Specific-system for combat discussion

[ADGBoss]

I am posting this here at request so it can get out of a different thread so it may look a little out of place...

Definitely some good food for thought in these posts and the related ones but I am not as sold on the idea of narrative combat. I will say this much though, if a game never has need for combat ie Life and Death kind of stuff then normal skill/conflict/opposition resolution should take care of it quite well.

However, in a game where Life and Death can be serious, there should be a rules set that governs it to avoid player (and GM) abuse. Perhaps thats why special combat rules are so prevalent, instead of implying the system is immature perhaps we should consider them a "Realist" approach. I can tell you that even the best role players I have played with are going to take MORE chances, get into MORE fights if death is less likely.

One has to take into account that there may be a game where Bob the GM fires at Chrissy his girlfriend and Ross the geek from the LGS. Chrissy dents her armor and tears her pantyhose while Ross has to use Veto Points to fend off setting off the self destruct or being killed all night. Eventually he is out of Veto Points and boom... dies in a beautifully told narrative way.

Yes.

A GM may play your game and cheat or a player may cheat. Their are going to stretch the idea of the NArrative well beyond inteded limits. When you write you write for the audience, when you design a game it has to be with the audience in mind.

People who will like your game and buy it (or play it if its free) will not necassarily play it the way you intend it. Its true that even if you put in special rules for combat, they can still chuck 'em and do something else. In my experience however, its much better to have them there because Combat SHOULD be special.

Why? Its interfering in my great story! Well if you don't want players to avoid combat, minimizing the rules won't make a difference. In FACT large and convoluted combat systems may have a better deterant effect then a rules light combat system.

Example:
"Combat with this one guy may take 3 hours for 18 seconds of real time... perhaps I will bribe him instead.."

vs.

"Hey fights are three simple rolls! Roll 3d10 and add my Chiggy with it Points! He dies with no pants on!"

People point at system and say Hack n Slash and it is not always system. It comes from limited choices. I have yet to see a game yet where a realistic sort of combat ie one that COULD turn deadly, that deters combat. Of course I have not seen eery game out there. I still have alot of ground to cover :)

In my opinion the best way to deter combat at the design level is to make the consequences BAD. When even if you win a fight the police confiscate the probably illegal Laser gun your using, then players might (some of us are hard heads afterall) get the idea there is more to gaming then hack n slash.

All that being said, I think a combat system with similar mechanics to the rest of the skill resolution system probably works best just to confuse players less.

Just my 2 Lunars

SMH
ADGBoss

[Marco]

I'm fine with combat being resolved same as everything else. I'm cool with that. It's elegant.

But I want my Shotokan Karate bad ass to be modeled differently in the system than a huge beer-bellied brawler and a Black Tiger Claw Kung Fu fighter so the rules for Photography had better be pretty damn detailed to make both Mike and I happy.

In practice the photgraphy isn't usually as exciting as combat so extremely detailed rules for it don't enhance the excitment (they might enhance the precision of determining the outcome--but is that all that exciting--or beneficial?)

This is theoretically possible (big list of modifiers for combat, big list for photography, etc.) But really, if in practice you have a big list for combat and magic and car chases and a tiny one for under-sea ecology then you're back where you started ... And a if my character is well modeled in a phsical fight and differentiated *by system* and with enough complexity ot make me happy then you have a combat system. It's a sub-set of the resolution system--but it's still a combat system.

-Marco

[contracycle]

One has to take into account that there may be a game where Bob the GM fires at Chrissy his girlfriend and Ross the geek from the LGS.

Do we?  I'm not sure that designing for completely dysfunctional personal relationships can be done.  No system will prevent this sort of mis-use.

In FACT large and convoluted combat systems may have a better deterant effect then a rules light combat system.

Why do we want to "deter from combat"?  We don't - we want to deter from combat ONLY.  Hence, making the combat system bulky and slow is ineffective becuase it applies equally to both "good" and "bad" uses of violence in the game.  A slow system as you decsribed deters players from the whole game, I think, rather than just combat.

People point at system and say Hack n Slash and it is not always system. It comes from limited choices.

