DM Question: Enforcing equipment?

[Schwann145]

How do you, as a DM, handle the day-to-day things adventurers would/should have to deal with? Hand-waived for convenience, or enforced because that's a fundamental issue of the character's existence?

The usual concerns mentioned are things like tracking ammunition and rations and what not, but what got me really thinking about this was how most players I've interacted with handle weapons. Did the foe take to the skies? No worries, just "draw your ranged weapon" and continue fighting. But... draw it from where? Have you been carrying a strung bow everywhere in a ready-to-grab location? That string should probably snap on the first draw if you don't unstring it for travel, and we all know you don't do that. And where did you draw it from? Does your battle dress make sense, or does everyone have Link's belt pouch, that can hold basically every item you can think of at once, like a bag of holding except smaller on the outside and way bigger on the inside (ie: hammerspace (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Hammerspace))? If you were attacked while resting, you weren't sleeping in your armor were you? Be honest, do you ever take your armor off?

It's pretty common to hear complaints/objections to things like the above because it "distracts from the roleplay." But... that is the roleplay. You're playing a whole character, aren't you?

Do you think things like the above are indeed distractions and unfun, or are they an expected part of the experience?

[JellyPooga]

As a Player, I self-enforce these things. I make note on my character sheet of where and how I'm carrying equipment and if I can't reasonably carry something I'll make mention of dragging it or obtaining alternative transportation (cart, sled, etc.), even if the rules say I can carry the weight.

For me, the encumbrance rules describe the maximum possible weight carried, not the maximum feasable volume. Two different things. A giant polystyrene ball is lightweight, but a pain to lug around compared to the same weight in loose change.

Personally, I enjoy the aspect of roleplaying equipment issues, including such things as weapon care (you can almost always find oil and whetstone on my kit lists), practical issues (razor, soap, mess kit, tankard, needle&thread, comb, spare clothes) and entertainment (dice, cards), even if they don't have any mechanical effect or I don't get a bonus for having them. It bugs me not to have those things that would be essential for the day to day life of an adventurer; they might not be in the narrative, but they're important (and every now and then they actually come in handy!) to the character. It's all well and good saying your Paladin has a well groomed mustache, but where's the rose-scented oil, brushes and wax he uses to get the curl just right? Otherwise, he's rolling into town without that impressive mustache until he can hit a bathouse or barbers to fix it.

As a GM, however, I tend to overlook it on the assumption that those who care about such things will self-enforce (like myself). For everyone else, I only make mention of it if it's dramatically appropriate to the narrative at the time. Asking who's carrying the only lantern and what they're doing with it while they're swinging their maul, or how exactly the party intends to drag the adamantium door they just disassembled out of the dungeon, for example.

[Dualight]

I think that it depends on the tone of the campaign.
A campaign where day-to-day survival is the focus would probably benefit from this level of attention to detail, while a hack-and-slash would have it detract from the time better spent knocking down doors and cracking skulls.

As player, I tend to gravitate to those character options that remove the need for a lot of the mundane stuff. For example, in a current campaign I play a Reborn paladin, who more than once has refused offers of food since they do not need it. Likewise, that character is always armoured, since that character has no need for sleep, so the drawbacks of sleeping in armour never come into play.

meanwhile, when I DM I only pay attention to that kind of thing when it is dramatically appropriate, or when I suspect that a player is forgetting to track their ammunition, which is strangely the only bit of mundane bookkeeping I actually pay attention to. I otherwise trust my players to keep track of it, as the general tone of the campaign doesn't need that level of attention to detail.

[kingcheesepants]

I think you got it exactly right when you said it is the roleplay. I ask my players to describe their characters and their actions and what they do during various points such as rests and skill checks and fights.

Sometimes people will note that they remove their armor when sleeping. Some (usually warforged and others that don't sleep) will note how they keep watch fully armed and ready for anything. Some people will note that they have a bandolier for quick access to their potions and others never mention their potions at all. By asking for descriptions you give the players the ability to highlight what they think is important and roleplay those elements.

