Friday, May 31, 2019

Decay

There are few rules that attract more ire than those that ask for bookkeeping.  Encumbrance is always the truly hated example, as the weights of specific things are a fiddly bit of information requiring math and extra writing.  The same could be said of asking players to identify just where a piece of equipment is ~ in backpack, on person, in saddlebags, carried by the porter and so on.  Players feel this level of detail should be just assumed, so they can get on with the real play.

But of course, the more it is assumed, the more players will abuse it.  In the days when I didn't demand it, I would discover a mage was carrying around 15 daggers, so they wouldn't run out, or that a ranger was carrying 135 arrows - in seven quivers, obviously.  All on his person.  And this says nothing of players hauling around ten and twenty thousand coins, presumedly in one sack.

Many DMs are fine with that.  So long as the daggers are paid for, or the character has written "sack" down on their character sheet, they seriously don't care about the niggling details.  I began caring, however; and though my players did complain a little, I found in short order that they cared, too.  They especially care when they've taken the time to organize their gear and one player in the party hasn't.

Ages ago, in 2014, I wrote this post about gear breaking down.  At the time, I considered it a thought experiment.  It was a bridge too far.  Essentially, I saw it as a means to give wisdom a little more importance, as I was concerned about dump stats and getting rid of that notion.  But I considered keeping track of this sort of thing somewhat less than ideal.

But I was commissioned by Zilifant, who has been a regular reader for years now, to come up with a system for decay ~ the deterioration and breakdown of gear, goods ... even food (which we might deal with separately under "spoilage").  Admittedly, I considered this infeasible.  But I do think there might be a practical method, that players could keep track of practically.

However, it could not be simple.  Things do not break down in the same manner.  Rope will fray, food rots or accumulates insects, metal tarnishes and rusts (and can be repolished) ... while gems show no wear at all.  Clothes may be servicable for putting on, but be grimed or stained in a manner that would make the wearer ashamed to be seen in public.  Animals get old, or lame, or diseased.  It isn't possible to have one across the board system that allows us to plunk in an object and spew out a result with dice.  It takes thought and flexibility.

But ... that said ...

I have a rule in my game that when a weapon is fumbled, another die is rolled to see if it breaks.  Circumstance, result.  The moment the sword is dropped, everyone remembers that it is time to check for a break.  If we could employ that same mnemonic to gear breaking down, we'd be fine with remembering to do checks.

What's needed, then, is a system of checks that produces some very specific gameplay results:

  • The checks have to be meaningful.  Stuff has to break occasionally, and players have to be conscious of that.  Sooner or later, something is going to break or fail at the worst possible time, and players have to be conscious of that, too.
  • The breaks can't be constant.  They have to be rare enough that, for the most part, the players are able to rely on their equipment.  If the breaks happen way too often, players will grow resentful of the system and become disheartened.
  • The breaks can't be excessively random.  On some level, the players have to be able to control the decay, and the rules have to be built in a way that if something breaks, the players are apt to blame themselves, and not the system.  This is very, very important, and is often overlooked by a game designer.  IF something breaks, the first thought in the player's mind has to be, "I should have ... etc."
  • The system needs to have a component that lets players sell off equipment that is in danger of breaking down ... and likewise, to buy used equipment if they wish.  If decay occurs, then naturally every object in the game universe will already be in a state of that decay; so this has to be part of the experience.  This means there cannot be just two forms of an object's existence (fine and broken); there have to be many.

I suggest five levels:  new, used, worn, shabby and ruined.  Objects in the player's possession can be easily tagged: (n) for new, (u) for used, (w) for worn, (s) for shabby and (r) for ruined.  New objects are purchased directly from the maker; these are quickly broken in.  Nothing stays new for long, before it becomes used.  Used objects are durable.  It is hard to reduce them, but with enough time and strain, they will be made worn.  Worn objects are starting to break down.  Under abnormal conditions, they will take a turn for the worse and become shabby; but under heightened stress they may bypass shabby and directly break.  Any object, even one that is new, may break under certain conditions.  It is up to us to define what those conditions are.

In broad terms, we can say that "normal use" of any object does not require a roll.  Using a sword as a sword, using a backpack to travel, attaching a saddle to a horse ... these are things for which the objects were made and therefore no roll to check their condition is necessary.  This means we need only check the decay of an object from new to used to worn to shabby, and at any point to ruined, according to the pressure or tension exerted on the object.  And to define that, we should consider unusual stress on an object.