The problem is that system can be used to limit choices - your slow clunky system proposal does just that, it posits a system which deters a certain form of behaviour.

I have yet to see a game yet where a realistic sort of combat ie one that COULD turn deadly, that deters combat.

I have; or more accurately what I have seen is hack-n-slash deterred because its too risky.  What you get instead is an ambush, and rightly so.  If a system is dangerous and sudden, it presents a much greater threat level than a system which is progressive and operates by attrition.

In my opinion the best way to deter combat at the design level is to make the consequences BAD. When even if you win a fight the police confiscate the probably illegal Laser gun your using, then players might (some of us are hard heads afterall) get the idea there is more to gaming then hack n slash.

IMO this never works - because sentencing a character to 20 years in jail might as well be a death sentence.  You set up two problems: first, that your nominal punishment is not actually available to use, and second, that players start to fight the very forces of authority you had hoped would deter fighting.  Sooner or later they will off someone, or want to, and then they become outlaws - which can be Kewl.  If you confiscate their weapons they will be martial artists and specialise in smuggling things.  Precisely becuase this is a world-property and not a system-property the player legitimately sees it as an problem to be overcome rather than a proscription on in-game behaviour.

[Mike Holmes]

Definitely some good food for thought in these posts and the related ones but I am not as sold on the idea of narrative combat. I will say this much though, if a game never has need for combat ie Life and Death kind of stuff then normal skill/conflict/opposition resolution should take care of it quite well.

Well, we're agreed here. The question that comes up, however, is how many games need Combat. I'd say they all need to be able to resolve Life/Death, and anything else that occurs. The question isn't having a resolution system, it's having a combat system. That being defined as additions or exceptions to the rules that treat combat differently than all other resolutions. I'd personally argue that Combat is made exceptional mostly by tradition, and that the proportion of games with combat systems would be lower if RPGs had not been born of wargames.

However, in a game where Life and Death can be serious, there should be a rules set that governs it to avoid player (and GM) abuse. Perhaps thats why special combat rules are so prevalent, instead of implying the system is immature perhaps we should consider them a "Realist" approach. I can tell you that even the best role players I have played with are going to take MORE chances, get into MORE fights if death is less likely.

One has to take into account that there may be a game where Bob the GM fires at Chrissy his girlfriend and Ross the geek from the LGS. Chrissy dents her armor and tears her pantyhose while Ross has to use Veto Points to fend off setting off the self destruct or being killed all night. Eventually he is out of Veto Points and boom... dies in a beautifully told narrative way.

Yes.

The fact that games without combat systems do exist, and do just fine without them should speak to the fact that there is no "abuse" to avoid. People put in combat systems because it's traditional to assume that abuse must occur in this realm. The easiest way to avoid abuse, however (is my legislator listening? this applies to taxes, too), is to avoid having any special rules. One good set applying to all situations is less subject to abuse than one with exceptions. I contend that it is specifically because combat systems are usually presented in a competitive wargaming fashion that people seek to "abuse" them at all.

A GM may play your game and cheat or a player may cheat. Their are going to stretch the idea of the NArrative well beyond inteded limits. When you write you write for the audience, when you design a game it has to be with the audience in mind.

It's my experience that if people want to cheat, they will cheat. How does having more rules not give them more oportunity to cheat? How will these rules stop the cheaters? Again, from what I've seen, and others here back me up, if a person wants to cheat there's little to nothing that a game system can do to stop them. A system should not be desigend to prevent bad play, it should be desigend to promote good play. The whole positive/negative reinforcement thing.

People who will like your game and buy it (or play it if its free) will not necassarily play it the way you intend it. Its true that even if you put in special rules for combat, they can still chuck 'em and do something else. In my experience however, its much better to have them there because Combat SHOULD be special.

I can't help what people will or will not do with my system that it does not engender. If people intentionally play against the way I design the game, there's nothing I can do about that, and I cannot be concerned. What I can do is design a game that I think will engender a particular style of play that I think makes sense for the game in question and hope that it works. To the extent that it does, I have made a good game. If the players are playing, but not having fun, to me that's not a success. This is what the design strives for.

Nobody ever said that combat shouldn't be special. All I've said is that the system should not unnaturally encourage it, unless that's a specifically desired effect.

