Anti-Combat Bias (kinda long)

[kevin671]

Hello, Jake.  

I personally prefer systems where combat resolution is mostly streamlined into the other task resolution systems.  If nothing else, it makes for smaller character sheets.  I personally like to make combat resolution fairly lethal, to discourage players from just hacking and/or blowing away thier troubles.  But if they really wanna fight...you do need a resolution system for combat.  Since many gamers tend to thrive on the combat aspect of RPGs, if you're designing one, from a standpoint of whether its going to make money, you need a combat system.  (Sorry to break it to those of us who do not like combat.....)   For a resolution system, make it as simple as possible.  I personally liked the Friday Night Firefight rules from RTG's Cyberpunk 2020 (combat is streamlined into the task resolution system, except for some notable exceptions like the effects of a specific type of weapon.)  It was also a pretty lethal system.  When I GM I tend not to care whether the player characters live or die.  If they didn't want to have thier characters killed, they shouldn't have opened fire on the SWAT team.

[Marco]

I think Contra and I agree on this ...

My observation is that combat often gets special rules because its is expected to be *exciting.* Just like car-chases get special rules in games where car-chases are expected to be exciting.  In an Iron Chef game, there's be detailed rules for cooking.

TEST OF HYPOTHESIS
Now some things, like Computer Programming and even Hacking are *not* exciting. I mean, they can be to some people but generally ... they aren't. So those things usually don't get special rules.

But in some cyberpunk genres hacking IS supposed to be exciting. And if you look in some of those games with special detailed rules for net runners ... there you go.

So if combat is supposed to be an exciting part of your game, consider giving it more detailed space. If it isn't, gloss over.

(or make rules that generate the same level of excitment for cooking as for combat--that's fine--but remember that for a lot of people combat is exciting because something is on the line--same as with a car-chase or hacking against black-ice ... if you want each excursion into the kitchen to be fraught with danger ... play The Sims).

Edited to note: On a re-read, I expect someone will think "more rules" don't make it any more exciting. I think that's obvious. But having gamed through exciting combats (the most exciting one ever was a Hero supers battle) I found the mix of tactical risks, down-to-the-line need for luck, threat of anti-climax (a crucial character gets taken out early) and everything else that goes into a crunchy system to be really key to creating the experience. I'll have to think more about *why* special rules made it more exciting--but for me, they did (and I think for a lot of other main-stream gamers too).

-Marco
[Oh, and Martin: I've got IT--an elegant proof--your problem is solved! All you have to do is [*CENSORED*] ]

[damion]

I'd have to agree with Marco here.  Some people just enjoy the whole tactical aspect of rpg's.  This can happen in ANY aspect of the game the is highly detailed, although I can't think of any game where the system for one activity
is much more detailed than for other activities and that activity isn't combat.
Summoning in Sorcerer may be one, but I don't have it yet. Also, like combat, I believe it  involves risk. :)
[Edit]  Actually, can anyone think of any activity, in any game that is similary to your traditional RPG combat system. I.e. it
1)Takes a while, and is detailed.
2)Involves a large number of steps, possibly with multiple resolutions per step.
3)The outcome is not predicatable until the end.
[/edit]

I think a lot of the problems people have with combat is people can't be bothered to know what they are doing. Even DnD combat can be exciting if players pay attention, and know what they are going to do and the rules to do so.  

Marco: I think rules can make it more exciting for several reasons.
1)They keep the outcome hanging in the balance longer. I.e you can make incremental decisions and progress toward the outcome, and anticipate it, without arriving or being certian of the outcome.
2)There is risk to the charachters--see #1
3)They provide the illusion of it being a skill based activity (Tactical decisions).
4)In System Does Matter vein- If there is all these rules, this Must be Important, Right? Most people find extensive combat rulse for unimportatn combat boring.  In fact, most GM advice type articles advocate ignoring the combat system for trivial combats.

