Pro-Forma Against..

[M. J. Young]

I had toyed with throwing this into the mix last night, but I was short on time and there were already a lot of good points raised so I didn't.

But after Lev's latest post, I'm moved to bring up Legends of Alyria as an example that supports the rant.

In Alyria, there are no "fights" as such. That is, such scraps may or may not occur, but there is no direct means of resolving them in the traditional sense. Rather, there are what we might call confrontations. This can be as direct as two people coming face to face in anger or as indirect as one person trying to use his contacts to determine where within fifty miles the other person is hidden.

In resolving a confrontation, there's something of an elaborate process through which each side picks which scores will be used. Then each side rolls against its target score. The dice determine which side wins the confrontation, by what kind of margin, and who narrates what happened. No character dies unless that character's player determines that this is the right moment for that to happen, for the sake of the story. All major protagonists and antagonists are player characters, so all such confrontations are between player characters.

What actually happens in such a fight depends on how the players decide to tell the story. Does the villain glare at the hero, intimidating him such that he retreats? Does the villain gain an advantage by grabbing a hostage and so winning by escaping? Does the villain draw a weapon and wound the hero? If the villain won this confrontation, his player gets to decide how the story goes at this point, always with a view to creating a story everyone is going to enjoy in the end.

But there is no mechanic for any of the details. There aren't even an equipment list. If the villain says he draws a weapon and everyone agrees that he probably would have a weapon, then he has a weapon and he draws it. If he says he wounds the hero and the dice gave him the credibility to say that, then that's what happened.

For decades we've heard people argue about "roleplaying versus roll-playing"; but Legends of Alyria takes a major step toward making story come from what the players think should happen instead of what the dice say, while still maintaining dice as a directing authority over how things twist and turn in play.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Lance D. Allen]

So Lev..

Would you be for a conflict system which was flexible enough to portray competitive photography, battling a plague spirit, and a duel of swords in "tactical" time?

[Mike Holmes]

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!".

See, this keeps coming back. You say, if the situation is XYZ, then you must have a combat system. Where's your rationale? When it comes down to it, your answer is "it doesn't feel right if you don't."

But the fact is that this is only the preference of the person making the pro forma argument. There are others who feel differently. So, given that preferences on this go either way, how can you say that you must always dissapoint those with the opposite preference? That it's not valid for anyone to design a game that works this way. People have, and these games are played successfully. The people who play them think that they're superior in terms of their enjoyment.

So, as I've said, there's a neccessary choice being made. Now, the standard design methodology is simply to not consider the opposing methodology at all. In fact, I'd argue, that most of the games that do have combat systems were designed as they are because almost all RPGs are that way. That is, there's a circle of reinforcement going on. Was Top Secret really meant to be about creative ways to kill people while spying? Or was it meant to be about syping? We'll never know (unless the designers want to come forth and say so). But I can guess that they created the game by adjusting from D&D - TSR game, has levels, etc. D&D was based on chainmail, a wargame, so, of course it had a combat system, too. So you have this chain of similarity on this issue reaching back to the wargaming roots of RPGs. At some point somebody said, "Wait, we really don't need to have this assumption." And they did something different.

I don't blame the people who made those earlier games for how they did it. They did what they knew. But you end up with combat heavy games. And that's just not neccessary. So, going forward, what this rant is saying is, think about it. It's just not always neccessary.

Any problem that somebody has with my particular examples is missing that point. They were meant to try and explain the viewpoint. If they don't help, ignore them, and focus on the point.

Mike

[lev_lafayette]

1.  Legends of Alyria

Probably one of the better examples of extremist Narrativist design. Player influence on storyline and gameplay through dramatic expertise is something which I have long advocated (indeed, I had the idea published in a game system in 1993 - was that a first?). Although I must say that the way that Alyria is designed and played puts it in an entirely different class of game. I may even be so bold to suggest that it's not a "role-playing" game but rather "story-developing" game. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that (indeed, it is magnificant idea), I think it is pertinent to issue at hand.

2. Photography, Plague Spirits, Swords

For the reasons previously stated; photography is a no, plague spirits is a yes and swords are a yes. Even if all three occur during tactical time, a photography contest is not a situation where the competitors are in a physical or paraphysical conflict with each other that can cause harm from the action itself.

