Please excuse the lateness of my response. I'm new here.

Seeming that everyone has said "right on", I'm going to try to take the best possible negative argument.

Combat systems are detailed because of two related factors. Firstly, combat systems are a "life and death" issue. They are pretty damn important for the survival of the character. Secondly, combat systems belong in "tactical time" rather than "narrative time".

Photography, whilst being "tactical", at least for snapshots, doesn't quite have the same existential importance as facing sudden evisceration from a Komodo dragon. Gradual death resulting from dehydration has the same net effect (i.e., a corpse) but lacks the same temporal urgency.

I think that's about as good an argument for detailed combat systems I can think of.

Welcome Lev,

If somebody hasn't already mentioned it, standard procedure around here for old threads is to leave them lie and start new threads if you want to discuss the issues (often people doing so provide a link back to the original post).

But, anyhow, I'll address your point, which I'm sorta glad you made. It'll kinda cap off the general discussion about the topic by actually looking at the opposing veiw more closely, and why I don't buy it.

Basically, your argument is a circular one. Yes, if combat is life or death in your game, and if it's handled tactically and not dramatically, then, of course you need to look at it in detail. The fact is that this is simply not neccessary.

In point of fact there are many games where combat, though possessing the theoretical potential for characters to die, doesn't include the mechanical chance of it happening at random. If we're to assume that any activity that could possibly lead a character to gettting killed must automatically be looked at in such detail, then eating should be handled with a detailed system - after all, one could choke to death. More in line with adventure games, how about climbing? Certainly those same games that make combat detailed because it's potentially lethal also have rules for "falling damage." Well, those same games usually make any climbing attempt into one roll. Why not special rules for finding handholds along the way? Rules for using special climbing techniques in certain situations? These games seem to think that the potential for death alone isn't quite good enough to include detailed rules for everything that could cause it.

I'd argue that climbing is pretty "tactical," too. Ask any climber, and they'll use combatative terms to detail their ascent.

In any case, anything can be handled dramatically. Again, there are games that exist that do not have any rules that can handle combat per se, in which combat can only be handled dramatically. And they work fine. So, again, there's no absolute imperative reason why you must have a combat system in your game.

Now, it seems quite possible that you might be saying that for the games that have combat systems, that they make sense. That may be true, but it doesn't address the point of the rant. As I've said before, I'm not saying that games shouldn't have combat systems, or that any particular game that does have one is wrong to have had it. I'm simply saying that the assumption that every game needs a detailed combat system is simply incorrect. That in looking to design a new game, one needs to consider whether or not it really makes sense for their design.

And that, in fact, the acutal percentatage of games that need combat systems is much lower than the percentage that do. Yes, that means that I can point out games that I think would be much, much better without detailed combat systems. Because, again the designers of those games have made the same circular argument that you have. RPGs have combat systems, therefore my RPG has to have a combat system, which makes the game combat oriented, which makes it right that I have a combat system. Assuming that you need to have a combat system because most other RPGs have one is ignoring the fact that it's simply a choice.

Now, if you've consiously decided that your game is about combat, and I mean about it, not just that combat "might" happen, and that therefore we "must" put a combat system in; if one decides that their game is really all about the fighting, then, as I've said above, of course it's important to have a combat system in that case.

But I'd argue that this thought process just isn't followed in most cases. Again, does a game about Mafia violence have to have a combat system? No, in fact I think that a combat system would do substantial harm to the themes of a game meant to emulate something like the show "The Sopranos." Yet most designers would look at such a design and go directly to thinking about how to put together the combat system, without even considering whether or not they should have one. Combat systems have traditionally been perfunctory. When they should be a concsious, and well considered choice.

Mike

Hello,

The above two posts were split from Mike's standard rant #3: combat systems. Everyone, please feel free to contribute to this new thread.

Best,
Ron

Photography, whilst being "tactical", at least for snapshots, doesn't quite have the same existential importance as facing sudden evisceration from a Komodo dragon. Gradual death resulting from dehydration has the same net effect (i.e., a corpse) but lacks the same temporal urgency.

I've said this before--but I want to make this point here.

1. I think Mike is essentially right.
2. I'd change the word from "important" that's used when describing what a game 'is about' to "exciting."

When we played James Bond we rarely had car chases even though they are part of the genre and were one of the strong points of the game--when we did have car chases they were fantastic.

