Pro-Forma Against..

[lev_lafayette]

Please excuse the lateness of my response. I'm new here.

Seeming that everyone has said "right on", I'm going to try to take the best possible negative argument.

Combat systems are detailed because of two related factors. Firstly, combat systems are a "life and death" issue. They are pretty damn important for the survival of the character. Secondly, combat systems belong in "tactical time" rather than "narrative time".

Photography, whilst being "tactical", at least for snapshots, doesn't quite have the same existential importance as facing sudden evisceration from a Komodo dragon. Gradual death resulting from dehydration has the same net effect (i.e., a corpse) but lacks the same temporal urgency.

I think that's about as good an argument for detailed combat systems I can think of.

[Mike Holmes]

Welcome Lev,

If somebody hasn't already mentioned it, standard procedure around here for old threads is to leave them lie and start new threads if you want to discuss the issues (often people doing so provide a link back to the original post).

But, anyhow, I'll address your point, which I'm sorta glad you made. It'll kinda cap off the general discussion about the topic by actually looking at the opposing veiw more closely, and why I don't buy it.  

Basically, your argument is a circular one. Yes, if combat is life or death in your game, and if it's handled tactically and not dramatically, then, of course you need to look at it in detail. The fact is that this is simply not neccessary.

In point of fact there are many games where combat, though possessing the theoretical potential for characters to die, doesn't include the mechanical chance of it happening at random. If we're to assume that any activity that could possibly lead a character to gettting killed must automatically be looked at in such detail, then eating should be handled with a detailed system - after all, one could choke to death. More in line with adventure games, how about climbing? Certainly those same games that make combat detailed because it's potentially lethal also have rules for "falling damage." Well, those same games usually make any climbing attempt into one roll. Why not special rules for finding handholds along the way? Rules for using special climbing techniques in certain situations? These games seem to think that the potential for death alone isn't quite good enough to include detailed rules for everything that could cause it.

I'd argue that climbing is pretty "tactical," too. Ask any climber, and they'll use combatative terms to detail their ascent.

In any case, anything can be handled dramatically. Again, there are games that exist that do not have any rules that can handle combat per se, in which combat can only be handled dramatically. And they work fine. So, again, there's no absolute imperative reason why you must have a combat system in your game.

Now, it seems quite possible that you might be saying that for the games that have combat systems, that they make sense. That may be true, but it doesn't address the point of the rant. As I've said before, I'm not saying that games shouldn't have combat systems, or that any particular game that does have one is wrong to have had it. I'm simply saying that the assumption that every game needs a detailed combat system is simply incorrect. That in looking to design a new game, one needs to consider whether or not it really makes sense for their design.

And that, in fact, the acutal percentatage of games that need combat systems is much lower than the percentage that do. Yes, that means that I can point out games that I think would be much, much better without detailed combat systems. Because, again the designers of those games have made the same circular argument that you have. RPGs have combat systems, therefore my RPG has to have a combat system, which makes the game combat oriented, which makes it right that I have a combat system. Assuming that you need to have a combat system because most other RPGs have one is ignoring the fact that it's simply a choice.

Now, if you've consiously decided that your game is about combat, and I mean about it, not just that combat "might" happen, and that therefore we "must" put a combat system in; if one decides that their game is really all about the fighting, then, as I've said above, of course it's important to have a combat system in that case.

But I'd argue that this thought process just isn't followed in most cases. Again, does a game about Mafia violence have to have a combat system? No, in fact I think that a combat system would do substantial harm to the themes of a game meant to emulate something like the show "The Sopranos." Yet most designers would look at such a design and go directly to thinking about how to put together the combat system, without even considering whether or not they should have one. Combat systems have traditionally been perfunctory. When they should be a concsious, and well considered choice.  

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The above two posts were split from Mike's standard rant #3: combat systems. Everyone, please feel free to contribute to this new thread.

