I think the point about wanting to track things if there are just a few of them is important.  And when it comes to arrows, I have a fair amount of experience with a bow, and I don't think I would want to carry more than 20 - those things actually take up quite a bit of room.  To me it makes a lot of sense to track arrows.  I happen to like resource management, and in a typical D&D dungeon I would expect that running out of arrows would be really common.

It really depends on what type of experience you want in your game.  I'm thinking of the journey through Mirkwood in The Hobbit.  The group was out of food and ran out of arrows to hunt more.  It was really tense, and I think would be cool to do in a game.  You can't do this particular event if you are not tracking food and arrows.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
So there are objectively more choices to be had playing SFB than Go.  Do you find one more enjoyable than the other?  Personal taste.  But, objectively, SFB has more choice than Go, which has more choice than Chess.

No one (at least not me) is saying that less logistical games are inferior to more logistical games.  But, when you talk about the difference between modern and OSR games, once reason they may feel different is the reduction in the focus on logistics, which forces all of your choices to be "high level."  Not everyone enjoys that equally.  There's no harm in pointing out that you might enjoy a game more if there was more low level choice.  You might not.  But for those looking to recapture an OSR feel, that is useful information and something to try.

I think my disagreement was more with Pundit, and the implication that less choices in Go means that playing Go is more like passively watching a movie, and less of a game at all.

I agree - some people prefer more detailed logistic-type games, like SFB, and some people like more streamlined games like Go. They're just different styles of games. In the board game world, there are more streamlined Eurogames like Settlers of Catan or Power Grid. In the RPG world, there are streamlined modern systems like D&D5e, Numenera, and Dungeon World.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 04, 2020, 06:51:36 PM
I remember making pipe cleaner figures to use as miniatures when I was a kid.  My friend decided to make all of his barbarian's weapons and place them on the figure to show where they were in the game.  There were a lot.  When he couldn't find places to put them all, and there was no way to keep the figure standing up, we decided that maybe he had too many.

LOL I know what you mean

The player in my previous post was so whiny about it. Then again he played his character like himself. The expression read the room in this case the entire campaign applies more. The player was a hardcore Atheist who decides hiss character is the same in the setting of Golarian. Then wondered why all the churches in the AP banned him. Gee well I don't know when you tell the head Cleric "Religion is for suckers" in a campaign world where the gods avatars walk the Earth was just stupid. Just like wanting to move at full speed as human with all that equipment in my previous past.

The guy complaining that wizards are too strong and martials suck is the guy not tracking spell components.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on December 05, 2020, 05:34:33 AM
The guy complaining that wizards are too strong and martials suck is the guy not tracking spell components.

To be fair, the Eschew Materials feat in 3e, Implements in 4E and spell focuses in 5e mean that the only components you had to track were ones with an explicit gold piece value. So the guy complaining about wizards vs. martials actually does have a point.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on December 05, 2020, 05:34:33 AM
The guy complaining that wizards are too strong and martials suck is the guy not tracking spell components.

This is spot on.   And also in 5e the contention is that missile weapons are too much....with their belt fed bows of machine gun doom.

How many arrows are being carried into the dungeon?

Why do people assume that the default is to never track anything. I get told my position is extreme lol.

Unless the component is rare or at the very least uncommon most spell components are not that hard to find. Not unless it's a rule of the setting, official or home brewed. Even then unless most adventuring groups can restock the main adventure plot comes to a standstill whether the DM likes it or not. Myself and most groups I played, play and will play with are not going to go off adventuring being unable to cast most spellsor zero ammo. If the world ends it ends. Rocks fall and kills everybody...ciao we find another DM. I don't do stupid or play suicidal characters. Not for any DM. Absolutely non-negotiable or up for any debate.

In pathfinder at least 20 arrows are 6 pounds a fighter or similar class should be able to lug around 40 with some encumbrance. Ammo even in a dungeons should not be too easy or that difficult to find either. Unless the racial lore states that the race weapons are really that different bolts and arrows seems to be universal. As from what I can see from some posters they either play resource poor and/or magic low campaigns as at least in some form or another in later versions of D&D Handy Haversacks are a thing. A lesser bag of holding that can hold 20 pounds and the party can pool their resources abd buy one or two. Efficent quivers cost 200 less then the sack and can hold much more ammo. 

Why posters insist on acting like characters especially high level characters have negative options with dealing with ammunition is beyond me. First or tenth level all each can afford is a rusty dagger and loincloth.

Quote from: sureshot on December 05, 2020, 09:13:59 AM
Why do people assume that the default is to never track anything. I get told my position is extreme lol.

Unless the component is rare or at the very least uncommon most spell components are not that hard to find. Not unless it's a rule of the setting, official or home brewed. Even then unless most adventuring groups can restock the main adventure plot comes to a standstill whether the DM likes it or not. Myself and most groups I played, play and will play with are not going to go off adventuring being unable to cast most spellsor zero ammo. If the world ends it ends. Rocks fall and kills everybody...ciao we find another DM. I don't do stupid or play suicidal characters. Not for any DM. Absolutely non-negotiable or up for any debate.

In pathfinder at least 20 arrows are 6 pounds a fighter or similar class should be able to lug around 40 with some encumbrance. Ammo even in a dungeons should not be too easy or that difficult to find either. Unless the racial lore states that the race weapons are really that different bolts and arrows seems to be universal. As from what I can see from some posters they either play resource poor and/or magic low campaigns as at least in some form or another in later versions of D&D Handy Haversacks are a thing. A lesser bag of holding that can hold 20 pounds and the party can pool their resources abd buy one or two. Efficent quivers cost 200 less then the sack and can hold much more ammo. 

