Quote from: Rhedyn on December 02, 2020, 02:33:32 PM
This is like arguing that all fantasy novels should use "hard magic" systems because "soft magic" is bad.

It's a matter of preference. I struggle to enjoy a lot of soft-magic fantasy stories but that doesn't mean others are reading novels wrong.

That's because soft-magic is, ironically, harder to write; or more accurately, to write well. As a result there's just a lot more crap soft-magic stories out there because people don't take the time to learn how to do it right.

Hard magic is easy because it's basically a technology. Because it follows hard rules you can also set it up in such a way that it can be used to overcome the main obstacle in the story without feeling like an asspull.

Soft magic by contrast can almost never work for resolving the main conflict of a story because, since it has no hard rules, is always an asspull if used that way. It might play a role peripherally, but if so the main conflict will typically be your protagonist overcoming the real obstacle not using the soft magic directly (ex. The soft magic will obliterate the enemy army, but the conflict is in the mortal hero reaching the magic gem which commands the soft magic).

Deciding which magic system is better for your story depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the story. So too the degree of tracking you do in an RPG.

If your RPG is, as I gave for an example earlier, a treasure recovery operation where you're weighing cost of resources expended relative to value of treasure/xp extracted or a personal-scale battle simulation (ex. RECON or Mechwarrior) then tracking everything makes sense.

By contrast, if you're running a Star Trek campaign (particularly if trying to emulate the better episodes of the series where the technobabble/soft magic exists purely to support placing the PCs into a moral dilemma they must resolve) then tracking ammo adds nothing to the gameplay.

Similarly, for something like Star Wars or Batman's utility belt where depleted ammunition in stories only ever comes up as a plot complication, tying its depletion not to a specific number of uses, but to some sort of critical fumble system also leads to play feeling more like the experience you have watching the films or reading the books.

Another variant where tracking individual resources would feel ridiculous would be running an army at the macro-level (ex. Birthright or Kingmaker) where simple upkeep costs keep the game moving while still simulating the consumption of rations, ammunition, equipment repair and replacement, etc.

So I again return to my initial statement; there is no "one true way" regardless of how many videos get made claiming otherwise.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 03:48:48 PM
...
Similarly, for something like Star Wars or Batman's utility belt where depleted ammunition in stories only ever comes up as a plot complication, tying its depletion not to a specific number of uses, but to some sort of critical fumble system also leads to play feeling more like the experience you have watching the films or reading the books.

...

So I again return to my initial statement; there is no "one true way" regardless of how many videos get made claiming otherwise.

Your utility belt example essentially screws over careful players who properly manage a consumable resource. If it's going to happen randomly why even bother planning? It also misses the mark on the fiction side because Batman is a great planner. He's a fucking boy scout, gear ready, plan in hand. Sorry Bats you fumbled so I guess you forgot to pack the bat spray. Seriously?

A lot of complaints about resource management boil down to an aversion to making tally marks on paper. If a warrior is disarmed, you track there his sword ended up, right? Or does the warrior just have it again for the next attack without effort? How hard is it to do the same for arrows?

There is no "one true way," but there are good ways and bad ways. If the rules drift enough you're not playing the same game. Arguing this point is superficial anyway; this kind of statement is just a rhetorical tool.

Edit: Doh screwed up the quote function on mobile.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 02, 2020, 11:57:31 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?

"'And I,' said Legolas, 'will take all the arrows that I can find, for my quiver is empty.' He searched in the pile on the ground about and found not a few that were undamaged and longer in the shaft than such arrows as the Orcs were accustomed to use."
-Two Towers

[/Tolkien pedant]

Not to mention Bard killing Smaug with his last arrow!

I've been using the blue bar on the tokens in Roll20 to track ammo. Works well.

Quote from: Libramarian on December 02, 2020, 04:37:31 PM
Not to mention Bard killing Smaug with his last arrow!

