Thread #97460307 | Image & Video Expansion | Click to Play
File: pack.jpg (137.2 KB)
137.2 KB JPG
>Bag of Holding
>no need to worry about encumbrance any more
>infinite Light cantrip
>no need to worry about torches any more
>Goodberry, automatic ranger foraging, etc.
>no need to worry about rations any more
Why don't people want to play a fantasy adventure game any more?
254 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 254 replies.>>
>>
>>97460307
Because they are weak. They're the same people who want Journalist Mode in every video game and Content Warnings on everything. I wish they could honestly reflect on how getting their way has made things objectively worse for every form of entertainment, but they refuse to be self-reflective.
>>
>>
>>97460307
New tech emerged to meet new design goals. Those are dungeon crawl mechanics. In a fantasy-superheroes game, they're just a drag and needless bookkeeping. People are still making dungeon crawlers, which generally include mechanics like the ones you listed, and you can play those. I don't go into Warhammer tabletop threads and complain that there's no rules for diplomatically solving the conflict on the table; that's just not the kind of game it is.
>>
>>
File: superior Japanese story structure.png (293 KB)
293 KB PNG
>>97460320
>mundane
i mean they're pretty fucking important.
but it also creates a very understandable risk/reward loop about resource management. it CAN be tedious and stressful: i WANT that conflict in my game. it IS the game, i.e. the actual procedure of play.
younger players want, i think, a slice-of-life series of 'scenes' that alternate between 'role playing' and combat set pieces. i guess that's fine. but imagine if you took hit points away, or decided to handwave combat scenes.
plus, it's power-creep in the sense that once was
>i need to buy arrows for my longbow, since i only have 3 left
becomes
>i need to buy crystals for my arcane blasts, since i only have 3 left
you've just swapped out a few variable names to make it more Dragon Ball Z.
>>
>>97460327
>>97460330
>>97460378
When did you losers get the idea that performing dull rote tasks is a challenge or a skill, and not just something the dimwitted do because they can't figure out a better solution?
It's one thing to be stupid, it's another thing to be deliberately stupid and then to try and be proud of it. Even slaves forced to do menial labor at least have enough sense to have shame.
I get that this is a troll thread and you guys are the trolls, but at least do a better job than "hurf durf doing basic math and book-keeping is where the FUN is for REAL players."
>>
>>
>>97460373
a shift in culture and how THE original game is designed sets expectations and changes habits. this is something i have a problem with.
so let's not be cute with
>you can just play games YOU like!
and
>i don't go into ____ threads and...
you know damn well this is a wider issue. you can complain about, e.g. modern Star Trek, all while it's perfectly possible to stick to your old TNG DVDs.
>>
>>
>>
>>97460441
But I like both kinds of games, and I like that people are making both kinds of games, and I think that if you're okay with making threads just to complain about people making games you don't like, then you ought to be okay with me coming into those threads to call you dumb because of it. This isn't a "wider issue". This isn't any kind of issue. You're just yelling at clouds.
>>
>>97460421
I don't think having at least SOME survival mechanics (excluding combat if you want to try to get cute about 'survival' ) is objectively dull. If you can't get some kind of tension at your table from the notion of starving to death you're a shit GM
>>
>>97460421
it's not that much effort.
it creates knock-on effects in the actual game rules. like it's not just there to be busywork. take encumbrance for example:
if you carry treasure out the dungeon, you move slower, that's more wandering monster checks. you have to weigh up a decision. you can also then DROP treasure because that might help you flee from monsters (or food, for unintelligent monsters).
it's not silly fluff, it's actually very straightforward rules that carry very real meaning in the game you're playing. the reason you might, for example, draw up an inventory of how many horses and pack mules you'll need for a journey to the City of Specularum, is because you ACTUALLY NEED those things.
nobody is making you sit and do sums or write out lines like you're in detention. you're the one making some rather troll-y assumptions, here. if you want to know what we like and why, just ask.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 1322711065033.jpg (55.8 KB)
55.8 KB JPG
>>97460495
>t. fuming storyshitter
And I don't even run completely non-narrative games but you're clearly not here to actually roll dice and play a game.
>>
>>
>>
>>97460484
i want to discuss a topic on a message board, yeah.
i don't get why this is about my feelings or motivations or some meta-thread shit? the guys who DISAGREE, i want to hear why. there's been some interesting stuff already.
join the discussion, anon!
>>
>>
>>97460307
>Why don't people want to play a fantasy adventure game any more?
Tell us about how bags of infinite space, free portable light sources, and endless food at the wave of a hand exists in our world.
I'll pin this thread and wait.
>>
>>
>>
>>97460473
It's more that if you have players threatened by starvation of all things, you have shit players or a shit game.
Starvation takes weeks, and can be fended off with some of the cheapest supplies available. With even modest preparation and foresight, the entire matter is rendered a moot concern, and the players can instead focus on far more interesting matters and topics.
It's not "objectively" dull. But, on the grand list of things that players can be thinking about, "Did I pack enough oats?" is so low on the list that it's no surprise that most modern games instead try to focus on things much higher up on the list.
Dying because the witch's curse that's slowly calcifying your arm made your reactions just slightly too slow to properly raise your shield enough to block the Goongorgon™'s Death Semen™? That's interesting.
Dying because you forgot to spend a handful of coins on flour and then meticulously track it getting depleted as you wandered for weeks while failing to replenish your supplies? That's dumb.
>>
File: radio.jpg (19.3 KB)
19.3 KB JPG
>>97460560
haha you've got me there.
although, i DID have one of these wind-up radios with a built-in torch when i was a kid. that's ALMOST like a free portable light source? (first law of thermodynamics notwithstanding.)
>>
>>97460612
>>97460528
>>97460506
NTA, but even just going into the archive and searching "storyshitter" shows your trail pretty clearly. I don't know why you think people on this board haven't completely figured you out when you're such a basic bitch of a troll.
>>
>>
>>
File: 7lSS74q.jpg (154.6 KB)
154.6 KB JPG
>>97460651
you really think you just replied to one person three times, don't you?
>>
>>97460645
Almost.
Probably the closest thing you can get to a light cantrip IRL.
That aside, I get the spirit of your point. But a lot of the people who play fantasy games can't even be bothered to track their spell slots any more, and don't even get me started on material components. These things that were made to balance out magic's superior power and utility are pushed to the wayside more and more in recent years, so of course basic survival mechanics are going to largely be glossed over.
It's a combination of laziness and just wanting to get to the part that's fun for them; and to play devil's advocate, I don't particularly enjoy tracking temperature, hunger, disease, and light either, but at least I'll track the resources that matter to combat abilities.
