Please explain to me the fun factor of limiting arrows for the DM then ? Because from a fellow DM’s perspective, it looks like a sucky way to artificially enhance difficulty to players rather than making it fun for anyone.
Thats like a DM refusing to level up your players because mid and high level encounters are harder to plan.
One time, my high level party whoop my ass when Insent them many wyverns. Did I debuffed them ? No. I changed which monsters to use instead.
Firstly, why don’t all video games give you unlimited ammo with no need to reload? Because that’s part of the game. You may not like it, and you can have a good game without it, but that doesn’t mean there’s no value to it for certain people looking for a certain experience.
Secondly… you don’t really have to understand it. It’s a matter of personal preference. It doesn’t affect you even a little bit that other people enjoy a different kind of game. When I care about inventory, I use a slot-based system, but if someone decides to track the weight of everything… whatever, that’s their decision. No one’s obligated to play with any particular DM, and no DM is obligated to run a game they don’t want to run.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. But anyway:
Thats like a DM refusing to level up your players because mid and high level encounters are harder to plan.
That’s literally what Wizards of the Coast does. The game is completely broken at higher levels, so they just avoid creating campaigns that go up that high. And if a DM prefers to run lower-level games… so what? It’s valid. And even though you don’t need permission to run that kind of game, the rules explicitly break down character levels into “tiers of play.”
One time, my high level party whoop my ass when Insent them many wyverns. Did I debuffed them ? No. I changed which monsters to use instead.
Sure, the CR system is notoriously broken. It’s another reason why it’s a pain to run 5e. It shouldn’t surprise you that it’s something I dislike about 5e, because, again, I think DMs should have fun, too.
Its all about choice then ? What makes the game fun and what is a hassle some if not most groups tend to skip over.
My point is not dont count ammo. My point is that you only should count ammo if the players likes it.
Doom Eternal would be just as fun with or without ammo restrictions (with the exception of the BFG) but most importantly having the option to toggle as you please is important. Having just the option of playing without counting ammo would suck.
Thats what some games did with lives. Mario Odissey made lives secondary, and in crash bandicoot 4 they actually give you the choice which I found marvelous.
Hah. Nah, I dont like most WotC campaigns. I prefer to write my own. Which Im doing with level 13 party players at the moment. I doubt WotC would be able to handle it correctly. I tried a few of their campaigns, both as a player and DM and I wasnt impressed. They have big glaring holes while focusing on useless shit. Looking at you, candlekeep mysteries.
But thats my point. Do it IF you have fun doing it. Not because its in the game, or because the DM wants to. But because you the player wants to. Options are always great.
Doom Eternal would be way less fun with no ammunition, not trying to be insulting but you really don’t know much about game design. Doom Eternal, very specifically, uses ammunition to encourage a specific play style the game is built around.
Wait a fucking second. They did it ! They did gave infinite ammo and other cheats IN THE GAME. It does change stuff around, and its an option you can take once you complete a level. So yeah, Doom Eternal with infinite ammo is both something that exists legit and fun.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough: my main point is that the DM is also playing the game. They’re not obligated to run the kind of game they don’t want to run.
If you don’t want to play in a game where you track ammo, that’s fine. By the same token, the DM isn’t obligated to play with you, so they don’t have to change their game to suit your tastes—or anyone’s. If the DM and players are willing to compromise on some things, great. If they aren’t, and that means a game doesn’t happen, so it goes.
The feeling I got from your comments—feel free to correct me—is that you think the DM should put their own enjoyment aside to just do what the players want. That’s my issue. The DM isn’t a servant, in the same way they aren’t a social superior. To return to my first comment, they’re just another player at the table, albeit in a different role, whose enjoyment matters just as much as anyone else’s.
I already did. It’s the experience they want to create at the table. Just like how lots of video games track ammo. That is a completely sufficient answer.
Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way? It’s hard to believe you actually value the DM’s fun, when the DM running a game that makes them happy causes you such confusion and consternation.
If it only makes the DM happy, and none of the players, its shouldnt happen no matter what it is. Some players will fuck off, some players will tank it and begrugingly do it to stay at the table. But its never right. Nothing at a table should be fun just for one person if it affects more than themselves.
