Something I'm noticing here and there is an "anti-combat bias." Now, before everyone's breeches start bunching up I want to preface by saying that I both understand and agree that certain games don't need one because it isn't the focus of the game.

But here's my thing...isn't it really a big issue? See, maybe it's just me (I am the wacko behind TROS, after all), but most RPGs at some point or another turn to combat as a form of climactic resolution to a problem. No, not all, I agree. But most. More than most. In my group, just about all. Why? I dunno, maybe I'm repressed and just want to hit stuff. Maybe my player are. Maybe we have enough soap-opera drama in real life and violence is no longer socially acceptable, so we do it in our little escapist worlds...

One of the most common suggestions I hear to folks setting up new games right now is "don't have a combat system." I think, though, that for most of these cases (man am I generalizing today...) what really needs to be said is "99% of combats in RPGs bore me frikkin' to death, and I don't want your game to do that to me when I can do it somewhere else."

I'm not proposing that we all write another TROS. I am saying that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a common practice in revolutionary movements, and the Forge is a breeding ground for revolutionary and revolutionary-wanna-be movements), that maybe we should first say "what kind of combat are you looking at for this game? How often are PCs going to be fighting as you envision things? Never or rarely--no combat system at all. Constantly--better have an entertaining one that fits your mood/premise, or you lose. Why? Because Combat IS important to most gamers (I dare say), but its always done so poorly that we start thinking that we're better off without it.

Let's look at combat in the light of GNS. (Preface: my understanding of GNS varies widely based on who's reading what I write. I'm focusing on the basics here)

Combat in Gamism: should promote competition, winning, etc. Lethality (or rather, losing) should be low and/or not too painful, as Gamist-types hate dying (that's my experience with them). It should not be dull.

Combat in Narrativism: should promote the story/premise at hand, and should be worth imortalizing in paint later. Dramatic or otherwise powerful from a "what really just happened here...it was more than athletics, wasn't it?" And it should not be dull.

Combat in Simulationism: should be "realistic" (whatever that means) enough to suspend the players' disbelief or at least carry the proper mood/tone/atomosphere for the setting at hand (simmy combat systems for TOON and TROS would be very different, but both "real" on their own grounds). It should give us simmy types the rush of battle, and should avoid unneccesary detail for what we're trying to simulate. And it should not be dull.

What's the problem, then? Combat is dull as hell generally. D&D2E (I've never played 3E) was like pulling teeth. Combats lasted forever and ended through HP attrition. WW? The worst I've ever seen, I think. Roll after roll after painful roll for what? Nothing!

Many games at the Forge are trying to fix this. Sorcerer. TROS. Final Stand.

Other games here fit the "it doesn't need a CS" mold...but what are they?
-OctaNe, InSpectres, Dust Devils, etc...
All games that focus on player-driven direction. When that's the case, they don't need combat rules, because it's built into the director-stance stuff. But I don't think that most of the games getting designed here are like that. They're intentionally structured, maybe a little simulationist, because that's what so many of us got used to when we fell in love with RPGs.

I guess what I'm saying in just about the most long-winded fashion I can manage is...let's help people create combat systems that we want to play instead of pretending that most games can do without them. There are oodles of stupid assumptions about combat systems that we could allieviate by helping people to create the combat that they really want, assuming they want it. If they don't, well...there needs to be a way to handle combat (because I promise you, if I ever play, I'm getting into a fight), even if it's a set of guidlines for using the blanket system that resolves everything.

Thanks for getting this far (if you did).

Jake

> ...let's help people create combat systems that we want to play...

This is quoted from http://swordforum.com/sfu/swordsmanship/parrying.html from a while back:

...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

Andrew Martin wrote:

...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is a two actions, the first is a parry, the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained. Opinions? Advice?

Hi Jake

Speaking for myself, and only myself but I'll bet there are others with a similar take on this, I don't have an anti-combat thing so much as an anti-wargame thing. I don't really enjoy the darn things but combat in most of the RPGs I have played are heavily wargame-based. Whether it uses miniatures or not. Conflict, even physical conflict, can be exciting and all of that, but how combat is typically handled in many, many RPGs leaves me cold.

