The Forge Archives

Hi all,

I finally have a free moment from work, and I'm itching to discuss this with everyone.

Games like HeroQuest handle non-physical "combat" in the same way as physical combat.  That is, the dice-rolling mechanics for, say, a debate, are the same as a duel between swordsmen.  This carries with it the idea of non-physical "wounds" - perhaps even death!  For example, "death" in a debate could mean being utterly crushed by your opponent and being  completely ignored in future debates.

Another aspect of physical combat is "range" (perhaps "distance" is a better word) or how far you are from the target.  If, as in HeroQuest, non-physical combat is the "same" as physical combat, then what is non-physical range?

Range as it pertains to physical combat seems to involve the following.  First, it allows you to make full effect of ranged weapons (i.e., shoot the bad guys before they get to you).  However, depending on your weapon, the further away you are from your target, the harder it is to hit.  So it's a positional thing.  Are there analogues of ranged "weapons" in non-physical combat?  For example, a good looking outfit might be an appropriate "weapon" for a debate (giving bonuses to the roll), but is it a ranged weapon?

Being far away from your opponent in physical combat has some benefit, though - the opponent can't hurt you if it doesn't have a ranged weapon of its own.  This means that you can retreat, getting away from combat before being hurt too badly.  Is there an idea of movement in non-physical combat?

Perhaps the concern of this thread is not just range in non-physical combat, but the idea of space (i.e., room to move), movement, and distance in non-physical combat.

I'd be happy with using a movement system such as that in Donjon, which has "in-close," short range ("one action away"), long range ("two actions away"), and "out-of-fight" for physical combat.  What would non-physical analogues of these range descriptors be?

If this has been discussed before, could someone point me to the relevant thread(s)?

Jon

p.s.  I'll keep up with this thread to the best of my ability, but I'm pretty busy these days so I may be slow in responding.

Interesting idea. Cues could be taken from current events, such as politicians trying to "distance" themselves from certain issues... intriguing!

Taking up the nice-suit-as-weapon example, I suppose your desired result would be to achieve a persuasion threshhold (where in combat, it would be damage), so you could use use an analogy wherein non-physical hitpoints in a debate for example, would be 'firmness points' or something similar; the more diverging and polar the crowd's opinions and ideas are to your own, the more 'firmness points' the crowd has, for you to overcome. In this case, I suppose range would possibly be a function of the difference or distance between your ideas and the crowd's? Perhaps how 'far off' you are from seeing eye to eye? Hmm there's definitely something there in your idea but its too abstract for me to really see...

Hi Jonathan,

I suggest looking for the game Lace & Steel, which employs a fairly tactical duelling system for both sword-duelling and confrontations of repartee. The exact same cards and rules are used for each - but for the swords, a "low-line" strike is considered literally a fencing thrust coming low, whereas the same card in repartee is considered a crude or unfair twist to your dialogue. All of the fencing moves on the cards are analogized similarly for the repartee application.

Also, and somewhat more flexible, is the social/wits conflict system in The Dying Earth. A very good free PDF is available at the Pelgrane Press website.

Best,
Ron

I have the intuition that you could usefully analogize as follows:

• Getting closer to a physical battle means gaining more leverage by involving your body personally in the conflict.  Keeping out of range means reducing your chance to strike a decisive blow, but keeping your frail flesh out of the reach of your enemies.
  
• Getting closer to a verbal battle means gaining more leverage by involving your ideals and beliefs in the argument.  Keeping out of range means reducing your chance to make a meaningful and moving argument, but keeping your reputation and ego out of the reach of your enemies.[/list:u]I find this entertaining because it equates Oscar Wilde and Robin Hood as similar masters of ranged combat in differing media.  Your mileage most certainly will vary.

I don't know much about hero quest, but had gathered that it resolved fights and debates (and other such things) the same way, because they are all conflicts.

