Quote from: Zalman on December 15, 2020, 12:15:40 PM
If it takes 3.5 or 7.6 rounds to drop a single target depending on range, then it would be plenty easy to run out of ammunition in the course of a day's adventuring. To drop someone with one hit would likely require a larger caliber round, which a police officer would typically carry something like 37 of. So that would be enough to fight 7 opponents on average, at varying ranges. Heck, one band of goblins could use that up.

Browsing some forums where police officers (and ex-officers) hang out, it becomes readily apparent to me that in real life, folks who fire missile weapons for a living pay a lot of very careful attention to how much ammunition they are carrying.

I believe that. But it's also true that in real life, sword fighters pay a lot of careful attention to their footing and stance. That doesn't necessarily mean that the player of a sword fighter in an RPG should always be tracking what their character's footing and stance is. It's something that could be abstracted away, like many other factors.

RPGs don't always have to match real life. But even in cases when they do try to match real life, it's not necessarily true that the best way is to track every detail. The most accurate wargames aren't always the most detailed ones.

There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on here to justify not tracking things like arrows. Combat is a big part of most fantasy TTRPGs and you are literally inserting arrows into your enemies to kill them. Here's a thought experiment:

As your GM, I will track your arrows and buy arrows for you automatically when the need arises, I will also buy extra arrows for you when it looks like you will be in the wilderness or a dungeon for an extended period of time, I will tell you your arrow count whenever you ask, I will warn you when your remaining arrows are N <= 5, and at any time you may change the value of N just by telling me.

If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?

Come up with all the highfalutin game theory reasons to excuse not tracking arrows, but at the end of the day, if you are playing a game where arrows are on the price list, and you are declaring a shot, then rolling a die, then doing mental arithmetic, then announcing a hit or a miss, and then the GM has to fucking update some hit points, you sure as hell can also make a tally mark you lazy bastard. Christ some people are babies.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 04:54:32 PM
If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?

Dude. It's a game we play for fun. It's not supposed to be work.

The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?

Some people enjoy that tracking because they are into that level of detail. But other people don't enjoy it. Some people enjoy it or not depending on the type of game. Like how some people enjoy painting their miniatures, and other people just use miniatures out of the box.

Quote from: Zalman on December 15, 2020, 12:15:40 PM
If it takes 3.5 or 7.6 rounds to drop a single target depending on range, then it would be plenty easy to run out of ammunition in the course of a day's adventuring.

Yes, as I said: if you have longer combats, or combats with many combatants, then it's an issue.

QuoteBrowsing some forums where police officers (and ex-officers) hang out, it becomes readily apparent to me that in real life, folks who fire missile weapons for a living pay a lot of very careful attention to how much ammunition they are carrying.

That's true. But in real life, 82% of your shots will miss - unless he's not shooting back, then it's only 70%. In real life, someone who is wounded can't have someone else wave their hands over them and get better. In real life, a single combat is extraordinarily fatiguing, and if it involves someone else's serious injury or death will lead to 6+ months of legal investigations and drama - with no more opportunities for combat for a long time. In real life, even a well-justified use of force can lead to depression, marriage breakups, and loss of employment.

Now, who'd like a game where we simulate all of that?

In rpgs we tend to be very, very selective in the things we want to be "realistic". We pick and choose - that's okay, that's the same thing we all do with religions. But what I would suggest for rpgs is to add "realistic" things where they make the game more interesting, not where they make the game more tedious or depressing. The interesting part about counting ammo is running out. That can be dealt with by counting ammo, certainly. But there are other game mechanics we can use for it, too.

Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM
The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?

What do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.

This is why I posed the question the way I did.

I have a vague playground memory playing "war" with one kid who, no matter what the situation, always seemed to have one last grenade. It wasn't particularly fun. But it was quite funny now I recall it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 06:17:53 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM
The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?

What do you mean "we"? Your GM tracks a shit-ton of stuff you never hear about.

This is why I posed the question the way I did.

Sometimes I'm GM, and sometimes I'm a player -- it varies depending on the game.

The "we" in that sentence is whatever group is playing. If some people in the group have different preferences, then they have to compromise somehow. Specifically, let's say the GM has more fun if the players track individual arrows -- but the players enjoy the game more if they don't. Either the GM can stick to his demand and the players compromise so the GM can have more fun, or the maybe the GM relaxes and the players get to have more fun.

Being GM can be work - and they should definitely have fun. Still, when I GM, I take into account what the players enjoy, and try to find common ground.

For example, right now the main game I'm in is Call of Cthulhu (as player, not a GM). The GM hasn't asked that we track how many individual bullets we are carrying, and we haven't been. Another group might enjoy it better if they did -- whatever they enjoy is fine.

Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 04:54:32 PM
If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?

Dude. It's a game we play for fun. It's not supposed to be work.

One of the worst arguments. There's lots of 'work' involved in 'fun'. Tracking the stats of your favorite baseball team. Creating spreadsheets of stats for encounters. Collating data on the efficiency of ship upgrades. Calculating the most effective use of an action.
Notably the GM is usually involved in a lot of 'work' to create a campaign and each adventure. Players have to create characters.
Leagues have practice nights and guilds have lots of prep work to get ready for a raid.

