward to keep it alive. Meaning, while I agree with going BACK to the foundations - I believe the foundations to be gold mixed with shit (mainly with the lack of a cohesive and unified skirmish/battle system which can be scaled up or down as needed). My own endeavors have been an examination of wargame rules from that period, and I have found connections which suggest the original intent of play was to overly abstract what historians of that period did NOT know about medieval warfare, in particular close range man-to-man combat and what factors into hitting an opponent with a damaging blow (explains why Gygax wanted a focus on unit-type tactical outdoor combats - since much has been written about this). IMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage. I know I'm in a minority of one with this, but, I have come to the conclusion: there is currently no way to fix this without people ignoring the fix/patch. Because of this, RPGs will eventually either fade out (when the current Grognards are too old and crumbly to maintain a coherent thought) OR will become RPAs whereby everyone who participates is a WINNAR! With that said, I would urge the OSR to take a closer examination of the old mechanics and compare them to  the old tabletop skirmish combat rules of other games. I believe a detailed analysis is in order to 'FIX' these problems or to at least mitigate them!

 RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.

I take it everybody tracks magic arrows. Where do you draw the line?

• rations / water
• torches
• encumbrance
• throwing daggers / axes
• ammunition
• magic ammunition
• potions / scrolls
• hit points
• hit dice / healing surges
• exhaustion
• death saves
• limited powers
• spell slots
• gold
• treasure items
• item spell charges

Quote from: mightybrain on December 04, 2020, 05:35:03 AM
I take it everybody tracks magic arrows. Where do you draw the line?

• rations / water
• torches
• encumbrance
• throwing daggers / axes
• ammunition
• magic ammunition
• potions / scrolls
• hit points
• hit dice / healing surges
• exhaustion
• death saves
• limited powers
• spell slots
• gold
• treasure items
• item spell charges

I notice that you didn't include experience points in your list. While not a consumable, they are something that was once tracked diligently and are often now handwaved away in favor of "paced leveling" or "milestones." That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean that leveling is now more of a participation trophy (especially as dead characters are often replaceable by "new" characters having the same level/capability as the previous character).

Quote from: Itachi on December 03, 2020, 11:44:02 PM

Quote from: EirikrauthaThe more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.

Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.

The inability to understand and grasp the consequences of actions, followed by the later connection of those actions to their consequences has a name... it's called "learning."  And, at least until middle and high school beats it out of them, most people like to learn.  It's one of the foundations of gaming.  A game that is completely random or involves no real possibility of learning becomes stale very quickly (do you still play tick-tack-toe regularly?).  So I disagree strongly that player investment and knowledge of consequences are necessary initially.  They will become invested when the consequences get in their way.  You have the cart before the horse.

We do learn to track ammo and other consumables. Yet unless the campaign is centered around limited resources both at the start and during gameplay most do not keep track of it. Not unless the item is rare or hard to find.

It's the common complaint from micromanaging DMs/GMs that in players at least in D&D stop being afraid of darkness because of too easy access to spells and resources. At the start and early levels most parties track and tend to that as they don't have the gold or resources. At higher levels even in earlier editions most parties can afford a wand of light or at the very least multiple torches. I keep track of how much money I have in my bank account. I am not going to track it down to every last penny.

It's not failing to understand consequences of actions it's controlling DMs expecting that a Level 1 player is on par with a Level 10 character. In 2E a Fighter can get a keep if he has to put money aside to maintain it why would said character also not make sure that his hirelings are also not well equipped or even himself. Consequences do matter at all levels yet a 10th level character imo has no business needing to track food and ammo. Not unless it's a resource poor campaign.