3. "It doesn't feel right"

I guess most of the reason for this is that it comes down to the simulation side of things. Combat is fast and furious, and to have something that ultimately comes down to narrative descriptions and a far dose of GM or even player fiat "doesn't feel right". The conditionals I suggested before are the ones I think deserve more emphasis on simulation rather than narrative.

If, as Mike restates, the central point of his argument is that early rpgs were overly combat-heavy due to a historical connection with wargaming, I have no disagreement. If the secondrary point is that this makes combat systems unnecessary, I have some doubts, based on the conditionals provided.

[komradebob]

Just to reclarify, Lev:

Discussion of rpgs that do not reasonably expect to have combat as a part of the game have been removed from this discussion?

[Lance D. Allen]

Lev,

I'm gonna try one last time, then I think I'm just gonna give on this discussion.

In my question I should have made clear that the stakes of ALL three types of conflicts involves "damage and death" in the sense I defined, as something that restricts or removes the character from play. This includes the photography scenario as well as the swordplay and plague spirits.

What I'm asking is if a conflict system which can portray all three types with equal ease, in tactical time and with the "existential importance" (ie, damage and death as defined above) bits intact would be an acceptable conflict system to you?

I'm asking for either a yes or a no. Either a system which can handle all three  equally well is good, or it's not good. I'm not proposing a system which can handle two of them but not the third, or any other ratio. It's an all or nothing question.

[komradebob]

Lev:
Quick tangetial question:

What do you feel is the out of game effect of a player's character dying as a result of combat or other threatening situation?

I ask because I think this bears relation to both Mike's rant and your pro forma arguments.

Robert

[Mike Holmes]

I may even be so bold to suggest that it's not a "role-playing" game but rather "story-developing" game. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that (indeed, it is magnificant idea), I think it is pertinent to issue at hand.

Two points. You're trying to make an argument that a design of this sort is not an RPG. Well, that requires having a good definition of RPG, which nobody has. In any case, for every argument that you can come up with that says that Alyria is not an RPG, I can find one that says it is.

In any case, I'm willing to stipulate to the fact that some of these games may not be traditionally what's called RPGs. I say this about Universalis all the time. To which I follow, so what? What if they're not RPGs? Does that still mean that it's not a design decision? If you're saying that this is the difference between RPGs and thes "other" games, then, yes, what I'm asking designers to do is to consider the possibility that they might want to create some "other" sort of game.

To me it's just another form of RPG, but what does the categorization matter?

I guess most of the reason for this is that it comes down to the simulation side of things. Combat is fast and furious, and to have something that ultimately comes down to narrative descriptions and a far dose of GM or even player fiat "doesn't feel right". The conditionals I suggested before are the ones I think deserve more emphasis on simulation rather than narrative.

But, others do not. So this is a matter of preference. So, again, something that a designer needs to think about. Again, to prove me wrong, to prove that combat systems are mandatory in these cases, would be to prove that players can't have fun in these sorts of situations, using a system to resolve them that's no different from resolving any other sort of contest. And that's patently untrue.

If you want to look at this as a poliltical statement, I'm saying, "I (and others) like games like I'm describing, so people should consider making more." You're saying, "No, they shouldn't, because I don't like games like that." I'm at least allowing for your preference, you're not for mine.

If, as Mike restates, the central point of his argument is that early rpgs were overly combat-heavy due to a historical connection with wargaming, I have no disagreement. If the secondrary point is that this makes combat systems unnecessary, I have some doubts, based on the conditionals provided.

No, the primary point is that combat systems are unneccessary. But you're over-reading that term. They're unneccessary in the same way that it's unneccessary to put salt on your pizza. Some like it, some do not. It's unneccessary meaning not mandatory - games can work without it. Again, the usual method is to assime that its mandatory, and include a combat system despite the fact that it may happen that the game they're designing might be better off without one. All I'm trying to do here is to break down the perception that every RPG must have a specialized combat system. That it should be a well considered choice.

Mike

[lev_lafayette]

1. Non-combat RPGs

On this point I sort off agree entirely with Mike, although certainly not to the degree he seems to have proposed (ssee (4) below). I would be perplexed about a game where combat situations are not just unlikely, they reach the stage of the virtually impossible - and this is from a GM who who regularly run games where months fly by without any combat whatsoever, including when PCs are in "dangerous lands".

