Retry penalty - and combat

Lafing Cat:

(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)

Except Logic.

The Reason Retry Penalty Exist is because the first time the character already exhausted all realistic possibilities.  It already implies that it is only for dramatic action.  (Because in combat there is little to no way to exhaust even a reasonable sample of possibilities in 1 try).

Starvation exist because it gives a penalty due to your physical weakness.  There is little reason to assume that because you are in combat that all of a sudden the exhaustion and weakness entirely disappears.

While RAW does in fact fail to explicitly address the matter, it's still implicitly there.

As written, "retry penalty" represents "frustration with failure and the fact that the character has already tried the obvious solution".

Regarding the first, combat is a situation of fast reaction and high adrenaline. There's little time left for brooding over how you should have totally hit the guy the last time. While not being able to hit can be quite frustrating, this frustration is just another stimulus for one's adrenal glands to double the effort.

Regarding the latter, it takes a complete moron to assume that since he's failed to hit the enemy, he has to search for another solution. The solution (i.e. hitting the guy with whatever you have on hand) was good and remains good, only you have to apply it harder and over more time. To quote a popular meme, if violence didn't solve your problem, you didn't apply enough of it.

This is doubly true for anyone with but a touch of combat experience in Exalted, where combat between various Essence users counts more misses than hits, and where you either overpower your enemy enough to end him in one or two hits or you know you'll need to wear him down over time before you can land a blow at all.

Karamethien:

Starvation exist because it gives a penalty due to your physical weakness.  There is little reason to assume that because you are in combat that all of a sudden the exhaustion and weakness entirely disappears.

Adrenalin and the Fight of Flight reflex.  I can tell you to run, and you'll stop running and slow down before you're actually completely tired.  If I release a wild tiger behind you and it's running towards you with a look like you're dinner, you will *absolutely* run faster than you were before, tired or not.

Why couldn't exalted be modeling this?

(And that's the problem with logic in an RPG, there are all sorts of things that *could* be logical, that they chose to model or chose to ignore.  Whereas if we only go with what's explicit, there's no such ambiguity.)

Thyme:

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

I've only played nWoD (standard, Vampire, and Werewolf) and Exalted Second Edition.  What they did in Old World of Darkness or 1st Edition Exalted is beyond me.  Hell, what they do in other roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons is beyond me. 

I saw "retry penalties applies to failed actions" and just did what it said in my games.  The only thing I'm defending is that "that's what it said so I did it!" and "so far it hasn't broken anything in my game."

The facts are I read the book, did what it said, and haven't had any problems with it.

Holden:

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

Can you give me your cellphone number?  That way whenever I read anything in my Exalted books I can call you and make sure that it actually means what it says.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, how else am I supposed to know?  The rule made sense to me, and I never questioned it because it never broke the game when I played with it.  For over two years.  I'm starting to think that writers are getting paid to do a shitty job at even the simplist of things.  Sure I can houserule it and just play how I want, but I spent money to have game developers, who do this for a living, make things easy on me and tell me how it works.

I understand some mistakes.  Everybody makes them.  But saying "That thing you read that said X actually means Y.  Did you figure it out" is the real bullshit.

Hekatonkhire:

You're stupid, and your logic is flawed.

My logic is playing the game the way it says in the book.  I figured that I wouldn't of had to play another game or a previous edition to make sense of a rule that seems pretty clear.

deathmatchfm:

Seriously, how else am I supposed to know?  The rule made sense to me, and I never questioned it because it never broke the game when I played with it.  For over two years.  I'm starting to think that writers are getting paid to do a shitty job at even the simplist of things.  Sure I can houserule it and just play how I want, but I spent money to have game developers, who do this for a living, make things easy on me and tell me how it works.

I can sympathize with this sentiment. I have had the same problem with various rules countless times. There are many things I would have never figured out without this forum. Hell, I'd probably still think Zeal and VAP are cool Charms if it wasn't for this board.

Which isn't really how it's supposed to be.

Morangias:

Hell, I'd probably still think Zeal and VAP are cool Charms if it wasn't for this board.

Honestly, I could probably figure those out.  But something as simple as "the retry penalty doesn't apply to combat because it's implied, not that you knew since you haven't played a bunch of other roleplaying games, and it's supposed to be game breaking but you didn't notice after two years" is really bad.

  Having actually done a little sparring I can say in my experience my chances of hitting my opponent actually increase over time even if I consistently miss or get blocked. The reasoning is because I'm learning my opponent and the way they move and how fast they react. Frustration can and does come in though and if you wanted a realistic way to handle it you could maybe ask for a reflexive virtue roll, temperance would probably be best. If that was failed then you could apply a penalty. I think it would needlessly complicate an already complicated combat system though.

I would actually (though the rules don't say this at all) go with ignoring the retry rule for any contested action.

Lafing Cat:

Adrenalin and the Fight of Flight reflex.  I can tell you to run, and you'll stop running and slow down before you're actually completely tired.  If I release a wild tiger behind you and it's running towards you with a look like you're dinner, you will *absolutely* run faster than you were before, tired or not.

Why couldn't exalted be modeling this?

It already does.

deathmatchfm:

Seriously, how else am I supposed to know?  The rule made sense to me, and I never questioned it because it never broke the game when I played with it.  For over two years.  I'm starting to think that writers are getting paid to do a shitty job at even the simplist of things.  Sure I can houserule it and just play how I want, but I spent money to have game developers, who do this for a living, make things easy on me and tell me how it works.

I understand some mistakes.  Everybody makes them.  But saying "That thing you read that said X actually means Y.  Did you figure it out" is the real bullshit.

Lafing Cat:

(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)

Yes, there is, it present in the combat charms that ignore such penalties.  Further those penalties are persistant while retry penalties aer not.  Finally the fact that they are NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY PART OF THE COMBAT SYSTEM IN ANY BOOK (retry) is a STRONG indicator that you are arguing for arguments' sake.

JiveX:

Finally the fact that they are NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY PART OF THE COMBAT SYSTEM IN ANY BOOK (retry) is a STRONG indicator that you are arguing for arguments' sake.

I said in my first post that I wouldn't run RAW, and 99% of STs probably aren't going to run it RAW.

I think *that* should be the first indication that I'm arguing for arguments sake.  Its an interesting intellectual argument about how the game-qua-game differs from the game-as-played.

JiveX:

Finally the fact that they are NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY PART OF THE COMBAT SYSTEM IN ANY BOOK (retry) is a STRONG indicator that you are arguing for arguments' sake