combat=gamist <---> adventuring=narrative

[crasmer]

Hey all!

First of all: My experience in pen & paper role playing games is somewhat limited im afraid. I love them, but was sucked into the D&D vortex early on, enough said...

Since I and a mate are creating a new RPG system (like everyone else in here i was wondering if anyone have ever thought going heavy Gamist in the combat section while going narrative on the adventuring part* (including removing all aspects of the dreaded charisma/wisdom/intelligence dice "check" circus and instead letting the player roleplay)? Or does anyone know about a game that have already explored this possibility?

* I'm talking of a very realistic combat system including, amongst others, a fatigue system, heavy dice rolls (offense vs. defense with counter attacks), special offenses like combos, morales, techniques, realistic movement (= our world). All this in contrast to when you want to bluff somebody for instance: There will be no rolls, YOU must think of a smart way to bluff that person, GM decides the outcome.

In advance, thanks

[Abkajud]

First off, it sounds like you're describing pretty much every RPG with a crunchy combat system but little consideration for social conflict (AD&D, anyone?). Yeah, 3rd edition has Bluff and Sense Motive checks, but take those away and you've got what you're describing, more or less.

That being said, the problem that could come about from such a design is this: what if you run into somebody who likes one "mode" of the game but not the other? I would hate an ultra-detailed combat system; some of my friends would love it.
It sounds like what you're really describing isn't necessarily a Gamist vs. Narrativist thing, so much as it is a rules-heavy vs. rules-light thing, and that's not quite the same sort of dichotomy you've alluded to.
If, in "travel mode", it's all Drama resolution for conflict of interests (that's what I'm guessing you mean by "letting the player roleplay"; although, IMO, the whole business of playing an RPG is "roleplaying"), and in "battle mode" it's crunchy, detailed what-have-you, that could work just fine. Again, I'm not quite sure who would like *both* of these modes, and I get the feeling that many people who like one more than the other would try to keep the game in one mode, either avoiding combat or trying to turn every encounter into a fight, just so they can stay in their favorite "mode".

If "letting people roleplay" is a big priority for you, why is it also a priority to have a "realistic" combat system? I use scare quotes for "realistic" because it's kind of a meaningless word - meaningless because it means too many different things to different people. To me, it's a code word for "excessively detailed", because I'm already swinging swords and fighting dragons; what use is realism? At the same time, I know it can be really important for folks to feel like the rules make sense to them, and that's fine. But "realistic" in and of itself is too vague to be helpful when describing what you're trying to accomplish.
On the other hand, specific ideas like "combos, [morale], techniques, realistic movement" are perfectly acceptable parameters.

[Noclue]

Crasmer, there are tons of games created to do essentially D&D with "ultra-realistic" combat. You may be interested in reading Ron's essay Fantasy Heartbreakers at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

You say your exposure to RPGs is limited. What games have you played other than D&D?

[Luke]

Cras,

You are walking down a well-tread path, but you should do it, make it and play it.

While you are making your game, you should play other games that aren't D&D or D&D clones.

-L

[crasmer]

[Luke]

I guess a very superficial description of what we are emphasizing to be the core of the game is:
Basing adventuring on the player who’s behind the character and not letting things be decided by dices it simulates our world best we’d like to think. Basing combat on heavy tactical choices supported by an in-depth rule system we think this would simulate our world best. (note: monsters, dragons etc. are a myth in our game, it’s a world of men and the likes). Of course these above-stated assumptions are, well just assumptions, until we’ve tested the mess properly.

Well, since you're repeating this statement and insisting on it, you don't mind if I dig in do you?

First off, all games are about the player rather than the character.

If you want to emphasize decisionmaking, why not remove rolls altogether and use a completely decision-based resolution system?

Realism in games as expressed soley by heavy tactical combat rules is an utterly, completely unacheivable goal. It's been tried a thousand times before. It may produce a nice set of combat rules for your group, but it ain't going to simulate "our world" best.

Good luck!
-L

[David Berg]

Hi Crasmer,

If you're trying for realistic combat using detailed rules, let me make a guess as to what's fun about this:

Function: It's fun to be clever and make good choices that lead to victory!  A system that allows you to do this is a joy to use!

Flavor: Such systems can be fun for all sorts of genres, including superhero; but, for this game, we want a "real world" style.  We just like the way it looks.

Am I right?

I'm asking because, if I'm wrong, and these aren't both important to you, each for its own sake, you may be better able to get one without the other.

Ps,
-David

[Noclue]

@Crasmer, I think if you want to make a fantasy game that does combat the way you feel combat should feel in a game. Awesome!

If your goal is to play a game like that without necessarily having to make it, there's any number of games that do that. Luke's Burning Wheel is my favorite fantasy game with crunch, its one of my favorite games actually, but it doesn't do the "when you bluff, you don't roll dice thing" and its got a very unique take on combat crunch.

The Riddle of Steel is a great option for this kind of deadly, tactical combat game (Caveat: I've read, but haven't really played it). TROS may be hard to get hold of these days though. I'm not sure.

So, I guess I'm asking what your goal is in designing the game rather than seeing what else is out there that might meet your needs. Is the game designing the thing you're looking for or the game playing?

[crasmer]

i]- Appearances to the mind are of four kinds:
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task!

- Epictetus[/i- Appearances to the mind are of four kinds:
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task!

- Epictetus

[Guy Srinivasan]

our goal is to make a game that anyone could like if they are not too hardcore gamist or what have you.

If this is true and you are not playtesting with varied people, especially people you don't regularly play RPGs with, especially especially people you don't regularly interact with at all, then you're actually designing for people you know, not "anyone". Which is in general a better goal IMO.

[Abkajud]

Good point, Guy! Make the game you would want to play, the game you've been waiting for, and don't worry too much about what "anyone" wants.

[Luke]

Hey again!
Luke, hmm, to be honest I can't really follow you, since we are not recognizing this “type of player barrier” between players, our goal is to make a game that anyone could like if they are not too hardcore gamist or what have you. Our general motive is making it streamlined (especially transition between adventure and combat) and fresh which in my point of view is enough for folks to actually go have a look at it.

Cras,

Those are great goals. If those were my goals I'd focus on simplicity. But those goals don't paint enough of the picture. What's your game about? The mechanics are there only to serve the premise. So simplicity, accessibility and freshness are nice, but they're not enough.

-L