As for your question : Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way?
Well, like 95 % of the posts of every forum, its less about the personnal experience and more aboht a discussion around a subject that interests me. What you or other actually do at a table ? Will never affect me. But I like discussing it and bouncing ideas. Since doing this axtually upgraded my own table throught time.
For example, I added new rules that are straight from a video of XP to level 3. They give my players more options and if I never went outside my bubble to check and discuss or examine what others did, and most importantly WHY, my own table would be lesser.
One of the things I learned the hard way was what I told you : if you as the DM do something at your table and it only makes you happy, don’t do it. Because its selfish of you even if you are putting work in, even if you are the one working the most on the table.
Im also a dad. Im doing lots of stuff for my kid. It doesnt give me the right later to force him into servitude because I did so much for my boi.
A DM shouldnt force bad things on their players against their fun because he works so much.
A major issue with 5e is that it breeds players who are very bad for the space. They think DMs are secondary (at best) or just have no idea how a game actually works. It might just be because it’s popular, but i do think some of their scummy practices (like splitting up all the books) contribute to it.
Preach. It’s an attitude from top to bottom, from WotC to an unfortunate number of players.
People complain about a DM shortage, and that is a purely 5e problem. Outside of 5e, you’ve got lots of people eager to run games, because running a game isn’t as difficult and thankless.
I see it quite the opposite. Its the child who does not want to do the part that gets to make the call but then still wants to make a call. Its a game. Play. don’t play. run. don’t run.
So basically players should never have an opinion on the table they are part of ? They should never say : i do not like this. Or : I do not find this fun.
They should just shut up and always say yes ?
A game isnt only what the DM decides or prepare. A good table is a cooperative experience where EVERYONE contributes to some degree. Its a cooperative experience.
sure. players can make suggestions but the dm decides. thats just how it works. also with something as silly as ammo a player do is not wild about it can easily make a build that does not have to worry about it.
So basically, you would prefer to keep a rule that everyone dodge by switching character rather than forgetting about it to allow your players to play what they prefer ?
How about this. How about a table where people that would want to track it do it, and thoses that dont… dont ? What is the worst that can happen from that ?
Players, in my experience, never want to accept an increase in difficulty—but they also get bored when things are too easy. The DM’s job is to create problems to solve, not let the players do whatever they want.
Obviously if nobody in the group wants to track arrows, they shouldn’t have to, but not tracking ammo because it’s tedious is like not tracking spell slots or Channel Divinity for the same reason. Scarcity is a balance consideration.
The differences between spell slots and ammo is that you cannot have 30 spell slots on you at level 1, running out of spell slots is expected because you have so few of them, making tracking them easier since it actually matters, and you cannot buy your way into more easily just like that.
They are both resources, but dont go and say that an arrow is worth a spell slot.
You also cannot get spell slots back by tediously scourging the battlefield or looting basic as fuck soldiers.
And we come back to this question : what is the WORST SHIT to happen to a game if you remove the coubting of normal arrows and simply give everyon an infinite quiver that cannot be sold for gold ?
Because up to now, nobody came with a decent answer to this. Im still waiting.
What’s the worst thing that could happen if you remove tracking of spell slots? I don’t understand the emphasis you’re putting on numbers. It’s very reasonable to expect to run out of arrows in a campaign that includes any element of survivalism.
that is what happens already its just the dm of that table is the one making the final call or not I guess if you guys have a dm that just does everything by consensus. the way rpgs work though is the dm decides what rules to use and how to implement them using as much or as little player input as they feel like.
It depends on if the dm expected ammo to be tracked. If one player is doing it but the dm does not require it then who cares. if the dm requires it then they will mention it to the player not tracking or track it themselves. My guess if the dm did not make it pretty clear in the first session or two that they are likely not tracking it.
DM makes these calls. Pure and simple. Players who don’t want ammo to be tracked can DM and do it that way.
Seriously. It sucks that this is apparently a controversial opinion, but:
Please explain to me the fun factor of limiting arrows for the DM then ? Because from a fellow DM’s perspective, it looks like a sucky way to artificially enhance difficulty to players rather than making it fun for anyone.