[kevin671]

Damien:  A good point.  I prefer to run combats so that they are a more strategic activity.  In other words, yes you can just run in shooting.  Go ahead.  But since the bad guys have decent cover and concealment, and have taken the time to set up crossfires, traps, snipers and other assorted evilness you shouldn't expect to survive, much less win.  For me, it is the planning phase of a combat, more than the excecution of the combat that is exciting.  I'm fortunate in that one of my frequent players has years of special operations experience (he was in the British SAS), so combats tend to be well planned, short and frieghteningly violent affairs where the enemy rarely even wounds people on the PC's team.  This is, in my experience, why simpler combat systems are much more exciting.  That said, rules heavy combat systems CAN be a lot of fun too, IF you are running a game that is more combat oriented (like a wargame).  

Most gaming systems that have a seperate mechanic for something (like combat, or hacking for Cyberpunk) seem to emphasize that particular something over other elements.  DnD's unique combat system, for example, tells me that DnD is very combat oriented.  As does the mechanic from Cyberpunk.  

I personally believe that a combat system of some sort (whether it is part of the normal task resolution system or a seperate entity) are quite important to a gaming system.  I'm not one of those people who is crazy for RPG combat or anything, but when combat does occur, it needs to be both exciting and well paced.  Combat rules are precisely designed to convey that sense of excitement and risk.  The fact is that many people are drawn to RPG because of the fact that they can have people running around with guns and shooting people, which they generally cannot do in real life.  Strangely enough, my Sensei, Mike, eho is the former SAS member I've mentioned, is usually the player who suggests alternate methods to resolve problems than shooting them.

Bottom line:  Combat is important for RPG.  It is not the most important thing, nor is it anywhere near the most important thing, but since there are many players out there who are looking to RPG for that precise thing, I do not think that any RPG which doesn't have a workable combat system of some kind will survive very long.  Most people don't really want to play a system that is based on real life.....they have real life for that.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I gotta jump in because I think this whole discussion is...well, it certainly is.

What the heck does "combat" mean? Because what I see when people bring up this subject (and it always gets brought up) is this:

"Here is my interesting way to hurt people using an RPG mechanic."

Is that what it is?

I am wickedly anti-combat. The only "Combat" I enjoy was the free cart that came with an Atari 2600 (I met the programmer, btw...cool guy! Used to take the Larkspur ferry with him to and from San Francisco).

Fight scenes? Violence? Murder? Swashbuckling? That shit I can dig.

But COMBAT...what's the point? What does it mean to you?

[GreatWolf]

Fight scenes? Violence? Murder? Swashbuckling? That shit I can dig.

But COMBAT...what's the point? What does it mean to you?

Jared makes an excellent point.  Perhaps part of the problem with combat systems is that we tend to think that "combat" means the same thing across all games.

In TROS, "combat" is medieval swordfighting.  It is harsh, deadly, and unforgiving.  One mistake (and I do mean *one*), and you're left trying to hold in your intestines while the other guy with the big long razor winds up for the decapitation.  (At least, this is my experience from the combat simulator from the TROS website.)

In Paranoia, "combat" is an excuse for comedy, being one more application of the "Let's watch the PCs screw themselves with unstable machinery" principle that runs through the game.  Ninja Burger is the same (and IMHO does a better job, systemwise).

In Extreme Violence, "combat" is showmanship.  Rarely will a major role (like a PC) get killed.  Rather, it's a reason to up the adrenaline content of the game and intensify the conflict through the most obvious method:  physical violence.

The only thing that these three examples have in common is the application of physical force to another person.  The meaning behind the actions is completely different.  Perhaps, as we design, it would be wise to ask Jared's question:  when I say "combat", what do I mean?

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[Jake Norwood]

Hey all...
This thread really mushroomed on me, it seems. First-

Contra--no patronising intended. Chill. It's the extremism that makes revolutions work, and often fall apart after they get started.

Jared--Inspectres has great "combat" (which I define loosely as fighting in the physical realm) that is heavily non-traditional, and it works. Your games, Dust Devils, and the like, are not part of this problem, but are one very viable solution to it (see my original posts).

The rest--You're all chanting what I mean--that combat should be fun, and should evoke that thing which we want it to as designers/players, whatever that thing is. In a game about dilbert, there's no need for combat (but, If half the people I know played, they'd come after the boss with an axe...). There's a lot of social contract stuff involved, and expectations of a game/system/group.