Why didn't we have too many? The reason was that we played with pretty big groups and they mostly tried to stick together and thereore most people weren't in a single car in the way you need for a car chase.

We got our excitement from other places.

But, man, the James Bond car-chase rules with the bidding were *exciting.* But if you told me James Bond is 'about' car chases, I dunno if I'd express it that way.

So, yes, combat is exciting. So is negoitating a deal. So is seducing a lover. So is ... well ... maybe casting a spell could be exciting and you could make a magic game where, when it's time to do magic you get into this tactical, decision based, drawn-out process of casting magic and controling (or being controlled by) the forces you are invoking.

If you do that, and no one plays a mage in a given game, they aren't doing it wrong--but clearly, as a designer, they thought the magic system was gonna be *exciting* so they put in detail.

[ My thoughts on this go a bit further. General conflict systems, like Risus, can be very handy for treating everything the same way--in some cases a given person (me) may find this good for something like combat (where I can roll the dice and imagine what happens) and poor for others (courtroom drama) where I can roll the dice and get a result--but unless someone actually makes an argument that convinces me a success may seem hollow.

Secondly, there is the Toy Quality argument. Any system can have Toy Quality, it's true--however a lot of general resolution systems may be seen by individuals to lack it. I'm less sure about this--but I think it's an interesting line of speculation. ]

-Marco

I think one of the important points to make is that "death" isn't necessarily important to a game. Some popular, well known games require death as part of character creation, after all.

What is important is what restricts or removes a character from play. In most games, death does this. In a lot of games, there are other mechanics which restrict and remove a characte from play, like an enforced retirement mechanic, or somesuch. In the theoretical photography game of the original post in this thread, the possibility of death as a specific means of character restriction/removal is unlikely and deemed unimportant, and as such, there would be no rules to cover it, and there should be no rules to cover it. However, if being beaten out in some photographic contest can force one PC or another to hang up the camera, then there damned well better be a good system for it.

When you realize that death and injury aren't necessarily important, then you alleviate the necessity of combat systems. When you decide that death and injury are important, then you increase the likelihood of a detailed combat system being appropriate.

And yes, all instances of "important" in this post can probably be replaced with "more exciting".

OK, let's run with this pro-forma argument further.

1. Circular argument

Yes, if combat is life or death in your game, and if it's handled tactically and not dramatically, then, of course you need to look at it in detail.

I'm struggling to think of a situation where violent conflict between characters is not a potentially life/death situation. Yes, where there is unambigious advantage one way or another, I guess there is no need for a combat system, and dramatic narrative can play it out, e.g., a seventy-year old cripple is no match for the government-sponsored psycho with an assault rifle in a systematic sense (they may have a chance to get out of it in dramatic narrative, tho').

2. Choking and Climbing

The argument that the events occur in tactical time and have existential import are correct; in that sense I agree with you. In which case I guess I'd have to add to a third factor; that these activities do not require a detailed system on the grounds that one is not facing an active opposing force with a will of its own. This would be the sort of argument I'd would use against the "Mafia violence without a combat system" suggestion. As a PC possibly facing I would want a combat system to exist, rather than being subject to what would ultimately be GM fiat albeit influenced by narrative contributions.

3. Other exciting actions.

Marco is quite correct in suggesting that negotiating a deal, seducing a lover etc can count as exciting. I have no debate with that. However I don't think that a failed negotiation or a failed seduction in itself results in character mortality.

Again, these are just pro-forma arguments whilst I think that a combat system should be included, assuming the setting does have an element of violent danger arising from opposing characters.

Note bene: the argument about "death" can follow Wolfen's definition of "restricts or removes a character from play".

Lev,

I could come at your argument from a ton of different angles. For example, I could point out that people rarely die in boxing matches (when it happens, it's not the intent). One of my points is that very little actual violence by people is indended to kill the other person. Even in "combat" situations, it's actuall considered tactically superior to injure an opponent than it is to kill them. So if nobody is actually trying to kill anybody else, why should it be an inevitable part of what's otherwise lethal conflict.

But we don't even have to go there. What if the game just isn't about combat? What if the RPG is about high stakes finance? Would it make sense to have a combat system in that game? What would the argument for it be? That somebody might get into a fight?