I don't think the idea of 'range' is an inherant part of the idea of conflict. It doesn't really carry across directly (a loose analogy might though). For example, if my PC is in a debate and is wearing a nice suit, he could get a bonus. But I don't then look at physical combat and say 'hey, where's the nice suit factor?'. Likewise, with a debate conflict I can't really go to it and look for a definate range factor.

I'm basically saying its not there, except in analogy. For example, if you are debating with a judge and your the criminal, he can talk down to you, as if untouchable, as if at a distance. I think its fine to say 'I can do X as if I were at a distance from him' to get across the benefits. But I don't know if the idea of space and range are part of all conflicts, except in that all conflicts involve resources (even feelings are resources to be won or lost), and distance is one.

Backing up Callan:

How does the idea of price fluctuation in an economic contest pertain to combat?

How does the idea of Social space in romance apply to economic contests?

How does the idea of yack dung density in farming contests apply to romance contests?

Answer, they don't apply.

Rather there is but one principle from HQ which applies to everything. That is, sometimes something is more appropriate than at other times. If something is less than appropriate, then penalize it. If you're trying to close with an archer to attack, take a penalty. If you're in a social contest trying to influence and you're using a language that they don't know, take a big penalty. If you're in a price war with another tribe and fluctuations are causing your Price Estimation ability to be off, take a penalty. If you're trying to romance your date using your Grappling ability take a big penalty. If you're trying to use your Fertilize Fields ability to spread frozen Yak feces about take a penalty - next time get it fresh.

You can make your arguments about appropriateness from analogy, sure. But that doesn't mean that for every factor in one sort of conflict that there's a parallel in another. Nor is there a reason to look for one. Use the actual appropriateness as far as you're aware of it.

I have a mind to throw out my combat system rant. Somehow range in combat is somehow sacrosant in the world of RPGs as an inviolable in central principle. Why is beyond me. :-)

Mike

Settings with psychic powers could "ranges" like-


Withdrawn- Character is actively aware they are trying to avoid psychic contact with others and keeping a really low profile. Can't do much or "see" far.

Aware- character is passively in tune with the psychic surroundings but isn't making too much noise.  A psychic warning sign could be "up" when one is Aware and one could be keepign out a psychic third eye.

Probing- charcter is actively  trying to make psychic contact with others. Sort of yelling. You can send out a psychic yell when Probing or look beyond what you could see when Aware.

Contact- aware of and in touch with another on a psychic level. You can hold a conversation with someone when in contact with them.

Intimate- deep into another psychic being.You can pull a nightmare out of somoenes childhood and terrfiy them when psychically intimate.

I think you could apply a type of "space" to non-physical conflict, but the exact form it will take would depend on the type of conflict you were talking about.

I was thinking about a verbal debate. The idea of "topic" could be analogous to "space." Topic meaning the specific focus of a discussion at a given moment, in a given sentence. In order to make a verbal attack, you have to get the opponent in "position" for an attack. You have to keep the discussion focused on the topic of your choosing, the topic that makes the opponent look bad, or the topic that the opponent simply can't respond to. Are you following me?

If "space" = "topic," then "range" might be considered personal connection (ie, distance) to the topic.

A "melee" attack might be a topic that both parties have a similiar, though seperate, connection to. Looking at politics, military service for Bush and Kerry might be a melee "range" topic, since both polititians can argue about the merits of their individual service.

A "grapple" might be a topic that both parties share the same connection to. Like 2 workers on the same project might argue about who did more work.

And lastly, a "missile" attack might be a topic that the attacker is unconnected to, but the target is connected to. (This way, the target cannot directly attack back, but must respond to the attack.) Going back to politics... maybe Bush attacking Clinton for his infidelity. Bush is not known to have ever cheated on his wife, so Clinton wouldn't be able to directly attack Bush back.

I don't know, how does that sound? I think it's easy to stretch the idea of "space" in non-physical conflict too far.

This idea of ranged conflict in other media is something I did incorporate into Crux.

