Retry penalty - and combat

Thyme:

White Wolf has never and would never have the retry penalty apply to combat.

You can say this, but it doesn't make it true.  In fact, Exalted apparently has the retry penalty apply to combat via RAW, so the first part is fundamentally false, and the last part is based on ungrounded assumptions.

"The sun will never fail to rise" is a statement with much more certainty than your comment about WW decisions, and it is still false. 

Thyme:

In terms of rules by RAW, the assumption will be that the penalty does not apply to combat.

Absolutely wrong.  As nothing says the penalty doesn't apply to all actions, RAW it does, irrespective of what you think the rules should be, or what they've been historically.

Now, is it *possible* that they simply forgot it? Absolutely.

Am I going to run the game as though it doesn't apply to combat? Absolutely, but I'm going to do so with the understanding that I'm deviating from what the RAW says, just as I'm deviating from the RAW when I move past step 6 on an attack that fails to overcome a targets hardness.

An other way to put things.

No where in the book does it say, "The Retry penalty applies to combat".
No where in the book does it say, "The Retry penalty applies does not apply to combat."

It is not explicitly spelt out one way or another.

To say, that RAW says something. It should be clue that it does say it.

Maybe RAW doesn't really say either way.

The "Retry penalty" show up on page 121, Chapter Four: Drama and Systems.

It does not show up anywhere else in the book.

With what is written on page 121 someone could argue that it must by RAW apply to combat, but I don't see that as a very good or even valid argument. 

With it showing up on page 121, it might apply to combat, it might not. RAW does not seem to say one way or anything on this one fact.

As much as some people would seem to like it if every possible application all of the rules were explicitly, this is not really the cause.

Page 121

One notable penalty is the retry penalty. Every time a character
attempts to perform an action at which she has already
failed, she generally accrues a -1 success external penalty to
the attempt due to frustration, and to simulate the fact that
the character has already tried the obvious solutions.

Depending on how people read:

due to frustration, and to simulate the fact that the character has already tried the obvious solutions.

Will change whether the someone feels the "retry penalty" applies to combat or not, by RAW.

It can and is read in more than one way.

Therefore it is not explicit either way.

Does RAW say you cannot use Heavenly Guardian Defense to parry an social attack?  Since it is applicability trumping?

Also, looking at First Edition:

Page 93

SECOND CHANCES
Failure is frustrating. If you’re having trouble with
your computer and can’t figure out why, you’re in for an
evening of increasing frustration and decreasing productivity.
Exalted reflects this “frustration with failure” by
allowing the Storyteller to increase the successes needed
for any action that you try again after an initial failure. So,
if a first attempt at picking a lock fails, a character’s
frustration with her failure could make her try too hard the
second time. To reflect this overcompensation, the Storyteller
asks for two successes. Of course, if the character fails
yet again, things will continue to escalate.…
    The Storyteller shouldn’t invoke this rule in uncertain
circumstances such as combat. Missing a target isn’t
terribly surprising in such situations, considering that
everyone is dodging about, ducking for cover and generally
not being polite enough to stand still.

    The Storyteller shouldn’t invoke this rule in uncertain
circumstances such as combat. Missing a target isn’t
terribly surprising in such situations, considering that
everyone is dodging about, ducking for cover and generally
not being polite enough to stand still.

Lafing Cat:

Absolutely wrong.  As nothing says the penalty doesn't apply to all actions, RAW it does, irrespective of what you think the rules should be, or what they've been historically.

Nothing says it does, including the section on combat.  Furthermore the text itself strongly implies it doesn't.  As does the fact that combat section doesn't mentionit but mentions all other relevant penalties.

Raw has no official oppion on it.  It is strongly implied, however that it does not apply.,

JiveX:

Raw has no official oppion on it.  It is strongly implied, however that it does not apply.

Having run the game for a long time using it, I haven't seen why this is so.  It isn't strongly implied that it isn't there, it just isn't mentioned again.  The same is true for many things in Exalted.  RAW, it isn't said that it isn't used for everything, and it isn't said that it isn't used for one thing.  The only thing is it says a "task."  It's talking about external penalties, which can apply to combat.  The retry penalty is merely a type of external penalty, which we already know apply to combat.  Nothing specifically says that it wouldn't, when it's included in a catagory that is combat related.

JiveX:

Nothing says it does, including the section on combat. 

RAW says, whenever you fail an action.  Did you fail an action? Retry penalty applies unless something says it doesn't.

I don't need to say that, for example, a Daiklaive has the same damage both in and out of combat, or poisons work the same both in and out of combat, or that sleep deprivation penalties apply both in and out of combat, etc. etc.

(and at least some of those things are discussed outside of the combat section.)

JiveX:

Furthermore the text itself strongly implies it doesn't.

  RAW contains no implications, that's RAI.

JiveX:

As does the fact that combat section doesn't mentionit but mentions all other relevant penalties.

  Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I understand the argument of why this probably would not be good to apply in combat situations.  However, Lafing Cat with me on this, I didn't misread something.  When it said any action you fail, I took what it said and went with any action you fail.

