Why Skill Resolution in a Sim game?

[Christoffer Lernö]

1. Combat can be factored into any resolution system so long as it's there, it isn't a gaping hole (if diplomacy resolution is matching a wits roll with modifiers for guile then combat can be matching a body roll with modifiers for skill--same system, not more or less complex--but still there). It needn't be complex, merely complete.

That is quite different from saying the game needs a combat system, because that would imply that there are specialized mechanics for combat. Of course there should be a way to resolve combat, but it does not need to be formalized. Look at D&D. There was no bartering skill, and yet if you wanted to get better prices in town after getting some gold from monsters playing D&D Basic rules, was there really anything stopping you from doing that?

If you don't think combat is important, don't write a detailed combat system, it's just adds to the burden the GM has to learn to play the game. Trying to be "complete" despite the game is supposedly focused is bad.

2. The question about playing out every soldier in an army is a straw man question and unnecessary. If I build Barron Bad-Ass whose tactical brilliance and great size and strength is used at the negoiating table to intimidate people (primarily) and someone calls my bluff your game is going to short-change me when there's no way to resolve me mopping the floor and/or the battle field with the guy who stands up to me.

As I'm saying, there is always soliloquy.

3. I don't agree with your definition of Focus. VtM needs a combat system. Seventh Sea needs a combat system. I can't think of a game that doesn't need *some* way to resolve physical combat (Ghost Light?)

But does VtM really need the complex combat system it has? I don't think so (this is completely separate from the fact I think it sucks desperately). Not if they really meant that the game was about intrigue and storytelling. Of course, as has been already mentioned here, VtM is far from consistent in regards to that.

4. You don't address what happens if, during roleplaying, the focus of the participants changes. How about a Little Fears game where the characters are all military brats--and the players think it might be cool to see how some appropriated heavy weapons function in Closet Land? I mean, I realize it's pushing the scope but it might be a hell of a lot of fun--especially if the last Little Fears game ended in tragedy ...

If you want a game which has "completeness", go and play such a game! But it won't evoke the same strong resonance with the players as a specialized game has the possibility of doing. Nothing stops the GM from "hacking" the rules. What ISN'T necessary is to make the game designer prepare for any contingency. "Oh, I have to have automatic fire and recoil rules in my fantasy game because what if the GM decides to incorporate them in his campaign?"

Focus doesn't (and IMO shouldn't) be so complete and narrow as to disallow actions the game's creator didn't want.

How can you ever stop a GM from doing exactly what he/she wants with a game? If a rule work contrary to what I need I make up new ones. If that's hard then maybe this is not the game to play this campaign in. I don't see people whining about not being able to cyberpunk with the vanilla D&D basic rule set. Why would they?

That said I think you might be arguing because of some misunderstanding. To have no combat system does not mean you can't have combat. It only means there is no combat system written for the game. You seem to take it that no combat system means combat is disallowed. I'm not sure why.
In any case it's not what I meant.