Dungeon Master: Describing In-Game Items

Typically, descriptions of items, weapons and armor are kept short. In this way, D&D 5^th edition is no exception (the lists themselves are quite short for this edition). This, however, can be a good thing as it allows a wide variety of different descriptions for armor that has the same AC. I will cover a few different methods of describing such items ranging from strict to very loose. For discussion purposes, I will just go over both (I have used them both in the past, depending on the type of game at play). As usual, it should also apply to tabletop role-playing games other than D&D, but D&D will be the only one I explicitly mention. To display my points, I will focus on armor (since armors have stats) but they can be applied to any other kind of item.

Descriptions As They Are

I have to be honest, I typically am not really a fan of the different armors as traditionally described in game. The gold costs and AC values tend to be fine, but the actual armor appearance and name can sometimes turn into an argument (I say this as someone who has spent too much time listening to why studded leather armor is historically dumb). For this reason, I am generally in favour of describing the armors however is needed for the game being played.

Strict Approach

If the descriptions are extremely strict, the variations in the descriptions will be extremely tiny. Plate armor is plate armor, and that is all. For in world consistency, this system means the players can easily identify a rough AC for NPC's simply from their description. However, it also can make it difficult for some character concepts. If you have a fighter who is meant to look like a Templar wearing chain mail, but for combat reasons wants to wear plate, it can create a situation where the role-playing and character appearance directly conflict with the best choice for combat. For some weapons not directly covered in the rules, it can be difficult to find the closest analog for them.

Pros

• The world is internally consistent. Plate is always better than chain mail, meaning players can identify better equipped troops.
• There is no “inferior” quality chain mail.

Cons

• Players are restricted in how they can describe their character based on the armor they bought.

Very Loose Approach

The basis of this approach is that if you pay the required gold amount in the table, you can describe the armor however you want. There can be added restrictions, such as heavy armor must be made from mainly metal, but they are not required. The advantage of this kind of method is that players can look however they want and still be as effective as someone who used by the book descriptions. However, as a result, it can make it difficult to identify the AC of an NPC. It also places magic items into a weird position, since a +2 set of chain mail is now the same as a set that was bought using the price of plate (making it not as rare).

Pros

• Players are free to describe their appearance however they wish. The protection is always determined by how much they paid.
• Not every set of mundane chain mail will be of the same quality now, possibly adding to the immersion (minimum stat levels may be required).

Cons

• Internal consistency of the world is sacrificed, as it is now possible to have chain mail as good as plate armor.
• Differences in quality of the same armor type would need to be described to players instead of just the armor type (this means the description will be longer, taking up more time for play). These descriptions can be held back until the players ask for them, in order to save time.

Identically Stated Armor

If your player has a particular type of armor they want to use that is not in the list by default (maybe metal lamellar over chain mail), regardless of the approach, an analog will need to be found in the list. As a result, it isn't really making a new type of armor as re-skinning an old one.

Conclusion

I hope the above discussion at least got people thinking about these differences. Like everything in a tabletop role-playing game, the best choice will depend on the group. In general, I haven't seen the loose approach used very often, but I have had many games I enjoyed with it and wanted to mention it.