If you try to force them to note exactly where all their items are at all times or you're asking them to narrate how they eat and sleep and do every little thing that might be tedious though. Just ask for some general stuff once in a while. If you've got 2 months of travel don't roleplay every day of it just do it once then kind of assume that they do similar things every time unless there's something notably different going on. If you try to roleplay every single rest and ability check and every time they make an attack that's going to get old fast.

[Zhorn]

depends.
For newer groups I tend to be a little more lenient on some of the more simple things such as food, water, sleeping wearing armor, etc.
But the more experienced the group the more RAW compliant the the table will be expected to operate.

Specific emphasis on RAW.
There are some rulings people introduce in gameplay for being 'more realistic' but I try and steer clear of 'hah, gotcha' practices since the players will have no information ahead of time about such a danger. Take for instance the bowstring example in Schwann145 opening post. Sure it simulated reality, but the players are not going to be aware of such a thing possibly happening in game until someone was caught out by it since it's not listed in the books, and would only serve as a punishment for not accounting for realism in a fantasy game.

A bit of a sore spot for me, having had a DM in the past that played with a very antagonistic DM-vs-Player attitude, introducing houserules on a whim to catch players out where their sole function was to act as unpredictable punishments.
Didn't rp cleaning your shoes? foot disease.
Didn't groom your mount? sores where the saddle would be.
etc

Now that's not to say I won't deviate from RAW myself, I just try to avoid introducing houserules that only punish.

[TyGuy]

It's pretty common to hear complaints/objections to things like the above because it "distracts from the roleplay." But... that is the roleplay. You're playing a whole character, aren't you?


I don't think I've heard that complaint, nor do I agree with it. But it definitely detracts from the rollplay. As much as I find the nitty gritty verisimilitude immersive, I accept I'm in the minority at my table and probably the community.

[MoiMagnus]

How do you, as a DM, handle the day-to-day things adventurers would/should have to deal with? Hand-waived for convenience, or enforced because that's a fundamental issue of the character's existence?


More often than not handwaived. One of my homebrew system even rely on a quantum bag (you can say in front of a problem "my character would have taken this solution in his bag" as long as it makes sense and you succeed a Resource check). Though I tend to focus on scenarios where the PCs have a powerlevel high enough so that magic and/or followers can make those handwaiving somewhat realistic.

While I can see how some peoples like low power adventure where running out of ammunition is a stressful situation, I'm mostly disinterested with that kind of scenarios. (As a consequence, I have a fundamental distaste for any zombie-apocalypse related story, it bore and stress me at the same time and I hate it)

I'm fine with having to specify which part of your equipment is "easy to access" (hence ready to fall down in case of issue), and some limitation to it, though I'd rather have "you have X number of slots for anything" than a realistic approach.



It's pretty common to hear complaints/objections to things like the above because it "distracts from the roleplay." But... that is the roleplay. You're playing a whole character, aren't you?


No.
Don't get me wrong, I've already playing in Improv Theater a 5min scene where my character was just a background character heating his meal (sadly, not a real one), and that was fun to mimic.
But those in those extreme RP moments, the last thing I want is my optimisation mind to wake up and start analysing the situation, or my IRL survival skills to be checked
(like "That string should probably snap on the first draw if you don't unstring it for travel, and we all know you don't do that." is something I would never have though about, so that's one failed IRL survival skill, and I can't really say that's something I've learn today since I'm not sure I'll actually remember it in a week or two)

[Silly Name]

It is ok to take breaks away from realism for the sake of the fiction and fluidity of play. In real life, knights didn't travel all day long with their armor on, and would wear it only when expecting battle (lighter defenses may have been worn while travelling, but a full panoply was reserved for war, usually), but in D&D Fighters and Paladins do indeed wear their armors all day every day, and usually take their armors off only for sleeping or formal events.

Same goes for the bowstring example, and other similar realistic concerns thare are, however, minutiae in a game that doesn't try to replicate a realistic European Middle Ages, but is directed towards a High Fantasy style of play.

It is ok to enforce rules like having to use the proper actions to swap between weapons, as well as tracking ammo and rations (the latter is often handwaved away if the campaign tends to do "fast travel", though). I try to also enforce lifestyle expenditures, such as boarding a room or paying for the feed of your mounts, but I just have tables for those, I'm not going to go through the process of buying food and drink every time the characters go to dinner, for example.