What I'm saying is that overall combat is being used wrongly, and that's created a bias against it. I'm looking at ways we can fix the problem. One way I see is the Memento-Mori path with heavy doses of free-forming. That's a good solution, but not one that works for people with other tastes all the time.

I have more to say but I have to go. Clinton--I'll get back to you on your question.

Jake

[kevin671]

I understand.  Combat for the purpose of combat is just pointless.  Why have a scenario that has a bunch of guys (and girls) going around hurting people?  This is not really what I look for in a combat system.  When I do have players who think its cool to get liquered and shoot at anything that moves I have them run up against that one tough guy.  You all know who I'm talking about.  That Rambo-esque nutcase NPC you all have socked away somewhere.  That you created just to see how far the rules could be tweaked.  I have him show up, all 10 ft tall and bullet proof, and lay waste to the whole PC group, and then let them create new characters.

Now combat when it has a purpose on the other hand....

Scenarios like the PC's needing to eliminate the evil prince, rescue the hostages or otherwise engage in some for of armed conflict CAN be a lot of fun.  

I usually control this whole thing by maintaining final say on character creation, and typically disallowing any character who can do nothing except fight because I really don't like the idea of having a combat session in each adventure, just so that all players can be involved.  This also causes a problem in games like DnD, as each character is pretty narrowly focused, and creating a rounded character can be a bit tricky.  This is part of the reason I like the Cyberpunk 2020 creation rules.  They allow for a degree of customization right at the beginning.

[Marco]

After some thought, I have something to add to Damion's points.

1. For an extremely focused game design (what I preceive Jorad makes) combat systems, like every other rule construct should serve the vision. Thus it makes no sense for say, InSpecters to contain a long list of moves ... but if the game was based on wacky kung-fu schools with bizarrely named special moves for each style then I think there'd be some detail in what a character did when fighting. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

2. I think in general, combat is all about gambling (this is a distillation of what Damion hit on).  Why humans tend to like gambling activities is left up to the philosophers--but Las Vegas is a testament to the fact that we do (or at least a lot of us do).

I think tactical combat hits some of the same mojo.  There's calculated risk analysis, a perception (sometimes false but still there) that your skill has an effect on the outcome, there're stakes at play.

A game where combat is simply 1 roll vs. another roll is similar to a slot machine. A game where there are several methodologies in combat would be similar to black-jack or poker.

I find these risk-reward situations to be a substantial source of my enjoyment in gaming. Now, as one can see from the write-ups of actual play I've done here almost none include much combat and one didn't include a single roll. That's fine--but I wouldn't want to simply eliminate it from my gaming (a really good combat is, for me, a hell of a lot of fun and I'm not sure what kind of trade-off would work for me).

The rules-focus is simply this: games like Poker and Black-Jack (and most of the games favored by "serious" gamblers) have detailed rules to them. There's an element of trying to beat the game. There's an element of pride in skill of play.

This is, I submit, pure-gamism--and I think, one of the places where a great many gamers who are NOT "gamist" in general express their gamism. I don't find the gamist structure of Primeval or Dunjon Krawl all that attractive to me personally--but I enjoy a good, well-wrought, crunchy combat.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth,

That's a solid point! - much better put than I had managed to articulate or understand for myself, but well in tune with a lot of my role-playing experiences this last year.

I think the risk-analysis you're describing is even deeper than Gamism - it's the source of uncertainty and willingness to "go with it" or "putting it on the line" that underlies the use of Fortune at all in many games. That can be a motor for Gamism (which has a "pure" or directly-applied feel) or it can be a sub-set or mini-hybrid of Narrativism. That's definitely the case in the Pool, in which risk/gamble is central to play but has nothing to do with competition.

[I hope everyone's with me in realizing that whole realms of Narrativism and Gamism exist in which this is not the case - but I do think that Fortune and risk play a much bigger constructive role in the latter than is commonly recognized.]

How this might relate to Simulationism, or to some subset of it, I dunno, except that in many 80s game designs, the big priority was to model variation in the result of any "intended" action.