>>
File: dungeons_and_dragons_module_the_lost_city_b4.jpg (289.4 KB)
289.4 KB JPG
>>97460633
i think we probably just disagree on
> far more interesting matters and topics.
for me, running out of resources and trying to survive IS very interesting. picrel has it as the whole set-up. it's intended as a 'starter' adventure, takes places in the desert, gathering food and water is priority #1. so there's a straightforward goal that could lead the players towards allying with factions, killing monsters, exploring, etc etc.
of course you can plan ahead but that's what we're talking about: prepare enough resources for the adventure ahead. you can use a calculator to determine the cost of three weeks' worth of iron rations and animal feed.
and this can happen entirely organically through play. in these newer games, what if you just get stuck/lost underground? that's the premise of Veins of the Earth (kinda). i thought it was just hipster bullshit, but it was actually incredibly exciting. you NEED to find light. you NEED to find food. finally returning to the surface was, ironically, boring and anticlimactic. suddenly we could just buy food and sleep at an inn.
>>
>>
>>
>>97460320
i love mundane adventures. i love playing as a normal guy fighting against challenging odds, whether it's goblins or skeletons trying to fuck me up, or forces of nature. i like it when i have to put real mental effort into thinking about how much i can carry between food, water, camping supplies, etc. it's extremely rewarding and fun. so yea it's a "mundane adventure" and mundane adventures are fun and awesome and cool. not everyone wants to pretend to be a fantastical marvel superhero from level one.
>>97460421
this is extremely low quality bait, but i'll bite anyway. it's not "performing dull rote tasks" unless your GM is just a moron who doesn't know how to run survival mechanics properly, or you're playing a system that isn't built to handle them and stapling them on haphazardly, which i've seen many people do with 5e and then claim all survival mechanics must be bad because they don't work well with the game that wasn't designed to use them. i'm not saying that playing the game without survival mechanics is "wrong" or whatever, if you want to play that way and that's how you have fun i really don't care, but you're not better than people who like them.
>>
File: tracker.png (112.6 KB)
112.6 KB PNG
>>97460686
>It's a combination of laziness and just wanting to get to the part that's fun for them; and to play devil's advocate, I don't particularly enjoy tracking temperature, hunger, disease, and light either, but at least I'll track the resources that matter to combat abilities.
honestly, i think B/X gets this right to the point it's pretty ingenious. in AD&D and 3.x you CAN sit there and measure out exact weights right down to ounces.
but really, it basically boils down to one table of:
>very broad coin weight ranges
>type of armour worn (light/medium/heavy)
>carrying (bulky) treasure? Y/N
Old-School Essentials restated it a bit more snappily, but the same rules were always there. it's not the tedious bookkeeping people make it out to be: you don't need to sit and tally up your gear every time you pick up a dagger.
it's the same with time tracking. 'strict time records must be kept', ha. it's a game, you're playing the game in turns. every turn, the DM ticks off a turn has passed. it's abstract 'scale time', but if you need that in minutes, 1 turn = 10 minutes. ez.
>>
>>
>>97460330
"Was", as in past tense, as in multiple decades ago. It's no longer half the game because it's boring as shit for anyone who doesn't have that specific type of autism. The fun part is killing enemies and taking their stuff.
>>
>>97460691
>for me, running out of resources and trying to survive IS very interesting
For me as well. However, mundane resources are not particularly interesting (inherently. That's what mundane means), and often not worth the tedious bookkeeping involved.
Take torches, for instance. Incredibly cheap, last quite long, easy to make/improvise, and not particularly heavy. You can typically carry more than twice the amount you'll expect you'll need, which renders the entire business of tracking how long each one has been burning, how much money you've spent on them, how much they weigh, how many you have remaining, and all that other tedious business just a constant annoyance. Even worse, having to leave a dungeon because the entire group somehow fucked up and didn't bring enough torches may be the lamest reason to have to leave a dungeon.
If food is a resource, it should be an interesting resource, and not just a question of how many flavorless rations you have remaining before starvation. There are ways to make collecting/eating food worth the bookkeeping involved, but since those would bring food into more prominent focus at expense of other concerns, most people would prefer to have their games centered around things like dangerous explorations or mysterious investigations or diplomatic negotiations or violent decapitations, so food becomes an afterthought at best, a nagging bit of bookkeeping at worst.
>>
>>97460307
Because retards like those ITT can't comprehend the fun comes from discovery, not from tedious bullshit. It's not about counting how many stacks of rations you have it's about finding new, whimsical, magical places nobody has seen, and if they have it hasn't been for centuries. It's the wonder of discovery, of exploration. That's why there aren't adventure games, because nobody fucking knows how to do that.
>>97460672
Then walk outside into the woods and starve to death you insufferable joyless faggot. The world will be better off with you dead and food for the scavengers.
>>
>>
File: equipment.png (191.7 KB)
191.7 KB PNG
>>97460885
>not particularly interesting (inherently. That's what mundane means)
oh fair enough. something can be...i don't know, commonplace, standard? but also standard. hell, even IN more storygaming-oriented systems, that model relationships or whatever. illnesses, breakups, not making this month's rent...those can be dramatic, i'd even argue way more than some saccharine animu chosen one music_swells.mp3 nonsense. maybe i'm just getting old.
>having to leave a dungeon because the entire group somehow fucked up and didn't bring enough torches may be the lamest reason to have to leave a dungeon.
yeah something like this is just shitty, i'll admit. honestly, i think that's where a DM ought to step in and say
>you guys sure you don't want more torches before you head out?
rather than
>doho! you're on level 3 of the dungeon...and your last torch is spent! dohohoho!
(if they do genuinely venture too far and get lost or something, then IMO that's fair game and can be exciting as a player.)
>food becomes an afterthought at best, a nagging bit of bookkeeping at worst.
i mean the rules that are there in D&D usually focus on the here-and-now of either travelling in the wilderness or exploring a dungeon. something i think 5E did pretty well was the concept of 'downtime'. i almost feel like it shouldn't have to be stated, but they made it clear: you're paying some upkeep and getting food/sleep between adventures.
stuff like rations or dropping them for giant rats as you leg it back to the entrance, that's really straightforward. bookkeeping-wise, we're talking "7 x iron rations" on your character sheet, rubbing that out, and writing "6 x iron rations". not as tedious as that other guy is pretending.
>>
>>
>>
>>97460908
that's true. but there's a published product i have a problem with. this has led to player habits and a general shift i have a problem with. it's both prescriptive and reflective, if that makes sense?
and then to add to that, there's a lot of actual, black-and-white rules there were simply fine already. so it's like they've introduced the problem (and some people don't view it as such, fine), only for us to be told there's an alternative.
another clumsy example but it's like if 3D cinema/televisions stuck around, maybe even became the standard. by now we'd have people writing software to de-3D the 3D-by-default video files.
>>
>>97460421
It's a crude solution to a good goal in the design, that players should be limited before they begin a gauntlet in order add value to their choices (it is then both agency and judgement affirming). Saying
>you can carry this much, and have these many resources to prepare with
and
>you need to prioritize what kinds of rewards you want to bring back because there is a cost and complication to taking all of it or certain pieces in particular
are good design goals. Assigning weight to everything and asking people to count it diligently is a simple solution that does achieve that goal. It also happens to be in service of a specific fantasy, one of plucky mortals doing heroic things. This should be obvious.