The problem is that I'm so burned-out on the subject, I treat it like when Jesus Freaks come knocking on my door. *SLAM!*

"I have a new, better way to do RPG combat!"

"Really? How does it work?"

"Well, you roll d12s equal to your weapons damage rating and..."

*SLAM!*

Unfortunately, this means I miss it when someone has something I would find genuinely interesting to offer.

Hi Jake,

I think that you're confounding two issues: presence of combat in the game-story-situation and presence of a unique or distinctive rules sub-set called a combat system.

To take Elfs or Trollbabe, neither has a distinctive combat system - the rules for combat are just an application of the plain old resolution system with little or no extras. InSpectres and Dust Devils are even more so; Universalis (pending Rules Gimmicks) is drastically so.

But all of the games I mentioned can include a hell of a lot of rousing combat, and in fact I think Elfs' combat system is widely underrated.

On the other hand, we have games like Swashbuckler, TROS, and a few others. In these, combat resolution does have a unique rules set, and it pretty much follows the principle that I laid out in a recent Indie Design thread - nothin' wrong with multiple systems in a rules set as long as (a) the systems' special properties enhance the experience of playing that sort of thing (combat, magic, etc) and (b) the various systems don't overlap in function (which usually creates breakpoints).

But I think most people fail to see that there is a third category of RPG design, which is the most common historically - in which the combat system is the system, and resolving anything else is patchy, usually broken, and added-on. Much of what you're seeing in terms of "new design" is rebelling against this very widespread type of design.

So to address your post, I'd say: (1) saying "no special combat system" doesn't mean having no combat in the game situation, and it doesn't even mean shorting or de-emphasizing combat in the game situation; (2) having a "special combat system" can be a great design element when properly applied as a sub-set; and (3) there is indeed a phenomenon to avoid and beware in game design, namely rules-for-combat as central and everything is tack-on, unless it's precisely what you want to be the only/main aspect of conflict in play.

Best,
Ron

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Hi Jake

Speaking for myself, and only myself but I'll bet there are others with a similar take on this, I don't have an anti-combat thing so much as an anti-wargame thing. I don't really enjoy the darn things but combat in most of the RPGs I have played are heavily wargame-based. Whether it uses miniatures or not. Conflict, even physical conflict, can be exciting and all of that, but how combat is typically handled in many, many RPGs leaves me cold.

Andrew Martin wrote:

...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is a two actions, the first is a parry, the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained. Opinions? Advice?

Hi there,

I shall now moderate.

Anyone who wants to discuss the parry question, begin another thread to do so. It is not acceptable in this thread.

Best,
Ron

Jake Norwood wrote:

Perhaps that brings me to a more focused question--what do we really want in combat systems, what do we hate, and how do we make them fun (because in most games, they're not)?

Andrew Martin wrote: This is quoted from the Sword Forum from a while back:

...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is a two actions, the first is a parry, the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained. Opinions? Advice?

Hey,

Well Fang, I figure you were typing & submitting while I was doing so, but that actually is part of my point ...

People, you all know what the standards of the Forge are. You know that Andrew's post was grossly off-topic - all you had to do was read and think. Practice self-moderation!

I am forced to be absolutely clear: not another word on the parry debate is permitted in this thread.

Best,
Ron

Sorry for going off-topic. To get back to what you're talking about Jake:

I hate combat. Especially in fantasy. Anyway, I know what you're talking about.

Because of that I've done a lot of thinking (to say the least) about combat for Ygg (and I haven't fully playtested it yet, so I can't say if it's any good either).

I don't know if the problem is that "the combat system sucks". I think it's more that when you get to the combat system you're brought into close contact with the mechanics and its failures.

The sim-style of popular games tend to gear many designers into thinking that "emulation of reality" (or rather what they perceive to be a emulation of reality) will create a good and fun game.

It doesn't work like that, and the combat system just happens to be the place where it's the most painfully apparent.

What I mean is that there is no direction in combat system creation. Few designs (Jake already mentions notable exceptions) are ever created with coherent goals in what they try to evoke. Cue: GNS.

The typical approach of making a combat system: "let's emulate real combat" very poorly fulfills the desired target "I want fun combat"

That CS tends to be the most popular playground for interpretations of "what real combat is like", something I believe few designers have much real experience of even if they boast about being in the SCA and knowing all there is to know about it.