Why? Its interfering in my great story! Well if you don't want players to avoid combat, minimizing the rules won't make a difference. In FACT large and convoluted combat systems may have a better deterant effect then a rules light combat system.

Example:
"Combat with this one guy may take 3 hours for 18 seconds of real time... perhaps I will bribe him instead.."

vs.

"Hey fights are three simple rolls! Roll 3d10 and add my Chiggy with it Points! He dies with no pants on!"

First, I think that you have me confused with the Narrativists. I am pretty Simulationist, believe it or not. I'm not really interested in story at all.

And get this. Not having a combat system has nothing at all to do with GNS mode. Nothing at all. One can have a Narrativist game about combat, and that would require special rules. One can have a Gamist game that was about money, and required no combat system. No correlation.

Your example is non-sensical. I am assuming that if you put in a combat system that you'll do a good job and make it as entertaining as the rest of the game. Else you'd better not have a combat system. If it is entertaining at all, players will see the preponderance of mechanics and be drawn to it.

People point at system and say Hack n Slash and it is not always system. It comes from limited choices. I have yet to see a game yet where a realistic sort of combat ie one that COULD turn deadly, that deters combat.

It is always system. No game without a combat system has a bias toward combat. While player chioces may not be limited, the player is informed by the mechanics that this is the sort of game that he's playing. Your point about lethality agrees with mine. Despite the lethality of a combat system, players will still use it if it exists. So to deter players from engaging in combat, lose the combat system. Know what? They'll still get into fights. But at least it won't be unnaturally contributed to by the system.

In my opinion the best way to deter combat at the design level is to make the consequences BAD. When even if you win a fight the police confiscate the probably illegal Laser gun your using, then players might (some of us are hard heads afterall) get the idea there is more to gaming then hack n slash.

This seldom works in practice. And when it does, all you've done is confuse the players. They see a game about combat. But you've made combat a no-no. So what do we do now? How about not havng a combat system, and thus not telling the players in the first place that the game is about combat? You'll find playing these combat systemless designs that suddenly the players start to be informed by the stuff that you point out above. Without you needing to point it out. They do it themselves. Why? Because they've got nothing telling them otherwise. They revert to normal human social systems for behavior instead of game based ones.

All that being said, I think a combat system with similar mechanics to the rest of the skill resolution system probably works best just to confuse players less.

So, then it's a good thing? We can agree at least that, if yuo have a combat system that it should be an extension of the normal resolution process? Well, then we don't completely disagree. :-)

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

SMH,

Please check out the guidelines for Forge Netiquette at the top of the Site Discussion, to see some suggestions about resurrecting older threads.

No big deal - better to have this one all by itself anyway, 'cause it's a good discussion.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Wilson]

Here's a question: Where does a game cross the line into having a "combat system?"

Suppose GotE* has 2 pages that discuss how the general mechanic would apply to tusslin' and such. There's an explanation about how you figure out who goes first and so on, and how successes translate into a world of hurt.

Is that a "combat system?"

*here I am referring to a game I haven't finished in geeky acronym terms. Pretentious and wholly satisfying.

[Mike Holmes]

SMH,

Please check out the guidelines for Forge Netiquette at the top of the Site Discussion, to see some suggestions about resurrecting older threads.

No big deal - better to have this one all by itself anyway, 'cause it's a good discussion.

My fault, Ron. I should have suggested a new thread, but instead suggested resurrecting the old one.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Here's a question: Where does a game cross the line into having a "combat system?"

As I'm fond of saying these things are spectra. The defining line would be where there was any rule that made combat or survival rules an exception. As I've said before, the "last vestige" of most combat systems to go (or alternately, the first to be introduced), is the Health system. The special resource or roll that prevents the charcter from dying. For example, Hit Points in many systems.

Having hit points (or other Health systems) only indicates that there will be situations where the player will have to resist getting killed. Which does not imply combat necessarily. But the assumption of bodily harm is more than one has to include in a game. Again, not to say that characters can't get hurt or wounded, just that the "normal" resolution system can handle this. You don't need an extra set of rules.