Best,
Ron

[WiredNavi]

Photography, whilst being "tactical", at least for snapshots, doesn't quite have the same existential importance as facing sudden evisceration from a Komodo dragon. Gradual death resulting from dehydration has the same net effect (i.e., a corpse) but lacks the same temporal urgency.

There are lots of reasons to make a detailed combat engine.  In principle, though, they're the same reasons to make a detailed engine for any other aspect of the game:

A:  You want to emphasize the importance of that aspect of the game.
B:  You want to accurately portray a particular vision of that aspect.
C:  You want to give players detailed control over that game because it's fun to mess with the fiddly bits in that way (what Ben Lehman's been calling 'Toy Quality')
D:  Other reasons I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Without talking about the other reasons, the thing about A is that it's not the importance of the combat that makes the rules more detailed, but exactly the opposite.  A game like D&D emphasizes combat because its' fun, interesting, and there are lots of options when you engage in it.  HeroQuest, conversely, treats all arenas of conflict the same (social, spiritual, physical, etc.) but increases the detail the more important the conflict is.

Which has more immediacy and importance, a tavern brawl or a tense diplomatic negotiation?  In your campaign, the brawl might be more important, but that's a matter of the players' situation, not the events the system is attempting to descrive.  In the straightforward terms you're using, the diplomatic meeting would probably have more important effects and can easily be made as gripping.

Think of a movie.  In a war movie, the emphasis is on the combat; the director is likely to lovingly play out the setup for the big set-piece battle at the end, and during the fight show each character blazing away with guns, diving for cover, etc.  That same movie would gloss over the meetings, the plans etc. except inasmuch as it lends import to the combat.  In a courtroom drama, the director emphasizes the interactions between the characters, the arguments, the tense decisions, and plays each one of them out at length, while skipping past the actual murder in a few minutes.

It's exactly that drawing out of detail by the system that emphasizes a given part of the gameplay.

[Marco]

I've said this before--but I want to make this point here.

1. I think Mike is essentially right.
2. I'd change the word from "important" that's used when describing what a game 'is about' to "exciting."

When we played James Bond we rarely had car chases even though they are part of the genre and were one of the strong points of the game--when we did have car chases they were fantastic.

Why didn't we have too many? The reason was that we played with pretty big groups and they mostly tried to stick together and thereore most people weren't in a single car in the way you need for a car chase.

We got our excitement from other places.

But, man, the James Bond car-chase rules with the bidding were *exciting.* But if you told me James Bond is 'about' car chases, I dunno if I'd express it that way.

So, yes, combat is exciting. So is negoitating a deal. So is seducing a lover. So is ... well ... maybe casting a spell could be exciting and you could make a magic game where, when it's time to do magic you get into this tactical, decision based, drawn-out process of casting magic and controling (or being controlled by) the forces you are invoking.

If you do that, and no one plays a mage in a given game, they aren't doing it wrong--but clearly, as a designer, they thought the magic system was gonna be *exciting* so they put in detail.

[ My thoughts on this go a bit further. General conflict systems, like Risus, can be very handy for treating everything the same way--in some cases a given person (me) may find this good for something like combat (where I can roll the dice and imagine what happens) and poor for others (courtroom drama) where I can roll the dice and get a result--but unless someone actually makes an argument that convinces me a success may seem hollow.

Secondly, there is the Toy Quality argument. Any system can have Toy Quality, it's true--however a lot of general resolution systems may be seen by individuals to lack it. I'm less sure about this--but I think it's an interesting line of speculation. ]

-Marco

[Lance D. Allen]

I think one of the important points to make is that "death" isn't necessarily important to a game. Some popular, well known games require death as part of character creation, after all.

What is important is what restricts or removes a character from play. In most games, death does this. In a lot of games, there are other mechanics which restrict and remove a characte from play, like an enforced retirement mechanic, or somesuch. In the theoretical photography game of the original post in this thread, the possibility of death as a specific means of character restriction/removal is unlikely and deemed unimportant, and as such, there would be no rules to cover it, and there should be no rules to cover it. However, if being beaten out in some photographic contest can force one PC or another to hang up the camera, then there damned well better be a good system for it.