But that's enough GNS-babble from me, I suppose. To stay with Jake's inquiry ... well, actually, Jake, I'm interested in a reply from you regarding my points in my first post on the thread. I think I nailed just what I wanted to say about your topic, and I'm interested in your feedback.

Best,
Ron

Editing this in: Duh! I addressed this post to Gareth when I was actually responding to Marco. The subsequent replies confused the hell out of me until I figured that out.

[contracycle]

2. I think in general, combat is all about gambling (this is a distillation of what Damion hit on).  Why humans tend to like gambling activities is left up to the philosophers--but Las Vegas is a testament to the fact that we do (or at least a lot of us do).

I don't think its really about gambling... look at the player described above, theres very little gamble in their resort to violence.  Theres exposure to risk, sure but they've also invested time and effort making that risk as tiny as possible.  I think rather than the potential for detriment presented by combat, the interest lies in the inherent significance of combat - life and death is dramatic and exciting.  Even our arch-planner knows that no plan survives contact with the enemy, that it is still risky becuase the consequences of a mistake are so dire.  If nothing else, combat presents the possibility the a player will have to stop playing (or stop playing that character, which they may enjoy), so there is real risk at the metagame level.  I think all of this imparts an inherent tension to the subject as the counterpoint of relationships as per sex and violence.

I agree that the mistake has been to over-detail and hence bog down the speed of play, which reduces the tension to an acocunting exercise.  I believe the desire to do this lies in trying to iorganise choices which express the game worlds nature; in that both L5R and HW frex use ostentatiously named combat manouvres to help colour the world.  This applies tot he decker rules too - the detail is intended to make the threat a rationally perceived one rather than one abstracted by simple contested difficulty numbers.  This gives the opportunity to plan and make meaningful rather than token decisions; but at the risk of developing whole sub-systems to cater to different niches.  

Jake - revolutions are not symptomatic of extremism, they are not some sort of mass hysteria.  They occur because one way of living in the world becomes impossible and another becomes unavoidable.  You are after all a citizen rather than a subject, I believe.

[Marco]

2. I think in general, combat is all about gambling (this is a distillation of what Damion hit on).  Why humans tend to like gambling activities is left up to the philosophers--but Las Vegas is a testament to the fact that we do (or at least a lot of us do).

I don't think its really about gambling... look at the player described above, theres very little gamble in their resort to violence.  Theres exposure to risk, sure but they've also invested time and effort making that risk as tiny as possible.  I think rather than the potential for detriment presented by combat, the interest lies in the inherent significance of combat - life and death is dramatic and exciting.  Even our arch-planner knows that no plan survives contact with the enemy, that it is still risky becuase the consequences of a mistake are so dire.  If nothing else, combat presents the possibility the a player will have to stop playing (or stop playing that character, which they may enjoy), so there is real risk at the metagame level.  I think all of this imparts an inherent tension to the subject as the counterpoint of relationships as per sex and violence.

Hey Contra,
My statement didn't mean to demean the in-game significance of the combat--rather to question what is enjoyable about well done crunchy colorful combat--and why it seems to have mass appeal.

To put a finer point on it: many widely enjoyed games have complex combat sub-systems.

1. I've noted that presumed-to-be exciting parts of a game tend to have a lower level of abstraction (i.e. their own sub-system).
2. The "exciting" parts deal with creating a sense of tension.

NOW
A single-roll, highly abstract combat system would still have the same dramatic tension as a low-level of complexity crunchy one (i.e. your character is still on the line).

One can assume that the enjoyment of combat is the tactical-war-game aspect ... but I think that's only part of it.

I think that there's a certian *intellectual* satisfaction from the war-game tactical exercise--but I disagree that that's all that is there. I enjoy war-games--but I don't like them nearly as much as RPG's--and while RPG's do add the dramatic what-you're-fighting-for element, I think it goes beyond that.

I think that some of the added frission of, say, the AD&D combat system comes from the same mechanism that is enjoyed in, say, black jack. I think that hanging with a tight combat when you know it could go either way hits the same gambling sense that staying in a tight poker hand does.

The elements of risk-analysis and percieved control over the outcome as well as employment of skill (if you win big in black jack you feel it's a personal accomplishment) are all factors.