The reason that I susepct that this is often the last to go, is because of the "abuse" idea. If a player has HP, then they can't be arbitrarily killed off. Which doesn't stand up under scrutiny (I've seen perfectly healthy 150 HP D&D characters killed by bolts of lightning when the DM was in a bad mood). Again, it's just a subset of the larger combat system fallacy.

Anyhow, the effect of a small set of combat rules is potentially less. But that's not important. One should have exactly as much combat rules as they think will produce the sort of game that they want. If you distinctly want some combat, but not as much as D&D use less combat rules. If you want combat to only occur in proportion to the characters decisions, or the needs of the story, or as an ancillary form of competition, then don't make any additional rules at all.

Mike

[Valamir]

Once again, as happened the first time around, people are confounding "No combat system" with either or both of the following:  "No combat", or "No way to resolve combat if it happens".

Both of these are incorrect mischaracterizations.

By "no combat system" all that is meant is that there is no system beyond the games standard resolution system specifically designed for combat.

AD&D2E is an example of a game that had two entirely different resolution mechanics for whether one was fighting or using "non weapon proficiencies".  D&D3E made great strides towards making skill rolls and to-hit rolls use almost the same basic mechanic.

If D&D3E is left right there, it is an example of a game with no seperate combat system.  However, what was then done is tack on a huge and ever expanding list of Feats (the VAST majority of which are combat/magical combat oriented) and a slew of tactical rules that amount to a 1:1 scale minis system.  These rules are what give D&D3E a seperate combat system.  If we strip down the tactical stuff and redo the feats to include an equitable number of non combat oriented feats you actually have a game where the combat and non combat systems are pretty much the same).

If you have a good solid and flexible resolution mechanic that can handle all manner of "I want to try to do X, how difficult is it, how good am I at it, what modifiers can I get, and so what do I need to roll" then this same system should be equally good whether X is taking a picture or swinging a sword.  There is no NECESSITY to change the system simply because someone might wind up bleeding.  Note that necessity is different from DESIRE.  

For some, alot of the enjoyment of roleplaying IS in the crunchy tactical stuff that makes up the bulk of seperate "combat systems".  Mike is NOT saying that this is bad (nor is anyone else)...he's saying that if a seperate combat system is to be included it should be precisely BECAUSE its specifically desired...and NOT because it was included by "default".  

Having special rules for combat raises combat to a level of significance in the game greater than those things for which there are no special rules.  If this is what you WANT...if the purpose of your game IS to highlight combat in this way...then great.  However, if this isn't what you want.  If you DON'T have the desire to see combat featured more prominently than anything else...then carefully consider why special rules are necessary.

Note again...that not wanting to see combat featured more prominently than anything else IS NOT the same thing as not wanting combat at all.

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks Ralph,

I hope that clarifies a lot for people out there. I read it, and it looks to me just like what I wrote, but with the way I get misunderstood, I'm not so sure.

That said, some people do seem to have other objections (essentially, that all RPG need to have a combat system for some sort of completeness, or because of some special property of combat). But a lot of the objections are covered by what Ralph said.

Heh, I could mention that the one scene we did of Universalis last night was nothing but combat. All with no combat system. And people seemed to have fun...

Mike

[Matt Wilson]

Heh, I could mention that the one scene we did of Universalis last night was nothing but combat. All with no combat system. And people seemed to have fun...

Mike

Hey, can you give me an example of how a game like Universalis resolves the effects of fighting without "wounds" and all that? How do you apply the effects of being wounded to game play?

[Valamir]

Basically, you have Traits which can be anything from "big and strong" to "Colt .45" to "Cat named Felix".  The total number of traits the character has is his Importance (if you take the time to describe a lot of features about a character, the game assumes that character must be more important than one who is mostly "blank").

There are 3 ways to inflict "damage".  Each case requires spending tokens called Coins, either Coins from the players supply or Coins won in an opposed dice conflict.

1) spend 1 Coin to cross off 1 Trait.  This obviously requires some narrative that directly effects the trait like "the Colt .45 jams" or "Felix gets hit by a car".