The statement you've quoted is out of context. I didn't mean that combat couldn't be life or death, but that it just isn't in some games. Take InSpectres, for instance. A comedic game. In that game you can accumulate stress, and it makes it harder to do things, but you can never, ever get your character killed. Because the game isn't about exploring the possibility of death.

In Hero Quest, a game that implies lots of violence of the traditional fantasy sort, there is no rule that says, "Oops, rolled X, now your character dies." Nope, you simply can never lose your character unless the GM says it's time for him to die.

Do you suggest that there's something wrong with these games? If not, then you agree with me that combat doesn't have to have the sorts of dramatic weight that you insist that it does.

The tradition in RPGs is for character death to mean that the player is out of the game. This is the real reason why it's seen as so important. It's the ultimate condition of losing the game, or being unable to participate anymore. When that's no longer the case, suddenly there's much less reason to have to worry about it.


As far as having an "active opponent" again, I can point to successful games where that makes no difference to how resolution is conducted. So if it works for those games, then why can't it in others? In Hero Quest, combats are conducted in precisely the same way as any other conflict, for example. And people love to play the game. So how is it true that combat must have special rules for it?

If your argument is not that combat must have special rules to satisfy all players (not just yourself), then you're not arguing against me.

Mike

Wolfen wrote: I think one of the important points to make is that "death" isn't necessarily important to a game. Some popular, well known games require death as part of character creation, after all.

In addition to what Mike said about stuff like boxing being violent but rarely lethal, there's a whole genre of RPG that is very violent but in which violence rarely, if ever, leads to death: superhero games. (And even when death does happen, it's rarely permanent.) Reflecting the source material, in most superhero games it is massively difficult to actually kill someone though violence is very common. Most of the superhero games I've played in -- outside of one ill-starred attempt to play GURPS Supers, which was amongst the bloodiest games I've ever been in, hehe -- go their entire distance with no death at all.

And like Wolfen said, yeah, in some games death isn't that big a deal. This is true in many D&D games, for instance. I mean, in high-level D&D games, a character generally stays dead for a whole turn! Death is trivial. So to say that combat should be given massive priority because character might die isn't true in, ironically, one of the RPGs that is closest to RPG's wargaming roots.

So, in the first place, there is a whole popular genre of actual RPGs that are very violent but in which violence rarely leads to death, and in the second place there are a bunch of games in which there is a lot of death but it hardly means the end of the character.

Just to clear up repeated misconceptions I agreed with Wolfen's more precise definition. I think to be even clearer the statement "of existential import(ance)".

Using that definition then combat systems do become relevant even with death, finito, is not a great probability (e.g., Toon, InSpectres, and high level games) or even when it is extremely common (e.g., Paranoia).

I would also apply that to the (rather good) example of boxing. Sure, "death" isn't an issue there, but the issues of "tactical time", "existential importance" and "active opponent" apply. A roleplaying game about boxing that doesn't have a combat system would be pretty weird.

(I won't comment on Hero Quest because there's a multitude reasons why I think that game is one of the worst games ever produced - and this is from someone who has been playing RuneQuest since 1981. )

Now, what about those games where (using pro-forma necessary and sufficient conditions) of "existential importance", "tactical time" and "active opponent" do not apply?

I guess my answer to that is, "ummm... why are you actually playing this, rather than living it?".

Probably on that note, we're in furious agreement.

Lev,

Would you also say that it is important for games to have detailed "Diplomatic Combat" systems too? I mean, rhetoric takes place in "tactical time", it is against an "active opponent", and it is of "existensial imporance". You could easily get into a debate with the local authorities who suspect you of treason. Failure to win that debate could result in your execution.

Now, my feeling is that you will say, "No, this isn't what I'm talking about." And that's cool, what exactly are you talking about? I also want to point out that (probably unintentionally) you keep redefining your definition of what makes something require a "combat system" in order to make it apply to combat. That's cool, but I just wanted to point out that it looks highly circular from where I'm sitting.

Thomas

Lev, I'm afraid that you're going to have to address the HQ argument. Are you saying that nobody could possibly like HQ? Can't be that, since, for example, it's my favorite game. So what's your counterargument?