Designing games that removes this factor since it doesn't fit the premise may be removing (for some people, who knows how many) a real potential souce of enjoyment.

In other words, people who look at games with complex combat systems and say "oh, this game must be about combat--look at all these tables" may be missing the point: the author simply didn't want to leave any "money on the table" in terms of people enjoying their game.

-Marco
[of course other people will look at all those tables and go "YUCK!"--that's cool too. A good question might be are all these commercially successful games with crunchy combat onto something? Or is it really all just marketing? ]

[marknau]

A situation where two people or groups are intending to inflict damage upon one another is an inherently interesting situation. It is the basis for all of wargaming, most video games, and a big chunk of boardgames. While someone most interested in a narrative will see this is a detail, for others is it an opportunity.

For some, it will be an opportunity to get into detail about whether a longsword is effective against mail, or if a 20mm round is sufficient to penetrate the side armor of a T72, or if a round kick can be executed quickly enough in, blah, blah, blah.

For some, it will be an opportunity to stage an interesting tactical challenge, in which the players will be matching wits against each other or against a situation. Choices will be meaningful, and play a large part of the final outcome.

For some, it will be an opportunity to see an inherently tense situation play out. We don't know what the final outcome will be exactly, and we don't know how it will get there. But it's interesting to watch.

The problem, as I see it, is three-fold:
1) A large chunk of the way it has been done in the past is a muddled version of simulation, because of D&D's wargaming roots.
2) Most people's first instinct is to try to model a "realistic" version of what happens, irrespective of what this does to game flow or design.
3) Making a well-balanced and interesting intellectual game is hard.

Which means that we most often see either:
A) Convoluted amassments of detail.
B) A system that plays out in stages for the participants, but has either no or trivial decisions involved.
C) A stripped-down, "lets-move-on", approach.

I think C is actually quite good for many different circumstances. I think A is fine if you're into that sort of thing. I think B results from the fact that making a good Gamist system is hard.

Ideally, someone will make a combat resolution system that is both elegant and a fun to play in isolation. My analog here is the relatively recent wave of "Designer" games in the boardgaming realm. To abuse the model for convenience's sake, these guys broke the old mold of "Simulationism uber alles" and focussed instead on Gamism. Many of the resulting games are elegant and widely approachable without sacrificing the underlying gameplay.

I think that it would be a Gamist RPGer's dream to incorporate an elegant, intellectually challenging and fun combat game into a RPG. But it is hard to do.

[Blake Hutchins]

My trouble with most combat systems is that they form a huge bloc of granular exceptions to the way "everything else" is resolved.  Doing it this way pushes games toward combat, in my opinion, because non-combat actions can be resolved via one die roll.  Combat scenes become the most suspense-laden and rules-supported parts of the game experience.

Contrast with Hero Wars and Dying Earth, where non-combat conflicts work exactly the same way as combat-centered conflicts.  In Dying Earth, for example, social clashes are just as tense as armed ones.

Sometimes it may be a question of extending combat system mechanics to non-combat scenes.  D20 Fading Suns (of all things) proposes to do this via addition of social Feats like Withering Insult, but it doesn't go far enough.  For example, they could have added Reputation Points in lieu of Hit Points.  I have a lot of bitches about d20, but my biggest is probably the gross dichotomy between combat and non-combat mechanics support.

For my money, a system that features a sharply differing or greatly expanded mechanic for combat than for any and all non-combat resolution is undesirable unless the game overtly puts a strong emphasis on combat.  That's just my taste.  I should add that I've not looked at TROS, though I'm mightily intrigued by it.

I'll finish by throwing my hat into the ring of "what Jack said."  Wargaming rules for combat promote tedious play, in my view.

Best,

Blake

[Matt Wilson]

I'll finish by throwing my hat into the ring of "what Jack said."  Wargaming rules for combat promote tedious play, in my view.

Maybe there needs to be a Snow Crash-esque option where you can just skip potentially tedious combats - or any other scenes, for that matter.

"Ahh, this looks like just another chase scene. I'll spend a XYZ token. Let's just say we got away."