[Chronos]

Is there any rule in the books that says that bows must be carried and stowed unstrung? No? Then it's not necessary. Maybe that was a necessity for real, historical bows, and so in that sense, the game rules are unrealistic. But many people, including players and DMs alike, won't even know that it was necessary. And the "realism" of the game rules isn't meant to simulate actual historical reality; it's meant to simulate the players' mental image of how that world would work.

There are even some places where such a mental image diverges from what everyone at the table does actually know. For instance, everyone at the table knows that humans need to use the bathroom every so often, and presumably so do at least most other races. But when was the last time any of you, in character, have mentioned needing a bathroom break, or made a point to find a suitable spot? Maybe some of you have, occasionally, but not most of us, not most of the time. It's not part of the mental image.

[stoutstien]

Ive been using a bulk system for years now and it's so much easier for me and the players to use and interact with.

[JellyPooga]

Is there any rule in the books that says that bows must be carried and stowed unstrung? No? Then it's not necessary. Maybe that was a necessity for real, historical bows, and so in that sense, the game rules are unrealistic. But many people, including players and DMs alike, won't even know that it was necessary. And the "realism" of the game rules isn't meant to simulate actual historical reality; it's meant to simulate the players' mental image of how that world would work.

There are even some places where such a mental image diverges from what everyone at the table does actually know. For instance, everyone at the table knows that humans need to use the bathroom every so often, and presumably so do at least most other races. But when was the last time any of you, in character, have mentioned needing a bathroom break, or made a point to find a suitable spot? Maybe some of you have, occasionally, but not most of us, not most of the time. It's not part of the mental image.

And yet an archer mentioning that they're unstringing their bow in the face of a downpour and putting the string in a weatherproof pouch is an engaging and entertaining touch. Just because there's no rule for something, doesn't mean it's not important or valuable. If you want to play in a world where knights put on full harness at dawn and stay in it until dusk and no-one takes care of their equipment in the field, that's fine; there's no rule for it, it doesn't improve your stats or chances of hitting, so why bother with it at all? If, on the other hand, you do pay attention to these things then it can easily improve the quality of the game. There's no rule for hair length or colour either, but it improves the fiction to make note of your characters appearance. By the rules, NPC's are just flavourless blobs of numbers and the difference between a Longsword and a Battleaxe is price, but players do care about that stuff. It's a roleplaying game, not a statistical exercise in probability; the details matter.

[MoiMagnus]

There's no rule for hair length or colour either, but it improves the fiction to make note of your characters appearance.

It's not fully against what you're saying, but this sentence made me realise that in the 3 campaigns (only one of 5e) I'm currently playing in, and most of the previous campaigns, I don't think any of our PCs have explicitly specified hair colour and/or length, and it was extremely rare for NPCs to have those informations (I don't remember any, but I think there was).

If anything I've had more often informations about flag's colours than about anything else's colour.
[Well, except dragon's colours for the associated elements, and stuff like "black armour" to show that it's EVIL]

At our table, character descriptions are focused on personality, socio-economic or cultural markers, associated stereotypes (film noir detectives, etc), or whatever "feeling" the character gives to others.

[JellyPooga]

It's not fully against what you're saying, but this sentence made me realise that in the 3 campaigns (only one of 5e) I'm currently playing in, and most of the previous campaigns, I don't think any of our PCs have explicitly specified hair colour and/or length, and it was extremely rare for NPCs to have those informations (I don't remember any, but I think there was).

If anything I've had more often informations about flag's colours than about anything else's colour.
[Well, except dragon's colours for the associated elements, and stuff like "black armour" to show that it's EVIL]

At our table, character descriptions are focused on personality, socio-economic or cultural markers, associated stereotypes (film noir detectives, etc), or whatever "feeling" the character gives to others.

