Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?

[Tomas HVM]

What I'd like to know is whether or not you'd be comfortable with a game system where every conflict was boiled down to one roll, even combat.

Basically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?

It depends. Most roleplaying games are focussed on physical conflicts, and gamesmiths take great pains in making mechanics for these conflicts. Most of the games hinges on elaborate ways of resolving conflicts, and most of them aiming for an ideal of shifting luck in combat.

What more; most games are geared towards  keeping player characters alive. Much care is normally invested in the PC, through elaborate creation and dramatic focus, so players must be expected to look disfavorably upon games which kills them wantonly.

Held against these very strong tendencies, you can not expect much enthusiasm for your description.

However; whether it will be acceptable in your game, depends on what focus the game has, how the PCs in general are treated, and what new and interesting tools you use, to make your game a good one.

I can not perceive how your game is meant to be played, or what focus it has, from your description. If it's a traditional roleplaying game though, with the traditional focus on combat as "the crux of excitement", I doubt it will be any good.

[Andrew Morris]

Good points, all. Let me just make it clear, though, that I'm not proposing a system that I'm using for a came I've created...I'm just now thinking about doing so.

M. J. Young,

"There's a monster standing by the door which might be anything from a pixie to a tarrasque, do you want to live or die based on whether you guessed right?"

Heh.

In general, I don't like games where combat is a major component. I'd prefer scheming, investigating, and political maneuvering. But all these comments have shown me what I was trying to find out -- people really wouldn't want their character's life on the line if it came down to a single roll.

[Callan S.]

Hi Andrew,

Think of it this way. Imagine your PC is facing a cliff face in front of him. He decides that instead of climbing it, he'll go around it. The GM then tells him that if he fails his going around it roll, he'll die from falling.

Looking past the absurdity, notice that what the GM decided made whatever the player decided, moot. Even if they don't want to fall to their death and decide on a plan that should/could mean they don't fall to their death, the GM then can decide that they then indeed do. We'll step away from the cliff example cause its a bit absurd, and on to a PC vs NPC dude.

Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides. There's no way of getting around this guy without facing lethal force. What if you don't want to face that? What if you would rather not face whatever intent he has toward you? Multi round systems give you more of a chance at side stepping his intent (even the 'square off and hack' D&D system has solid rules for hiding during combat...even for sniping).

Also, M.J Youngs 'no chance at guessing' angle applies strongly as well.

What might be interesting is back and forth intent declaration. It would basically be a narration of what you intend to do like 'The NPC acts as if he'll fight to the death' 'I'm going to try and wound him then intimidate him' 'Well he doesn't want to be wounded and that's against the law, so he's instead going to try and place his sword at your neck and make you surrender...then beat you a bit, probably' 'Well in that case when I've got a sword to my throat, I'll kick him in the nuts, steal his keys and run'

So on and so on, until someone takes a stance and does not change what they do.

[CPXB]

You know I have come to view the concept of character death with a more jaundiced eye, since coming to the Forge.  When In my long rpg career has character death EVER been fun? Is character death really necessary? The pulp action literature that most rpgs are based on go to extraordinary lengths to save the skin (or at least some of the skin) of main characters.

I can't say when in your RPG career whether death has been fun, by from my POV, I like the possibility of death to be there.  Part of the reason I game is to take a well developed character I like and gamble that character on the dice.  Many of my most intense moments in gaming have been when the fate of my character hinged on one die roll, particularly after a long struggle.

IMO, character death (or at least the real possibility of character death) adds a great deal to games.

[Andrew Morris]

Noon,

Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides.

This wasn't what I was suggesting. In this example, if the PC were successful, his result would take precedence, and the NPC would be wounded and intimidated, after which the PC would be free to leave unhindered.

[M. J. Young]

I think this thread is winding down, but there were a few things I noted that were worth mentioning.

If it's a traditional roleplaying game though, with the traditional focus on combat as "the crux of excitement", I doubt it will be any good.

This is certainly a key point. If you've got deathless combat and it's not terribly important in general--if, for example, losing usually means either you have to go to the hospital or you've been captured by the enemy, and you might have one such contest every couple of sessions--then settling it with a single roll could be perfectly legitimate. If contests of this sort are life-and-death or otherwise critical, a single roll is going to be rather disinteresting in most cases.

IMO, character death (or at least the real possibility of character death) adds a great deal to games.

Absolutely, and for the reasons stated: because there is something at risk. This was one of the design goals of Multiverser--how to preserve the risk inherent in character death without the loss inherent in character death. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but by having death sever the character from the present world and start him in another one, a great deal of that was accomplished.

Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides.