>>
>>
>>97461022
You're performing cart-before-horse logic to try and defend sacred cows.
Also, having limited resources is not a design goal. It's a basic constraint of games.
Reducing tedious bookkeeping is a good design goal.
Prioritizing decisions that are exciting and meaningful as opposed to mundane and cumbersome is a good design goal.
Keeping the game focused, efficient, and well-paced are all actually good design goals.
>Assigning weight to everything and asking people to count it diligently is a simple solution that does achieve that goal.
You're trying to excuse a clumsy mechanic that creates an enormous amount of both bookkeeping as well as reference look up, and all because you think players having to decide what's the least valuable items by GP to weight that they can leave behind is the nail-biting decision making that you think everyone is so excited to play RPGS for?
>>you need to prioritize what kinds of rewards you want to bring back because there is a cost and complication to taking all of it or certain pieces in particular
That's not even a good "design goal." Hell, you're actually reminding me of Lunar: Dragon Song, an RPG that seems to have deliberately tried to implement every worst bit of game design it could cram into itself. You actually had to decide whether you wanted experience OR items as rewards from each battle, because of the idiotic type of design that says "Players making choices is good!" without any further thought about the player experience, and not understanding that not all choices are equal.
Putting a cap on player rewards that makes them discard what they've earned while requiring some incredibly tedious bookkeeping is about as bad as a mechanic as you can get before you start introducing physical punishment into the mix.
>>
>>97460327
Unironically why do people give a shit if there are easy mode options in video games? It's a fucking video game, it's not a real achievement. Who cares if people that find it harder get help if you aren't forced to use that help?
>>
>>
>>97461246
>You're performing cart-before-horse logic to try and defend sacred cows.
Patently untrue. The only thing I'm defending is the objective/intent of the procedure as it is congruous with the game that the original creators were interested in playing.
>It's a basic constraint of games
Which you are choosing to remove, along with many others. Don't track ammo, short rest all the time to get spell slots back, don't track encumbrance, don't track HP (usually told to DMs concerning monsters). This is consistent, and per your own admission is removing something essential to being a game.
Ignoring the next couple lines since they are largely value judgements and as such pointless to argue (meaning, total subjectivity and you are in some kind of heightened emotional state so won't approach another perspective with anything other than the intent to disagree).
>You're trying to excuse a clumsy mechanic
Nope? I am calling it a simple and crude mechanic that supported the type of game the original creators (and many fans) wanted to play. There are other solutions, not interested in discussing which solution I prefer since it's not relevant here.
You capped off with a personal preference on a mechanic I have no interest in arguing against, considering the other side isn't even my preference. Nothing to add.
Are you good or do you want to write another seething reply over a tremendously trivial subject? It genuinely doesn't even matter since modern D&D doesn't even concern itself with this kind of shit, not to mention its only even relevant at individual tables where some autistic dudes might genuinely enjoy the beancounting so why bother getting mad at them?
>>
File: hardtimes.jpg (69.6 KB)
69.6 KB JPG
>>97461292
>>
>>97461266
Easy mode redesigns are a lot more than just a decrease in how many hits enemies take. Theres also enemy compositions and placement, attack timings, and all kinds of things that need to be calibrated and tested for. It’d like the difference between making a meal for one vs a meal for a family, you have a lot more than just ingredient portions to take into account.
That said, I’m cool personally if people want an easy mode, especially for game series that offer optional harder difficulties as well. Games should let you have a choice on how you want to experience it, like how Wonderful 101 outright calls it’s easiest mode for people who want a calmer experience. Most people just find that video game journalists over-exaggerate video game difficulties to the point they not only take points off of games meant for children for being “too difficult”, some have expressed wanting the game to outright play itself so they can just crap out their mandated game articles and call it a day.
>>
File: roots.jpg (47.3 KB)
47.3 KB JPG
>>97461222
to me, the fun part is exploring dungeons and solving puzzles. puzzles in the basic sense like riddles and switches, sure, but open-ended problems too. luring monsters into pit traps, that kind of thing.
just run a game where you actually have a mapper and operate according to the standard game procedure, turns and all. you'll be amazed what comes out of play organically even if it isn't the 'story' you wrote.
i ran a Barrowmaze (OSR megadungeon) game. in the book there's one villager who has a secret allegiance to a cult. the PCs tried to recruit him as a bit of muscle: he had other duties so he he declined, but he agreed to help with whatever 'info' he had (often a bit dubious).
suddenly, these robed cultists seemed to know their every move. because they did. my players eventually figured it out through the process of elimination and had the guy arrested. NONE OF THIS was ever anything beyond the basic cause-and-effect of their actions. shit was great.
>>
>>97461266
depends what it is. maybe it's not 'easy mode' in the sense of a Mario game offering to beat the level for you, but for me it's something like fast travel or a compass in an open world/RPG game.
Morrowind ADDED the journal system in a patch, i suppose that's nice, but it makes you very aware what's 'a quest' rather than relying on your own notes and memory. but once it's there, it's there.
in Oblivion you can decide, 'right, i'm NEVER go to teleport to a town.'
but you're also always hyper-aware it's one click away...
of course i want everyone to have fun, and i think features for players with legitimate disabilities (for example) are a fantastic feature. but i dunno, if you CAN play Castlevania on the NES, go play Castlevania on the NES. it's fun, you'll beat it eventually.
>>
>>
>>97461338
>I am calling it a simple and crude mechanic that supported the type of game the original creators (and many fans) wanted to play.
And I'm calling you dumb, because Arneson, Gygax, and dozens of other early designers endlessly kept proposing alternate ideas because they recognized how inefficient and clumsy it was and how much players didn't like it.
Gygax even moved on to a far more abstract inventory system for Dangerous Journeys, his follow-up to D&D after TSR, because only an idiot could play D&D for even a decade and not notice that "counting weight diligently" provides value nowhere near worth the bookkeeping it requires.
Actually, in Arneson's case, in his follow-up to D&D, Adventures in Fantasy, he actually introduced an even clumsier and even more fucking awful encumbrance system where player/mount speed was constantly influenced by how much they were carrying.
Regardless, they knew there was something wrong with the encumbrance rules in D&D, and they tried to fix it long before they moved on from that system. Even Gygax introducing Tenser's Floating Disc was a direct response to how much his own son hated having to leave behind treasure, and the Bag of Holding (and Portable Hole) being incredibly popular D&D items because players could stop caring so much about carrying is no secret either.
It's hard to pretend fans wanted to play a certain way when some of the most beloved magic items were just ways to bypass the bullshit the game itself created.
The original D&D encumbrance system was not simple. It was, however, crude. And, players (and designers) back then were not all idiots who believed that somehow that the game had perfect rules on the first try.
>Patently untrue. The only thing I'm defending is the objective/intent of the procedure as it is congruous with the game that the original creators were interested in playing.
Total bullshit. Did that plop out of the sacred cows you keep?
>>
>>97460307
Because they simply can't handle real consequences of any kind. The munchkins, control freaks, cheats, and snowflakes the TTRPG genre was intended to naturally repel are welcomed by companies like WotC. No surprise so many who claim to be playing real games, are just collaborative story-writing.