I could go on and on.

Every 'fun' involves 'work' to make it happen.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2020, 07:31:04 PM
Every 'fun' involves 'work' to make it happen.

That's exactly what I said later in my reply. I noted that some people enjoy painting their miniatures, while other people just use miniatures out-of-the-box.

I'm not denying that some people genuinely get more enjoyment out of the game by putting in that effort. But it's false to say that if someone doesn't paint their own miniatures, that they are lazy and should put in the effort even if they don't enjoy it.

The point is that the effort *should* be enjoyable. If it's not enjoyable, then it's reasonable to just not do it.

The main difference between the pro tracking of ammo and the opposite side is the first insists on engaging in onetruwayism and everyone and anyone who plays differently is wrong and lazy. The second at least acknowledges some may like to track ammo and others no. Either side can use whatever the like at the table. I am in the middle I will track it if I have too and it is the rules of the current table I am at. Not a fan of that kind of bookkeeping so I either adapt or find another table.

As Jhkim as had said and speaking for myself I play to have fun and I find tracking every single detail to be not so much fun. Arrows, food, spells sure. Every single detail feels like filling out a tax form and more like work than a hobby.

This where I really don't regret there being not too hard to acquire magic items that just supply infinite ammo or return when thrown (which balances out nicely with the unlimited cantrips/attack spells). Sure, they cost more than a thousand arrows do, but for some, it's a worthwhile expense.

Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 07:49:15 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2020, 07:31:04 PM
Every 'fun' involves 'work' to make it happen.

That's exactly what I said later in my reply. I noted that some people enjoy painting their miniatures, while other people just use miniatures out-of-the-box.

I'm not denying that some people genuinely get more enjoyment out of the game by putting in that effort. But it's false to say that if someone doesn't paint their own miniatures, that they are lazy and should put in the effort even if they don't enjoy it.

The point is that the effort *should* be enjoyable. If it's not enjoyable, then it's reasonable to just not do it.

Buuut we have a shared agreement on the rules to facillitate play. We agree that characters get X actions per turn, that a strength score means Y modifier to damage.
If I want to play D&D, but I dislike tracking ammo, but there's a rule to track ammo, who gets to decide if we track ammo as a party or not? Do we each get to decide which rule to use for our characters? How does that work?

The question is, is someone willing to put up with a rule they don't like in order to participate in the rest of the game? I'd bet this equation comes up for every RPG over some rule or other.

Quote from: jhkim on December 15, 2020, 05:19:46 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 15, 2020, 04:54:32 PM
If you accept this offer, then it's just plain laziness of not wanting to spend literally 30 seconds of total game time to make tally marks and buy arrows occasionally. Go play a video game that tracks this for you. If you reject this offer, then you want infinite ammo for some reason. Which is it?

Dude. It's a game we play for fun. It's not supposed to be work.

The question is: Is the game more fun if we track all our arrows? Or is it more fun if we don't?

Some people enjoy that tracking because they are into that level of detail. But other people don't enjoy it. Some people enjoy it or not depending on the type of game. Like how some people enjoy painting their miniatures, and other people just use miniatures out of the box.

just my own opinion, but i've always preferred tracking arrows and rations and water and candles and spell components...has a certain "feel", similar to early NES rpg games like shadowgate (where you die when you run out of torches).

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 12, 2020, 09:07:55 PM

QuoteYou're actually conflating SYSTEM as GAME.

Care to elaborate?

QuoteDon't take my word on it, though:

I generally agree with this gentleman in terms of definitions.
But I think that a) cRPGs are basically always stories, maybe branching stories, but nature of C in cRPG generally forces you to some amount of choices - not infinite possibilities.So the difference between free narrative and story is getting more murkier. b) this is centred on video game design and numbers of choices it's giving to players - but it's quite a different thing in narrative RPG.
--snipp--

Sure. Let me illustrate my point.
Right in front of me is the ALIEN RPG book. Inside the book are the rules for the game. The system. As I am watching the book, I do not find it playing itself. It can't. You need players to play it. When players interact with the system, they are playing the game. The results of that game is the player/player character's own stories. If you ask most players: "What happened in the game?" Most will skimp on their system interactions, and instead talk about what happened in a narrative way. That's my point. Too many times, people conflate the SYSTEM with the PLAY. They are NOT the same thing. But sometimes people conflate one with the other, failing to realize they are doing that. Think of it this way: How many times have GMs changed/altered/augmented the rules (the system) in order to streamline or facilitate play (the game)? You see? They are NOT the same thing. That's my point.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 15, 2020, 08:31:01 PM
This where I really don't regret there being not too hard to acquire magic items that just supply infinite ammo or return when thrown (which balances out nicely with the unlimited cantrips/attack spells). Sure, they cost more than a thousand arrows do, but for some, it's a worthwhile expense.

A good example of where not tracking arrows (in the name of "fun") can nerf other items and spells in the game. Another would be not tracking food and water making create food and water spells and items irrelevant.