2. Photography, Combat Systems and Swordplay

As mentioned previously, photography does not count, in a similar manner that diplomacy doesn't. The act of photography does not cause damage. Results may arise from the act afterwards but they are independent actions.

Actually, I can think of an exception; certain South American indigenous tribes (Peruvian, iirc) who believe that photographs damage one's soul. In which case there should be rather than just a single skill roll determining relative success, there should also be a means to determine the degree of resistance to the act (certainly not an issue in most acts of photography!) and effective damage to the victims spirit. That would be far preferable to the GM saying "OK, he aims a camera at you and rolls a 15. Hey, that's pretty good. You now have no soul".

3. Out of Game Effect

This is a very good point, and I'm very glad it was raised. Because it actually comes down to the enjoyment of the game.

Whilst this is subjective according to the player in question, I think that most players prefer additional detail in "tactical time", some additional randomness, extra layers of resolution etc, as it aids the suspense of the narrative and at a point where their character has the spotlight on them. As I stated earlier in this thread, there is no reason why a narrative system should not be used when there's vast levels of inequality (the psycho with the assault rifle versus the unarmed seventy year old cripple). Resolving that in detail would just be gratitious. But where there is a reasonable level of equality in physical and paraphysical conflict there is a particular type of suspense which, imo, deserves extra detail.


4. Testing Standards

If the standards of testing are as Mike suggested in his last post, then it is certain that I cannot "win" this argument (which I'm not trying to do anyway). To put this on the level of "it's a matter of preference" versus a alleged mandatory alternative I think is a little unreasonable. Everyone (or at least everyone sane) prefers preferential choices over enforced ones, so that's a bit of a strawman and indeed quite unfair to suggest that I am somehow recommending a curtailment of one's design or playing liberties. I'm not playing RPG-cop. So let's dispense with that, 'kay?

The conditionals developed in the course of this discussion were to make (as I stated in the initial post) the best possible negative argument, and indeed, the only negative argument. Surely this is beneficial to the original proposition, isn't it?

To my reasoning, the key point of the argument was, as per Mike's original post (in bold no less) "If you don't want combat to be the focus of a game, do not include special rules for it. Especially if you don't include special rules about anything else."

On this point I will continue to promote an alternative point of view, among the chorus of agreement. Even if combat is not the focus of a game there are certain critical circumstances that may arise which make additional detail preferable.

[LordSmerf]

On this point I will continue to promote an alternative point of view, among the chorus of agreement. Even if combat is not the focus of a game there are certain critical circumstances that may arise which make additional detail preferable.

Lev, the question here is: "Preferrable to whom?"  We've already established that combat is not what this game is about for the designer.  You may have combat, but we don't want to focus on that.  If you as a player have picked this game then you shouldn't really be expecting a lot of combat.

You use the word "preferrable" which makes this necessarily about opinion doesn't it?  And as you said, you can't win an argument like that.

Thomas

[lev_lafayette]

As I have already mentioned I'm not going to claim mandatory requirements versus individual tastes. There are individuals out there who prefer Hagar The Horrible to the Poetic and Prose Edda when it comes to literature in a Nordic setting.  Arguing with such people about literary standards is a waste of time, because to them it comes down to "but I like it!", and on a political level, that's fine. I would never advocate that people aren't allowed to have appalling standards of taste.

Let me point out that it was the rant which made a proposition which reads pretty mandatory to me:  "If you don't want combat to be the focus of a game, do not include special rules for it".

I have already cited reasons why most players may prefer a detailed resolution system, even if combat is not a focus of the game, a gamist answer, if you like. The conditionals I provided may provide a simulationist answer, certainly something for finnicky designers to mull over. I don't think there really is a narrativist answer one way or another. That's really always up to the GM, and is variable as they are.

Ultimately my suggestion is that there may be very good reasons on why "special rules" are appropriate whether or not combat is a focus of the game. All I'm trying to do is nut out what is the best possible argument for such "special rules".

So perhaps the original proposition may need slight modifications. It's not a big deal. We're adults here and I don't think anyone will or should get precious about a pet theory. Propositions are made, they are tested and modified as necessary. That's how knowledge improves. That's how roleplaying games have improved...

