Hi all,

This thread is picking up a new trail from Jack's Shark/Laser thread.

Ross asked, "I heartily agree. Do you have any ideas for resolution systems that are not violence based?"

Well, now, it all depends on what you mean by "resolution," but here are the systems that leaped into my mind when I read this question:

Sorcerer
Heroquest
The Pool
Over the Edge
Nobilis

Others on this site will be able to add quickly to the list, I'm sure.

The trick of these systems is that they're interested in story components, not mimicking or modeling discrete bits of physics. In other words, instead of trying to figure out a system to adjudicate a sword swing (so much mass, so much energy, so much resistence), they model "What's the coolest thing in a story happening now?" And that seldom has anything to do with what a character is doing. It usually has everything to do with *how* a character is doing something. And these games use mechanics that cover this aspect in spades.

So, in The Pool, for example, when a player succeeds on the roll, it's not a matter of whether his sword "hit" the target. The success allows him to describe how his character succeeded and start off a new set of narrative issues (if he so chooses). He's doing a chunk of narrative, not a discrete sword swing.

These games are *very* different in style and intent of what "success" means, and if anyone here is unfamiliar with them, you might want to start checking them out, because they turn the "assumptions" of RPGs on their heads.

And yes, aside from a few kinks that are sometimes unique to armed conflict, the core mechanic is used again and again for each one of them. Combat isn't what's being modelled, so this is easy. Story is what's being modelled, and so you simply use the same mechanics because as long as it's story, you're using the mechanics.

Christopher

I should also ask the qustion: are there any games that spend as much energy mapping the conflict resolution of social and intellectual conflicts as they do with combat, or physical conflicts. I don't think that any of the games in print do this. Most designers say that 'this has to be role-played' and 'we can't have mechanics for that'. Frankly I think this is bunk. By the way, Sorcerer does come closest, but still misses the mark.

But wait Ross,

Why do we need to "map" any of these conflicts. None of the above games "map" social or physical conflict. They map the resolution of "conflict" -- not the tiny pieces contained within. It's a very different assumption about how to go about resolving conflict.

Most of these debates about "giving social coflict" its due usually founder, as far as I'm concerned, on this matter of making a one-for-one model of social conflict resolution that matches physical conflict resoution. But why do this? At all? The systems I mention above skip over this matter entirely. They don't model physical combat at all the way we're used to assuming it has to be modelled. The Pool, in particular. (The Questing Beast is in print, if that matters to you, and uses the Pool as its mechanic. The Pool rules are available online.)

I remember my quest for trying to give social interaction it's due in "debating mechanics" and what not when working at game companies. I've learned since then that what I needed to do was leave the whole paradigm of "one notch, then another" notch conflict resolution behind.

And yes... Sorcerer, Heroquest, The Pool, Over the Edge all say, "use this mechanc to solve all conflicts." They do it in different ways, but that's it.

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Most of these debates about "giving social coflict" its due usually founder, as far as I'm concerned, on this matter of making a one-for-one model of social conflict resolution that matches physical conflict resoution. But why do this? At all?

Christopher

I haven't read it myself, but a friend of mine bought it - Dynasties and Demagogues is a d20 system sourcebook published by Atlas Games, and it has a detailed system for political intrigue that is set up similar to d20 combat. Might be worth checking out from a theoretical standpoint. Also, this thread has some interesting design ideas to the effect of modeling things other than combat using a combat-system-like set of rules and mechanics.

Good Cites, Ethan. And Marco has a good point. If "System Does Matter", then if a game is "about" something other than Combat, then it should have mechanics that deal with that in proportion to what a game which was about Combat would. In order, at least, to satisfy players looking for the same high Points of Contact requirements (me). For me to say otherside would be hypocritical.

Marco's particular preferences aside, however, I think that one can handle any interesting subject mechanically and have it be engaging if the system does it correctly. And some few games already do, or are heading in that direction. Here are some examples:

The Mesopotamia project by myself and Gareth Martin, though it did not get off the ground was about social change over centuries. It was inspired by the work on The Kap by Mr. Elliot, which was going to be all exploration of setting (combat was considered as one of many equal elements, but only in terms of "war", IIRC, not in terms of personal conflict). I actually playtested his MARS game, and can attest that the focus on exploration and intrigue was fascinating. I know someone else in that group that was going to do a game about political intrigue in the Papacy. Had no stats or mechanics at all that weren't related to politicking. Climb a wall? GM's call.

Heck, looked at one way, Aria qualifies as being about, well, just about everything in equal doses (including stuff like World Creation). Multiverser, as MJ pointed out in the other thread, is also a bit about "Everything". Also, one could say that Paranoia was about Combat, but it was really about timing your assassinations well. Which had a dramatically different result (though it was surprising how "combatty" the combats would become).

OTE does have a combat system, despite itself. In fact, Tweet writes that he's putting in parts of it, like Armor, only grudgingly. Which is an interesting statement itself. Not much of a Combat system, but still...