In D&D, what counts as unusual?  Well, dungeons, obviously.  And moving off road.  And any time we use an object in a manner for which it was not intended.  Using a piece of clothing as a rope, for example; or walking dressed through a swamp; or falling into a pit trap.  These are moments in-game that we can define and apply from case to case.  But we should also consider that we are not keeping track of every moment of the character's game-day.  A trek across a wilderness obviously has moments where a character slips and lands in mud, or is caught by an old tree branch, or scrapes a boot or pant-leg on a rock, or is nipped by a horse ~ or a hundred other possible moments of stress that wouldn't cause a hit point of damage but would wear down gear.  Add to this that much gear of the fantasy game, while hand-crafted, is yet made of materials somewhat less durable than carbide steel.  That is, unless your backpack is made of mithril by elves.  There should be, therefore, a "general stress" of equipment that comes into play, even after ordinary use.

How then, to categorize this?  I suggest that a roll is made for every object that is carried, to determine if that object decays from step to step based, first, on the following generalizations:
  • One month of normal use, in normal conditions.
  • Three days of wilderness use.
  • One day of dungeon use.

This would account not only for the wear & tear of scrambling, packing, unpacking, crawling around underground and so on, but also for the stabs and jarrings of weapons blows, should combat occur.  None of these conditions would cause a new, used or worn object to break; but would do in a shabby object.  Very bad luck and twelve days in the wilderness could wreck a brand new rope, but that is unlikely.  In any case, remember that objects such as ropes are often unpacked every night and tied to trees to serve as shelters, tethers, or as a place to hang wet clothes or wiped kitchen ware, which soaks the rope and wears it down.  Objects on the ground get stepped on as a character moves into the trees for relief.  Or kicked.  Or crammed into a pack in a way the produces strain.  It isn't just what we normally use an object for; just being along on a journey causes decay.

Exempt objects may be anything that is expressly protected.  A scroll inside a scrollcase.  A spellbook inside a metal box.  If specific care is taken, then the protecting object should always have to make a roll first, before the contents are in the leastways threatened.  That will help put some players' concerns to rest.

Second, there are unusual circumstances, things that might occur only a few times in an object's lifespan.  A new sword is fumbled.  The break load on a rope is challenged.  A ten-foot pole is used as a lever.  A horse is ridden down a very steep embankment.  A galley is used to ram.  The possibilities are endless, but manageable.  This is not a simple game.  There is no way to account for every off-normal thing a player might do with an object.  Nor can we account for how much stress someone might put on an object.  At some point, we have to use our judgment as a DM.  Fairly, obviously, and discussed transparently with the player: "That is a very, very unusual thing you're doing with your crossbow.  I'll have to double the normal amount of stress be put upon the object.  Seem fair to you?"  A good player ought to acknowledge that it is; but if the player makes a sound argument that it isn't that unusual, the DM should consider stepping back.  The particulars are not that important, after all, so long as some kind of roll is being made.  But a good DM ought to be able to convince the player about the amount of stress being employed, and the importance of more severely challenging unusually innovative tactics.

Overall, a collection of instances, shared by the whole party, should produce a consistent judgement from the DM.  Some of these can be written down and codified; but something new is bound to come up at some point and a DM must be ready to make a judgement.  I'm not a fan of DM's fiat, but some ideas are impossible to codify entirely.  Like a judge defending the law, the key is to create precedents that can then be used to manage future instances.  Once many precedents are collected, and remembered, an overall consistency can be obtained.

As a condition, some things may never really experience, at least not short of an earthquake.  A stone axe, for instance, would have to be put under a lot of pressure to crack.  An immense stone building may survive hundreds of earthquakes.  Such things may never need to roll.  It still falls to the DM's judgment. 

Rolling

The rolls themselves are not that complicated.  A new object becomes used if a 1 in 4 is rolled.  At the appropriate time, one die can be rolled per object, or groups of die can be rolled for multiple objects, with a random roll after to determine which object/s were made used.  Under stress, a new object breaks on a 1 in 100.

A used object becomes worn on a 1 in 20.  Under stress, it breaks on a 1 in 40.

Worn objects become shabby on a 1 in 12.  Under stress, worn objects break on a 1 in 30.

Shabby objects become ruined on a 1 in 8.  Under stress, they break on a 1 in 6.

Doubling the stress on an object is as simple as saying that something breaks on a 1 or 2 in 100, or 40, or whatever.

The fumble system remains unchanged.  Combat is a very, very stressed environment.

The system lets players see plainly that it is time to replace something that has become worn; or to decide that something that's shabby, like a mug (which grows chipped and stained), isn't crucial to life.  When it breaks, it breaks.

The system also lets the players grow attached to objects they can now identify as possessing for a long, long time.  That mug, for example, will probably acquire a description, and when it breaks its loss will be felt.  Some personal attachment to objects will likely be a happy result.