>>
>allowing an ability or item in your game that trivializes and entire mechanic
lol
lmao
>not attacking the cantrip with an antilight/antimagic field
>not having someone or something steal the bag of holding away
>allowing ANYTHING to simply happen automatically, thus removing it from the game effectively
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
lord of the rings
1. handwaives supplies and logistics
2. removed the need for torches in the mines of moria using magical light on gandalfs staff
3. ignored food and hunger by creating magical elf bread that can feed a man for a day with just crumbs
and no one would tell you it isn't peak fantasy adventure because it ignored that stuff in favor of telling its story.
>>
>>
>>
>>97461677
fair enough, I'm not certain what you're claiming is true and I don't think Gandalf is limited but rather deliberately restraining himself when he choses not to cast magic, but lemme ask you this, if Tolkien had decided that he would go into detail about the Fellowship tracking resources across its adventure, do you think that would've made the trilogy any better? Is it necessary to do that kinda stuff to tell a good story and have a good adventure?
>>
File: The Dragon March '77.png (2.8 MB)
2.8 MB PNG
>>97461677
Gandalf was only a fifth level magic-user, after all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: D&D Expert Rulebook X19.png (161.3 KB)
161.3 KB PNG
>>97461699
(NTA)
>lemme ask you this, if Tolkien had decided that he would go into detail about the Fellowship tracking resources across its adventure, do you think that would've made the trilogy any better?
of course not, but that's the difference between a novel and a game that relies on these systems. if every Lord of the Rings chapter began with the Fellowship's current inventory and itinerary, that would be some weird Ulillillia shit.
>Is it necessary to do that kinda stuff to tell a good story and have a good adventure?
for the kind of games/adventures i enjoy, i think it is necessary.
read the attached example from the D&D Expert Set. for one thing, that's something a PLAYER can sit and do: come up with a list of supplies and considerations for the journey ahead. i think that's exciting. and these aren't 'for flavour': they're what the party actually needs to be outfitted with for the journey.
a lot of D&D games feel like they're just 4-6 people in various sets of armour who walk across a road or hire a taxi, then they teleport to the next city. maybe the DM says some lovely prose about passing through sweeping hills and pleasant farmland. (the 5E DMG offers this 'travelogue' advice, in addition to the old-fashioned hex-by-hex method.)
i can see how someone might find this tedious. but can you see how some of us find it stimulating? there's this whole world, with an actual map, you're also likely mapping it as you go along. it's not just about GETTING to the fireworks factory, the journey itself is PART OF the adventure.
>>
>>97460961
You wouldn't know, of course, because you're a bloated obese whale who's never left his mother's basement.
>>97460972
It's called Fantasy you drooling retard. Realism has no place in a fantasy world. It's a cancer upon the genre.
>>
>>
>>
File: batman rubs chin.gif (214.3 KB)
214.3 KB GIF
>>97461784
this is TOO agreeable. can you at least call me a faggot and tell me to die in a fire, or something?
at any rate, i think a lot of people associate stuff like weights and item tracking with the 3.x character sheet that DID have weights including 1/2 and 1/4 lbs. i actually think B/X using coin weights is pretty clever.
a lot of newer OSR games have various item slot systems. but really, it comes down to the actual items themselves, which is just a list of words on a sheet somewhere.
i played Skyrim for the first time recently, and damn: you can carry a lot of stuff compared to the previous ones. yeah yeah vidya abstraction, but there's an easy solution in just NOT letting my puny mage carry 7 enchanted battle axes in his pockets. (maybe you can get packhorses like that one guar in Tribunal, i never made it very far.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: otus-troll.jpg (43.5 KB)
43.5 KB JPG
>>97461870
/tg/ is still one of the better boards for discussion (both on 4chan, and a wider internet where message boards are on the way out).
trolls gonna troll, but overall i'd like it if people just assumed good faith, that's not a bad term for it tbqh. some people seem to enjoy making THEMSELVES angry with all these weird conspiracy theories, why?
i realise i'm now leaning into all the meta-shit, but i hope some poster/lurker decides to keep this in mind. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. i made my post slightly provocative but that wasn't to rile people up, it was to start a discussion.
perhaps one day like alt. text, HTML will have an option for 'subtext' where you can elaborately explain all this to less uh... neurotypical users.
>>
>>97462099
maybe, i'm sure some book has done it (fantasy or otherwise). just begin each chapter with like a quick run-down of supplies.
but that anon was right that the point is the story as prose (and lore/history) and while food/supplies ARE part of that, they're also narratively assumed. same with e.g. shitting in a trench and tending to wounds.
to use another 'mechanical' example, people HAVE mapped the Fellowship's precise journey across Middle-earth. there's actual geography there, which could have easily been glossed over.
in a D&D game, you have a wilderness map and a list of items. glossing over those, i find that deeply unsatisfying.
>>
>>97461699
If Tolkein had the characters loudly proclaim how many hitpoints they had regularly throughout the battles, would that have made for a better story?
Probably not, and yet you track it during a game, because it's a game, and it's more important to know the specifics.
Tolkien giving a numerical value to the Fellowship's supplies and ammunition would be far less egregious than giving a numerical value to how much damage they're taking, because the supplies are at least something tangible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97462582
Unironically yes
People say "Rangers are worse fighters" but thats only because the only metric for measurement in 5e is combat.
If tracking, survival, and wilderness exploration were key features again it would be useful
>>
>>97462582
Pretty much
>>97462605
Nah, it was more of what does a Ranger do that a Fight couldn't do as well? The problem is Rangers is that they're supposed to be fighters with some magic and meant to guide others in the wilds. If all you use the system for is combat and maybe some social check events. Rangers are useless. If you make survival and tactical preparation required without the cheat magical items and spells. Rangers become useful for gathering food and preventing the party from getting lost.
>>
>>97462625
It's the fact that today's gamers, in all genres, are hyper-focused on optimisation.The only metric in 5E is combat because only combat allows you to become overpowered as fast as possible and exploit the systems. Nobody wants to be a grizzled old ranger, they want to be Legolas on meth firing more projectiles per minute than a machine gun - only they don't, because that's not quite as broken as other classes.
>>
>>97462625
This is why when forced to use 5e, you should always just jury rig in ADnD ranger archetype and refuse to acknowledge the gay faggotry from when they fucking turned aragorn, faramir, eomer and boromir-alikes into
>"you get to be legless the faggot elf, or dribble the retarded faggot elf"
>>
>>97462682
that's because today's gamers have never actually experienced ranger. they have only experienced legolas or drizzt.
they don't know from Aragorn. THE RANGER. DUNEDAIN OF THE NORTH.
let alone fucking Tanthalas.
>>
We're really gonna pretend encumbrance is a good mechanic? It's a timewasting drag in single-player video games that calculate everything instantly and you fucking faggots want to bring it to a table with other people?