I tend to lead with visual descriptions and follow up with the rest as it's discovered and that's also been my experience playing with other GMs. Whether that specifically means describing hair colour or length is beside the point; images often fill in a lot of gaps for a lot of groups, but where they're not available, descriptions of physical appearance not only give the players a reference point, but can even be part of the game; e.g. a greasy Wormtongue-looking rat turning out to be the most trustworthy ally, or vice-versa. Initial reactions to NPCs, whether they're hostile or friendly, are more often than not based on appearance; a typical group of human adventurers might attack a hobgoblin on sight before ever discovering their personality or noticing their cultural socio-economic markers. By encouraging players to be more invested in the world, they're more likely to engage the world sensibly rather than reacting to stereotypes or game/mechanic cliche's and expectations.

[Pex]

It's not wrong to pay attention to these kinds of details. It's also not wrong not to pay attention to these kinds of details. I would suggest if the DM wants these details but the players don't, in this instance the DM should just give in and not care about it except for the obvious cases of bulk. The DM can also remind players their bag of holding is getting full. Realism can only go so far until it interferes with the fun of the game, and this is a game. Players want to play a game, not accountant bookkeeping. It's enough for them to say they restock on arrows and provisions in town. The DM doesn't need bookkeeping as much as the players just want to kill orcs. If the players do enjoy taking care of these details, go for it.

[heavyfuel]

How do you, as a DM, handle the day-to-day things adventurers would/should have to deal with? Hand-waived for convenience, or enforced because that's a fundamental issue of the character's existence?

The usual concerns mentioned are things like tracking ammunition and rations and what not, but what got me really thinking about this was how most players I've interacted with handle weapons. Did the foe take to the skies? No worries, just "draw your ranged weapon" and continue fighting. But... draw it from where? Have you been carrying a strung bow everywhere in a ready-to-grab location? That string should probably snap on the first draw if you don't unstring it for travel, and we all know you don't do that. And where did you draw it from? Does your battle dress make sense, or does everyone have Link's belt pouch, that can hold basically every item you can think of at once, like a bag of holding except smaller on the outside and way bigger on the inside (ie: hammerspace (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Hammerspace))? If you were attacked while resting, you weren't sleeping in your armor were you? Be honest, do you ever take your armor off?

It's pretty common to hear complaints/objections to things like the above because it "distracts from the roleplay." But... that is the roleplay. You're playing a whole character, aren't you?

Do you think things like the above are indeed distractions and unfun, or are they an expected part of the experience?

Do you require archery focused characters to unstring their bows between each combat? If not, why do would you force characters with bows as a secondary option to do so?

Having a bow strapped to your back is pretty common as far as fantasy archetypes go, as I'm pretty sure it's also how medieval soldiers carried them IRL, so it's not a huge stretch to say "I drop my weapon (free action), grab my bow (item iteraction), and shoot it (action)"

Also, D&D assumes you fight with your backpack on, but even if you force characters to drop it at the start of combat, it's easy to grab a belt/bandolier that can carry potions, scrolls, daggers, etc for cheap. I don't think such item exists in RAW, but a player can get one custom made for definitely less than 5gp. It's just some leather, after all.

[Schwann145]

I wanna admit to a bit of a bias towards a preference of putting more importance on the mundane parts of character play.
That said, I fully understand and accept that you should absolutely brush over a lot of things a character will be doing. Do you need to roleplay every meal? Every time they need to break for the privy? Triple check whether they've secured their saddles properly? No, of course not.
Those are not the details I'm concerned over.

What I'm more concerned over is a growing trend to eliminate unfortunate circumstances, inopportune moments, and nonoptimal play under the guise of "it's not fun," or "it gets in the way of roleplaying."
Let's take ammunition tracking as a momentary specific example: Is tracking ammo tedious? Yes, it likely is quite tedious. Is it very unfortunate for a character to run out of ammo when they're in a fight? Surely it is. Does that mean that ammo should just be hand-waived entirely so the character can always use their bow in every attack of every combat?
I would say no.
I think finding your character in situations they don't want to be in is fundamentally part of the game of roleplaying. Anything else seems (to me anyway) to be pushing hard away from the realm of "roleplaying" and towards the realm of "rollplaying" and, while there's nothing wrong with "rollplaying," other games do it a million percent better (video games, board games, etc).

But! (and there is definitely a but...)