Thats like a DM refusing to level up your players because mid and high level encounters are harder to plan.
One time, my high level party whoop my ass when Insent them many wyverns. Did I debuffed them ? No. I changed which monsters to use instead.
Monster Hunter is fun because you have to prep to take down a monster. Preparation and managing supplies is fun.
I guess I have a two part answer.
Firstly, why don’t all video games give you unlimited ammo with no need to reload? Because that’s part of the game. You may not like it, and you can have a good game without it, but that doesn’t mean there’s no value to it for certain people looking for a certain experience.
Secondly… you don’t really have to understand it. It’s a matter of personal preference. It doesn’t affect you even a little bit that other people enjoy a different kind of game. When I care about inventory, I use a slot-based system, but if someone decides to track the weight of everything… whatever, that’s their decision. No one’s obligated to play with any particular DM, and no DM is obligated to run a game they don’t want to run.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. But anyway:
That’s literally what Wizards of the Coast does. The game is completely broken at higher levels, so they just avoid creating campaigns that go up that high. And if a DM prefers to run lower-level games… so what? It’s valid. And even though you don’t need permission to run that kind of game, the rules explicitly break down character levels into “tiers of play.”
Sure, the CR system is notoriously broken. It’s another reason why it’s a pain to run 5e. It shouldn’t surprise you that it’s something I dislike about 5e, because, again, I think DMs should have fun, too.
Its all about choice then ? What makes the game fun and what is a hassle some if not most groups tend to skip over.
My point is not dont count ammo. My point is that you only should count ammo if the players likes it.
Doom Eternal would be just as fun with or without ammo restrictions (with the exception of the BFG) but most importantly having the option to toggle as you please is important. Having just the option of playing without counting ammo would suck.
Thats what some games did with lives. Mario Odissey made lives secondary, and in crash bandicoot 4 they actually give you the choice which I found marvelous.
Hah. Nah, I dont like most WotC campaigns. I prefer to write my own. Which Im doing with level 13 party players at the moment. I doubt WotC would be able to handle it correctly. I tried a few of their campaigns, both as a player and DM and I wasnt impressed. They have big glaring holes while focusing on useless shit. Looking at you, candlekeep mysteries.
But thats my point. Do it IF you have fun doing it. Not because its in the game, or because the DM wants to. But because you the player wants to. Options are always great.
Doom Eternal would be way less fun with no ammunition, not trying to be insulting but you really don’t know much about game design. Doom Eternal, very specifically, uses ammunition to encourage a specific play style the game is built around.
Wait a fucking second. They did it ! They did gave infinite ammo and other cheats IN THE GAME. It does change stuff around, and its an option you can take once you complete a level. So yeah, Doom Eternal with infinite ammo is both something that exists legit and fun.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough: my main point is that the DM is also playing the game. They’re not obligated to run the kind of game they don’t want to run.
If you don’t want to play in a game where you track ammo, that’s fine. By the same token, the DM isn’t obligated to play with you, so they don’t have to change their game to suit your tastes—or anyone’s. If the DM and players are willing to compromise on some things, great. If they aren’t, and that means a game doesn’t happen, so it goes.
The feeling I got from your comments—feel free to correct me—is that you think the DM should put their own enjoyment aside to just do what the players want. That’s my issue. The DM isn’t a servant, in the same way they aren’t a social superior. To return to my first comment, they’re just another player at the table, albeit in a different role, whose enjoyment matters just as much as anyone else’s.
I wouldnt take away the DM’s fun. Ever. He is very important.
Now you tell me how is it fun for the DM to make players count their ammo please.
I already did. It’s the experience they want to create at the table. Just like how lots of video games track ammo. That is a completely sufficient answer.
Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way? It’s hard to believe you actually value the DM’s fun, when the DM running a game that makes them happy causes you such confusion and consternation.
If it only makes the DM happy, and none of the players, its shouldnt happen no matter what it is. Some players will fuck off, some players will tank it and begrugingly do it to stay at the table. But its never right. Nothing at a table should be fun just for one person if it affects more than themselves.
