Combat Rules

[John Kim]

I would say the game is not about combat. Combats are pretty rare, happening maybe once every 3 or 4 sessions (if that). However, when it occurs combat is terribly important to the lives of the characters.

Hm, an aspect of the game that's terribly important to the character... sounds like your game's about combat to me.  Not just about combat, mind you...but if a subject is important, the game could certainly said to be about it.  Maybe that's just a pedantic argument though.  At any rate, the real point is that a lot of games have combat rules for no good reason...if Vinland has benefitted from them, that's obviously a good enough reason!

Well, nearly all commercial RPGs are in some form of action/adventure genre, where combat is probably more important than Vinland.  Now, you could say that most games should not be as action/adventure oriented as they are.  But given that you are making a Star Wars game (for example), I would say that you should probably have a set of rules for the Force, a set of rules for vehicle chases/fights, and a set of rules for personal combat.  Similarly, I think it makes sense that the James Bond 007 had rules for gambling and car chases as well as combat.  Now, I agree that these aren't necessary.  You can just play Star Wars with a generic set of rules and treat using the Force the same any other activity.  But I think there is fair justification beyond just mindless tradition for having special rules for it.

[Callan S.]

Noon, even if humans are indeed obsessed with death (and to a certain extent I'd agree with you) that says nothing about the need for combat mechanics per se.  

Ah, but the fascination with death (avoiding it oneself and stopping enemies avoid it) means it gets so much more focus than say...photography. Focus encourages rules in the author and sets up expectation in the purchaser. You write about what your interested in and you like to read about what your interested in. If I'm right about instinctual fascination with death  (I don't think the word obsession describes what I mean), then this is a force of nature were talking about when it comes to why combat sections are fat, not culture/peer pressure.

For one thing, even in games where a chatracter might die, say a game based on Jane Aire, there's no special need for combat mechanics...so I think you argument would have to be that such systems arise from a human need for violence, not just an attention to death.  But as Mike points out, even this says nothing about the need for special combat systems.

Violence is just death by degree's. And as I said before, I (and this is just me speaking) think its a force of nature that pushes combat sections in.

*snip*

In my experiences with gamers, they're not at all shy about theorizing on how combat works, even with no background in it: they'll argue (in general and not within a specific system) for hours about how parries work without having ever held a sword, or about aiming a sniper rifle without ever having picked up a gun.  But whether player intuitions about combat are right or not, it doesn't seem that they lack those intuitions, and that seems enough to run a game with, sans special rules.

'How combat works' is basically something you find out from...the winning side. I'm not really certain anyone really knows how combat works, but the can tell you how they thought they won.

Basically combat systems don't need to revolve around whatever real combat is, just as much as RL magic tricks don't need to revolve around real magic. They just need to make an illusion of being the real thing while attempting to be difficult to pierce (just like RL magic tricks).

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

All right, this is getting silly. Everyone is merely presenting his own view over and over - it's starting to become a "gee I wanna be heard" rather than "what can be established."

Let's see if I have these right.

1. Distinct combat systems are a procedural leftover from wargaming.

2. Distinct combat systems compensate for the lack of real-life knowledge about combat.

3. Distinct combat systems reflect an inner drive and fascination with death and violence.

4. Distinct combat systems represent design inertia (or conversely, wholly-unified systems represent a more recent "locked-in" limitation).

That's all very interesting, and if I'm not mistaken, it's time to say, "Thanks for playing," and refer people to this thread if they need to muse over the issue. But I'm not seeing any productive discussion about substantial issues, so - unlike someone really objects (PM me), then this thread is closed.

For the new people at the Forge, that means never post to it again, please. If you'd like to continue some focused aspect of the discussion, then start a new thread.

Best,
Ron