Overall, when a change in an object occurs, the maintanance of the equipment list is very easy.  An "n" is simply replaced with a "u."  The mnemonic for all the scales is nuwsr ~ which is fairly easy to remember.

Value

Finally, this gives players the option of buying objects that are not necessarily new, for less money.  I would suggest objects should cost 100% of list price new, 80% used, 60% worn and 40% shabby.  This is a simple set of numbers that many players will be able to calculate in their heads.  Objects can then be sold to the merchant for half this price: 50% new, 40% used, etc.

Players will likely choose to pay for things that are new or used, but if they're equipping a force or buying clothes for a hireling, they may choose to buy worn items.  The same is true if objects are needed such as swords for training or a disguise is necessary.  A shabby set of clothes may be just what a thief needs.

Post Script,

Please give me your insight on any of the above.  I'll let the reader know in advance that I intend to delete any comment that tells me how YOUR system works.  I don't care.  I've seen other systems and discarded them.  But please feel free to poke holes in the above, if there's something you feel I haven't accounted for.  I feel like there's something I've forgotten, that I thought about yesterday, but for the life of me I can put my finger on it.

Tell me also if you feel this would be an excessive amount of bookkeeping in your game.  I'd especially love to hear from anyone who tried it, or talked about it theoretically with their players, to get the feedback from a completely unprepared audience.  Please record the response if you have the means.

This could be a monumental add to the game, if it did prove simple enough and immediately graspable for a group of players.

22 comments:

  1. I definitely think something like this is needed. Could you elaborate on the time necessary before a check is made? Would the date of purchase need also be tracked? If so, that would seem to move the needle into excessive bookkeeping.

    It would probably be more of an issue with normal use. Now we are tracking two pieces of information for every item we have.

    Example: I purchase a rope on the 3rd of the month. I purchase a saddle 10 days later. Do I make both checks on the 1st of the next month, or the 3rd and 13th respectively?

    ReplyDelete
  2. For ease of play, we have to skip over the exact date of purchase; trying to keep track of that could drive you crazy. For playability purposes, we'd have to make a set date for the "monthly use" checks. The 1st of the month, as you suggest

    Yes, that will mean that some new things, your rope for instance, will have four weeks of use before it is checked. And the saddle you buy on the 29th of the month may only have two days.

    But let me stress something: the difference in material value is unchanged between "new" and "used." Your saddle still works exactly as well two days later as it switches from new to used. In game terms, perhaps the character discovers the saddle was already used; this is a medieval world, there's no better business bureau to complain to. But this doesn't mean the saddle won't last twenty months before you roll a 1 that reduces it to "worn." Which STILL doesn't reduce the value of the saddle to you. It still works fine as a saddle.

    So some might make a quibbling difference between a few lost days here and there, and some might struggle to buy stuff right after the beginning of the month. But in fact, this is wasted effort for the most part. The amount of gain on the system as written would be very, very minimal. The harder abuse on your goods would come after six days in the wilderness, and NOT as a result of what time of the month you bought something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow. This is brilliant stuff. I feel like I got way more than my money's worth with this commission! Thank you Alexis! Some initial thoughts:

    It could be cool to add the possibility for repair to certain types of items, when the players have the appropriate know-how, time and materials (perhaps tied to your sage abilities?). For instance, someone with leather-working skills might be able to improve the quality of a "shoddy" pair of boots to "used". Likewise, cantrips like Mend might improve the quality of a torn article of clothing. With this system for decay you've devised, it wouldn't be a stretch to tie in game rules to these types of cantrips and sage abilities that relate to equipment quality.


    This may be a different topic, but any thoughts on food? You did some great work the other day describing the effects of different food quality and means of preparation. What about tracking how old the food is in your pack, relative to the quality of the food? Salted pork will last considerably longer than an orange!


    I strongly encourage more folks to commission work from Alexis. I'm thinking up my next commission already...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree about repair, Zilifant. You'll find I've already updated the mending spell:

    https://tao-dndwiki.blogspot.com/2018/03/mending-spell.html

    And what things could be repaired would definitely be linked to the progenitor secondary skill system and sage abilities.

    Spoilage for food is definitely another post. I thought I'd put it together when I transfer these rules (along with proposed precedents) to the wiki.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, that mending link hadn't been updated after all. It is now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Love this stuff, and I'll be bringing it up with my group (I'm player not DM). Doubt any of them will go for it but I'll try anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I use a similar system, which I won't detail, I just wanted to give feedback about how we track damage to items. You basically put an X next to a worn item; three X and it breaks. Super easy to track and visualize. If someone has a skill to care for the item, you add only half an X, basically increasing its life time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Each and every object? My players have 6-20 items that they are carrying, each, and 20-40 on pack animals. It would be too much for them and me. I am already having them keep track of food quantity and quality, appropriate clothing for weather, shelter to regain hit points, light resources, plus more.