As for your question : Why does it bother you so much that DMs who would never run a game for you are running those games a certain way?
Well, like 95 % of the posts of every forum, its less about the personnal experience and more aboht a discussion around a subject that interests me. What you or other actually do at a table ? Will never affect me. But I like discussing it and bouncing ideas. Since doing this axtually upgraded my own table throught time.
For example, I added new rules that are straight from a video of XP to level 3. They give my players more options and if I never went outside my bubble to check and discuss or examine what others did, and most importantly WHY, my own table would be lesser.
One of the things I learned the hard way was what I told you : if you as the DM do something at your table and it only makes you happy, don’t do it. Because its selfish of you even if you are putting work in, even if you are the one working the most on the table.
Im also a dad. Im doing lots of stuff for my kid. It doesnt give me the right later to force him into servitude because I did so much for my boi.
A DM shouldnt force bad things on their players against their fun because he works so much.
A major issue with 5e is that it breeds players who are very bad for the space. They think DMs are secondary (at best) or just have no idea how a game actually works. It might just be because it’s popular, but i do think some of their scummy practices (like splitting up all the books) contribute to it.
Preach. It’s an attitude from top to bottom, from WotC to an unfortunate number of players.
People complain about a DM shortage, and that is a purely 5e problem. Outside of 5e, you’ve got lots of people eager to run games, because running a game isn’t as difficult and thankless.
This isnt convincing. This is how a 5 years old deals with a table. My way or the highway ? It sucks for everyone but the tyrant.
I see it quite the opposite. Its the child who does not want to do the part that gets to make the call but then still wants to make a call. Its a game. Play. don’t play. run. don’t run.
So basically players should never have an opinion on the table they are part of ? They should never say : i do not like this. Or : I do not find this fun.
They should just shut up and always say yes ?
A game isnt only what the DM decides or prepare. A good table is a cooperative experience where EVERYONE contributes to some degree. Its a cooperative experience.
sure. players can make suggestions but the dm decides. thats just how it works. also with something as silly as ammo a player do is not wild about it can easily make a build that does not have to worry about it.
So basically, you would prefer to keep a rule that everyone dodge by switching character rather than forgetting about it to allow your players to play what they prefer ?
How about this. How about a table where people that would want to track it do it, and thoses that dont… dont ? What is the worst that can happen from that ?
Players, in my experience, never want to accept an increase in difficulty—but they also get bored when things are too easy. The DM’s job is to create problems to solve, not let the players do whatever they want.
Obviously if nobody in the group wants to track arrows, they shouldn’t have to, but not tracking ammo because it’s tedious is like not tracking spell slots or Channel Divinity for the same reason. Scarcity is a balance consideration.
The differences between spell slots and ammo is that you cannot have 30 spell slots on you at level 1, running out of spell slots is expected because you have so few of them, making tracking them easier since it actually matters, and you cannot buy your way into more easily just like that.
They are both resources, but dont go and say that an arrow is worth a spell slot.
You also cannot get spell slots back by tediously scourging the battlefield or looting basic as fuck soldiers.
And we come back to this question : what is the WORST SHIT to happen to a game if you remove the coubting of normal arrows and simply give everyon an infinite quiver that cannot be sold for gold ?
Because up to now, nobody came with a decent answer to this. Im still waiting.
What’s the worst thing that could happen if you remove tracking of spell slots? I don’t understand the emphasis you’re putting on numbers. It’s very reasonable to expect to run out of arrows in a campaign that includes any element of survivalism.
that is what happens already its just the dm of that table is the one making the final call or not I guess if you guys have a dm that just does everything by consensus. the way rpgs work though is the dm decides what rules to use and how to implement them using as much or as little player input as they feel like.
But you didnt answered me. I asked : what would happen if some would track ammo and some dont in the same party ?
You are that DM and your players ask you this. What do you say ?
It depends on if the dm expected ammo to be tracked. If one player is doing it but the dm does not require it then who cares. if the dm requires it then they will mention it to the player not tracking or track it themselves. My guess if the dm did not make it pretty clear in the first session or two that they are likely not tracking it.