I also understand that the mechanics of the game itself is partially responsible for this. Is it really fair to make a character keep track of ammo when ammo deals inconsequential damage to enemies?
If I'm an archer in a simulationist game, a quiver of 20-30 arrows is going to carry me quite a long way before I need to worry about my backup play. In D&D, a quiver of 20-30 arrows is going to run out very fast against very few enemies.
Insisting on carrying a reasonable load and counting arrows might be great for narrative or verisimilitude, but from a mechanical standpoint it's borderline punishing and unfair to do to a player in this system.
So I can definitely appreciate the argument for hand-waiving.

[MoiMagnus]

What I'm more concerned over is a growing trend to eliminate unfortunate circumstances, inopportune moments, and nonoptimal play under the guise of "it's not fun," or "it gets in the way of roleplaying."
Let's take ammunition tracking as a momentary specific example: Is tracking ammo tedious? Yes, it likely is quite tedious. Is it very unfortunate for a character to run out of ammo when they're in a fight? Surely it is. Does that mean that ammo should just be hand-waived entirely so the character can always use their bow in every attack of every combat?
I would say no.
I think finding your character in situations they don't want to be in is fundamentally part of the game of roleplaying. Anything else seems (to me anyway) to be pushing hard away from the realm of "roleplaying" and towards the realm of "rollplaying" and, while there's nothing wrong with "rollplaying," other games do it a million percent better (video games, board games, etc).

I don't think I agree with the fact that handwaiving stuff pushes toward the real of rollplaying.
I've played one session where you had to make one roll per used arrow after each combat to determine whether or not the arrow could be retrieved, and I can definitly says that this game was much more "rollplaying" than "roleplaying" due to those attention to realistic circumstances.

Without going to this extreme, resource management is the core of boardgames, it's at its core much closer to rollplaying than roleplaying. "Rollplayers" don't like when there is fully unexpected issues that prevent the usual rolling, but as soon as it becomes part of the core rules, that's just another thing to optimise.

Universe that are more alike "dreams" or "action films" in term of internal consistency are universes that allow to focus on what actions peoples are doing rather than stopping at material concerns. And even if those, characters will often end up in situations where they don't want to be, it just won't be mundane issues.

[And since we're talking about ammunition, I want to talk a little about Mutant and Mastermind which has an interesting way of handling them: you don't count your ammunitions, but you can still run out of ammunitions as a narrative twist: the GM determine when it's reasonable narratively that you ran out of ammunitions, and give you a Hero point as a compensation for this inconvenience of being unable to use your weapon for a scene]

[Keravath]

When I am DMing, I only pay attention to limited resources (and let the player know it is important) when the party is in a situation where re-supplying might not only be difficult but where it could have an interesting narrative effect.

The way I think of it, the characters live in this fantasy world every day. The character would not forget to pack a small sharp knife or scissors for grooming. The character would not forget to replenish some arrows after a fight or if there was somewhere available to restock. So most of the minutiae are really the player becoming aware of things that their character would have to do every day just to exist (eat, sleep, drink, etc). Players could spend time describing their characters daily ablutions in great detail but usually this is of very little narrative relevance or interest to the other players.

On the other hand, there are times when you want either environmental factors (heat, cold, jungle, disease, etc) or food and drink to create a survival challenge/encounter - so in those cases you might track food and drink resources, fresh water, appropriate clothing and the precautions the party takes to ward off the specific issues. Similarly, if the party is underground in a region with no arrows/thrown weapons, no raw materials to make more, and it would be interesting, then a DM might track ammo and ammo recovery after encounters just to see how the characters respond. Do they get into melee more often, conserving ammo? Do they save some ammo just in case a big fight or opponent that can only be reached by ranged weapons turns up? In this case, resource tracking becomes interesting and a narrative element for the encounter. However, this wouldn't make sense when fighting opponents that are armed with bows or other ranged weapons. There should be enough material available in that case for the characters to maintain their supply of ammo so there is no point in tracking it.

Finally, D&D isn't really a simulation. It is a fantasy role playing game. Is it "realistic" to pull the bow off your back and shoot it? Only if it is already strung or the bow strings in this world only take a second to attach to the bow. However, maybe everyone uses bow strings that are made from easily accessible materials that make them either not break (I've never seen a bowstring break in any D&D game I have played :) ) or make them easy to apply to the bow or both. It is a magical world, it isn't reality, so maybe some of the "reality" we face just doesn't exist in the game world :) (up to the DM of course).