    Having details is great, and making choices meaningful is important. But this seems too fine a level of detail to make it more than tedious. How does making these choices (whether or not to replace worn gear, at this detail) improve the quality of the game given all the other choices that are being made?

    I appreciate that this gives mending more reason to exist, like the cooking rules give meaning to purify food and drink.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 60 items? That doesn't seem like many. I have characters that have at least four or five hundred.

    There's never any requirement to apply anything I think of, Baron. It is a thought experiment, at worst. As for the value, well, YMMV. I always find that the grittier I make something, so long as I can handle it (see the Mnemonic post), the players carp and bitch, then they get used to it, then they embrace it and begin to see endless possibilities for their own invention and innovation.

    This process takes time and no one is required to invest it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are some items with which I expect would have a higher rate of degradation which is actually somewhat expected.

    Thrown weapons being an example.

    For tracking on the monthly rolls I expect these are items that are actually being used. If kept in a container in a wagon, and not used at all, I assume they would generally be fine. Giving higher value to chests, barrels and so on over sacks. That would probably bring down the amount of checks you actually do quite greatly.

    And of course metal safes and the like for more precious things.

    I anticipate you may still consider yearly + checks for things that might just degrade with time without being specifically put in specially prepared places.

    Given my history I can see myself just going down the list. With a decent spreadsheet inventory you might even be able to make a button for it, but I've never gone that far into scripting sheets/excel.

    Anyhow I think there are a lot of principals in here that are good ones, and totally support what I'm reading.

    I think building your sheet around this concept could really help for the whole tracking. And of course, as your group tends to be pretty digital, no problems there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Reading your last comment about "players carp and bitch, then they get used to it, then they embrace it and begin to see endless possibilities"

    So often in many dnd games I've played so much of the... human experience in capitalism is really lost as no utility is given to it's components.

    Why buy 10 sacks when one sack can do the job? Why tote around a barrel, a chest, a cart and some hirelings when they're really only a hastle?

    In some games folks wax about how there's nothing to spend money on. And honestly, it's cause there's no utility given to anything that doesn't have +1 next to it...

    So yeah, wear 7 quivers (somehow) when all the arrows snap or drop out during the dungeon crawl, or have their fletching spoiled enjoy....

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'll second the accompaniment of repair rules that should go with this, but I also think it might be useful to include proper care for items. Things like polishing and sharpening and oiling weapons and armor, etc. If a pc leaves their bow constantly strung the bow will degrade faster. Another example most people can relate to: maintaining a car, it will last far longer if the oil is changed and a general checkup is conducted regularly; the PCs aren't going to have a car in dnd, but the same could be applied to wagons and such. Basically I think there should be a rule that if a pc is taking care of their equipment it should have a smaller chance of degrading or vice versa

    ReplyDelete
  13. When I first talked this over with Zilifant, I thought it would take a spreadsheet. And certainly, a spreadsheet would be useful.

    I can see two very easy ways to manage this. The games I play r/l always have hundreds of dice on the table, so if I have to roll twenty or thirty d4s, I can borrow them and roll them together. If there were 60 new items on a character sheet, I could quickly roll twice x 30 d4s, and count the 1s. Then, roll a d60 to see what the first 1 referred to, then the 2nd one, and the third, and so on down the list. This would take even less time calculating the used articles that might have become worn.

    Faster still, I could generate a line of functions on excel: =randbetween(1,4) ... fill out sixty of them, then rattle off the item number down the list to the player. "Six, fifteen, twenty-one, twenty-three, twenty-four, thirty-one ..." and so on. The player would just have to make a little tick, then go through and change all the "n"s to "u"s. Done. I could get through 5 players this way in about 6-7 minutes, while those not being called would take a break, get a drink, talk about the next part of the adventure, etc. No time at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I strongy disagree, Lance. I would rather see the characters as professionals, which means they ALL sternly maintain their equipment as best as it can be maintained, already. My original idea in 2014 had a wisdom component. You'll notice that's gone. I'm ready to be gritty, but I don't wish to hang that particularly guilt on the players. I would recommend you don't go that route.

    It is hard to explain, but I can see how your suggestion would build negative karma around your game table. Your proposal specifically punishes the LEAST enthusiastic players around the table. The ones we're trying to get aboard. You're giving an extra bonus reward to players who would, even if there wasn't a rule, decide to buy a whetstone and remark casually that they're sharpening their sword.