In some cases "no combat system" might actually obscure the fact that the rest of the system isn't very thought through either.

Just some random thoughts.

Jake Norwood wrote: --what do we really want in combat systems, what do we hate, and how do we make them fun (because in most games, they're not)?

Jake Norwood wrote: I am saying that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a common practice in revolutionary movements,

I agree with Jake - that we need to pay attention to combat systems, as combat will be a large part of most RPGs - but I also think that what we want in RPGs is going to be very variable.

This is wholesale pimpery, but I can't help seeing things through my own work: I tried really hard with both Donjon and Paladin to create unique combat systems that were fun and fulfilling, but didn't work like "normal" combat systems. (Even though Paladin came out earlier, it's a later design, and so varies even more from traditional combat design.)

Jake - you own both of these. Did they seem to you to be (a) a departure from traditional combat design, (b) systems that fit the game, and (c) fun?

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.

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*] ]

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.

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.

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?

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
Fight scenes? Violence? Murder? Swashbuckling? That shit I can dig.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Marco wrote:
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).

contracycle wrote:

Marco wrote:
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.

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.

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

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

Well, you could make a 'social combat' system, ie.e with rounds, and everything, but it would probably only be suitable for a game about debate teams. Also, most people don't like debate enough to actually roleplay it.
Combat lends itself to a 'lower granularity system' for several reasons, in my view.

1)It breaks up readily in to actions, I hit you, you hit me,ect. Resolving each swing is an obvious step.
2)You can't roleplay combat very well, unless you are in the SCA. :) Many reasons here.

3)It's something few have experiance with, so it's interesting. Even people I know who have been in the army have little true combat experiance, and no-one has experiance with medieval combat.

4)Combat is often described on long detail in books. Combat is probalby the only activity that lendes itself to a long description that occurse reasonably often in a RPG. This is simulationist thing. Suppose you wanted to do all activities at 'round' granularity. The problem is you would need a seperate list of actions, ect for each activity. (Ok, your cooking, you gather ingredients, spill some flour, get some wax paper....) Thus you can only represent a few things this way. The only other long scenes in books tend to be 1)Interpersonal interactions-which are usually roleplayed, and thus can be as detailed as combat. Also it's harder to structure this as rules. (Ok, the barmaid laughs at your joke, you get 3 fun points and your attractivness goes up a point to her). It feels weird also, as we have experiance with this, and know how to do it. 2)The only other thing I can think of that's detailed in books and there may be less experiance with is intimate encounters, and well, there's and RPG net article if you really want ti go there.

The only other activity I can think of in a game that is similar is hacking, and that is because it has the same attributes as combat. It's tense, people have little experiance with it, there's risk, and it's important to the game.

To sum up:People have little experiance with actual combat, it involves risk, and is common enough that a subsystem wouldn't be wasted.
This is more an analysis of my guess why traditional RPG's evolved this way, rather than what to fix.

Blake Hutchins wrote: Doing it this way pushes games toward combat, in my opinion, because non-combat actions can be resolved via one die roll.
Blake

I think Marco its important to make a distinction between truly great GMs and the "typical" GM who gets coralled by a bunch of his friends to run something.

A truely great GM could run an absolutely earth shattering role play experience with the crappiest set of of house rules imaginable. That doesn't change the fact that the rules are crap.

Similiarly, a great GM isn't necessarily going to be influenced by the volume of text dedicated to a particular topic, as you've suggested. And if the group is playing a game, where only the GM has the rule book anyway, then they're going to be far more bound by the GM's vision than the book.

However, I do think there is alot of merit to the idea as a rule of thumb. A rule which, like all rules of thumb, has its exceptions. What draws a readers attention and what sticks in his head is going to be influenced by what is written most about. Many games devote 1 or 2 pages to basic mechanics for which there are a dozen or more skills which utilize those basic mechanics. They'll then turn around and devote 10 pages plus to special permutations of those mechanics as they apply to combat. Any time you shine a spot light on something its going to get attention, and by extension, be assumed to have a greater degree of importance.

Now this isn't at all a problem with a game that is supposed to have a combat oriented focus. The bias that Jake was noting about games not needing a combat mechanic I think was taken slightly out of context.