This wasn't what I was suggesting. In this example, if the PC were successful, his result would take precedence, and the NPC would be wounded and intimidated, after which the PC would be free to leave unhindered.

Ah, but the part you haven't suggested is still informative. Callan says he wants to wound the guy and intimidate him, while the NPC says he wants to kill Callan. If Callan wins the contest, the opponent is wounded and intimidated, because Callan's victory in essence defines the stakes; but if Callan loses, he's dead, because the NPC's victory defines the stakes.

It would be different if perhaps the loser defines the stakes, or if the "lower" stakes would apply regardless of who won (although you'd need defined stakes and a heirarchy for this)--if we both said to the death, then it isn't over until one dies, but if one says to the death and the other says be intimidating so he backs off, whichever one wins was intimidating and the loser backed off.

Does that fit your idea at all?

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

Noon,

Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides.

This wasn't what I was suggesting. In this example, if the PC were successful, his result would take precedence, and the NPC would be wounded and intimidated, after which the PC would be free to leave unhindered.

Remember back to the cliff example, where the player wanted to go around the cliff instead of climb it. He's choosing a non lethal option (which might instead involve how long he can walk for rather than climb and survive falls). If the cliff can still say 'well, if you pass then you treck around, if I pass you fall to your death'. That isn't right. If the player chooses this legit non lethal method, the cliff shouldn't be able to trump him by then deciding it will be lethal.

Likewise, if the player is facing a guard NPC and wants to do a legit non lethal tactic so no one dies, his 'treck around' or whatever technique is nixed should he fail. Just like the cliff example, that's pretty illegitimate. And although the GM can make a better intent call (in the cliff example it could have been something more appropriate), that seems to be the GM having to think 'Okay, this is a simple mechanic, but basically doesn't give anything much more than what I put into it. So the onus is on me to deliver a proper input so there is a proper output. What is this machanic adding to the game?'

Personally I see a lot of GM's relishing the idea 'Oh, you want to sneak around hey? That's not what I want and since the NPC's reaction is in my control and hey, a violent attack even sounds okay motive wise, I can call this scene my way pretty well.'.

When both sides have to take it one step at a time, no one can really say what the outcome is. From this ambiguity, more choice is to be had. Though the idea could be tempered with what I or Mr Young said, or something else. But right now, the GM and the player have one half control each. The problem is, what one side does with their control can diminish the control of the other.

[Andrew Morris]

Noon,

I think I understand your comments better now. Taken to the extreme (the cliff example), it does seem pretty ridiculous. Again, since I haven't created a game yet or used this idea, remember it's all theoretical, but in that example, I would think that a failed "circumvent the cliff" roll would mean that the character couldn't find a way around the cliff. He's still free to try another method, or tackle the cliff directly.

But I see your concern with the guard example, since the guard is an "active obstacle" rather than the cliff, which is a "passive obstacle." Of course, if the player were more creative, he could state that he was trying to find an air duct to sneak in, thus avoiding the guard entirely.

Personally I see a lot of GM's relishing the idea 'Oh, you want to sneak around hey? That's not what I want and since the NPC's reaction is in my control and hey, a violent attack even sounds okay motive wise, I can call this scene my way pretty well.'.

Well, as unpleasant as these theoretical GMs sound, this can also be viewed as a good thing, it just depends on the GM. For example, a GM might be faced with a character who is determined to ignore all warning signs and do something completely stupid and most likely fatal. Since it's up to the GM, he can have the NPC capture the PC instead of kill him. Thus, the player can still have his character do what he wants, and the GM can use this as an option to move the story along.

When both sides have to take it one step at a time, no one can really say what the outcome is.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement. Yes, for characters that are pretty close in ability, I agree. However, having several rounds to try (and fail) to get away from the super-uber-crack elite guard doesn't really matter if you're that outclassed. If you do something that initiates a combat, either way the character is dead, whether in one roll or twenty. This is taking it almost to the extreme of the cliff example, but I believe it conveys the point.

Mr. Young,

If Callan wins the contest, the opponent is wounded and intimidated, because Callan's victory in essence defines the stakes; but if Callan loses, he's dead, because the NPC's victory defines the stakes.

I think I see what you mean by this. The NPC is only risking a wounding, while Callan is risking his life. I see how that's unbalanced. Let me know if I misunderstood.

It would be different if perhaps the loser defines the stakes, or if the "lower" stakes would apply regardless of who won

Doesn't the reverse apply if you go by the "lower" stakes? For example, a PC wants to kill an NPC. The NPC could keep saying that the combat would result only in "intimidation." This might be less problematical if there were some rules about what the stakes could be in the first place, or if there were a decreasing ability to call the stakes based on previous losses. Is that what you meant by a hierachy of stakes?