Hero Wars is right on the edge along with Sorcerer. Basically the combat in these games is a simple extension of the regular mechanics. One could see the rules for Combat as merely expanded examples of one kind of conflict that the system handles. The question becomes to what extent spending time on Combat as an "example" becomes informative as to what sort of action should occur. I think it does inform people to an extent; however, I think that it happens to match well the level to which Combat is important in both these games (the fact that HW is descended from RM and has as little Combat emphasis as it does is amazing; some would claim that it's underdone).

I think that it's more interesting to note with Hero Wars that requiring Magic Keywords for characters means that the game is at least as much about magic as it is about combat, and magic in very interesting ways. So, as I see it, HW is very much your "standard fantasy" game, done in such a way as to not allow it's slight predilictions to get out of hand. Very nice, that.

I think that there have been a lot of games lately, here and elsewhere, that are exactly what the doctor ordered. More importantly, I think that Combat is being given more appropriate weight in games. Rather than eliminate it entirely as special, it's being made to do what it ought to for each game. In InSpectres, the Stress system covers Combat and anything stressful in a way that makes the game about, well, Stress. The Physical Conflict rules in MLwM end up with the character either more weary than he was, or hating himself more, making a stark thematic statement about violence (and in that game, it's just one sort of action with equal weight in the rules to several others).

So I think that we're headed there if not formly there yet.

Mike

Hi Marco,

I wrote hastily in that last post. Yes. If one wanted a mechanic about debating... then there should be a cool mechanic about it. I simply jumped the rails and went off in my own direction of interest. Sorry about that.

Christopher

ross_winn wrote: I should also ask the qustion: are there any games that spend as much energy mapping the conflict resolution of social and intellectual conflicts as they do with combat, or physical conflicts. I don't think that any of the games in print do this. Most designers say that 'this has to be role-played' and 'we can't have mechanics for that'. Frankly I think this is bunk. By the way, Sorcerer does come closest, but still misses the mark.

No time for a long response now, but I think the Wuthering Heights RPG definitely qualifies.

Risus too.

It specificaly states that the exact same system is used for combat, horse racing, witty reparte, lawyers in court and feuding husbad/wife (or a similar selection of examples).

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Hi all,
Ross asked, "I heartily agree. Do you have any ideas for resolution systems that are not violence based?"

Sorcerer
Heroquest
The Pool
Over the Edge
Nobilis

Hi Ben,

I might have misread/misplayed the rules on some of these games, but it seems to me they handle the criteria you describe one way or another. (Though, I'll happily concede, there are special rules for damage and armor on occassion. I consider this the price to be paid for player's concerns about their PC's health.)

So...

Sorcerer doesn't do combat blow by blow. It does it with a series of actions, however that's defined by the player. The success of these actions can be rolled into the next series of actions rolled for for bonuses.

The trick is, you can, and should do the same thing with any kind of dramtic conflict resolution.

Heroquest has a quick conflict resolution that can be used for any sort of conflict, and extended contests for... any sort of conflict.

OtE, yes, has a couple of kinks that try to make conflict different than, say, a debate. But I tossed them when I played it years ago. These special case rules for the game seemed an odd and desperate clinging to the ways RPGs are "supposed" to be. (I admit, this is an acknowledgement of your point. But the spirit of the OtE rules seemed to go a comopletely different direction, and I followed that spirit.)

When you write, "some focus on combat," I'd be curious to hear more about that. Because I don't see these games as having a focus on combat. But I might be, again, misreading the text.

Christopher

Mike Holmes wrote: Good Cites, Ethan. And Marco has a good point. If "System Does Matter", then if a game is "about" something other than Combat, then it should have mechanics that deal with that in proportion to what a game which was about Combat would. In order, at least, to satisfy players looking for the same high Points of Contact requirements (me). For me to say otherside would be hypocritical.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Sorcerer doesn't do combat blow by blow. It does it with a series of actions, however that's defined by the player. The success of these actions can be rolled into the next series of actions rolled for for bonuses.

The trick is, you can, and should do the same thing with any kind of dramtic conflict resolution.

Hi Alexander,

You're quite right about the Sorcerer rules as printed. I was working more from what I've read around these threads. The game works best when dealing in terms of "conflict resolution" rather than "task resolution" (ie blow by blow). This has been a change playing styles of the designer and new thinking about the game specifically from the time of its writing to now.

So, again, the rules say one thing, and I concede that. But the designer of the game now suggests something else, which is how I now play.

Christopher

Lxndr wrote: On the other hand...I don't believe Sorcerer has "focus on combat above and beyond all other interactions." I say this because it is somewhat evident that Sorcerer's focus is, if anything, the sorcerous rituals and humanity (and as an aside, demons). More time, system, and page count is spent describing those rituals, humanity, and demons than there is handling combat, damage and weapons. And yes, I am making a direct comparison there. Combat = Rituals; Damage = Humanity; Demons = Weapons. Think about it. :D

Ben Lehman wrote: The central problem with combat in RPGs is that, for whatever reason, game systems want to play out combat blow-by-blow, whereas other interactions are resolved by a single roll.....