Maybe he should not have saved his Arrow of Dragon Slaying till his last shot.

(But that is realistic for your typical DnD Player)

Strange video  ...

Tracking arrows is good because it make the virtual world feel more real.

And also: Realism is for incels!

Pundit advocates One-Truewayism.

Tea at eleven.

IMHO.

A traditional story like a book or film will have things happen for reasons of story. Legolas runs out of arrows a few times in TT because it has one of the first big battles in the trilogy. Legolas runs through his stock of arrows to heighten the tension and show that they are sorely outnumbered. This is a writer's choice, not one of simulation.

But then, if you've read Stephen King's "On Writing", he talks a lot about emergent situations where his imagination and subconcious create an alchemy where a scene "feels" right or wrong, based on the characters and settings in his mind. Like the old campfire game where everyone takes turns to create a story on the spot, and vote to see if a development feels "fair", we know that it makes sense for Legolas to have to scavenge arrows because he's shot a lot of them at orcs.

Which brings us to RPGs, which are games. There is, ideally, no one person saying how everything goes for reasons of drama. Instead, we simulate those situations with game mechanics intended to replicate situations of tension and atmosphere. Inventory management has it's mechanical reasons, but also informs the player that they can only carry so much supplies in and treasure back from the dungeon. It's a dangerous place that requires planning in order to survive. Legolas runs out of arrows because we know he's got limited space in his inventory.

How crunchy any specific game treats these rules is a matter of taste. But there's a reason for it, and game writers and players should understand that before tossing rules or adding them.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2020, 11:50:33 AM
Is there a single line of text in "The Lord of Rings" devoted to how many arrows Legolas had left in his quiver?

There are several. Here's another:

'Two?' said Legolas. 'I have done better, though now I must grope for spent arrows; all mine are gone.'

Quote from: Mishihari on December 02, 2020, 01:46:35 PM
Mostly agree, but the video game tracks your ammo for you.  That takes away the one downside of the approach.

Yeah - there are a LOT of mechanics which work great in a video game which are just too fiddly for tabletop. When the CPU is doing the legwork, you can get a lot more fiddly without slowing down gameplay. *cough* Phoenix Command. *cough*

Just because something works in a video game is a flawed argument for including it in tabletop.

As for tracking ammo specifically - if a game is specifically focused upon a gritty survivalist tone (whether old-school D&D style about dungeon delving or a sci-fi horror against chest bursting aliens) - I'll track ammo. Otherwise it's a waste of brain-space to track normal ammo. If the PCs are either in traveled lands and/or frequently popping through them - I can assume that they keep themselves topped off with ammo. There are lots of things we can just assume that the PCs can do on their own - like eat a reasonably balanced diet (so as to not get scurvy) and not pee their britches etc.

The Pathfinder Kingmaker computer game doesn't seem to bother with ammo.

Took me a while to realise it.  Spent a little bit of time trying to work out where I could find some ammo before I just started shooting.

The easy way to track arrows on the table top is to use cocktail sticks.

Wow.  It's hard or a bother to track arrows?  I put hash marks on a page after shooting and voila—-the number I subtract.

Scarcity and adversity propel the story.  The bowman now has a use for his sword.  He is not as good with it but that's the story.  Or we have a reason to go back to town.  Things happen there too.  It's emergent play!

In 1e AD&D, my friend's elf magic user was out of spells.  A Minotaur broke through and cornered him.  Surely a goner.  However he pulled out an+2+3 vs larger than man sized dagger and in terror dealt the final blow to the monster.

Guess we should have had the dm handwave that and let him have a few more spells?

I like 5e but I don't like the like the malleability of some choices and facts.  The game for me is more fun with danger weight and adversity.  Consequences from choices...

Why use a survival skill and hunt if magically my bag is always full of rations?

Having to forage is part of the story.  It might lead to a cool random encounter.  It might just let the oft overlooked ranger do his job.