[Mike Holmes]

Everyone (or at least everyone sane) prefers preferential choices over enforced ones, so that's a bit of a strawman and indeed quite unfair to suggest that I am somehow recommending a curtailment of one's design or playing liberties. I'm not playing RPG-cop. So let's dispense with that, 'kay?

You're misrepresenting my position. I haven't said that you're saying these things. I've said precisely that I don't think you're saying these things. And so not arguing against me. I've said it like three times now.

The conditionals developed in the course of this discussion were to make (as I stated in the initial post) the best possible negative argument, and indeed, the only negative argument. Surely this is beneficial to the original proposition, isn't it?

Yes, absolutely this is a good idea. The problem is that you're arguement doesn't disprove anything that I'm trying to prove. I'm pointing out what the counterargument to mine must be in order to negatively point out my position. If your argument is not that, then you're not arguing with me.

To my reasoning, the key point of the argument was, as per Mike's original post (in bold no less) "If you don't want combat to be the focus of a game, do not include special rules for it. Especially if you don't include special rules about anything else."

On this point I will continue to promote an alternative point of view, among the chorus of agreement. Even if combat is not the focus of a game there are certain critical circumstances that may arise which make additional detail preferable.

The problem here is with the term focus, a very subjective term. What I'm saying comes down to a tautology - if you don't want extra detail in combat, because the game is about something else, then don't add combat systems in. And this is a needed statement. I know that there are designers out there who are putting combat systems in games, not because they thought about it, but because it's just "how RPGs are made" as far as they're aware.

I'd argue that if you're looking at your design, and saying "it's about X, but it still needs a combat system," that you're deciding to create some focus on combat. May even be minimal, and it may not really detract at all from the main focus depending on how it's done. But, again, I'm winning the argument by making my definition of focus fit.

What I have clarified my statements to mean in the original thread, even before your points were brought up, is not that you can't make a conscious decision to include a combat system. Just that if you're consciously doing so, you're deciding to put some attention on those sorts of details. Which is fine if that's really what you want. Again, all I'm really against is designers putting in combat systems without considering that there's an alternative.

So don't make a straw man out of my position either, in order to have something to argue against. I'm not saying that one shouldn't have combat systems, just that it's always a choice that should be based on understanding the choices available. If you look at the original thread, my arguments evolved over the course of that discussion, and you can find my real POV in all of that material, not just the original rant.

Put another way, people won this argument you're making against me long before you did.

I like the original rant, because it's intent is to break the "matrix." Unlike yourself who I think at least understands at least rationally that there is an appeal for alternative games for players like myself in terms of how combat is handled, there are people who simply don't understand that things can be handled this way successfully. They don't know that there's an option. The rant is intended to make people understand that there's no one absolute way to handle resolution about these things. So that people can look at the problem heads up, and make an informed decision. And if they then decide to go with special combat rules, that's fine. No matter what the "focus" is supposed to be.

Now, there's a whole 'nother argument implicit here, the whole "do rules create play focus." Believe me, we've debated that one to death. And I'm willing to at least consider the opposing viewpoint that you can have detail without creating focus. Again, however, I think that it should still be a conscious choice, not one caused by merely following tradition.

Mike

[lev_lafayette]

You're misrepresenting my position. I haven't said that you're saying these things. I've said precisely that I don't think you're saying these things.

I was actually referring to the comments by lordsmerf, which should be evident.

The problem is that you're arguement doesn't disprove anything that I'm trying to prove.

On this we'll disagree.

The problem here is with the term focus, a very subjective term.

What's subjective about it? Dictionary.com for what it's worth in this context claims "A center of interest or activity". Now I would say that there a good reasons for special rules and extra detail in a combat system even if you don't want it to be a center of interest or attention - and "center" (or centre, as I prefer), certainly isn't subjective!

I know that there are designers out there who are putting combat systems in games, not because they thought about it, but because it's just "how RPGs are made" as far as they're aware.

I recognize that's the spirit of your post. All I'm suggesting is that the letter could be tightened up, or rather, elaborated.

Again, however, I think that it should still be a conscious choice, not one caused by merely following tradition.

Well, that's a universal truism.

[Dauntless]

I believe the major point for including detailed combat is to heighten the sense of importance, player sense of control (freewill), and tension.

