Combat Rules

[Grover]

Y'know, roleplaying games frequently have much larger rulesets for combat than for other activities.  This is often explained as a throwback to wargaming roots, or because the game is focused on combat.  
While I think there is probably some truth in those explanations, I have an another idea which I think is interesting.

I think that one reason combat needs more extensive rules than other areas of conflict is that players are less likely to be familiar with deadly combat.
Contrasting social conflicts with physical conflicts is instructive.  Players will generally be familiar with what kinds of things happen in social situations, and what the trade-offs are between various kinds of actions.  For example, they can bargain with a merchant, and they know the risks of making friends with a noble who is currently out of favor in the court.  On the other hand, most players have never been in a serious fight of any kind, and wouldn't be able to accurately assess the possible strategies and their potential outcomes when dealing with a small skirmish between two men with swords and three men with spears on a bridge.

Most games I've seen take one of two approaches.  One approach is to include a combat engine of sufficient complexity to cover the tactical nuances of combat.  This allows players to evaluate the risks and rewards of various strategies, and then make an informed decision based on the rules present in the combat engine.  This approach is Simulationist, but also appeals to Gamist players because the combat engine provides structure for competition.  The other approach is to gloss over combat, treating it like any other conflict in the game.  This looser system has more appeal to Narrativist players and GMs, since it allows them to pick whatever strategic considerations would be appropriate for the story.
For example, suppose the party is fleeing from a large band of orcs when they come to a bridge, where one of the characters decides to make a stand to buy time for the rest of the party to escape.  There are a number of variables here, including but not limited to:
* The amount of damage he does to the orcs
* The amount of damage the orcs do to him
* The effect the stand has on the parties likelihood of escape
Since the players don't have any experience with this type of conflict they need some way to decide whether or not someone should stay back to hold off the orcs.  A complex combat engine gives players information about these variables.  In D&D the orcs might be able to cross the bridge (while getting shot a bit with arrows) and kill the character fairly easily, and then continue tracking the party without any significant delay.  In a more realistic combat system, the character might be able to delay the orcs longer and kill several of them.  In a more freeform system, by contrast, the players and GM can pick the strategic variables to make the story better.  For instance, if one of the characters has betrayed the party and wants to atone for his sin, maybe he could remain behind, ensuring the parties safety and his death.  On the other hand, if one of the characters wants to prove himself to the party, maybe the character can remain behind, and give the orcs a good fight, and then escape to rejoin the party.

I've kinda been blathering on a bit.  My main point is that one reason for complex combat rules is the lack of player experience with combat.  In contrast, you can get away with less complex rules for things like social interaction because even the most hardcore Simulationist is more able to wing it fairly well.

[Andrew Martin]

Y'know, roleplaying games frequently have much larger rulesets for combat than for other activities.  This is often explained as a throwback to wargaming roots, or because the game is focused on combat.

I'd suggest that the main reason is actually, "Force of Habit" or "Peer Pressure", as in "other RPGs have combat systems, so I better put one in my RPG." This can be shown by the vast number of RPGs that have combat systems that are based directly or indirectly on the D&D wargame system.

There are very, very few RPGs that are based on real combat results. Here are the ones that I know about. RuneQuest 2 was based on LARP combat. Riddle of Steel is based on ARMA recreation of Western fighting styles. My own S combat system is based on cinematic recreation of combat as depicted in movies and in Japanese literature. FATAL is based on the authors experience in recreated combat, IIRC. I think there may be a few others that are deliberately grounded in reality.

I started roleplaying, playing AD&D with a guy (the GM) who was in combat in Vietnam. He refused to play modern or SF wargames and roleplaying games, because, in his experience, the rules were nothing like the reality he experienced. He limited his play to fantasy AD&D, because these were rules that were unrealistic.

[Daniel Solis]

Don't forget Wushu's combat, which is geared towards, in the creator's words, a fight choreographer's mindset rather than that of a tactician or strategist.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Grover, I think you'll be interested in reading Mike's standard rant #3: combat systems.

Also, the current range of available games seems to have bucked the historical trend very thoroughly. Wushu is only one of many examples.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

The problem with the idea that it's simply because combat is unfamiliar, is that, if that were the case, you'd see similarly complex systems in terms of, say, theivery. Instead, you see these things handled with single die rolls against a target. Note that often it's not even that combat is all that much more complex, but that it's decided that it has to be broken down into smaller tasks to determine outcome. How come ten seconds of combat in GURPS takes 100 times longer to detail mechanically than ten minutes of breaking into a building?

I'd even accept this argument if any designer had ever made it. But the guys who made D&D were wargamers, and imitating their own wargame designs (we can trace them back through chainmail and other wargame designs). And games since have tended to look to some extent like D&D. So it's plainly traditional.