[M. J. Young]

Yes, you've got the problem. The winner defines the stakes, so the player has no control over what he stands to lose, only what he stands to win. In such a situation, it generally pays to go for the highest win, because the other guy is probably also going for the highest win, and that means the greatest loss for you.

It strikes me that you might resolve this by using the aforementioned hierarchy as a modification system--that it's easier to intimidate, a bit harder to wound and drive off, harder yet to capture, harder to incapacitate, and hardest of all to kill. Thus the side that says his objective is to kill has a much lower chance of winning over the side that merely wants to intimidate. There's still a lot of risk in the roll, but you've reduced the incentive always to go for the kill.

I'm wondering whether you could turn it on its head--let each side determine its own loss conditions. If I say intimidation, I mean that if the other side wins I'm intimidated and driven off; if I say death, I mean that the other side has to kill me to win. If this was tied to the hierarchy modifiers, my incentive would be that the more I risk the less likely the other side is to defeat me.

I'm getting a bit scattered here; bear with me.

If the PC wants to kill a character and the character wants to keep the stakes at intimidation, then I suppose you have to consider whether that's really important in your game. If I'm trying to get past the guard, and I say I'll try to kill him, and he says he'll try to intimidate me, and I win but am limited to intimidating him because that was the low bid, then how significant is this in play? He's going to stand aside and let me pass, because he's afraid of me; I'm going to tell him that if he sounds the alarm I'll be back to kill him. The characters don't know that they can't be killed, so the threat is real to the character, and included in the intimidation success. Why do I necessarily want him dead?

You might also consider, if you've got the hierarchy, a sort of averaging of bid system. If both sides say to the death, it's to the death; but if one side says to the death and the other side says intimidation, we wind up somewhere in the middle, maybe capture.

By a hierarchy I mean that you'd have to have specifically defined "win/loss" results which would be selected--players couldn't be inventive, such as, "If I win, he falls from the steps into the vat and gets stuck", except it could be used as a narrative explanation for some defined outcome (such as captured or incapacitated). The possible outcomes would then be ranked so you would know that kill is above incapacitate, and incapacitate above capture, or whatever sequence you choose. That's the only way any system works if it relies on greater and lesser statements, because otherwise you wind up trying to work out in play which is the greater.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

... it's easier to intimidate, a bit harder to wound and drive off, harder yet to capture, harder to incapacitate, and hardest of all to kill. Thus the side that says his objective is to kill has a much lower chance of winning over the side that merely wants to intimidate. There's still a lot of risk in the roll, but you've reduced the incentive always to go for the kill.

Only problem with this, is that it don't ring true. If it's easier to capture or incapacitate, I'll go for one of those goals, and when I've won the contest, I'll chop their heads off anyway. Who's to stop me?

Your hierarchy is one of gravity, not of challenge. It is as hard, or harder, to capture your opponent, as it is to kill him. Some opponents will be far easier to kill, than to intimidate.

I think you should make the player choose his own etichs, and make it show in what outcome he choose for his fights. The outcome though, should be as easy or challenging to achieve regardless of what he choose. This way players may be spared the temptation of tactical advantages, and perhance able to focus more on dramatic flavour.

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Andrew,

I really like the idea about either accepting the combat result or attempting a non-combat response. Would you impose a limit on the number of times this could happen? For example, you could try one non-combat method of getting out of it, but if you fail, the original result of the combat takes place.

Well, it's not that the results of failing the combat don't take place; it's just that you react differently to them - you've lost the combat but that doesn't mean you die. When you try and run away but fail you're now in a worse situation - you've lost the fight, and then you've tried to run away and been caught.

I don't think there needs to be a limit, your options will rapidly diminish with each failure. The key is that the failure still happens - if you try and run, you've tried to run and failed - if you try and surrender and fail, you've offered your surrender and they've refused it.

[simon_hibbs]

I raly don't think this issue has anything much to do with either probability or game mechanics. What worries me more about one-roll combat, at least for combats that are significant dramatic events in a game, is that it can lead to weak drama.

If my character is facing a routine mook, I've got no problem with one-roll combat. Dramaticaly the conflict is just a punctuation mark in the flow of the game/story. Even if I suffer some measure of defeat, it's the sort of setback that in a comic book would probably merit just a single frame, maybe two, and then we can get on with the drama of the unexpected consequences. However if my opponent is a major villan or 'named character', then I'd expect a sereis of exchanges, either combatic or verbal, or whatever. I'd want the conflict to give me information about the relative abilities and motivations of the characters, I'd like the opportunity to see how these personalities might respond to setbacks even if they ultimately win. A single roll doesn't offer the opportunities for drama that I'd like from a significant conflict of this kind.