>>
>>97462625
>>97462644
Personally I haven't really experienced foraging for food being a thing (across few editions of DnD and couple other systems). Just keeping track of rations as a money sink / carry weight ballast.
And I've seen tracking come up exactly once, where we failed all the rolls, GM realized he has nothing for the alternative that we wouldn't find enemy hideout and handwaved it so that we actually DID find the dungeon but it took us longer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97462718
Yeah, cause then you have plan ahead. Then again I bet your the person that >>97462760 mention. Whine when you have to track and keep up with all your spell components and can't just rest after every battle to recharge all your spell slots.
>>
>>97462730
I have ran a few games with that. Rations can be used but foraging for food can be done while traveling without have the skills for it but it's harder for them to track and harder for them know what poisonous and all.
>>
>>97462718
yes, in a game about looting treasure from dungeons (how you traditionally gain XP), what you carry is important. it's a very straightforward risk-reward factor you have to decide as a player.
it's not like your computer games where player_speed = strength / sum(item_weights[]) + speed_bonus... or some shit. it's a very, very simple table. in fact, armour is the biggest factor (just like it is in 5E).
>>
>>97462773
>rest after every battle to recharge all your spell slots
Literally
>Why can't I use all my spells every encounter? Making them last and choosing when to use them is stupid.
I find "I cast fireball" a stupid joke for that reason
No more tactical decision making or resource management
>>
>>
>>97461266
If video games are art then there's an intended experience that the artist wants you to have. That includes the amount of challenge the game provides and an easy mode so that bandwagoners can rush through the game everyone's talking about without taking the time to learn it would detract from that.
>>
>>
>>
>>97463155
There was no consequence besides just those words being said - no additional difficulties at destination, no extra rations being consumed along the way.
>>97463215
Wizard can, at a cost of a spell slot, (Tenser's) Floating Disk is intended for just that. Also stats don't really go under 8 nowadays.
>>
>>
>>97463191
Sounds like a fantasy combat sim.
It's probably also best if all character stood in place and you just assume you can hit all of them. No tactical placing, just hit every enemy with your aoe, and hit anyone you want to.
>>
>>97463532
>It's probably also best if all character stood in place and you just assume you can hit all of them. No tactical placing, just hit every enemy with your aoe, and hit anyone you want to.
Unironically, yes.
It was good enough for jrpgs for decades.
>>
>>
>much ado about nothing: the thread
If you want to micromanage every resource and have the players really think about what they take with them for an adventure, factoring weight, spoilage, utility, and so on, that's cool.
If you want bags of holding, an infinitely pouring fondue fountain that you can conjure that keeps everyone fed, magical fairy lights that illuminate dark places, and other streamlined mechanisms, that's cool too.
As long as everyone at the table agrees on what kind of game they want to play and what homebrew shit they want to use, it's a non-issue.
>>
File: Untitled.jpg (1.5 MB)
1.5 MB JPG
>>97463530
Depends on what the consequences are. Additional random encounter(s) as we wander the wilderness is minor inconvenience and really just a padding. If that's the worst that can happen, it's easier to accept failure as the default and not care for the skill at all.
At the opposite extreme, if failure means missing something critical, it can bring whole game down, and you might not even know what you've missed, which is a consequece so harsh I'd imagine most GMs won't risk it.
I guess it boils down to that gygax quote about strict time tracking, when you're on a tight schedule and you know it, travel efficiency becomes obvious priority, with more relaxed/abstract scheduling it's whatever...
>>
File: goodberries again.png (540.1 KB)
540.1 KB PNG
>tfw it's goodberry night again
>>
>>97460320
Idk the explosion in popularity of games like rust, tarkov, and my summer car seems to indicate people like tracking mundane shit. I think ttrpg writers have been pushing this "rules-lite" meme for so long that games have incestuously become basically formalities to be pushed aside.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97464904
no it didn't.
>>97465658
stop fabricating a fake reality for yourself, you mental tranny.
>>
>>
>>
>>97466212
They made 333k for the 2nd edition kickstarter. Then a year later made 142k for just extra magical items a year later. Then another 143k for the elf sourcebook. Alongside all the books sold on DrivethruRPG. Is it going to be the next D&D? No, but to say it failed is a full blown lie. It's just a game for people wanting high level gameplay and more than just combat and a social encounter here and there.
>>
>>97466928
Everyone point and laugh at >>97463717
>>
>>97466928
>>97468105
spell components are literal jokes and the game isn't geared towards them mattering
unless you can show me a core rules table with prices and availability of each, in which case I'll change my mind
>>
>>97468118
Weapon worth 10SP, Diamond worth 50GP, etc. Why is it now we need a table to justify something? I remember that being a thing ACKS does for almost everything and had people whine about it. Saying that it's pointless and autistic
>>
>>
>>97468188
On each spell that requires components, they list what is required and if it will consumed it or just part of the requirement. Often telling you the price it should cost and all. You don't need a huge table of every component and how rare it is. Look at the fucking spell and say you shopping for X, Y, and Z so the DM can tell you what you can find and all.
>>
>>97468118
too bad loser. you never BOUGHT any rubies, etc. so you haven't got any, so you cannot cast fireball.
congratulations, you are a failmage.
I bet you're one of those retards who blows through what SHOULD be thousands of gold worth or spell components in every fucking fight, without ever once replenishing your stock, just straight up ignoring the game rules.
that makes you a filthy cheating cunt, the 'THAT GUY'.
>>
>>97468214
>so the DM can tell you what you can find and all.
that's the problematic part
unless there's some interesting gameplay attached to components, like procuring them or storing them, it's just busywork
there are no interesting challenges here, and if the players suddenly want to pay attention to it, then the DM is left to figure everything out by himself
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97468092
Someone actually calculated (roughly, and always with the estimate in ACKS's favor) that money versus the costs involved, and the game was far from a big success. There's even evidence to support that, since despite all that money, they actually ran out and exceeded the art budget and had to use AI art.
Also, it's funny that you bring up the money amount and not the amount of backers, which I believe never ever hit even three thousand. Most of the money from the kickstarters actually came from a very few people spending ludicrous amounts (several hundreds or even thousands of dollars) on pretty dumb packages. Were you one of those people? You sound like one of those people.
It's a bad game for dumb people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97460307
According to your bag of holding criteria no one has wanted to play fantasy adventure since 1974 when the first edition of the first pen and paper RPG came out.
>>no need to worry about encumbrance any more
Except of course that bags of holding have added encumbrance weight for all of the past 52 years.
>Light cantrip
That's 3e
>Goodberry
That's late 1e.
>automatic ranger foraging
5e
You're jumping all around the time line with your windmill tilting.
>>
>>97468105
>>97466928
>>97468239
Jesus christ you're an inbred, illiterate retard. Rules as written, a Spellcasting Focus replaces any Material Component that lacks a Cost and is not consumed by the casting of the spell.
>too bad loser. you never BOUGHT any rubies, etc. so you haven't got any, so you cannot cast fireball.
Fireball does not require any components with a cost and its components are not consumed upon use, ergo it can be used with a Spellcasting Focus. Read the rules.