More importantly, when you play without the assumption that it's more complicated, or needs to be more detailed, the fallacy is revealed in that players produce narration that's just as good or better than the detailed systems. Turns out, too, that for the most part, they're not like Andrew's player. They play D&D quite happily because they have no idea what realistic combat is like, and they don't really care. They want the combat to be plausible within the genre that they're playing. For which they have fantasy novels, spy literature, movies, etc. Emulating these seems to bring the greatest pleasure for most players.

And it turns out that we're all fairly expert at this sort of narration. So no extra rules are neccessary. That's not to say that it's not fun to play Phoenix Command from time to time if I really do want a detailed and realistic portrayal. Just that it's only one option amongst many.

Mike

[Callan S.]

Combat is conflict externalised. The majority of RP'ers are male, men are practical creatures and like conflict that they can manipulate physically. Also males have a strong, millennia long history of hunting and gathering.

People also like to have something solid between their character and their characters demise in a game. A simple rule like 'No PC can die' is one method, another method is to use more rules than that. I believe our millennia long history relates more to the latter. Whether this is implimented through the systems rule book or through social contract rules, it's still rules being put into place.

On the other hand, I believe the example shows how pointless this gets sometimes. What is important? That someone is technically able to hold off orcs at a bridge...or that fact they want to? That they will risk their lives to save the others. That they care that much about this! This examination is rich and fruitful (IMO), but the focus tends to boil down to statistical analysis of the situation and then moving pawns, sorry, PC's into position, regardless of what those PC's care about. Passion will not determine who does what, BAB will.

Don't get me wrong, statistics are great. If a wounded and weak guy decides to stay at the bridge, this technical weakness (shown by a bunch of rules) helps to highlight even further his care for the others. The technical side is great, in a purely narrative game you don't get this contrast...sure, you can say someones wounded, but it sounds like your forcing contrast to be there, rather than the technicalities of the matter being concrete and the contrast is thus similarly concrete.

But while its clear these rules are not the end but a means to examine the end (which is passion), all too often they end up the sole focus of examination themselves. But is this the result of combat rules, or lack of skill of the gaming group?

[Umberhulk]

The reason that there are so many combat rules in comparison to other conflict resolution rules, is that most other conflicts are social in nature and the people at the table playing act the parts of their characters and play that social interaction out in the real world versus the game world.  When you start to talk about the physics of the game world then all the simulationist rules start to crop up to explain how those physics work in that game world.  You could go get wooden sticks and act out the conflict by beating each other up in the backyard of the real world and say that the winner defends the bridge in the game world, but most people would prefer to keep the game cerebral.  So, in short, the physical world of the game world spawns more rules for the aspects that the game is focusing than the social aspects of the game because the social aspects can be played out in the real world (that's why the whole S-part of the GNS model exists, right?)

Personally, I really hate most social interaction rules in most roleplaying games because it takes the social aspect out of the play of the game.

[John Kim]

The reason that there are so many combat rules in comparison to other conflict resolution rules, is that most other conflicts are social in nature and the people at the table playing act the parts of their characters and play that social interaction out in the real world versus the game world.

Well, you can play out combat by freeform description as well -- but many people do not find it very satisfying even if they are satisfied with freeform social interactions.  I think the Grover had a good point that it is lack of player experience with combat that makes it a key point of detailing.  You will note, for example, that the other key subsystem that tends to take up half the book is magic.  

Actions like walking, climbing, talking, and so forth are relatively easy to freeform because the players all have fairly similar views of them.  There is less chance of assumption clash.  I don't think it's anything about physical/social per se -- everyday physical actions like walking also don't need much rules.  

Personally, I really hate most social interaction rules in most roleplaying games because it takes the social aspect out of the play of the game.

This seems to be fairly common in my experience, but the Forge seems to have a lot of players who prefer using the same mechanics for both combat and social interactions.  I tend to be like you -- I tend not to use die rolls so much.  I use social skill rolls but in mostly a freeform way.

[Umberhulk]

John,

I disagree that walking isn't modelled by rules in a lot of games.  Everytime there are movement points, facing, and maps the games are describing walking, running, going prone, crawling, etc..  Most people understand walking and running in a freeform way, but how does that compare with the other character that is carrying 100 lbs. on their back?  

-Brodie

P.S. - I love your website.  What a great resource that Big Ass List of Games is!

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

Is it because most of us actually like combat!

We like the idea of combat but would dred to do it.
We like the idea of magic but can not do it.

Why does the plot of so many of the greatest novels or movies pivot around dramatic fight scenes or magical/fateful occurences?

We are entertained by fiction, fantasy, the impossible. Social enactments and mundane things like walking, we do every day, there is not a great buzz in reenacting them.

On the other hand when we role play we get to do the things that we can't do every day, like combat, and if we are going to play a game with rules and charts and stats then let's dedicate them to that.

So I think Grover is right. The rules are there because we don't know how to do it (combat) - but also I would like to add that the rules are also there because most of us love a good fight scene!