Simon Hibbs

[Shreyas Sampat]

Only problem with this, is that it don't ring true. If it's easier to capture or incapacitate, I'll go for one of those goals, and when I've won the contest, I'll chop their heads off anyway. Who's to stop me?

Your hierarchy is one of gravity, not of challenge. It is as hard, or harder, to capture your opponent, as it is to kill him. Some opponents will be far easier to kill, than to intimidate.

I think you should make the player choose his own etichs, and make it show in what outcome he choose for his fights. The outcome though, should be as easy or challenging to achieve regardless of what he choose. This way players may be spared the temptation of tactical advantages, and perhance able to focus more on dramatic flavour.

I think MJ is also encoding in this idea that once you choose an easier option, you cannot go back and do something tougher.

Personally, I think this would be a great mechanic for a game that does have ethics encoded in it.

Edit: In other words, it is just as difficult to subdue someone and cut his head off later as it is to push him off a cliff, causing him to die, as it is to shoot him in the back of the head.

[simon_hibbs]

I think you should make the player choose his own etichs, and make it show in what outcome he choose for his fights. The outcome though, should be as easy or challenging to achieve regardless of what he choose. This way players may be spared the temptation of tactical advantages, and perhance able to focus more on dramatic flavour.

I think you're missing the point. Often in a combat you will get an opportunity to disable, disarm or otherwise incapacitate a victim without necesserily having to kiill them. Instant death is not even the most likely occurence in modern combat using firearms, let alone in ancient-world combat. Most defeated foes will be very badly injured to the point of incapacuty, or actualy unconcious. They may be dying, but saveable with some medical effort. Only a proportion of victims will be killed before any other option is available to the victor, and I'd guess it's a fairly small proportion.

Sure if you wangt to administer the coup-de-grace that's fine and up to you, but in many cases it's a choice you'll have to make and you can't necesserily always expect the game system to conveniently hide it from you.


Simon Hibbs

[Tomas HVM]

I think MJ is also encoding in this idea that once you choose an easier option, you cannot go back and do something tougher.

Yes, I understood as much, and that is an argument against this idea. In a game where players are free to make new decisions (more or less) the whole time, there is no stopping them to take advantage of such a system. A rule to this end ("no going back on former decisions") is not a great solution.

Often in a combat you will get an opportunity to disable, disarm or otherwise incapacitate a victim without necesserily having to kiill them.

Yes. The point is; you may as well experience that the kill is easier than to render a man unconscious, or to capture him. There is no fixed scale of difficulty pertaining to this. The variables are too many. How do you emulate the man holding back his most crippling blows, and the disadvantage this gives him, if your aim is to do this within the combat resolution system of a roleplaying game?

I'm no fan of building realism by mathematical combat resolution. It will not do. However; I'm very much dedicated to making games which are believable, and this is not. It will seriously reduce the validity of the game engine, to the point where players will start to ignore it. No rule will mend that fact.

To make the game focus more on aftermath of combat, though, is one way of making one-die-throw function well. The player may state the combat goal of his character before the fight, but it is not necessary to state the NPC motivations beforehand. They may as well try to capture or incapacitate the PC, as to kill it. This leaves the GM to decide HOW the character lost (if they did), taking the NPC into consideration, the stage of the drama, and other various factors. Death is not the only outcome, and far from the most interesting.

In my view you may very well make a game heavy with combat, and still focus most of it on the aftermath of the fight. The aftermath is the part of it where prisoners or incapacitated loosers may challenge the victor to fight another day. In the aftermath the victor may gloat over his weak opponents, offering them a quick death if they do not remove themselves from his lands. The aftermath may become an interrogation of the victims, or torture, and all kinds of other verbal/mental duels. Teh aftermath of combat may also include the prize, a princess or a treasure, the horse of the looser, or his sword. The aftermath is were the present conflict reach it's conclusion, and at the same time it may be the start of a new struggle. As the looser is humiliated and driven away, he may be planning how to return and fight another day, to win back the coveted prize, and his dignity.

So, to use one single die for the combat, may be coupled with a focus on the continuing drama, and as such it may very well be an effective way of dealing with the physical conflicts of the game. Such an approach may facilitate the use of the combat-outcome as merely a premise for the interaction in a following scene, not the finale in itself. The interaction of the following scene may be powered by other means; domination, submission, prizes, revenge, information, escape, etc.

This may prove to make gameplay as great as any combat focused game engine you may conceive. The math may be simple in such a system, but the drama may be many times as challenging and fun to play.