Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 18, 2023, 04:25:18 PM
This means that tracking arrows cannot be considered without also considering all the other factors being simulated combat: armor wear, weapon damage, encumbrance, etc. You also need to consider the genre and feel the game is going for. IOW, whether you should track arrows or not has almost nothing to do with how expensive arrows historically were.

That's kind of begging the question which is the heart of this topic, though.  You are arguing entirely from effects.  The desire to have simulation is to link to process (and thus causes).  In fact, bows are quite excellent weapons in many ways.  The reasons they aren't dominant is because arrow strings get wet, arrows are time-consuming to make, etc.  Swords are valued because of their versatility. If the system in question can't show that swords are versatile and that bows are sometimes fragile, then the system has artificially made bows relatively better than swords than they were in reality. This may or may not be a good thing for the effect you want.  If it is, you've got no issue.  If it is not, then you can try to get the effect you want by some other kind of change. Maybe this other change works well, maybe it doesn't.  Or you can impose some hint of reality on the process, and thus have the setting/system naturally lead to players not favoring the bow quite that much.

I don't agree with the Robin Hood example, either.  That's also begging the question.  You assume that the players in that genre should just be taking shots without any regards to running out of arrows.  Perhaps in some slices of a "Robin Hood" game that is even correct.  If I'm playing a Robin Hood game, I want closer feel to the first tales, which has the Merry Men using all kinds of weapons, considering their shots carefully, etc. 

Scarcity isn't the only factor.  And it's more or less relevant in one game or another depending on the goals.  But it absolutely is relevant in the kind of games that care about simulation at all.

Greetings!

Hmmm. Well, wagons and carts certainly have their uses. The Mongol armies regularly traveled with large strike groups traveling weeks or more ahead into enemy territory, accompanied only by running horses with multiple packs of *thousands* of arrows, and minimal supplies of water and easily-portable tools and supplies. Much of the Mongol's supplies featured cleverly designed or modified tools and implements that were collapsible--or you could break them down into a few different parts for easier transport on a horse. A month or more, behind such a force, would be a more extensive wagon train, with more supplies, heavier tools, rations, tents and the like.

Also, the Mongols customarily loaded horses down with packs of arrows. The Mongols would organize several thousand horses, solely loaded with arrows, and hide them in hidden valleys nearby to an upcoming battle. Wagons were not necessary for carrying arrows. The Mongols would have literally tens of thousands of arrows loaded up and ready to go for any army, preparing for a fight. The Mongols then just rotated their formations in a machine-like precision, forward, retreat, forward, retreat, always cycling back and getting more arrows. Using multiple, separate prongs of carefully led formations, the Mongols army could this keep up a continuous barrage of clouds of arrows--thousands and thousands--of arrows against an enemy force. Most enemies brought into this process were quickly and easily slaughtered, with very little casualties suffered by the victorious Mongol armies.

The Mongols were also very self-sufficient, and a force of 1,000 or even 10,000 warriors--(Known as a Tumen)--could travel, explore, and fight for a considerable length of time without needing a supply train. The Mongols were brutal and tough, and lived off the land. They could also drink mare's blood, subsist on birds, fish, and rodents, and most warriors could also craft adequate bows and arrows themselves, while in the field.

On horseback, the Mongols regularly traveled 40 to 70 miles in a day, every day, in any weather. Sometimes, even faster travel times were reached, especially by the fast-moving professional messengers of the Yaam System.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 18, 2023, 10:03:19 PMYou are arguing entirely from effects.  The desire to have simulation is to link to process (and thus causes).  In fact, bows are quite excellent weapons in many ways.  The reasons they aren't dominant is because arrow strings get wet, arrows are time-consuming to make, etc.

I don't know what you mean when you say I'm "arguing from effects".

-A bow can get ruined by water and arrows are expensive and bulky

-A sword can bend, break, rust, and get dull

-Armor can get dented, straps can be cut, it is exhausting to wear in combat, and rigid armor makes it hard to squeeze through tight spots.

-Even boots work better or worse in different conditions depending on whether or not they have hobnails.

There are millions of things a DM can model for his specific game. Not only will the choice of which things to model affect how the players play the game, but the decision to not model something will affect the game as well. Tracking arrows isn't special in this regard.

Also, there are a couple ways to handle arrows:

1-You can track them individually (if your combat system is suitably detailed enough)
2-You can track them abstractly with a per-adventure "Arrow Replacement Fee" of 100 gp
3-Or you can track them narratively, like the FFG Star Wars game, where the GM rolling well on an NPC attack might cause the player's bow to run out of arrows.

I'd say that the first two are sufficiently simulationist whereas the third method wouldn't be.

I generally like both quite crunchy skill-based simulative characters and various resources to simulate world outside of just my bias - but honest compared to Six Cultures article Mr. Macris - I do not think simulationism really constitutes separate culture, and let's say ACKS considering it's clear old D&D roots will fall - depending of DM/players prefered mode and mentality into Classic or OSR gameplay. (Fact that characters are basically limited to classic heroic D&D classes variant - will enforce that - it's not game about being ANYONE - but Adventurer Conqueror King after all).

And let's also note that within cultures specific characteristic of OSR is open game sandbox, it's in fact more important quality than old school D&D mechanics - which it shares with Classic.
So I'd make radical take and put all real sandbox games in one actual culture - and mechanical preferences are less important in this regard.