[pete_darby]

The problem being then, that combat rules in rpg's generally don't produce good fight scenes.

Or rather, they're geared towards fight scenes that are either tactically interesting, "realistic" or dramatic, and don't support the other two priorities. But you cna guess where I'm going here.

Your "good fight scene" may not be my "good fight scene".

Why combat rules in every game? Because most rpg's are abuot combat. Becuase they're proud of the lineagegoing back to Chainmail. Because it's easier to add more gam / sim rules onto existing rulessets to make your more gam / sim. Because the traditional audience for rpg's has always been adolescent / psychologically adolescent males, for whom, in their fantasies, "violence is always an option," and other solutions are "another way" that doesn't need nrules because, hey , I know how to talk to people .

[Ron Edwards]

Hello everyone,

I suggest that it is not corrrect to assume that the presence of unique or uniquely-detailed rules for combat necessarily means that a given game's content will have more combat in it, or that combat will play a bigger role in whatever story, if any, is going on.

The presence of those sorts of rules merely means that combat, when present, requires learning more stuff (not necessarily a bad thing) and (historically speaking) takes longer to run. Those two things can result in play which prioritizes combat, for a number of reasons. To assume either that they must, or that play without them will not prioritize combat, is mistaken.

Grover, one thing that would really help this discussion - especially since it's drawing in a lot of new posters at the Forge, who aren't familiar with older discussions yet - is for you to state, up front, exactly what problem or issue of role-playing this phenomenon represents for you.

Secondly, if you could compare your thoughts about that with Mike's in his Standard Rant (linked above), pointing out what's similar and what's different between the two of your views, then we could really get somewhere.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

So I think Grover is right. The rules are there because we don't know how to do it (combat) - but also I would like to add that the rules are also there because most of us love a good fight scene!

Nobody has said that combat is a bad thing. Or even that having combat systems is a bad thing. We all like combat. The quesiton is not why games have combat. The question is why games have separate special systems for combat.

There are very good reasons to do this. They include putting the system in so that people unfamiliar with combat will have an easier time. Does it sound like I'm contradicting myself? I'm not.

My point is that, nobody has ever put a combat system in a game for that reason. Not even Jake Norwood did it for that reason.

Ask every designer out there why they included a combat system, and they'll tell you that it's because it's perfunctory. They'll say, well, I wanted combat, so I put in a combat system. With the assumption that you have to have a special combat system to do combat.

When we all know that you don't need a special combat system to do it, any resolution system can handle this (Mr. Kim's saying that this is freeform is unfair - sometimes it's in fact very complex mechanically, just no different from any other resolution).  

Now, again, this doesn't make these games that make this assumption bad. It just means that the reason for combat systems is historical and traditional. It means that the vast majority of people who put combat systems in their games did so without considering the alternative.

Now, do you mean that combat systems serve this purpose? That they teach about combat, and how to describe it? I'd say that it does to some small extent, but where I'd agree with John Kim is that it's more about satisfaction. That is, most players want this sort of thing because it's more satisfying than not having it.

There, I'll even say that it's better design to have a combat system in the game for most players. But I still maintain that it's a decision that should be made consciously, and not, as it usually is, by tradition. That is, the alternative deserves as much scrutiny as an option, even for games in which we want or expect combat.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I think implanting a combat system is traditional only as a symptom, the cause of it being instinct (as I said above).

We are fascinated by death. Draw a chart on rules density, with one end about death and the other about anything else...the density occurs near the death end and thins out from there, in a majority of systems.

I'd suggest your going against more than tradition/peer pressure when not putting a combat system in, your going against human instinct. And in saying that, I'm not saying its wrong to do so, just framing the situation.

People want to throw cameras at other people in wheelchairs! Heh heh, just proving I read the other thread! :)

EDIT: But yeah, as Mikes rant says, you don't have to have a combat system in (though all systems end up with conflict resolution systems...ah crap, someone will tell me one which doesn't now). But will you be failing to address deep seated human instincts, on the fascination with death? I mean, if you made a game where there is no charisma score or such like, you might feel its continually missing something. I'm talking about a nagging feeling of 'something intimate is missing here...'

[weeble]

Hi there,
  I'd just like to make the observation that in most of the games I've played, the combat system is primarily about fine-grained timing.[1] When performing an activity where every second counts, and indeed characters are making lots of decisions really quickly, it's often not satisfactory to abstract over all the details. There are other times when decisions must be made quickly, like when trapped in the room filling with water, when playing in-game sports, driving in a car-chase, etc... Often these things will use the "combat" timing system too. Perhaps another reason so many games have combat systems is that they're genuinely useful even when games don't involve combat. And "combat system" is less of a mouthful than "fine-grained timing system".

Weeble.

[1] In these games the bit about one person trying to hit another person is generally more or less consistent with the rest of the system. The only other special part of combat is the system that tracks the effects of injury.