"players need to learn consequences" just shows to me that a DM has to micromanage everything down to the slightest detail. What is forgotten is that players do learn yet their levels also matter. With such levels also mean players should track less. So all that gold from adventuring is for what decor. Give me a break. No enemies ever have arrows or bolts lying around. Worry more about crafting and running a better adventure and less about tracking inconsequential items. I am at the table to have fun. not be an outlet for the DM un-diagnosed case of OCD

Quote from: consolcwby on December 04, 2020, 01:13:32 AM
To put it bluntly, I believe RPGs are a dead shark at this point, there is no way to just move forward to keep it alive. Meaning, while I agree with going BACK to the foundations - I believe the foundations to be gold mixed with shit (mainly with the lack of a cohesive and unified skirmish/battle system which can be scaled up or down as needed). My own endeavors have been an examination of wargame rules from that period, and I have found connections which suggest the original intent of play was to overly abstract what historians of that period did NOT know about medieval warfare, in particular close range man-to-man combat and what factors into hitting an opponent with a damaging blow (explains why Gygax wanted a focus on unit-type tactical outdoor combats - since much has been written about this). IMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage. I know I'm in a minority of one with this, but, I have come to the conclusion: there is currently no way to fix this without people ignoring the fix/patch. Because of this, RPGs will eventually either fade out (when the current Grognards are too old and crumbly to maintain a coherent thought) OR will become RPAs whereby everyone who participates is a WINNAR! With that said, I would urge the OSR to take a closer examination of the old mechanics and compare them to  the old tabletop skirmish combat rules of other games. I believe a detailed analysis is in order to 'FIX' these problems or to at least mitigate them!

Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 04, 2020, 10:49:45 AM

Quote from: consolcwby on December 04, 2020, 01:13:32 AM
To put it bluntly, I believe RPGs are a dead shark at this point, there is no way to just move forward to keep it alive. Meaning, while I agree with going BACK to the foundations - I believe the foundations to be gold mixed with shit (mainly with the lack of a cohesive and unified skirmish/battle system which can be scaled up or down as needed). My own endeavors have been an examination of wargame rules from that period, and I have found connections which suggest the original intent of play was to overly abstract what historians of that period did NOT know about medieval warfare, in particular close range man-to-man combat and what factors into hitting an opponent with a damaging blow (explains why Gygax wanted a focus on unit-type tactical outdoor combats - since much has been written about this). IMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage. I know I'm in a minority of one with this, but, I have come to the conclusion: there is currently no way to fix this without people ignoring the fix/patch. Because of this, RPGs will eventually either fade out (when the current Grognards are too old and crumbly to maintain a coherent thought) OR will become RPAs whereby everyone who participates is a WINNAR! With that said, I would urge the OSR to take a closer examination of the old mechanics and compare them to  the old tabletop skirmish combat rules of other games. I believe a detailed analysis is in order to 'FIX' these problems or to at least mitigate them!

Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.

RPGs have a special problem. If a "combat round" take 30 minutes, it immediately jumps to 45 minutes as everyone zones out before their turn and has to zone back in. So even in medium games like D&D 5e or Savage Worlds, a serious combat will end up with hour long rounds if the GM isn't careful and doesn't pace well.
When I was running Maze-Rats and has some small slug-like creature craw up the PCs weapons, it really highlighted how the simple to-hit/damage-to-hp dynamic added risk, tension, and uncertainty without actually limiting how much could go on in a fight. So while it's nice to have hit-locations, wounds, DR, etc. It's not needed and if your RPG group passes the critical time threshold of 30-minutes for intense mechanics like the combat round, the RPG is useless.
It was also really satisfying when I ran Maze Rats again and kept interrupting one player's Switch time because he was so use to having 30 minutes or more in-between actions in combat. If you play a slow system too long, it just becomes the habit that some people immediately zone out as soon as combat starts.

Though I have a bone to pick with players that both zone-out and complain when they "don't have a lot of options" in combat. Pick one to care about.

Quote from: sureshot on December 04, 2020, 08:44:27 AM
We do learn to track ammo and other consumables. Yet unless the campaign is centered around limited resources both at the start and during gameplay most do not keep track of it. Not unless the item is rare or hard to find.

It's the common complaint from micromanaging DMs/GMs that in players at least in D&D stop being afraid of darkness because of too easy access to spells and resources. At the start and early levels most parties track and tend to that as they don't have the gold or resources. At higher levels even in earlier editions most parties can afford a wand of light or at the very least multiple torches. I keep track of how much money I have in my bank account. I am not going to track it down to every last penny.

It's not failing to understand consequences of actions it's controlling DMs expecting that a Level 1 player is on par with a Level 10 character. In 2E a Fighter can get a keep if he has to put money aside to maintain it why would said character also not make sure that his hirelings are also not well equipped or even himself. Consequences do matter at all levels yet a 10th level character imo has no business needing to track food and ammo. Not unless it's a resource poor campaign.