    Beware of rules than hinge on the actual player's personality and bent. You'll divide the party.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I quite like it. But without running it from a computer, I have a hard time imagining all players rolling for every item using different dice. It would take a lot of time at my table. It leads me to think, should the regular wear and tear really be randomized? I feel the random element contributes in stressed situations, but for regular use I feel like items might as well have an expected lifetime. Maybe a middle road could be rolling only for the check that would break an item. Some other thoughts: Would magical items also break eventually or are they exempt from these checks? And how would this system interact with the regular upkeep (100 gp/lvl/mo) do you use that?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I like this idea quite a lot; would you have it interact in anyway with your trade system's quality, or are they distinct measures that should be kept as part for simplicity's sake?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sebastian,

    I would tend to exempt magic items, but I suppose a simple method would be to give them a second die. If a sword that is dropped breaks on a 1 in 6 in my game, a +1 sword breaks on a 1 in 36 (snake eyes).

    I don't use the regular upkeep rule any more.


    James,

    All my systems interact; I could take some time and redesign my trade table, so that the "shelves" included items that were used or worn. And rarely shabby.

    I could add a junk shop/peddlar to the over all list.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was referring to the fact that the last iteration of the trade system I saw had a "quality modifier," from "ordinary" to "finest master."

    My question was, do you envision that having an effect on decay, or is that too much bookkeepping?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Are segments of your system for sale, Alexis? I'd be very interested in purchasing the full character generation system. Or giving a monthly pledge for access, though as you're aware available money fluctuates from month to month.

    ReplyDelete
  20. James,

    The measure you're describing is a question of workmanship, not durability. For example, a fine suit of clothes will still be new, then used, then worn; the ornateness, the cut, the quality of the material, won't change that. Likewise for an unusual or an arcane book, or some artwork, or bit of furniture. A master sword will break less easily, but then it follows the stress rule applied to weapons.

    Haggis,

    I'm not done with the 2019 upgrade of the character background generator. I will let you know.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is probably one of the better item degradation systems I've seen for a tabletop game.

    I plotted an item's chance not to degrade for each state over a number of degradation rolls. And the cost per roll over an item's lifespan if it's bought at a particular state.

    https://i.imgur.com/maRzGKN.png
    We can expect a new item to fail after 29 total rolls, a used item after 27, a worn item after 13, and a shabby item after 5. New items' markup doesn't justify the 2.5 extra average degradation rolls. The discount for worn and shabby items doesn't offset their reduced life expectancy under stress. Used items are always most cost-efficient unless the item won't be rolling degradation with any frequency, the item is not needed for more than a few uses, or the user is expected to die before the item fails. So buying shabby items for henchmen makes sense if the player expects them to die before they leave the dungeon. Else it's better to buy used items for everyone. Perhaps henchmen receiving shabby equipment should receive a morale/loyalty penalty.

    Since the Mend spell has no material components or cost other than time, a mage can probably make decent living mending shabby items, either buying and re-selling or offering mending services for a price. Parties may also obtain access to higher-end items by buying them in a shabby state at 60% discount and mending them.

    Since every item in a player's inventory degrades at the same rate, there's less advantage to bringing spare weapons or equipment. This feels off, regardless of rationalization, because we expect items in active use to degrade more-quickly than those we are not. But players still should bring spares to hedge against streaks of bad luck, because 1d20/1d12/1d8 rolls all have a large standard deviation. We can expect 50% of a lot of used swords to break after about 27 days in a dungeon, but any given sword can still break after just three days.

    It's still committing a lot of game time to rolling dice with minimum player involvement. For a party of six characters with an average of 40 items each, we're looking at 240 dice rolls for every day in dungeon or every three days in wilderness. If it takes on average 6 seconds to resolve each roll, it will take 24 minutes for each day in a dungeon or every three days in wilderness solely for basic inventory upkeep. That's 24 minutes of players watching the DM roll for whether a character's spare pants are still good. It doesn't seem like a good use of game time.

    So this system would work best with an automated Excel inventory, with Excel automatically updating item status for the player. Or the DM could roll inventory before a session. Or limit rolls to armor, weapons, and other such.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So much to answer, Homer. Briefly, then.

    "New" has an esoteric value.

    We can argue back-up items that never touch the players hands, are not loaded and unloaded, don't need to make monthly checks. Buy a wagon, save checks.

    I don't know about you, but one game session for me rarely accounts for a month of game time. There would be plenty of sessions where three days in the wilderness didn't pass. And more than a few without more than a few hours in a dungeon.

    Six seconds a roll? wtf?

    "One" of the best? hah ha hah ha.

    ReplyDelete