While it's true that any task resolution can be very detailed (especially life threatening ones), the idea in game design is to focus on the aspects that you the designer feel are important.  The bottomline is that there are two polar opposites to resolving game actions: arbitrary fiat, and rules based.  In an arbitrary fiat system, the GM or some other colloborative system essentially determines the outcome of an event in order to derive an effect from a cause.  The other option is to utilize some kind of rules-based system in order to (help) determine what happens.

Now, there are actually two kinds of rules-based systems, finite deterministic, and non-determinate finite.  The first kind is essentially a kind of state machine: given inputs A, B, and C, you get output D.  There is no random process or indeterminate process going on.  In other words, it's formulaic (many diceless games use some kind of rule system like this).  Non-deterministic systems however are stochastic and have some sort of random probabilistic element.  However, it still obeys a set of rules.  In this case, given inputs A, B, and C, you have a 20% chance of output D, a 30% chance of output E, and a 50% chance of output F.  As an example, Chess is a finite deterministic game, whereas most conventional RPG's are non-deterministic.

What makes non-deterministic rules systems interesting is the unknown factor.  It creates a sense of tension so that outcomes may or may not ever be 100% guaranteed.  In game theory, this unknown factor makes for some very interesting play potential.   Of course this unknown factor can provide a sense of suspense and joy (when overcoming great odds) or it can be extremely frustrating (the whiff factor).  In reality though, that's the way ball bounces sometimes, but as the argument goes, this is a game and hence shouldn't necessarily model reality.  Irregardless though, humans are driven by the unknown.  But they are also driven by a feeling for the need to be in control.

And this lack of a feeling of control is a potential pitfall of an arbitrary fiat system.  If results are determined simply in order to fit into the flow of a story, then player freewill becomes less highlighted.  In essence, there is a danger in such a method of result determination that player choice (and hence outcome) takes a backseat to the flow of the story.  Players will never have a decisive feeling if the outcome was a result of their decisions, or if the outcome was a result of GM choice to fit the story arc.  It's a tough line to balance...on the one hand, it sucks to have a bad die roll totally botch something up, but on the other hand, giving player's tatctical options with tightly defined rules allows the player a heightened sense of freewill because the outcome is independent of subjective judgment.

Why bring up the two kinds of arbitration systems?  Think of these two polar pairs as two points on a line, with game rules systems being somewhere on this line.  The less detailed the rules and the more abstract they are, the more of an arbirtrary fiat system they become (with its advantages and disadvantages).  And on the other hand, the more detailed and crunchy the rules become, the more rules-based they become (with its concurrent advantages and disadvantages).  So the less detailed the rules (rules-lite) a system is, because much has been abstracted out, a player will feel that he has less control over the situation and that a lot of the outcome is also abstracted or that the GM may even "fudge" the results to fit the story.  The more detailed a system becomes the more options are available and hence a player has a greater feeling of control (though ironically, the more concrete the rules systems become, the mor restrictive it can become because the rules may not cover a particular circumstance....this is a detailed system's main drawback, so the appropriate balance to find is essential).

So getting back to why combat should be detailed, I think it depends on the genre and mood of the game.  Simulationists would definitely prefer a rules based system because they want to see what the outputs are for the given inputs (story follows action, not action follows story).  Generally, even in more rules-lite systems it is a good idea to allow for more detailed combat simply because of the all-or-nothing nature of life and death situations engendered by combat.  As I mentioned before, the more rules-bound the system becomes, the more you highlight the player's sense of freewill and determination.  The less detailed it becomes, the more subjective it becomes and hence the player will wonder whether he was cheated (if his character gets hurt or killed) or whether he truly earned his victory (to fit into the tapestry of the story).

[komradebob]

Okay, another tangent:

Hypothetical situation:
A player's character dies as a result of a game's combat system (ie not voluntary player choice for some sort of dramatic reason). Let's pretend the player in question is me. I'm not upset. I knew I was playing a game with chance in regard to combat.

My question is this:
What occurs after character death, during the game session, with regard to the actual real life player?

I think this has bearing on the issue of combat rules design ( not to mention other rules design).

Do I take time out to roll up/generate another character equal in power to the previous character?

Do I roll up a new character, but at some sort of rules indicated base level?

Do I have to leave the game session and go home, because my character is dead?

Am I allowed to stay and participate/kibbitz/ offer ooc advice to other players?

I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.

Anyone care to offer comments?

Robert