"players need to learn consequences" just shows to me that a DM has to micromanage everything down to the slightest detail. What is forgotten is that players do learn yet their levels also matter. With such levels also mean players should track less. So all that gold from adventuring is for what decor. Give me a break. No enemies ever have arrows or bolts lying around. Worry more about crafting and running a better adventure and less about tracking inconsequential items. I am at the table to have fun. not be an outlet for the DM un-diagnosed case of OCD

If only there were numbers between zero and infinity, we wouldn't have to choose just one extreme.  Or, maybe, as characters level, the kinds of logistics they have to make choices about change.

No one here is arguing (at least I'm not) that you must track arrows.  I am arguing that choosing not to include arrows does reduce the number of choices that players have to make.  If your fun comes from making fewer choices than are necessary in my campaign, then more power to you.  But the players are making fewer choices, and there are fewer consequences thereby.  No matter how much money you have, there's a limit to the number of arrows you can carry into a dungeon (and supply trains create their own choices), and this limit causes choices. It's why magic classes have gotten even more powerful with at-will cantrips.  They now can just blast away with no consequences...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 08:06:49 AM

Quote from: Itachi on December 03, 2020, 11:44:02 PM

Quote from: EirikrauthaThe more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.

Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.

The inability to understand and grasp the consequences of actions, followed by the later connection of those actions to their consequences has a name... it's called "learning."  And, at least until middle and high school beats it out of them, most people like to learn.  It's one of the foundations of gaming.  A game that is completely random or involves no real possibility of learning becomes stale very quickly (do you still play tick-tack-toe regularly?).  So I disagree strongly that player investment and knowledge of consequences are necessary initially.  They will become invested when the consequences get in their way.  You have the cart before the horse.

You're missing my point, which is: The only requirement for choices having meaning in a RPG is player investment (which usually means this choice needs to be informed). Beyond that its purely subjective - this includes system granularity (your logistics), which some players will like while others won't.

If your statement was true ("the more logistics the more choices matter"), only complex games would be successful or popular, which is not the case, as there are successful games all over the spectrum of complexity.

Quote from: Rhedyn on December 04, 2020, 11:04:40 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 04, 2020, 10:49:45 AM
Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.

RPGs have a special problem. If a "combat round" take 30 minutes, it immediately jumps to 45 minutes as everyone zones out before their turn and has to zone back in. So even in medium games like D&D 5e or Savage Worlds, a serious combat will end up with hour long rounds if the GM isn't careful and doesn't pace well.
When I was running Maze-Rats and has some small slug-like creature craw up the PCs weapons, it really highlighted how the simple to-hit/damage-to-hp dynamic added risk, tension, and uncertainty without actually limiting how much could go on in a fight. So while it's nice to have hit-locations, wounds, DR, etc. It's not needed and if your RPG group passes the critical time threshold of 30-minutes for intense mechanics like the combat round, the RPG is useless.
It was also really satisfying when I ran Maze Rats again and kept interrupting one player's Switch time because he was so use to having 30 minutes or more in-between actions in combat. If you play a slow system too long, it just becomes the habit that some people immediately zone out as soon as combat starts.

Though I have a bone to pick with players that both zone-out and complain when they "don't have a lot of options" in combat. Pick one to care about.

I find players zone out in simple systems (that are often billed as fast) because there's not much to think about when it's not your turn. You just wait for everyone else to roll d20 against the nearest foe. The well-designed more complex systems are more engaging, at least to the people I game with. There are held actions to think about when to use, as well as defensive actions that can be held or used to interrupt an attack. 30-45 minute rounds? Where does this come from? We recently had a 4v5 combat in Aquelarre that took 4 rounds for a total of 1 hour that flew by and people were engaged the whole time. Time is not the issue; it's whether or not the players have anything interesting to think about and whether or not the system allows and encourages them to cook up a plan and try to carry it out. If the combat is engaging, nobody cares how long it takes.

Hit locations, wounds, and armor durability add about 2 minutes to the typical round. The gain of being able to cripple a foe or purposely destroy his shield or disarm him is well worth the marginal extra time.