If it's just that you don't like games that handle the conditions that you come up with in the manner that HQ does, then you're just talking about your own personal preference. Which I allow for. Again, if it's the designers considered opinion that such a game needs such a system, then he's right to put it in. All I'm concerned with is that they've considered that there's a viable alternative. If they've played HQ, and can't stand it, then no, of course I don't expect them to make a game that way. But if they're just assuming that combat systems make sense without even considering the alternative, then they've made a mistake.

You've allowed that there might be certain types of games where combat systems don't make sense. So, really, I don't think you're arguing against me.

Mike

lev_lafayette wrote: OK, let's run with this pro-forma argument further.



Again, these are just pro-forma arguments whilst I think that a combat system should be included, assuming the setting does have an element of violent danger arising from opposing characters.

For those who have not noticed, can I reiterate that what I'm presented is a pro-forma argument. In other words, I am not necessarily supporting the point of view I'm arguing for. I am interested in pushing an argument for the purpose of testing (and perhaps improving) the initial proposition. So in that sense as well, the propositions I've put are subject to change as well. Heck, I may end up agreeing entirely with Mike's rant.

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!".

If extra precision is what is being defined as liking "crunchy" combat systems, that I accept that charge. I do think particular circumstances (as mentioned, tactical time, existential import, active opponent with its own will) demand different levels of detail than those who do have this criteria. Oh, and yes, I does make sense to apply combat-like rules to things like the attempted takeover of a "plague spirit").

With regards to use of Diplomacy skill, I had previously addressed that. Basically, Diplomacy itself is not a matter of "existential importance", although the results arising from diplomatic debates may have that criteria. To give a practical example, shouting in the face of a local greengrocer and accusing him of sexual acts with small animals is likely to result in a minor tustle. Doing the same to Kim Il-Jong will probably result in a bloody war. But both can do similar physical harm armed with a knife.

Finally, although it is OT, I don't like HeroQuest because of it's lack of differentiation between traits and skills (I don't care how well trained you are, there are certain things which a physically impossible for some people) and I don't like the resolution system (lack of combat-specific mechanics aside). I do however think Glorantha is one of the better fantasy worlds on the market. In a nutshell however, I prefer RuneQuest.

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

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?

lev_lafayette wrote: 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!".

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.

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?

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.

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

lev_lafayette wrote: 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.

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.

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.

lev_lafayette wrote: 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.

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...

lev_lafayette wrote: 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

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

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

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.

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

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).

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

Lev,

Let me try another tangent. Since I'm convinced that you aren't saying anything that I don't disagree with, how about this: You win. I agree with you.

There, are you satisfied now? I can't find anything that you're saying that goes against my position.

If what you're saying is that the rant needs to be rewritten, then be my guest. I think the thread serves to make all of these points just fine already. I don't think I'm obligated to write any more than I have.

Mike

Since I'm convinced that you aren't saying anything that I don't disagree with

Dauntless wrote: 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.

As you point out, this is a POV that supports Gamism. Would you admit that supporting other modes might not have such requirements?

I mean, I've seen freeformers create wonderfully realistic and compelling, and wild and mad combat narratives with no rules at all.

Again, you guys are talking about what supports certain styles of play. Nothing you've said is new. Yes, to have good gamism support you need certain of these things (I'm the guy around here who tells people who want to do gamism to check out Game Theory all the time, and who discusses imperfect knowledge and the like). Nobody has said that in these cases that one shouldn't have these elements. So I'm not sure why you persist in bringing these points up.

If in fact what you really want is to discuss good design techniques of this sort, then I suggest that you start a new thread on the subject that doesn't have the baggage of this thread attached to it. If you do so, do your research and find some of the many threads from the Forge that have looked at these issues, and link to them as background.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Nothing you've said is new... Nobody has said that in these cases that one shouldn't have these elements. So I'm not sure why you persist in bringing these points up.

If in fact what you really want is to discuss good design techniques of this sort, then I suggest that you start a new thread on the subject that doesn't have the baggage of this thread attached to it. If you do so, do your research and find some of the many threads from the Forge that have looked at these issues, and link to them as background.

lev_lafayette wrote: Personally, I find those statements as contradictory. On the one hand we're supposed to start no threads that don't have the "baggage" of previous discussions, whereas at the same time we're supposed to link previous threads as a background?

What MJ said.

Mike

Hiya,

This thread's now closed. Lev, please feel free to start up new threads with the new topics.

Yes, you have it exactly right: new threads, with references to the old threads in them.

Best,
Ron