2) spend 1 Coin to add a new Trait to the character reflecting some form of injury like "Broken Leg", "Concussion", "Really Tired", "Sick from bad Chinese food".  Note that due to the Importance rule, this method actually INCREASES the Importance of the character...if the character is worth describing detailed injury about, they must be more important than a mook who simply goes down.  Further, this sort of injury is "healed" by using method 1 above and spending a Coin to cross out the Trait representing the injury...with suitable narrative description to avoid being Challenged, of course.

3) spend a number of Coins equal to Importance to simply write the character out of the story for good (except when its not for good and the character comes back ala many soap operas and comic book villains).  This can be for reasons as varied as "head blown off with a shot gun", "eaten by sharks", or "retired to a monastery in Tibet".

I include this here because of its relevance as an example...but further discussion in detail on Universalis mechanics should go down in the Universalis forum.

[Mike Holmes]

Interestingly, I wrote the Combat rant in part because of Ralph's insistence on keeping a concept like Importance in Universalis. His argument, though, is a pretty good one in that Importance is so metagame that it can hardly be counted as a Health System. Still, it does function as one, and you can play without by using the other two methods instead.

All in all, however, it was more than well considered before it was entered into the game. And does fit the needs of the game perfectly. So I'm happy with it.

Synthesis, OTOH, does not have a combat system at all. I'm considering putting in a sort of Health System. It will make sense in the context of the game, however, as it actually deals with the games central Self concept. So, again, I'm not worried about it taking play anywhere it should not.

Mike

[deadpanbob]

I'd personally argue that Combat is made exceptional mostly by tradition, and that the proportion of games with combat systems would be lower if RPGs had not been born of wargames.

I will disagree with you here, if I may.  I think a lot of opinion about this is experiential.  The RPGers that I've encountered in my life, and there have been dozens, often like the tactical crunchiness that comes with explicit and wholly apart combat systems.  When I've questioned folks about this, I usually get a version of the "Well, combat is easily broken down into turns or rounds that make sense, unlike say, a seduction, so it's easy to satisfy that tactical need with combat, and that's why I like the rules for AoA in D&D3E"

I know that historically, the only reason many of these RPGers were even exposed to tactical combat in the first place is because of "the grandfather cause of stupidity" (see http://www.ranter.net/mu ).  

But, the fact of the matter is, many of my RPG compadres (people I've played with), enjoy a tactical game of Magic: the Gathering or the VtM trading card game as much as they like RPGing, because the thing they get the most enjoyment from is that tactical challenge.

So, I think that maybe this is a matter of taste and opinion.

It is always system. No game without a combat system has a bias toward combat. While player chioces may not be limited, the player is informed by the mechanics that this is the sort of game that he's playing. Your point about lethality agrees with mine. Despite the lethality of a combat system, players will still use it if it exists. So to deter players from engaging in combat, lose the combat system. Know what? They'll still get into fights. But at least it won't be unnaturally contributed to by the system.

I have to disagree with you here too.  I think that setting plays a much larger role than you give it credit for.  Even in a game like Synthesis, if a setting were created that played upon the survival aspects of Self, and included a lot of militant organizations and/or violent NPC's, well, then even Synthesis could be about combat.

I agree that RPGs with exceptional (as in full of exceptions and special rules) combat systems tend to inform players that combat will/should be important.  But in the abscense of exceptional combat, the setting can just as powerfully bias a game towards combat.

In such a game run with Synthesis, I might pile on traits such as "Hard to Kill" or "Bad A** MoFo" or "Master of Wuxia" or some such - and thus bias my character and probably my experience toward combat.

So, then it's a good thing? We can agree at least that, if yuo have a combat system that it should be an extension of the normal resolution process? Well, then we don't completely disagree. :-)

I absolutely agree here.  Seamless systems - designed to encourage combat or not - are a lot better for my own personal style of gaming goodness.

Cheers,

Jason

[Demonspahn]

Crud.  I am getting turned around in all this.  So is what being said that the combat system should be the same as the task resolution system?  If so, I agree with that and we tried to do that with our game.

Also, I think I need to reread the reviews of Universalis because I _totally_ have misunderstood the game's system mechanics.  

Anyway, this post was more of a way to subscribe me to this thread.  :)

Pete