When you realize that death and injury aren't necessarily important, then you alleviate the necessity of combat systems. When you decide that death and injury are important, then you increase the likelihood of a detailed combat system being appropriate.

And yes, all instances of "important" in this post can probably be replaced with "more exciting".

[lev_lafayette]

OK, let's run with this pro-forma argument further.

1. Circular argument

Yes, if combat is life or death in your game, and if it's handled tactically and not dramatically, then, of course you need to look at it in detail.

I'm struggling to think of a situation where violent conflict between characters is not a potentially life/death situation. Yes, where there is unambigious advantage one way or another, I guess there is no need for a combat system, and dramatic narrative can play it out, e.g., a seventy-year old cripple is no match for the government-sponsored psycho with an assault rifle in a systematic sense (they may have a chance to get out of it in dramatic narrative, tho').

2. Choking and Climbing

The argument that the events occur in tactical time and have existential import are correct; in that sense I agree with you. In which case I guess I'd have to add to a third factor; that these activities do not require a detailed system on the grounds that one is not facing an active opposing force with a will of its own. This would be the sort of argument I'd would use against the "Mafia violence without a combat system" suggestion. As a PC possibly facing I would want a combat system to exist, rather than being subject to what would ultimately be GM fiat albeit influenced by narrative contributions.

3. Other exciting actions.

Marco is quite correct in suggesting that negotiating a deal, seducing a lover etc can count as exciting. I have no debate with that. However I don't think that a failed negotiation or a failed seduction in itself results in character mortality.

Again, these are just pro-forma arguments whilst I think that a combat system should be included, assuming the setting does have an element of violent danger arising from opposing characters.

Note bene: the argument about "death" can follow Wolfen's definition of "restricts or removes a character from play".

[Mike Holmes]

Lev,

I could come at your argument from a ton of different angles. For example, I could point out that people rarely die in boxing matches (when it happens, it's not the intent). One of my points is that very little actual violence by people is indended to kill the other person. Even in "combat" situations, it's actuall considered tactically superior to injure an opponent than it is to kill them. So if nobody is actually trying to kill anybody else, why should it be an inevitable part of what's otherwise lethal conflict.

But we don't even have to go there. What if the game just isn't about combat? What if the RPG is about high stakes finance? Would it make sense to have a combat system in that game? What would the argument for it be? That somebody might get into a fight?

The statement you've quoted is out of context. I didn't mean that combat couldn't be life or death, but that it just isn't in some games. Take InSpectres, for instance. A comedic game. In that game you can accumulate stress, and it makes it harder to do things, but you can never, ever get your character killed. Because the game isn't about exploring the possibility of death.

In Hero Quest, a game that implies lots of violence of the traditional fantasy sort, there is no rule that says, "Oops, rolled X, now your character dies." Nope, you simply can never lose your character unless the GM says it's time for him to die.

Do you suggest that there's something wrong with these games? If not, then you agree with me that combat doesn't have to have the sorts of dramatic weight that you insist that it does.

The tradition in RPGs is for character death to mean that the player is out of the game. This is the real reason why it's seen as so important. It's the ultimate condition of losing the game, or being unable to participate anymore. When that's no longer the case, suddenly there's much less reason to have to worry about it.


As far as having an "active opponent" again, I can point to successful games where that makes no difference to how resolution is conducted. So if it works for those games, then why can't it in others? In Hero Quest, combats are conducted in precisely the same way as any other conflict, for example. And people love to play the game. So how is it true that combat must have special rules for it?

If your argument is not that combat must have special rules to satisfy all players (not just yourself), then you're not arguing against me.

Mike

[xiombarg]

I think one of the important points to make is that "death" isn't necessarily important to a game. Some popular, well known games require death as part of character creation, after all.

I think this is an important insight. Lev's argument presupposes you WANT your character to live.