Given that conflict (aka "combat") can focus on any color/type of conflict, I felt that the difference between melee "weapons"  and ranged "weapons" needed to be maintained. But I didn't see it as a range thing per se, but as a dodgeable issue. It's very hard to dodge bullets, and significantly easier to dodge clubs.

So, in a social combat (Blue Conflict, in Crux terms), a "weapon" has a damage rating and use based on how intense it can affect someone, and how easy it would be to dodge. If it's very easy, it's a melee "weapon", while difficult to dodge = ranged "weapon".

For example:

I'm using a known fact in a debate with Bob. Facts are hard to dodge, so it's ranged, and as a weapon, it's only a DR of 1.

Now I'm using a theory or idea against him. Easy to dodge, but still not very damaging: melee, DR 1.

And then I pull out the big guns: one of Bob's dark secrets. Impossible to dodge, very damaging: ranged, DR 3.

Witnesses can be a factor as well - surrounded by good friends, they can act as "armor" in a blue conflict, while standing alone in a room full of enemies provides "Armor Piercing rounds".

Referring to the Nice Suit weapon - it would depend on the nature of the conflict, but generally, wouldn't provide a bonus or be useful as a weapon. Unless, of course, the discussion was about my clothes vs. Bob's clothes....

Hope that provides some food for thought.

Like Mike, I must say I find it hard to see why anyone would want to apply the terminology of physical combat to non-combat contest, or what exactly is gained by doing so.

HeroQuest tries hard to establish contest-neutral terminology for the game mechanical concepts used to resolve contests. Combat is simply a specific kind of contest, but of course one that occurs often and so HQ shows how to apply the generic contest rules to combat.

Viewing other kinds of contests through the lense of combat contest mechanics is IMHO likely to lead to a very cock-eyed approach. It's also likely to completely miss many valid tactics in for these other kidns of contest for which there is no corresponding tactic in combat. Suppose the contest is a political election, why not look at the tactics actualy used by politicians and pressure groups and see how to model those in the contest rules? Surely that's going to produce a much more realistic and natural approach to the contest that adapting hack-slash terminology and concepts?

Simon Hibbs

The primary distinction between close quarters and ranged combat is the degree of interactivity between the participants.  Each action demands immediate response.  Ranged combat is not non-interactive, and your action is much more discreet.

Therefore, the one distinction you could draw is that melee = debate, and ranged = speeches and similar non-interactive communications.

But I stretching this analogy is of dubious utility; they are quite different phenomenon.

My reason for including the two together is that combat, debate, and insult are nothing more than different kinds of conflict. A central metaphor in the English language is that DEBATE IS WAR, as encoded in phrases like "he shot you down" and "barbed insults".

I'm not pasting aspects of either combat or debate willy-nilly - just simplifying and recognizing the significant distinctions of debate and/or combat and using those ideas to simplistically code the entire process. Weapons are weapons, whether swords or insults.

But then, by system is very gritty, and can get by on highly stylized mechanical explanations of the two. Crunchy games - I agree with you. The two would have to be represented differently, because on that scale, they are very different.

Aidan

Quote from: NoonI don't know much about hero quest, but had gathered that it resolved fights and debates (and other such things) the same way, because they are all conflicts.

Just for the record, I don't really mean to limit this thread to HeroQuest.  You could discuss "ranged" non-physical conflicts in, say, Fate.  I just figured HQ was the most recognizeable name on the Forge.

Quote from: NoonI don't think the idea of 'range' is an inherant part of the idea of conflict. It doesn't really carry across directly (a loose analogy might though).

That "range" may not be an inherent part of conflict is a good point.  In the end, range could simply be the "special effect" of a modifier to a certain class of conflict.  But, for me it's fun to ask if, as there are ranged physical weapons (bows, guns, etc.), are there "ranged" non-physical "weapons?"  I don't know if this question really has an answer (as range may not be an inherent part of conflict to begin with).