[Mastikator]

I do enforce carry capacity rules and if players want to carry a large inventory I do ask them how they carry it. But it's something you can do once and not have to worry about. Consumables like food rations, torches, arrows I ask them to keep track of.

Collecting stuff after combat, changing your equipment the player doesn't need to tell me about. I consider resource management to be a part of exploration

[Kane0]

How do you, as a DM, handle the day-to-day things adventurers would/should have to deal with? Hand-waived for convenience, or enforced because that's a fundamental issue of the character's existence?

Usually handwaved unless it adds drama to the scene. Tracking food/water is only relevant in a situation where supply is low or demand is high, ammo is only relevant in a situation where it cannot easily reclaimed, repaired or replaced. Equipment maintenance is only relevant in a situation where you don't have the time and materials required, and so on.



No worries, just "draw your ranged weapon" and continue fighting. But... draw it from where? Have you been carrying a strung bow everywhere in a ready-to-grab location? That string should probably snap on the first draw if you don't unstring it for travel, and we all know you don't do that.

Realistically, yes. Dramatically as part of a fantasy adventure, no. For me it adds about as much to the game as a natural 1 snapping your bowstring, and that's a meme at this point.



And where did you draw it from? Does your battle dress make sense, or does everyone have Link's belt pouch, that can hold basically every item you can think of at once, like a bag of holding except smaller on the outside and way bigger on the inside?

Yeah I generally use hammerspace weapon stowage and i'm not ashamed. A spell component pouch is also hammerspace, and most casters just use a focus anyways to make it even more convenient, I don't mind the weapon users being able to access their weapons unless taken from their person (which leads to interesting times for the Monk, EK, Blade Pact, Soulknife, Shadow Blade, etc).



If you were attacked while resting, you weren't sleeping in your armor were you? Be honest, do you ever take your armor off?

Light armor I don't really care about, it can generally be worn like regular clothing. Medium and heavy armor I expect to be removed to sleep, bathe and maintain, even if you get funny looks wearing plate in the king's court or at the market it is a known fact that threats to your life can literally drop out of the sky, pop out of the ground or materialize in front of your face.



Do you think things like the above are indeed distractions and unfun, or are they an expected part of the experience?

They are definitely unfun if enforced unequally amongst the party and the rest of the gameworld, and distractions unless they add to the scene. Being caught unprepared should be treated as a narrative beat in a story, it's function on immersion is secondary.

/2cp

[KyleG]

I've seen examples of people using survival die (food, water etc) arrow die, and the likes. I like the idea just not sure how to keep it fun yet.

[MoiMagnus]

Be honest, do you ever take your armor off?


I've realized I've missed that part: yes, whether characters have their armor or not is a big thing at our table, but it's not rarely about "sleeping at night" but more often about "when you go at this aristocratic dinner, do you go in battle dress expecting this to be an ambush, at the cost of being seen as belligerent, or do you put your beautiful ceremonial robes to impress the local nobility?" or "when you're trying to investigate about this secret cult, do you go in normal clothes trying to appear as a random worker and conduct a subtle investigation, or do you come in battle dress to interrogate anyone who didn't run away fast enough as soon as they saw you arrive in the distance?"

The usual behaviour being "we're subtle until the first assassination attempt against us and after that every single being of this region is a potential traitor, until we got rid of the main culprit and we're back at being more trusting and overconfident in our capacity at successfully solving problems in subtle ways".

[Zevox]

Do you think things like the above are indeed distractions and unfun, or are they an expected part of the experience?
For the most part, the former. They're boring minutia better dispensed with, as far as I'm concerned. Like specifying when and what your character eats, or when they take a moment to use the bathroom. Best to just assume they happen and are handled competently, and therefore don't need to be addressed, because they're not what anyone (that I know/play with) is playing for.

The exception being "if you're attacked while sleeping, were you sleeping in your armor?," which did come up the one time we were attacked while sleeping. But since our DM is fine with wearing light armor while you sleep, it only really meant that my Paladin went for that one fight without his armor, since the other party members wear light armor, which was fine.

