Martial Dailies - How so?

[GnomeWorks]

This entire argument is ridiculous. The sports analogy works perfectly; if the OP was ever involved in such an endeavor, he would realize that it is simply not possible to excel during every single moment of the day. Use statistical analysis to determine how often a person can make a truly excellent move per day, now reconcile it with the D&D fantasy narrative system. How many times per day can you lift your max weight on a squat? How often do you have that perfect strike against your fencing opponent? Roughly once per day, if you're lucky and don't miss.

Yes, I realize that you can't "excel during every single moment of the day."

For things like lifting heavy weights, sure, that's something you can only really do once a day, and need an extended breather after doing so (represented by the extended rest). I'm fine with that.

I have more of an issue with the ranger's double-shot ability. There isn't much more effort there, IMO, than in shooting one. More difficult, sure, but it's not in the same realm as lifting a boulder or something. Remathilis' explanation involving "the zone," or what-have-you, seemed a lot more fitting, and satisfied the requirements for the explanation I was looking for.

 

[Satori]

Yes, I realize that you can't "excel during every single moment of the day."

For things like lifting heavy weights, sure, that's something you can only really do once a day, and need an extended breather after doing so (represented by the extended rest). I'm fine with that.

I have more of an issue with the ranger's double-shot ability. There isn't much more effort there, IMO, than in shooting one. More difficult, sure, but it's not in the same realm as lifting a boulder or something. Remathilis' explanation involving "the zone," or what-have-you, seemed a lot more fitting, and satisfied the requirements for the explanation I was looking for.

I HIGHLY recommend you read Bernard Cornwall's "The Archer's Tale" series. It is essentially a historical fiction based on the life of an archer. Everything in the book is taken from history, and the standard rules of "reality" are in clear effect. Aside from drawing the conclusion I'll try to outline, your preference for historically/scientifically accurate fantasy will ensure that you thoroughly enjoy the books.

The books do a GREAT job of showing just how remarkable and difficult it is to be a Longbow Archer. We tend to think of the Longbow in "Elf" terms, as we see a relatively frail Legolas effortlessly strumming away with his huge Longbow.

No. Just NO.

In the series, you really see the emphasis on how POWERFUL and HEAVY a warfare built Longbow is. We're talking 200 lbs of pull here. No fancy assisted pullies either.

200 lbs!! Most people can't lift that with their entire body, let alone with just the arm/shoulder/chest muscles involved in archery.

Were Legolas to TRULY strum away with a 200 lbs Longbow, he would be MASSIVELY muscled, as each pull would be consistent with a 200 lbs arm/shoulder/chest POWERLIFT.

In the series, it talks about how these Archers, who are born and raised firing military Longbows and are all extremely muscular, STILL get sore when they have to shoot their bow more than 10 times a day.

Following this train of thought, the amount of exertion required to fit and steady two arrows would probably be three or four times as difficult as just drawing and loosing a single shaft. The string would waver and require steadying, the notches would miss the string, and the hand/fingers would endure TREMENDOUS stress.

Imagine benching a standard 200 lbs barbell (or equivalent). With enough conditioning, it wouldn't be an issue. Now, imagine holding the barbell at the end point of the lift, and HOLDING it at the midway point of extension for several seconds. It puts stress on your body in ways a linear lift does not.

Even if you're used to explosively lifting 200 lbs a dozen times a day, the pure effort of setting multiple arrows on a 200 lbs drawn bowstring would SEVERELY strain your hand, fingers, and forearms...let alone the rest of your body.

That's the way I look at it, anyway.

 

[Ondo]

How often do you have that perfect strike against your fencing opponent? Roughly once per day, if you're lucky and don't miss.

This seems to me to be exactly what critical hits model, and they do a far better job of doing so than 1/day abilities, IMO. Do other people disagree?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well, I think a perfect hit isn't the best view. A ordinary attack that hits perfectly yeah definitely critical. But, to continue with the fencing idea, managing to deflect the opponents foil away and pull off a hit on his back would be once-per-day (or zero times per day for me )

 

[marune]

It's up to the player to make decisions for their character that makes them useful in a fight or negotation. If a player generates a character not useful in a fight, that's their choice. The options to make a character useful in a fight should be available, but not mandatory.

So, why did you dislike the idea that Pippin wasn't helping at all in my example, but only doing funny stuff and doing so bringing more orcs for Aragorn to fight ?

After all, Pippin's player chose to create a "comic relief" character.


(BTW, the idea here is not to discuss about LOTR characters but finding out if GnomeWorks favorite playstyle is really "simulationism").

 

[GnomeWorks]

So, why did you dislike the idea that Pippin wasn't helping at all in my example, but only doing funny stuff and doing so bringing more orcs for Aragorn to fight ?

I did not say anything of the sort. Personally, I might be a little irritated by the behavior, because it would seem to me to be a signal that the player is not enjoying combat situations; however, I imagine Aragorn's player would be even more annoyed.

Not only that, but I would hope that any players at my table understand that I am trying to run a simulationist game. If your group is in a combat situation and you are off screwing around, attracting even more orcs, that seems to be asking for trouble. Your character's actions, no matter what method you are using - as a player - to decide them, affect the character's world, and the world reacts appropriately.

Even a character not built for combat can help out in a combat situation. You can always try something - you just might not be very good at it.

 

[marune]

I did not say anything of the sort. Personally, I might be a little irritated by the behavior, because it would seem to me to be a signal that the player is not enjoying combat situations; however, I imagine Aragorn's player would be even more annoyed.

Not only that, but I would hope that any players at my table understand that I am trying to run a simulationist game. If your group is in a combat situation and you are off screwing around, attracting even more orcs, that seems to be asking for trouble. Your character's actions, no matter what method you are using - as a player - to decide them, affect the character's world, and the world reacts appropriately.

Even a character not built for combat can help out in a combat situation. You can always try something - you just might not be very good at it.

You don't like my example because it's the other end of the "simulationism" spectrum, where the goal is to emulate a given genre/theme.

Now, I'm beginning to figure out what kind of game you want... Something like a "sandbox" core, with a (vanilla) gamist layer riding it.

Such kind of game is very confusing for the players, I sincelery suggest you to really think about it before going this way.

I'll add more later..

(FYI, vanilla means "without explicit mechanical support").

 

[GnomeWorks]

You don't like my example because it's the other end of the "simulationism" spectrum, where the goal is to emulate a given genre/theme.

...I don't know if I would call that simulationism, but you're right, I'm not going for that sort of thing.

Now, I'm beginning to figure out what kind of game you want... Something like a "sandbox" core, with a (vanilla) gamist layer riding it.

Very much so incorrect.

I like my crunchy bits. I enjoy having a solid mechanical basis for actions characters take. DM fiat does not, IMO, a consistent world make.

 

[small pumpkin man]

This seems to me to be exactly what critical hits model, and they do a far better job of doing so than 1/day abilities, IMO. Do other people disagree?

Yes.

Well, to be more specific, they fulfill a different role, although what they "simulate" in the game world is similar. Daily's allow for better balance, and allow for better player control over the both the combat and the story, allowing for more interesting, tactical combats, and for more interesting (or at least more consistently interesting) "combat tales" as it were. Crits, not being under the direct control of the players, add excitement and randomness. Thus it's perfectly okay to have both, even if they're supposed to "simulate" the same thing.

 

[hong]

I wasn't trying to apply the GNS labels to combat or non-combat mechanics. I simply want there to be mechanical support, as detailed as combat, for non-combat encounters. I just happen to prefer mechanics that support simulationist play.

After careful study, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as simulationist play. (There is simulationist thinking about play, but that's not the same thing.)