And an analogy, loose or otherwise, is all I'm really looking for.  In my opinion, "damage" in a non-physical contest is analogous to "damage" in a physical contest.  Both modify a character's rolls, but they impact a different set of conflicts and have different "window dressing."

Quote from: NoonFor example, if my PC is in a debate and is wearing a nice suit, he could get a bonus. But I don't then look at physical combat and say 'hey, where's the nice suit factor?'. Likewise, with a debate conflict I can't really go to it and look for a definate range factor.

I agree - in HQ, rarely should a physical contest have a nice suit factor  :)  .  But the nice suit modifies the debate roll in a manner similar to how a sword modifies an attack roll.  I'd say the concept that's being preserved here is that the suit and sword are "weapons" for their respective conflicts.  From the perspective of the game mechanics, these "weapons" do the same thing but are partitioned into different areas of influence.

Of course, this leads to some weird conclusions.  What, exactly, makes a "weapon" different from a generic modifier to the roll?  I'd say it's the fact that a "weapon" can be disarmed, but how do you "disarm" a nice suit in a debate?

So anyway, in my opinion you can have non-physical "contests," non-physical "damage," and non-physical "weapons."  Why not non-physical "space" or "range?" ("because it's just not there" or "what's the point?" may be good answers  :)  ) And perhaps the idea of range is already there, given that the landscape of debate is fraught with emotional and rhetorical obstacles, in the form of other characters.

Jon

editted to change "combat" to "contests," which is what I'm trying to talk about (my use of "combat" may reveal a bias ...  :)  )

Quote from: Mike HolmesI have a mind to throw out my combat system rant.

I'm interested in reading your rant  :)  .

Quote from: simon_hibbsLike Mike, I must say I find it hard to see why anyone would want to apply the terminology of physical combat to non-combat contest, or what exactly is gained by doing so.

Why?  I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's fun.

What is gained?  It seems like having rules for "positioning" a character in a debate would appeal to a certain type of player.  It seems like it would add an entertaining game-within-a-game.

YMMV, of course,
Jon

Here you are:
Mike's Standard Rant #pi: Combat (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2024)

Quote from: Jonathan MoyerSo anyway, in my opinion you can have non-physical "contests," non-physical "damage," and non-physical "weapons."  Why not non-physical "space" or "range?" ("because it's just not there" or "what's the point?" may be good answers  :)  ) And perhaps the idea of range is already there, given that the landscape of debate is fraught with emotional and rhetorical obstacles, in the form of other characters.

My inclination is that debate is the ranged form of verbal combat; invective is the close combat form. I base that on the fact that invective is fired between two individuals and does not require an audience (although an audience is often fun to have), while in debate the entirety of the attack on the opponent is through the opinions of the audience which you are attempting to sway.

But it's a very weak analogy no matter how you slice it.

Multiverser doesn't distinguish combat from non-combat skills; it only distinguishes the combative use of skills from the non-combative use. It provides some rather well defined modifiers for weapon combat, and uses that as a major illustration of how to do other skill use.

If you shout an insult at me just as I close the door, should you suffer a range penalty because I might not have heard you? Probably so; that can be included. We wouldn't call it a range penalty, probably--we'd say there's a chance you failed to land the insult because you were too late, but give you the roll to see if you succeeded.

The problem with stretching the analogy between various forms of conflict so they all fit the same model is precisely that they don't. The reason we even speak of ranged versus close combat is because they are different--they aren't really the same thing. Guns are like bows; bayonets are like swords. You've really got two entirely different forms of combat here. No one puts range modifiers on swords--either the opponent is in reach or he isn't. Arguably, debate/invective is a different kind of combat, and needs to be treated as such (and maybe it's two different kinds). Maybe racing is yet another kind of combat, with a different set of modifiers. We could probably come up with others.

What a system like Multiverser does is provide a core mechanic that covers everything, then provide ways to customize it for the specifics of any specific application of it.

--M. J. Young