When people complain about non combat or even combat abilities as useless, my question would be whether or not they simply ignore and walk around the times they would be useful.  Fast forward a lot to the juicy anime styled fight and forget the light source or provisions and so on.

In the end do what you like of course!  But I like some semblance of limitiations and proble solving even in easy mode 5e.

Quote from: mightybrain on December 03, 2020, 06:51:18 AM
The easy way to track arrows on the table top is to use cocktail sticks.

I don't want that many sticks cluttering my table. The typical archer type in the games I've played in carries upwards of 100 arrows because that's only about 10 lb. (and costs only 10 gp to restock from empty) and most game systems make no distinction between the bulk and weight distribution of quivers and armor (which because archers need high Dex in just about any D&D they use much lighter armor that can fully employ that Dex) so they still come out ahead of the guy in plate mail on their load.

At a certain point, it's just easier to stop counting because there's no practical way they'll run out; not with used arrow recovery and taking arrows off defeated enemy archers (because D&D makes zero distinctions between arrow types/lengths... an arrow is an arror an arrow).

The same for the guy with 100 gallons worth of oil flasks (80 gp) or a literal mile of rope (105 gp) in a bag of holding (or just carried on pack animals... a mule is 8 gp).

With the way carrying capacity and treasure rewards relative to item costs (and nothing else to spend treasure on in 5e) the idea of B/X and AD&D style resource tracking being anything but an exercise in bookkeeping for bookkeeping's sake is ridiculous.

Track stuff that's actually meaningful in those editions; spell slots, magic item uses, hit points. For the rest just assign a restocking cost (say 5gp/day adventuring for arrows, oil, rope, pitons, rations, feed, etc.) and call it good. Which, to be fair, 5e pretty much did with their Lifestyle Expenses rules (which are per general day, not just adventuring days).

It's eiter another slow week at the office or Pundit needs to go see a psychologist and get tested as the obsessive hate for storygames is started to come off as an metal health issue. We get it you hate storygames move on and get past the obsession already.

Depending on the genre and type of rpg I am playing unless it's one where resources truly matter like say if I was playing Dead Reign or something similar than I will track ammo. Otherwise it's not something I prefer. I play rpgs to get away from the mundane not play to relive it. In other words I have no interest in playing Accounting and Ammo lists or Spreadsheets. It's not about it being a novel it;s about the game being fun. Take of the stupid metaphorical viking hat as one might actually see things ina new light

Unless one is cut off from being able to buy resources then it's one thing. I would say about 95% of the DMs/GMs I play/played with just handwave that part away. It's not to say no resources are never tracked yet not the equivalent of doing it 24/87. As most DMs/GMs are not anal retentive control freaks and do not treat either the players and their character as idiots.

As for "if you don't track arrows do you give them free spells" nonsensical bullshit. Get over it. Spells are one doing because a character needs both the time to memorize and require components. So no free spells. Arrows unless their is a wood shortage in the rpg world should not be as hard to find or come by as diamond dust. Or plain food for that matter. I will play in such a game yet if the DM is again that anal retentive on tracking everything it's a big warning that I won't have fun at the table.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 03, 2020, 08:26:59 AM
At a certain point, it's just easier to stop counting because there's no practical way they'll run out; not with used arrow recovery and taking arrows off defeated enemy archers (because D&D makes zero distinctions between arrow types/lengths... an arrow is an arror an arrow).

Seconded.

Unless their is an in game reason for a shortage of wood or arrows players will never run out. Or if the player is an archer or combat oriented class why would he not have enough common sense to not res-tock on ammo.

Sometimes I find it comes off less as wanting the rpg to be realistic and more the control freak tendencies of the DM/GM. Everything must be controlled down to the players bathroom schedule. Their also has to be a certain amount of trust with the players as wel. Unless the player is new or being distruptive on purpose they will reload. It's also the "well I track everything as a player so everyone else must play exactly as a do " syndrome. It's just not the case.