This may seem obvious, but it isn't. Depending on what you're trying to do in the game, you might want your character to die, but only want to control the method of his death. That argues for detailed rules on death, but not combat -- making it possible for the character to die choking on a chicken sandwhich, as Mike talks about.

And this isn't even getting into genres where it's next to impossible for characters to die. In Toon, no one ever dies -- their cartoon character Falls Down. So, combat isn't a life-and-death situation then. So do you need special rules for combat? (Maybe you think you do, because violence is a big part of cartoons, but it certainly isn't a priori the case.)

Imagine a world where people can't die. If someone is killed, they're just restored from a backup or cloning system of somesort -- some sort of hypertech indistinguishable from magick. Violence is, at most, annoying. More important is the SOCIAL situation -- you have to live with that. I would argue that in such a game, you don't need detailed combat rules at all -- as it ain't life or death. But you do need detailed social interaction rules...

[CPXB]

In addition to what Mike said about stuff like boxing being violent but rarely lethal, there's a whole genre of RPG that is very violent but in which violence rarely, if ever, leads to death: superhero games.  (And even when death does happen, it's rarely permanent.)  Reflecting the source material, in most superhero games it is massively difficult to actually kill someone though violence is very common.  Most of the superhero games I've played in -- outside of one ill-starred attempt to play GURPS Supers, which was amongst the bloodiest games I've ever been in, hehe -- go their entire distance with no death at all.

And like Wolfen said, yeah, in some games death isn't that big a deal.  This is true in many D&D games, for instance.  I mean, in high-level D&D games, a character generally stays dead for a whole turn!  Death is trivial.  So to say that combat should be given massive priority because character might die isn't true in, ironically, one of the RPGs that is closest to RPG's wargaming roots.

So, in the first place, there is a whole popular genre of actual RPGs that are very violent but in which violence rarely leads to death, and in the second place there are a bunch of games in which there is a lot of death but it hardly means the end of the character.

[lev_lafayette]

Just to clear up repeated misconceptions I agreed with Wolfen's more precise definition. I think to be even clearer the statement "of existential import(ance)".

Using that definition then combat systems do become relevant even with death, finito, is not a great probability (e.g., Toon, InSpectres, and high level games) or even when it is extremely common (e.g., Paranoia).

I would also apply that to the (rather good) example of boxing. Sure, "death" isn't an issue there, but the issues of "tactical time", "existential importance" and "active opponent" apply. A roleplaying game about boxing that doesn't have a combat system would be pretty weird.

(I won't comment on Hero Quest because there's a multitude reasons why I think that game is one of the worst games ever produced - and this is from someone who has been playing RuneQuest since 1981. )

Now, what about those games where (using pro-forma necessary and sufficient conditions) of "existential importance", "tactical time" and "active opponent" do not apply?

I guess my answer to that is, "ummm... why are you actually playing this, rather than living it?".

Probably on that note, we're in furious agreement.

[LordSmerf]

Lev,

Would you also say that it is important for games to have detailed "Diplomatic Combat" systems too?  I mean, rhetoric takes place in "tactical time", it is against an "active opponent", and it is of "existensial imporance".  You could easily get into a debate with the local authorities who suspect you of treason.  Failure to win that debate could result in your execution.

Now, my feeling is that you will say, "No, this isn't what I'm talking about."  And that's cool, what exactly are you talking about?  I also want to point out that (probably unintentionally) you keep redefining your definition of what makes something require a "combat system" in order to make it apply to combat.  That's cool, but I just wanted to point out that it looks highly circular from where I'm sitting.

Thomas

[Mike Holmes]

Lev, I'm afraid that you're going to have to address the HQ argument. Are you saying that nobody could possibly like HQ? Can't be that, since, for example, it's my favorite game. So what's your counterargument?

If it's just that you don't like games that handle the conditions that you come up with in the manner that HQ does, then you're just talking about your own personal preference. Which I allow for. Again, if it's the designers considered opinion that such a game needs such a system, then he's right to put it in. All I'm concerned with is that they've considered that there's a viable alternative. If they've played HQ, and can't stand it, then no, of course I don't expect them to make a game that way. But if they're just assuming that combat systems make sense without even considering the alternative, then they've made a mistake.