>congratulations, you are a failmage.
An intelligent mage would never use something like a component pouch that requires fumbling through a bag of useless garbage to cast a spell when they could instead use a focus and simply wave it around and chant the incantations.
>I bet you're one of those retards who blows through what SHOULD be thousands of gold worth or spell components in every fucking fight
A Component Pouch has an infinite amount of - and I quote - "Free components" rules as written. It is mechanically identical to a Spellcasting Focus, rules as written.
>that makes you a filthy cheating cunt, the 'THAT GUY'.
Nope, you're the filthy cheating cunt and that guy for saying that Fireball requires components with a cost or that are consumed when it clearly does not.
TL;DR, you're a nogames faggot who's too illiterate to read rules, let alone run or play any Tabletop RPG.
>>
>>
>>
>>97473989
>It is mechanically identical to a Spellcasting Focus, rules as written.
And, rules as written, they run out of power. It is just assumed they are maintained during down time like weapons getting resharpened
>>
>>97474309
>nice goalpost moving, strawmanning, and purposefully not understanding the point so as to make discourse impossible.
That's all you.
>>97474535
>And, rules as written, they run out of power.
There is nothing in the rules that state this.
>It is just assumed they are maintained during down time like weapons getting resharpened
This is also not stated rules as written.
>>
>>
>>
File: 1767365675223151.jpg (611.6 KB)
611.6 KB JPG
>>97460307
>Why don't people want to play a fantasy adventure game any more?
I care about the actual adventure, not inventory management
>>
>>
>>97473989
Wow, you're acting worse than a spoiled toddler who been told no for the first time.
I can tell you don't play any real games. Maybe just roleplay with your gay tran drama club rejects and want to be the powerful and smart caster without anything holding you back like worthless "Components."
>>
>>97462798
>looting treasure from dungeons (how you traditionally gain XP
Ah, so we're doing this to facilitate the worst XP system ever conceived. Lovely.
>>97462773
>>97462760
>I bet you [something completely different]
Really astounding arguement. I could FEEL how encumbered you were trying to come up with it.
>>
File: 1767169627386388.png (12.7 KB)
12.7 KB PNG
>>97464536
>>97470350
>real-time video games were players are free to do whatever they want when they want at their own pace.
Great examples guys
>>
File: 589475845.png (383.2 KB)
383.2 KB PNG
>>97475579
>nonono, you´re doing it wrong
>i know better than you whats fun to you
>you gotta do it my way, because.... you just have to, ok????
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97475858
You're like a toddler. you just want to play pretend, however as soon as you have to use your brain for more than keeping your pamper clean. You start throwing a fit cause you didn't get what you wanted and live your childish power fantasy with other people when people are trying to play a game.
>>
File: quote-when-i-became-a-man-i-put-away-childish-things-including-the-fear-of-childishness-and-c-s-lewis-42-6-0623.jpg (64.2 KB)
64.2 KB JPG
>>97476362
>You're like a toddler. you just want to play pretend
Nta, but c'mon now.
You are a hypocrite who wants to lie to himself.
You can't accept what a game actually is. You are too ashamed to look it in the face and see that yes, it is a childish activity. That yes, it is people playing pretend.
You want to dress it up like you think that making it more dull and boring will somehow remove its childishness. That making it imitate some desk job will somehow make it more adult, and all just because you are terrified of admitting that at the core of the activity is imagination, something you don't have a drop of and view as unsightly because you think it's too childish.
People like you are so fucking sad. I've met many like you, and I was astounded to realize that yes, they just didn't have a good imagination. Maybe it atrophied, maybe they never developed it, but when it came to games, they simply could not come up with any creative ideas/concepts/solutions and instead focused on coming up with ways to cope with that fact. All of their mental energies become directed at figuring out how to avoid using their minds in a way useful to a game. All their inventiveness is directed towards creating lies to tell themselves.
You are the crystallization of that. You try to look down upon people who actually play games, in your effort to cope with the fact that you suck at them. Perhaps you're good at performing math problems that wouldn't trouble a 3rd grader, and perhaps you're good at memorizing and slavishly obeying some rule set and exploiting any weaknesses the designers did not foresee, but that's hardly what can be called real skill or talent when it comes to Role Playing Games. That's just you coping with the fact that your atrophied imagination has left you with nothing else.
>>
>>97474528
>>>Light cantrip
>>That's 3e
>Cantrips were limited slots
>Also, it's in 1e splat, but hey
Please show me which 1e splat book made light a cantrip and not a 1st level spell.
protip: you can't.
Even after cantrips came out light stayed 1st level in 1e and 2e only becoming a cantrip in 3e. But hey.
>>
>>97475635
They are good examples. Inventory management, even if uninteresting itself, can make the game more interesting. Besides that, tracking the weight of a dozen imaginary items is trivial and anyone who thinks otherwise should be outside stacking coloured blocks with rest of the four year olds.
>>
>>97478028
https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Colored_Lights_(Cantrip)
While not the light spell, it is a light producing cantrip
>>
>>97478664
>if you dont like me fiddlefarting for 30 minutes over which trash items i should pick up you are a le retarded
You probably think it's LE REALISTIC for there to be loot nobody in the party can or will ever use.
>>
>>97475598
>Wow, you're acting worse than a spoiled toddler who been told no for the first time.
Utter projection. You get corrected on how the rules work and throw a fit. Spellcasting foci do not run out of energy, weapons do not dull, and Fireball does not require a consumable component, let alone a ruby. The fact you're completely lacking in knowledge of the rules means you are in no position to berate or belittle anyone because you're the biggest cheater here.
>I can tell you don't play any real games.
Notice how you have to ad the arbitrary quantifier "real", because you know that I read the rules and play and run actual games unlike (you).
>Maybe just roleplay with your gay tran drama club rejects
It's called a ROLEPLAYING GAME. As >>97476658 points out, you're an insecure manchild who can't accept that roleplaying is part of the game.
>want to be the powerful and smart caster without anything holding you back like worthless "Components."
First of all, I play martials, not casters. I played a wizard once and it was the most boring, miserable experience of anything I've ever played in a TTRPG. Second, as has been pointed out, there are still limitations on full casters. While yes, a Focus prevents you from needing a Component Pouch (which is just a reflavored focus anyway since none of the components are consumed nor do they run out RAW), as I've already stated any Component with a Cost or that is Consumed by the casting is still required, even with a Focus.
It isn't my fault you're an illiterate, inbred manchild nogames. Go read a rules book some time, if the two brain cells in your hollow skull are even capable of comprehending more than the bare minimum.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97478769
>fiddlefarting for 30 minutes over which trash items i should pick
I play games that let you pick bundles of items or let you roll for them. Some games don't include these and I consider that a flaw in those games.
>loot nobody in the party can or will ever use
Selling an item is a totally valid(if somewhat boring) use of magic loot in a game where money has tangible uses.
Honestly, it sounds like you gutted the parts you thought were superfluous and then discovered that it made other parts of your game not worth engaging in.