Why posters insist on acting like characters especially high level characters have negative options with dealing with ammunition is beyond me. First or tenth level all each can afford is a rusty dagger and loincloth.

Frankly at higher level most of the logistics game is gone for our group anyway.  Bags of holding etc. change a lot.  The exception for us would be the expensive spell components .  I guess we assume the parts of bugs and plants get collected periodically.

However in lower levels I like the tighter game with a some logistics.  So much so that I wonder if 5e is the absolute best fit for me.  Everyone and their brother has a light spell etc.

But I also think the dm can make it harder by pushing some limitations on bow users etc.  if the sharpshooter of 5e is too dominant, I would be looking to complicate their life a little in the sake of more fun.

Quote from: Warpiglet on December 05, 2020, 09:49:04 AM
Frankly at higher level most of the logistics game is gone for our group anyway.  Bags of holding etc. change a lot.  The exception for us would be the expensive spell components .  I guess we assume the parts of bugs and plants get collected periodically.

However in lower levels I like the tighter game with a some logistics.  So much so that I wonder if 5e is the absolute best fit for me.  Everyone and their brother has a light spell etc.

But I also think the dm can make it harder by pushing some limitations on bow users etc.  if the sharpshooter of 5e is too dominant, I would be looking to complicate their life a little in the sake of more fun.

Good thing is with 5E you can modify to suit your needs so it might still be a good edition to play with.

Again I am not against restrictions of any kind and complications within moderation can be fun and interesting. What I take issue with is the general lack of understanding that unless the players are complete idiots most make sure to at the very least do so minimal bookkeeping in terms of resources. Unless I am mistaken it seems that no matter the level a player never has access to anything. Diamond dust or just the diamonds to make them time go adventuring for it or a side quest. Food and arrows...I play rpgs to get away from that kind of real life bookkeeping. I will do it if the campaign is built around it say like a Walking Dead style campaign. In Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance it should not be that hard to find common items.  Defeating the Lich, rescuing slaves, leveling up and becoming better at what i do have meaningful impact to me as a player. Tracking arrows is something I need to do not want to do as an adventurer. A player with a bat familiar provides the required bat guano for spells. In Pathfinder at least one can get one as early as first level.

I like tracking supplies and encumbrance in a game.  I agree with those who feel it can result in some interesting situations for making some tough decisions.

It's getting so easy to automate things using a phone or laptop these days it doesn't seem too much to ask players to track their items:  it usually is just ticking off a radio box or just a pencil mark on a sheet.  If they can track HP and roll dice, I don't see any real hardship but a lot of reward or adding some interesting variables to a dungeon delve, etc. that can't be predicted ahead of time.  To me, that's exciting for all involved.

If your players can't do that, then I would question their interest in the DM's approach and if they're enjoying it.

I would do the same for torches staying lit, etc.  and anything else that is a limited commodity.

For modern takes on the idea, I found Macchiato Monsters had some good ideas on how to use dice for these matters.

If you want spamming Pew-Pew, make the PC work for it and hunt down or have built a Quiver of Holding.  You can have 179 different types of arrows in there and the one you grab will always be the one you want.  Done.

Otherwise, it's been simple since forever.  Some jackass wants to carry a barrel of 100 arrows strapped to their back, you model how stupid that is when stealth and mobility are necessary, same as you do when the guy in plate mail holding a great flail wants to sneak past someone.

Otherwise, you just go with the old "hits are recoverable, missed arrows are broken", or if you want to go deeper make an Item Saving Throw.

Unlimited anything without magic is 4-color baloney.

The item saving throw for item being damaged is something that seems to get forgotten a lot:  like the items a character uses are impervious to harm.

If someone has a bushel of arrows in a quiver and they get hit with a fireball, dragon breath, etc. you can bet I'm going to make sure that those items, being mainly wood sticks, get tested with an item saving throw.

Some might deem such a DM maneuver as nasty, but I would deem it something that is applicable to both sides of a melee, allowing adventurers to take heed of this factor to their benefit if they can craft a good solution.

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on December 05, 2020, 04:21:07 PM
The item saving throw for item being damaged is something that seems to get forgotten a lot:  like the items a character uses are impervious to harm.

If someone has a bushel of arrows in a quiver and they get hit with a fireball, dragon breath, etc. you can bet I'm going to make sure that those items, being mainly wood sticks, get tested with an item saving throw.

Some might deem such a DM maneuver as nasty, but I would deem it something that is applicable to both sides of a melee, allowing adventurers to take heed of this factor to their benefit if they can craft a good solution.

I like item saving throws conceptually.  In practice, it takes a lot of extra time to make all those rolls, and I'm not willing to slow down my game for that.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 05, 2020, 07:21:46 PM

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on December 05, 2020, 04:21:07 PM
The item saving throw for item being damaged is something that seems to get forgotten a lot:  like the items a character uses are impervious to harm.

If someone has a bushel of arrows in a quiver and they get hit with a fireball, dragon breath, etc. you can bet I'm going to make sure that those items, being mainly wood sticks, get tested with an item saving throw.

Some might deem such a DM maneuver as nasty, but I would deem it something that is applicable to both sides of a melee, allowing adventurers to take heed of this factor to their benefit if they can craft a good solution.

I like item saving throws conceptually.  In practice, it takes a lot of extra time to make all those rolls, and I'm not willing to slow down my game for that.

Yeah, making a roll for every arrow and bit of equipment would be tiresome.

For re-using arrows, I usually use a quick and dirty 50% rule. Half the mundane arrows used are recoverable. Magic arrows are always intact.

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.

That's definite. I used to really like Rune Quest, et al.  Yet, I still see certain problems inherent in all RPGs - I guess I'm just fighting windmills looking for that 'Perfect RPG' that will never exist!