You've allowed that there might be certain types of games where combat systems don't make sense. So, really, I don't think you're arguing against me.

Mike

[b_bankhead]

OK, let's run with this pro-forma argument further.



Again, these are just pro-forma arguments whilst I think that a combat system should be included, assuming the setting does have an element of violent danger arising from opposing characters.

Well I believe that ALL systems require a combat system in the sense of 'methods to resolve violent actions."

But that is NOT the same thing as saying you need a system for combat which is totoally different and unrelated to other kinds of resolution.  This is a completely different issue.

It seems to me that Lev just likes 'crunchy' combat systems as much as I dislike them and will modify his definition to whatever is required to make them 'necessary'.

For example I could argue that medical skills should requiire a complex  resolution system because medicine poses an 'existential' risk (at least for the person being doctored on), that an infection is an 'active' opponent,(While a bacterial infection' might not have a will of its own,and do we really know that it doesn't?, a 'plague spirit' certainly might..) that healing occcurs in 'tactical time' (whatever that actually is) and is 'exciting' (at least for people who find medicine exciting, another circular definition).

But I'm certain Lev could come up with a definition to ace out that too. (As could I if I were enamoured of combat systems and really wanted to 'prove' they were necessary.)

By the way who says combat, particularly in 'tactical time' is necessarily exciting? I swore off D&D permenently because I found miniatures wargame style 'tactical time' combat to be as exciting as watching paint dry. And since 60%-80% of the time in the D&D games I was in was spent dealing with combat, it didn't make for a very interesting rpg session.. .combat is exciting to people who find combat exciting...

The fact that most of the various 'heartbreaker' games that I have seen are essentially combat systems with roll under resolution systems for everything else, leads me to conclude most rpg designer are thinkng almost entirely about combat to the exclusion of almost anything else.  It  leads to games where combat is 'important' because it's really the only thing the system does.

The most common advice I give to rpg designers is to design their physical combat systems LAST. This forces them to break free of the conditioning of typical repetitive rpg design and actually give consideration to what else people are doing in this game, and makes them consider the question of just whether or not they need a 'combat system".

[lev_lafayette]

For those who have not noticed, can I reiterate that what I'm presented is a pro-forma argument. In other words, I am not necessarily supporting the point of view I'm arguing for. I am interested in pushing an argument for the purpose of testing (and perhaps improving) the initial proposition. So in that sense as well, the propositions I've put are subject to change as well. Heck, I may end up agreeing entirely with Mike's rant.

All I'm trying to do is present, in a systematic way, why I felt unease with the original post and in particular the examples of the photographic snapshot and the thrown camera. My initial thoughts were "What, don't I get a chance to dodge?" and "Why did it hit my head? Why didn't it hit my leg, instead?" and "Hey, someone could get killed with that!".

If extra precision is what is being defined as liking "crunchy" combat systems, that I accept that charge. I do think particular circumstances (as mentioned, tactical time, existential import, active opponent with its own will) demand different levels of detail than those who do have this criteria. Oh, and yes, I does make sense to apply combat-like rules to things like the attempted takeover of a "plague spirit").

With regards to use of Diplomacy skill, I had previously addressed that. Basically, Diplomacy itself is not a matter of "existential importance", although the results arising from diplomatic debates may have that criteria. To give a practical example, shouting in the face of a local greengrocer and accusing him of sexual acts with small animals is likely to result in a minor tustle. Doing the same to Kim Il-Jong will probably result in a bloody war. But both can do similar physical harm armed with a knife.

Finally, although it is OT, I don't like HeroQuest because of it's lack of differentiation between traits and skills (I don't care how well trained you are, there are certain things which a physically impossible for some people) and I don't like the resolution system (lack of combat-specific mechanics aside). I do however think Glorantha is one of the better fantasy worlds on the market. In a nutshell however, I prefer RuneQuest.