[heavyfuel]

Let's take ammunition tracking as a momentary specific example: Is tracking ammo tedious? Yes, it likely is quite tedious. Is it very unfortunate for a character to run out of ammo when they're in a fight? Surely it is. Does that mean that ammo should just be hand-waived entirely so the character can always use their bow in every attack of every combat?
I would say no.


All this does is have the archer buy a crap ton of arrows and hand them to the 18 Str Barbarian and say "I restock my 3 quivers between each fight from the arrows Jeff is carrying"

It's a money sink, sure. If you are stingy with gold, it might even become a challenge. But, in most games, players have more than enough gold for arrows. If the party Fighter should be able to afford Plate Armor at some point, arrows are not going to be a problem

At this point it really just seems like you have a thing against archers

[Pex]

The only arrows I would have a player keep track of are magical or special material arrows such as being silvered, adamantine, etc.

[Cheesegear]

How do you, as a DM, handle the day-to-day things adventurers would/should have to deal with?

If it's not written on your sheet, you don't have it.


That string should probably snap on the first draw if you don't unstring it for travel, and we all know you don't do that.

This is one of those things that would make my players roll their eyes.
I typically allow each player to have four 'hands' worth of weapons and/or shield.


Link's belt pouch, that can hold basically every item you can think of at once

My players have belt pouches; They can carry up to 300 coins each. If you have two pouches, 600, etc.

Your Backpack can carry up to 30lb., and is reserved for Backpackable items. Yes. Theoretically you can fill your backpack with coins. But we'll play that out when we get to it.


Be honest, do you ever take your armor off?

Yes. Sleeping in armour causes bad times. Nobody wants to finish a long rest and still be in bad times.


Do you think things like the above are indeed distractions and unfun, or are they an expected part of the experience?

The problem is you've treated everything the same.
You're either keeping track of every single piece of gear, or you're doing none of it and it's not fun.

No. You can't carry 27 Javelins.
Yes. You can fire your Bow after four days of travel.
No. You can't carry more than 300 coins in a belt pouch.
Yes. You can wear four necklaces.
No. You can't wear two hats.
Yes. You can wear rings while wearing gauntlets.
No. You can't have two Holy Symbols of different deities.
Yes. You can have two Wands.
No. You can't have six Shortswords.
Yes. You can have two Longswords.

None of the above are the same thing, and you can justify each of them. All from the same DM. Everything is on a case by case basis.

It's not 'You're tracking gear or you're not.' because that's not how anything works.

A relevant video. (https://youtu.be/x9BqK-nq60A)

[ProsecutorGodot]

The DM usually tells us when something needs to be tracked, otherwise we don't. We really only track our high end consumables or healing potions. There's a bag filled with specific loot that the DM labelled as important and our gold and material wealth list.

None of the characters rely heavily on equipment that would require constant attention, though I do make note for my Paladin that he doesn't wear his armor casually around the city.

Nobody else at the table, save for the player of our Sorcerer, is as invested in the minor details of what happens to their character as I am. They've got their handful of Bonds, Flaws and Ideals that they stick to (the fighter is highly intelligent but willing to throw caution to the wind at a moments notice, the Monk is obsessed with the taste of poisons after being rendered comatose from a Phase Spider bite prior to becoming immune to it) but that's about all. We're getting better collectively at fitting the little things into the game but every now and then we'll have a session crammed between weeks of having to cancel and reschedule the game and we might not be feeling it, things become very player goal oriented (accomplish campaign task, acquire loot) rather than character goal oriented (slay the dragon to reclaim my lost honor, collect his hoard to fund a political uprising and oust corrupt nobility) and that's fine too.

I'm not a very frequent DM, but I do sometimes run games for this same group. I do personally try to focus more on the in character aspects of play but it's important to gauge player buy in rather than forcing anything.

Regarding the character description side conversation - we get very descriptive of our characters. Finding (or most often for myself, purchasing) art that represents how we describe them is often the most time consuming aspect of character creation. Character appearance is a high priority for our group and it's one of the few aspects that is almost never ignored if something happens in the campaign that it would be relevant for.