The bias, as I see it, is not against combat mechanics. Its against assuming you need combat mechanics. For a game like TRoS you definitely NEED combat mechanics. Thats a big part of what the game is about. For a game like Dust Devils, you don't. Sure there are all kinds of firefights and shoot outs in Dust Devils...but these are important only for what they say about your characters (shoot or give up the gun) not for any tactical exercise. Combat in DD is just the color being given to what is essentially an act of character development.

Often times, however, you'll come across a game which, like Dust Devils, has no need for a special set of combat mechanics. Yet the designer will have included them. Often they'll have included them, largely because of some variation on the idea of "that's just the way games are supposed to be designed". The "bias" that Jake notes is one of advising careful consideration to whether or not that's really the case. Not one of suggesting it shouldn't be the case ever.

I feel that I should comment. I have this feeling that it was my Rant that caused some of this to erupt. But I can only see it as a misinterpretation of what I wrote. Perhaps I am not actually in any way the target of this discussion, but I'll respond just in case. Because if it's not me, then who is it? Sure there are people who agreed with me. But how many of them actually don't have combat systems in their games? And which of them are telling people not to put combat systems in their games? Mostly me. It would seem that I am the largest part of the "anti-combat bias". But again, perhaps I overestimate my own importance.

Let's look at my position. I am not anti-combat in RPGs; on the contrary, I like combat. I am not even anti-combat system. Not in the slightest. I am against people putting combat systems in their game as an assumption. That they do so without even thinking about the possibility that there might not be a need.

I both understand and agree that certain games don't need one because it isn't the focus of the game.

...but most RPGs at some point or another turn to combat as a form of climactic resolution to a problem. No, not all, I agree. But most. More than most. In my group, just about all. Why?

I think, though, that for most of these cases (man am I generalizing today...) what really needs to be said is "99% of combats in RPGs bore me frikkin' to death, and I don't want your game to do that to me when I can do it somewhere else."

I am saying that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a common practice in revolutionary movements, and the Forge is a breeding ground for revolutionary and revolutionary-wanna-be movements), that maybe we should first say "what kind of combat are you looking at for this game?

How often are PCs going to be fighting as you envision things? Never or rarely--no combat system at all. Constantly--better have an entertaining one that fits your mood/premise, or you lose. Why? Because Combat IS important to most gamers (I dare say), but its always done so poorly that we start thinking that we're better off without it.

Combat in Gamism: should promote competition, winning, etc. Lethality (or rather, losing) should be low and/or not too painful, as Gamist-types hate dying (that's my experience with them). It should not be dull.

Combat in Narrativism: should promote the story/premise at hand, and should be worth imortalizing in paint later. Dramatic or otherwise powerful from a "what really just happened here...it was more than athletics, wasn't it?" And it should not be dull.

Combat in Simulationism: should be "realistic" (whatever that means) enough to suspend the players' disbelief or at least carry the proper mood/tone/atomosphere for the setting at hand (simmy combat systems for TOON and TROS would be very different, but both "real" on their own grounds). It should give us simmy types the rush of battle, and should avoid unneccesary detail for what we're trying to simulate. And it should not be dull.

Other games here fit the "it doesn't need a CS" mold...but what are they?
-OctaNe, InSpectres, Dust Devils, etc...
All games that focus on player-driven direction. When that's the case, they don't need combat rules, because it's built into the director-stance stuff. But I don't think that most of the games getting designed here are like that. They're intentionally structured, maybe a little simulationist, because that's what so many of us got used to when we fell in love with RPGs.

...let's help people create combat systems that we want to play instead of pretending that most games can do without them.

assuming they want it. If they don't, well...there needs to be a way to handle combat (because I promise you, if I ever play, I'm getting into a fight), even if it's a set of guidlines for using the blanket system that resolves everything.

At the risk of turning an incredibly long thread into an impossibly long one, I'd like to toss out some observations about the incorporation of combat into regular resolution systems.

My impression of the Multiverser resolution system is that it is a single system within which variation addresses the details of particular kinds of actions. (I know I co-authored the rules; understand that I came to the project after the core concepts were largely in place, and was primarily employed in the task of working out the details and getting it to paper.) There is a very simple skill+attribute+bias+/-modifiers system that is used for everything, including combat.