>>
>>97478790
>What role do they play at the table beyond wasting everyone's time?
What role does finding monsters in a monster infested wilderness serve? Probably the same thing that finding water is a lake serves. It's the thing that is over there. If it wasn't there it wouldn't be that thing.
>>
>>97478833
>Selling an item is a totally valid(if somewhat boring) use of magic loot
If a magic item's only possible use-case is being vendored for gold, it's a waste of everyone at the table's time to not just give them the gold as the reward.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97479057
They can do that without random encounters. I'd know, I GM very frequently.
>>97479035
Realism is a cancer upon the genre because it restricts the fantastical elements. Once you introduce one element of realism, you have to introduce more. For example, dragons are wholly unrealistic. So are several other fantasy creatures. Where do you stop your adherence to realism? When does it stop being Fantasy and start being a historical?
>>
>>97479080
>dragons are wholly unrealistic
I see the problem
You don't know what "Realism" means
Ironically, fire breathing dragons are one of the most plausible fantasy creatures as we have seen all the biological mechanisms in real life
>>
>>
>>97479119
They're too large to exist. They would be crushed under their own weight.They certainly couldn't fly.
>>97479148
>NOOO IF YOU AREN'T RUNNING AN EMPTY VOID WHERE NOTHING EXISTS ITS LE RAILROAD
You're a nogames and it shows.You've never GM'd a game in your life, let alone played one.
>>
>>97478987
>a magic item's only possible use-case is being vendored for gold,
I never said it was only possible use case, nor even the best possible use case(in fact I called it boring). It's just a use that it may have. Players may find a creative way to use the magic that I didn't think of, it may become a bartering chip, it may be used as a power source for other more powerful artifacts, it may be used by a character not present or that hasn't been rolled up yet. Your lack ofplaying gamesbeing able to imagine the ways to use it is not the own you think it is.
>>97479018
Rare but it does happen. An all evil party doesn't have many ways to use a Holy Avenger the normal way.
>>97479045
I could, but I find that far less interesting.
>>
>>97479188
>They're too large to exist.
Obviously it wouldn't be exactly as described, but a lizard looking creature with bird bones can exist, spitting "fire" (usually a chemical reaction like the bombardier beetle) exists, four legged creatures with wings exist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97479234
Obviously there is a normal way to use it. And the evil party converting to good or duping a gullible paladin into fighting for them would be interesting. It'd have to be a fool to change the item and remove that possibility just because the party might not.
>>
>>
>>97479193
>I never said it was only possible use case
Ok i was talking about scenarios where this is the case. Try to keep up.
>it may be used-
Or it wont because it takes up valuable inventory space so nobody bothers.
You very clearly only play games with yourself in your own head.
>>
>>97479188
>NOOOO IF YOU DONT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE EVERYTHING IS OR EXACTLY WHEN EVERYTHING HAPPENS IT'S A LE RANDUMB EMPTY VOID
Funny how "nogames" is your insult of choice when you've at-best read fanfiction to people
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97473989
>Rules as written, a Spellcasting Focus replaces any Material Component that lacks a Cost and is not consumed by the casting of the spell.
It doesn't replace them. You still need each and every single one of them; they are just in the pouch.
>"A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
Well no it isn't. It doesn't have an infinite amount of anything. The game devs knew this, and pretty much got rid of all the spells that consume costless materials. The text I quoted is all of it though; if some spell lists as a consumed material component "three pounds of dirt", that's not in there (the pouch weighs 2 pounds). With a component pouch, nothing is replaced- it just literally has them. If someone rifles through it while you are asleep and replaces your crystal rod with a diamond one, you won't be able to cast lightning bolt the next day because you don't have the right component. A spell focus actually replaces the need for a material component.
Anyway I don't have an opinion on the rest of whatever debate is going on here.
>>
>>97479306
Sorry friendo.
>>97479330
>i was talking about scenarios where this is the case.
And I was saying there aren't scenarios where a magic item is going to be totally useless.
>it takes up valuable inventory space so nobody bothers.
Are you giving out three +1 swords everytime they walk an old nona across a busy street? Play the game properly and maybe you won't have problem after problem plaguing your every decision.
>>
>>97461266
I pretty much never hear it discussed outside of Souls games. The biggest reason is that the game already does a lot of work to cater to players that struggle with the difficulty, there are an absolute fuckton of ways the adjust the difficulty through the options available in game. You can literally just summon someone else to beat the game for you. Essentially, nothing has to be done yourself. Second though, is because they already often struggle to get these games out without issues. Elden Ring had a bunch of performance issues and the difficulty curve gets wonky as fuck towards the end. Dark souls 1 had a lot of cut content that results in some jarring patchjobs, and the whole last third is a pretty big step down in quality. Dark Souls 2 is just kind of a mess at the most basic level. An explicit easy mode would either mean adding more work on top of their notable tendency to overstretch themselves, or dropping the integrated difficulty option design that I really, really like.
>>
>>97480285
>I pretty much never hear it discussed outside of Souls games
Because Souls games are easy as fuck, every fight basically being a rhythm game with a bunch of cheap tricks to troll the player. There's no legit difficulty or complexity to it, but it has all the appearance of le hardcore gayming.
That's why people obsess so hard over epic challenge runs like
>CAN I BEAT ELDEN RING WITHOUT LEVELING, USING ARMOR, WEAPONS, ITEMS, RUNNING OR HEALING WHILE USING MY FEET AND ELECTRIC GUITAR AS A CONTROLLER?!
The answer is always yes because the core identity of these games is rolling to dodge telegraphed attacks, fight the wonky camera, attack, repeat. There's nothing to tinker with to add an easy mode.
>>
>>97460307
I said this before and I will say it again. New age DND isn't a Fantasy like b/x, 3.5, and the OSR games. It's a superhero TTRPG set in a "fantasy world." They gutted most of everything that isn't social or combat. Basically use a magical item or spell to just handwave something that you had to keep track of and manage. Or don't bother with at all for things like survival and traveling. At this point they deserve to fall for their dumbass takes and ruining the brand name with listening to people with pronouns in their bio that were clearly only there to push their woke shit into the game and brand.
>>
>>
>>
>>97480782
If literally any souls boss had passive health regen they would be actually difficult. As it stands, you can ALWAYS attrition them down eventually no matter your loadout because every boss has the same options, "attack" and "not attack"
>>
>>
>>97480844
>hasn't learned a single thing
Brute-forcing your dumbass thought process that only occurs in idealized play inside your own head isnt exactly a great way to "teach" whatever it is you're teaching. Keep disappointing your players with enchanted platemail no one wants to wear and trash weapons in your loot nobody will use.
>>
>>97480849
My players have enchanted plate and would love some more, which keeps them engaged. By the time they have more enchanted plate than they could want there will be better, more interesting kinds of plate to discover. Worth noting the party is close to 15 members (including henchmen obviously) so it's not like there is more gear than there are bodies.
AND if there really is no one in the party that wants ton wear it you can see above >>97479193 >>97479278 where I talked about ways that even an evil party can make use of a Holy Avenger.