Retry penalty applies to dramatic actions, not to combat. Man, that would break the game right and proper lol

Lafing Cat:

bsense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is a dumb arguement and you are, in fact, well aware of it.  When interpretting a text absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.

deathmatchfm:

I understand the argument of why this probably would not be good to apply in combat situations.  However, Lafing Cat with me on this, I didn't misread something.  When it said any action you fail, I took what it said and went with any action you fail.

And in First Edition Exalted, that was not the case.

The Storyteller shouldn’t invoke this rule in uncertain
circumstances such as combat. Missing a target isn’t
terribly surprising in such situations, considering that
everyone is dodging about, ducking for cover and generally
not being polite enough to stand still.

In all other White Wolf games, that has not been the case.


So, did the powers that be decide that 2nd edition Exalted was going to be the first ever White Wolf game that had the rule apply to combat OR was the line stating that it doesn't apply to combat just fail to appear for what ever reason.

The are more reasonable explanations for why the line "doesn't not apply to combat" is not in the book, than the explanations that it should apply to combat. 

Saying that the rule applies to combat, because the book fails say it doesn't.

Is just as bad as saying you can HGD or SSE the ground, because the book fails to say you can't.

It is the same BAD logic.

The rules are written with the assumption that STs and Players will be using "Common Sense" in the using of the rules.

They might not have including the line about it not applying to combat, because they did not see they need to included it.
Using "Common Sense" no one would apply it.

With "Common Sense" here being defined by having an understanding of how White Wolf games normally work and how First Edition Exalted work.

I, myself, hate the notion of using "Common Sense" as an excuse for not making something clear, because people never seem to agree on what "Common Sense" means, but there was a different thread about social combat, where it was made clear that "Social Combat" only worked if you used it "as it was intended" and also used "Common Sense".

You are not using "Common Sense" or "as it was intended".
To say that you are using RAW, is missing the later put of the quote "due to frustration, and to simulate the fact that
the character has already tried the obvious solutions."

"simulate the fact that the character has already tried the obvious solutions."
To me, this implies that the character needs to try something different than what they have already tried.
That does not apply to combat, just because you missed someone once, doesn't mean you'll miss them again.
"Due to frustration" might come up in social combat, but I really do see it coming up in physical combat, at least not for any single action.


If you want to say, that I'm not using RAW by not including the "retry penalty" in combat... fine, whatever...
But... if you want to claim that you are using RAW by including it, I'm going to call BS.

By RAW, "Retry penalty" is not explicitly say it does apply to combat.
No where in the book do you find "combat" and "retry penalty" on the same page and/or paragraph/ and/or sentence.

You are making assumptions, that are not necessarily valid assumptions.

Yes, the quote contains the words "Every time a character attempts to perform an action at which she has already failed"
But you are ignoring "due to frustration, and to simulate the fact that the character has already tried the obvious solutions."

Or at least failing to see the other options.


Edit:
I thank Holden for his appearance in this thread.
I will now do my best to stay out of this thread.
I've spent enough time arguing about something that will NEVER effect may games.

And as much as I disagree with deathmatchfm about his ruling, if it works for him and his players, then I have no real interest in telling him to change.

Holden may not be John Chambers, but since he has been a play tester and has been in combats to test the varies rules of exalted, it seems to me that play testers more than likely do not include "retry penalty" while in combat. Which means the rules are at least tested under the assumption that "retry penalty" is not included in combat.

That might not tell us anything about RAW, but it does tell us about RAI. Good enough for me for now.
The End (for now) (hopefully...)

If, hypothetically, one were applying the retry penalty in combat, how does one do it?

Is "hit this guy" one task, or is "hitting anybody" a task? Do you thus gain an ever-increasing penalty, until those who've fought for the longest time simply cannot hit anything, ever? Or do you only do so against a single opponent, until you have no hope of hitting HIM, ever? When does the penalty go away, if ever? By RAW, I don't think it does.

Does the penalty go away or stick around if you manage to actually hit the guy?

deathmatchfm:

JiveX:

Retry penalty is a DRAMATIC rule not a combat rule.

I never saw anything that said it was a dramatic rule.  Actually, the way it's worded, it makes sense that it would apply to combat.  After somebody continually parries with HGD, you'd get frustrated at trying to get past their defense.

You're stupid, and your logic is flawed.

And people say I can't be direct.

ALSO, no, you wouldn't get frustrated.  Getting frustrated is for novices and first-timers.  Veterans keep cool.  If you don't keep cool, you die.

deathmatchfm:

I understand the argument of why this probably would not be good to apply in combat situations.  However, Lafing Cat with me on this, I didn't misread something.  When it said any action you fail, I took what it said and went with any action you fail.

You think because Lafing Cat is 'with you on this', you are correct?  Hawhawhaw.  Doug Funny, you broke my grill.

JiveX:

This is a dumb arguement and you are, in fact, well aware of it.  When interpretting a text absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.

Er, no because I can make the *exact* same argument about, for example, penalties due to starvation.  There isn't anything explicit that says they apply in combat. 

Why does one assume that they *do* apply, when the penalty for failure doesn't?


(Now, Holden has come along and said they don't, but absent author commentary and looking only at the text, make me an argument solely from the text that there's any reason to treat penalties from starvation different from the retry penalty)