Now, if you're going to use it for magic, there are modifiers related to faith, to ritual, to circumstances; and some of these are presented in detail, to provide a degree of consistency to the game. That is, if you are using a skill that petitions a deity or spirit power to take action on your behalf ("holy magic"), you add a score based on your religion or occult knowledge to your chance of success. Similarly, if you are using the magic against someone directly, there might be penalties against your success based on who they are. I mention magic, because it illustrates this aspect of the system remaining one system yet with variation for the application in an area outside combat.

If you are using it for combat, suddenly there are a wealth of factors which can, if used by the players, become part of those "modifiers". There is always the inclusion of a number representing the attacker's innate ability to hit a target, and another for the defender's innate ability to avoid being hit (these generally cancel each other out for ordinary characters, but not when one combatant is particularly talented). There might be bonuses for targeting skills or sighting equipment, penalties for protections or avoidance skills, considerations of cover, range, size, and movement, any of which might be invoked by a situation to demand adjustments. In a sense it can't be helped. After all, if you have a high powered rifle with a telescopic sight and you want to shoot the villain from a mile away, how do we determine your odds of success?

Yet it is the same system; yet it may seem it is not. Combat is sufficiently detailed in terms of the possibilities that it is given its own chapter; but magic is also given its own chapter, in which its details are presented. In the end, whether it is combat or magic or any other skilled action, it is the same resolution system; it is only the specifics of the modifiers and the amount of information the rules themselves provide.

It should also be noted that in the beginning of the combat chapter it recognizes that for some combat is of little interest; and that the discussion of combat is in part intended to illustrate how skills generally operate. One could easily use the same system, with different modifiers, to run a debate, or a race, or a poker game. Combat is used as the example because it gets more use in more situations, not because we particularly want it to dominate the game (and generally it does not, unless the players push for that).

One of the problems I have with combat systems in games (and perhaps my influence on Multiverser was felt here) is that they seem to my mind to make arbitrary distinctions between what is and is not a combat skill. You might think it simple, but there are too many circumstantial questions. Lighting up a room so you can see what is in it is probably not a combat skill; lighting up a room so that the vampires or orcs or other creatures of darkness within it will be disadvantaged or even wounded by the light probably is. Shooting at people is almost always combat; shooting at targets generally is not. Having a single system that covers all actions allows you to shift them between modes easily, but considering what modifiers have to apply when they are used against someone which are not necessary when they are merely used for practical applications.

So I wonder whether the problem is less that people include combat systems in games that don't particularly need them then that they so often assume that those combat systems have to be completely different resolution mechanics from everything else they do.

Maybe this should have been a new thread; but it seemed to me to be responding to Mike particularly and several others as well, so I've risked pushing this one over another page to explore the idea further.

--M. J. Young

If you read the Combat System Rant, I state exactly what you've said, MJ. That if one is going to have special rules for combat that they ought to be simply extensions of the single resolution system. Note how far D&D3E goes towards accomplishing this (especially considering where they were originally). I see this as simply the application of the design principle that says that more elegant is better.

But even that caveat can be voided if the game is specifically enough about combat. Because the extent to which the rules are different is the extent to which the player is informed that combat is privileged in some way. Or, put another way, if the stat is on the sheet, the player is going to try and use it at some point. Most players. Most games.

The point is that the extent to which special rules are put in for any facet of the game should match the designers exact intent to ensure that the game is more about that particular facet. That he wants play to revolve around that facet. Because it will.

Multiverser is an interesting case because, IIRC, don't you have special rules for just about everything? Maybe not as much as combat or magic, but I seem to recal you saying that there were detailed modifiers for doing anything on the skill list. If combat just has a larger list of modifiers, then it wouldn't stand out all that much.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: If you read the Combat System Rant, I state exactly what you've said, MJ.

Mike Holmes wrote: Multiverser is an interesting case because, IIRC, don't you have special rules for just about everything? Maybe not as much as combat or magic, but I seem to recal you saying that there were detailed modifiers for doing anything on the skill list. If combat just has a larger list of modifiers, then it wouldn't stand out all that much.