To be 100% clear, I don't think it's a character flaw on your part that you haven't completely converted to my style of play but rather that you have failed to understand or attempt to integrate any of the reasonable and time tested common truths that we've discussed.
>>
>>97480872
Anon your "common truths" also apply to any item no party member equips for any reason. You dont HAVE to give the evil party a holy avenger to get interesting interactions out of items, you just think you do.
Also it's pretty easy to have the stance "there are no useless items" when your players' party has more members and minions than there are classes.
>>
>>97480882
>raid the tomb of an old saint
>no items keyed to good aligned classes
That would be silly. Atop this the unusable magic item is super rare. Far more often than not there is someone who can use the weapons, someone who can use the wands, someone that can use the boots of sneaking.
Just run the game. You not a dancing monkey who exists to make sure the players don't get bored. Let them interact with the world as it is and the players will find interesting ways to respond to it (as long has they have functioning cerebellum).
>>
>>
File: Screenshot 2026-02-01 092326.png (32.4 KB)
32.4 KB PNG
>>97479869
Good.
>>
>>97481014
>Choosing not to use =/= unable to use
Yes, im glad you agree with what i posted
>>97481003
>there is someone who can use the weapons, someone who can use the wands, someone that can use the boots of sneaking
Reminder that these were the main items i was referring to in my first post >>97478769 and the second reply even agrees games with actual loot mechanics are superior
>>
If I’m stuck in some nowheresville little village in a desert with a population of 12 as a prepared caster, then I will not be picking many useful spells because a lot of spell requirements are specific materials like Mistletoe. How am I gonna source diamond dust when the locals don’t have a mine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97484182
If the argument is that spellcasting components are important resources to track, then spending a resource to bypass a resource is well worth it.
And that's assuming you're not playing a more modern edition in which the cost of Eschew Materials is buying a quarterstaff.
>>
>>97484266
The concept of needing to keep a stock of components is ridiculous to me. I get why it was a thing, I'm not saying it makes no sense. It's just not as simple as "arrows" or "potions." At least 3.5 allowed you most spells don't consume the item, but how shitty was it when you lost your pouch for some reason and couldn't do jack shit?
>>
>>
>>97484282
I think arrows are where the comparison currently is. Because it is a resource that a character spends throughout a course of an adventure.
Where it falls apart is that individual components vary wildly in terms of how accessible they are. Arrows are pretty consistent in that you can buy them or find them from enemies. Components will range from bits of leather to body parts of specific animals or plants, and there's no correlation with how rare a component is to how good the spell is.
And unless the DM just lets you buy the components in town, the choice is either to organize a field trip to go harvest bat guano. Or more likely, the player just picks Lightning Bolt instead of Fireball so that the materials are fur and crystal which they'll actually have a decent chance of coming across on their adventures. Both of which are still better options compared to when casting Minute Meteors needed a 1000 gp golden tube.
Which is part of why I can't take people seriously when they try to act like spell components are some meaningful measure of balance. There are already spells that don't require components, as well as components that a PC could buy a pound of for a few silver and be set for their entire adventuring career.
And really, if the only thing keeping certain spells in check is the DM being stingy about how much licorice root you can find, that's of a sign that the spell itself should be fixed.
>>
>>97484562
Spellbooks I'm fine with truthfully. The idea that you're not able to memorize your entire history of research sounds reasonable to me. Like you said, just keep a backup.
>>97484746
In my campaign too, casters are seen as dangerous, so if you go around asking for materials known to cast large balls of exploding fire, you will draw attention to yourself pretty quickly. I always run it like arrows like you said and players just restock in town for a couple gold pieces and then they're good for a few weeks.
>>
>>97478704
Yes, it's a light producing cantrip but as it's not the Light cantrip it doesn't have any bearing at all to the point being argued and OP's complaint list is still decades out of date and not the 5e polemic he/you were hoping for.
>>
>>
>>
>>97489165
Wait do you play games with torches, or light sources, or items at all, where you don't have to designate how you're holding it? Even if there aren't explicit mechanical requirements it still ends up being narrative relevant for story games.
>>
>>97489545
at best we tracked which character "held" the torch and whether other characters and enemies were in range
but it didn't take up a hand
you could still dual wield, do acrobatics and generally be unobstructed by being the torchbearer
>>97489522
>In olden times, there were clips that allowed soldiers to carry a torch on their shields.
I've never heard it mentioned in an rpg
that would be interesting too, since it implies you can only attach the light to specific equipment
>>
>>
>>97489595
When I was a teenager our 3.5 group wasn't overly concerned about it, but I think there was ambient light most of the time or stereotypical wall sconces and such.
Most of the other games I've played have had handedness and light bearing be tracked, even Dungeon World, if there was dungeon exploration to be had.
>>
>>97489165
It's implicit in how torches/lanterns work that it needs to be held to use it. When players ask if they can hang it on their belt I explain that it has to be held above your head to be useful. If you've ever had anyone else hold a torch while you check your car engine it's easy to understand that providing light properly is a proactive duty.
This is also why some games (though I don't remember when it started) have Dancing Lights as a spell. So it doesn't take up a yand that could be holding a weapon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: samewife gangrene.jpg (23.3 KB)
23.3 KB JPG
>>97492226
>>
>>97493137
Because they can usually. My players just took a bunch of high value holy symbols off some psudo ghoul abbots last session. The place was a working church many years ago but now it's full of undead and dimensional invaders. They have the high minded goal of resanctifiying the place (after they take everything of value out of it).
Should they do it? Maybe not but no ones stopped them yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97493137
Selling a relic for petty coin would be frowned upon.
Requisitioning it to once again fight for a good cause, should be legit. Legends are full of this stuff - Spear of Longinus, Ark of Covenant, Durendal, Excalibur.
>>
>>97460307
Bag oh Holding has been around since like forever. You have just discovered Continual Light which as been around the same time. And Create Food and Water have been Cleric staple spells for just as long. Yes, D&D is a game about resource tracking and will often give you to spells and gear to just ignore it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97496875
It's presumed to be as >>97496952
Requisitioned for the Greater Good. Money from the sale can be reinvested into adventuring gear such as holy water which they will do but don't always do it immediately which is why it's more grey than they might like to be.
>>
>>97497216
Ah 5th ed. But even back in 1st edition, these were things that were a non-issue once you got past the first few levels which was going to happen fairly quickly. Plus, low level adventurers rarely traveled far which made food and water issues often moot. They didn't define the game.
>>
>>97497304
>these were things that were a non-issue once you got past the first few levels
Consider it an earned reward.
> rarely traveled far which made food and water issues often moot
Even a short travel is likely a week or so
>>
>>97497304
>once you got past the first few levels which was going to happen fairly quickly
Surival rate of 1st level character back in 1st and 2nd edition was not great. Low, often single digit, HP pool combined with non-negotaiable death at 0 could make any encounter lethal.
>>
>>97497304
>>97497334
Also also
Goodberry didn't create food, it enchanted existing fresh berries
>>
>>