Time Efficient & Bragging Rights

I live in a state of wonder.

Yesterday, Homer2101 wrote of my decay rules,

"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 ..."

I honestly don't know how people who live in this world can exist so blithely unaware of how human beings think.  How pervasive is the shot in the image shown, of people waiting many hours for the first touch of a phone they could buy without waiting a week later?  Does Homer not realize that there are players ~ some who I have had play in my game ~ who would throw away an item the second it became "used"?  Just because?  That is how they would see their characters.

I think it's great that Homer crunched the numbers.  It's useful information, and the fact that numbers can be crunched shows how potentially reliable the system is for actual play.  But we do ourselves a disservice when we think the game boils down to how the numbers dictate we should play.  And it astounds me that ~ although there are many people who will never buy anything new, on principle ~ that anyone talking about the subject can be so cognitively dissonant about the way that humans think.  People won't buy "new" because it is cost effective.  They'll buy new because it is "new."  They don't care about the cost.  The gold in their pocket doesn't mean as much to them, as it might to others.  They're adventurers.  There will always be more gold.  But something that is new, is fleeting.

Hell.  Even a new gold piece has a special worthiness that surpasses the value of the metal.  If I were playing a character, and had just bought a new shield, I would look at my fellow player and his used shield and smirk.  "Are you still using that crappy old thing?  Mine is new!"  Oh, what a prick I would be, bragging about my new shield.

Another example, another concern.  The image on the left is the ThinQ Alexa "smart" refridgerator.  You've most likely heard about it.  It is a micromanager that enables you to scan every item of food you put into your refridgerator, so that you can scan it again as you take it out, so the item can keep track of what you have and what you've eaten.  Presumedly, how many calories you're consuming, and from the things I'm reading, speakers for playing music and a voice that carps at you for eating the wrong foods.

There are some things that puzzle me about it.  There are quite a lot of foods that I don't keep in a refridgerator, like flour, sugar, beans, canned items and so on ... and these things get added to the refridgerator after they're cooked together into meals that I make without measuring, because after decades of working as a professional cook I eyeball everything, including most of the common baking I do.  So once I make a meal, out of substances both from and not from the refridgerator, then put them in the refridgerator as left-overs, I'm curious how I scan those left-overs in.  Or, for that matter, if I cut seven slices of cheese off a block, and return the slightly smaller block to the refridgerator, does the refridgerator weigh the cheese?  Or any of the other things I shave down as I'm cooking?  I don't buy pre-packaged foods ... and I'm definitely wondering how I scan out one potato.  Oh well.  There's probably some way it manages this.

If this is the amount of niggling micromanagement we're willing to install into our daily food-consuming activities, some five or six times a day, why would anyone care about having to roll 40 dice to account for equipment decay?

Is it that my readers, and their players, don't know how to speed up the die-rolling process?

I imagine a player with forty items rolling a die, getting a decay result, putting down the die, picking put an eraser, scratching out the "n" next to the character sheet, picking up a pencil, writing in a "u," putting down the pencil, picking up the die, rolling a decay result, putting down the die ...

Are your players really like this?  Homer postulated six seconds per roll.  Mon dieu!

Suppose that it was determined that, out of 60 pieces of equipment, 22 were new.  Some of those wouldn't need to roll at all; if the characters take the effort to pack all the extra uncommonly used articles in a single backpack that doesn't get opened or adjusted, then only the backpack need make a check.  Thoughtful storage would reduce wear and tear.  But let's say, I have 22 items to roll, and I have to use a d4.

First, I can simply roll the dice quickly, in batches of six, noting out loud, "fine, fine, down, fine, down, fine" ~ down meaning an item is downgraded.  Then I make a quick check on my character sheet on the 3rd and 5th item, and begin rolling again.  This way, I can easily do six rolls in six seconds.

Obviously, I'm not using a dice tower.  Dice towers are game momentum killers.  If you're at all interested in the pace of your game, make your players get rid of them.  They're only a way for the player to glom more attention to themselves as they fetishize their die rolls, making others wait and creating unneeded noise at the table.  But what am I saying?  Most of you have already figured this out.

I can speed the process still faster by having my neighbor roll dice, calling off the twenty-two items as I make ticks on my character sheet.  Or, I can roll the dice and my neighbor can make the ticks.  Unless, of course, both you and your neighbor are such profoundly distrustful prats that you can't trust one another to be both honest and faithful ... in which case, why the fuck are you playing with this person, much less sitting next to them?

With the two-person method, I can make 22 rolls in twenty seconds, and probably less.  The checks, once made, don't even need to be addressed during the game session.  The character sheet can be adjusted later, when we're not playing.  Or does that make too much sense?

I'm more than a little astounded that this doesn't seem obvious.  With five minutes and a little sense, with me rolling the dice and the players making ticks on their paper, I could manage five players' equipment.  They would trust my dice, because they trust me, and I would trust them to give the correct number of things that needed a check and to apply the checks to the rolls that hurt worst of all.  I know I could trust my players to do this, because if a player is the sort that won't, it will soon become obvious not only to me, but to every other player I have.  Before I settle in to address the issue, I will probably have two other players separately come to me and say, "You know, I saw Jack doing ..."  These are the kind of players I have.  They don't want to cheat.  They like playing fair.

It must be hard having so little mastery over your game, or the fundamental mechanics of your game, like dice rolling, that you have to make concessions so often for the sake of players who perceive that checks are egregious.  I had been thinking the decay system was a bridge too far, but in retrospect I'm seeing that I've created something rather simplistically elegant.

I refuse to hold myself to a standard of "time saving" with people who will drive all over town for hours on a Saturday to find just the right household towel, between 6-hour sessions playing fortnite and a four-hour football game, but won't sit for five minutes and roll 60 dice.  Fooey!

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.