[Chronos]

Sure you can wear armor at a formal audience with the king, because armor can be formal attire. A lot of armor that survives to the present day was designed primarily as formal attire. And even today, a soldier can show up to a formal occasion in dress uniform, and be considered appropriately dressed.

Granted, if you're going to be wearing your armor to a formal event, you do probably want to take a little extra care to clean and polish it first.

[JLandan]

I generally don't bother too much with logistics. I don't make archers string and unstring bows. I do make archers track ammo, but I allow a caster with mending cantrip to fix broken arrows.

I assume all proper maintenance and repair is done during rests. And I assume everybody picks up their thrown weapons.

I do impose a coin limit based on packs/pouches/sacks.

And polearms are laid down, not drawn and sheathed. And crawling through tight spaces may preclude taking polearms and longbows with them.

I don't track rations, unless it figures into the adventure specifically. If they're in town, I do pester them about rent, cuz that's fun for me. But I don't usually bug them about meals.

[JellyPooga]

Sure you can wear armor at a formal audience with the king, because armor can be formal attire. A lot of armor that survives to the present day was designed primarily as formal attire. And even today, a soldier can show up to a formal occasion in dress uniform, and be considered appropriately dressed.

Granted, if you're going to be wearing your armor to a formal event, you do probably want to take a little extra care to clean and polish it first.

There's a bit of a difference between turning up to meet the Queen dressed in your best shoes & blues and rocking up covered in cam-cream, wearing soggy boots and muddy DPMs. Sure, if it's a surprise field visit on campaign, the latter might fly but ain't no-one getting in the Palace dressed like a swamp, even if it is technically "uniform" and you got rid of the worst of the crab-grass that you had shoved in your bonnet.

Likewise, I would grant some leeway for a Player taking the time to mention a bit of spit and polish for their "everyday armour" before a formal event, but if they really want not to stand out they're gonna have to do better than their battered and scratched up, battle-worn harness with the saggy leather, that annoying "click" from when that ogre dented the pauldron and the mismatched solleret and greave because the Cleric had to take a tin-opener to the originals to save your leg after that gigantic spider decided you were a chew-toy. Dress uniforms are acceptable at formal events precisely because they're not worn in the field...

[Demonslayer666]

I request that my players track their gear. I check weight carried on character creation, after that I rely on the honor system. If someone couldn't get below due to a low strength, I said it is standard to drop your pack at the start of combat and you pick it back up after without having to say so - unless something forces you to leave it behind. That hasn't happened in years of playing. I look at encumbrance/total weight when swimming, crossing a rickety bridge, or trying to carry someone. I also have them track rations and ammunition, but those are easily replaced and usually not an issue unless they are somewhere they can't be replenished (extended wilderness travel). This was an issue in my ToA campaign, but they covered it by having a character with the Outlander Wanderer ability, and assigning someone to foraging for arrow supplies. So on the rare occasion it does matter, I want it tracked, at least roughly.

As a player I am meticulous about keeping track of what I carry and where it is located. I use all appropriate actions when retrieving or stowing my gear and take penalties when encumbered. Not doing so feels like cheating to me. It bothers me greatly when others freely switch between their bow and sword and shield, climb with both hands full, freely drink a potion, etc., but most DMs do not enforce this, because players will just say, "I shoot it with my bow", and the DM doesn't realize what they had out prior to that.

[sethdmichaels]

personally, as both a player and a DM, i care a ton about characters' personalities and connections to the world, which to me are the primary focus of the game, and absolutely zero about gear storage.

for some players tracking encumbrance and rations might be totally necessary for immersion but for me it's actively distracting from immersion, in the same way it would be if i were watching an action-adventure movie in which half the screentime took place at the bullet store, or if i were playing chess and my opponent kept asking me what the knights' horses eat and what kind of mortar was used to assemble the rooks. i don't even enjoy doing gear lists and weight-tracking when i'm going actual-camping, so it's definitely not why i'm showing up to D&D.

[Evaar]

Increasing the burden of equipment management is something that will fall disproportionately on martials. You're further incentivizing players to just be spellcasters so they don't have to deal with the headache.

Unless they're into it, I guess. But it's not very fun to spend the first 3 rounds of combat stringing your bow so that you can fire it on round 4 when the fight's already over.