There is another approach, which (oddly) I have never seen anyone use -- make combat as simple as anything else. Thus, resolve it in a single simple contest. Allow margin of success to determine the outcome (injury, death, or such.) Or just let the victor determine the outcome and have a social contract enforce it. Say that, after one roll, combat "breaks up," unless both parties want it to continue, in which case it keeps going until one of them drops.....

Is there a combat system out there that behaves like this?

The point is, even if the rules claim that they are generic for all conflict, they still can be biased towards physical combat.

Is there a combat system out there that behaves like this?

I'm aware that this thread has since gone and spawned other little threadlets, but I wanted to post some arguments and restatements for posterity before it pass into entirely obscurity.

First of all, I cannot comment on a game except on how it is written. For instance, Over the Edge has a combat system, for better or for worse. Most of the game's players think this is dumb, and take it out. Nonetheless, Over the Edge has a combat system, and thus there is a systematical focus on combat as "more special" than other interactions.

Second, "Above and beyond other interactions" was a really poor choice of words, and not exactly what I meant. What I meant was "above and beyond normal interactions," where "normal interactions" are the baseline resolution of the system. For instance, Sorcerer has complex initiative, rounds, and damage system which means that combat's search and handling time is considerably larger than, say, bartering in a store. It is not as complex as sorcery.

Thus, Nobilis is focused on Miracles (they are the standard action of the game) BUT it has a slight focus on physical combat because one of the few special rules outside of the miracle system is for physical damage. That said, this isn't inappropriate for the game, it just means that it has some extra focus on combat.

Mike: Yup, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. I haven't used the parapalegic example, but I've come pretty close.

Sidenote:
One thing that I've found with my players is that, in general, they feel that a longer, extended combat challenge is "more fair" than a single roll. I do not understand this -- they are the same dicerolls, and rolling more times just normalizes it. Can anyone explain this attitude to me?

Sidenote 2:
One major issue that I have with game designers is that they seem to conflate "interesting" with "heavy system." Thus we get monstrosities like the Storyteller social system: "If D&D has a bunch of combat mechanics, that means combat is important to them [true.] Thus, if we have a bunch of social mechanics, it will mean that human interactions are more important to us than combat [false.]"
Generally speaking (and in my opinion, of course), certain things (like combat, farming, and perhaps others...) can benefit from crunchy, fiddly, strangely complex systems. Other things, like social interactions, really can't. What is the difference between the first and the second category?

yrs--
--Ben

Heh. A while back (a year?) I posted a Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy d20 Conversion over at ENWorld. Don't know if it's still there, but the entire section on weapons basically said "Only jerks carry guns. They do large, completely arbitrary amounts of damage, and piss people off." Contrarywise, the section on Annoying Other People was quite long, basically applying d20 combat to a social situation in which the goal is to get the other guy to break down and jibber like mad, so that you can make fun of them. I think elevators did something like 4d6+3 SAN damage, critcal x3, and the damage could not be healed until you left the building.

Ben Lehman wrote: One thing that I've found with my players is that, in general, they feel that a longer, extended combat challenge is "more fair" than a single roll. I do not understand this -- they are the same dicerolls, and rolling more times just normalizes it. Can anyone explain this attitude to me?

Ben then wrote: Generally speaking..., certain things (like combat, farming, and perhaps others...) can benefit from crunchy, fiddly, strangely complex systems. Other things, like social interactions, really can't. What is the difference between the first and the second category?

In my book yer on a roll tonight, MJ. You articulated exactly what I was trying to get to in the Lawyers and Debates thread.

Another reason to dislike 1-roll combat: if the system in question involves tactics or strategy (or even retreat) multi-turn combat can allow for a change in strategy ("Run away!"). With one roll, that's out of your hands.

-Marco

Interestingly, what Hero Wars does is say that all contests can be resolved either using a short method, or a long method. So it doesn't matter what the contest is like, you can decide on the spot how much Drama needs to go into the moment, and use the appropriate mechanic. So if you don't think that you can do a particular debate using the extended mechanics, you don't have to. If you want to make sure that tactical options and changes in strategy are open to your character, then you use the extended method for your combat. Just like people seem to be prefering.

OTOH, I've done battles of Shakespear-like banter and other such non-combat stuff as extended conflicts, and it works like a charm. And combats with throawaway villains I resolve in one roll, to the player's delight. So it allows versatility to go for the method that makes the most sense in each particular case.

Mike

Ben Lehman wrote:

Christopher Kubasik wrote:
There is another approach, which (oddly) I have never seen anyone use -- make combat as simple as anything else. Thus, resolve it in a single simple contest. Allow margin of success to determine the outcome (injury, death, or such.) Or just let the victor determine the outcome and have a social contract enforce it. Say that, after one roll, combat "breaks up," unless both parties want it to continue, in which case it keeps going until one of them drops.

Here's one that uses a single roll to determine the results of a combat: Children of Fire