Is combat central and essential to Star Wars RPGs?
I would have thought so, given (i) how prominent it is in the movies, and (ii) how prominent it is in the western, Flash Gordon and similar pulp-ish genres that Star Wars emulates.
Traveller (at least through MegaTraveller - I don't know the game as it subsequently deveoped) is a curious thing.
It has detailed combat rules, but in resolution they are brutal. Three out of six professions are military, and the scouts are semi-military, and even merchant and other civilian characters are likely, given the charts, to end up with weapon or brawling skills.
But the game also has quite a wide-ranging skill list (Admin, Forgery, Liaison, Streetwise, Carousing, Engineering, Computer, Bribery, etc). And it has action resolution mechanics not just for interpersonal and starship combat, but for trading and world exploration. It also has reasonably elaborate mechanics for generating planets and the economic ties between them (especially once you get to supplements like Merchant Prince).
Part of what makes Traveller work is that it has no resource allocation choices to be made during building - it's all random, so you can't optimise or min/max. And it has bounded accuracy - skill bonuses tend not to rise above +3, success generally defaults to 8+ on 2d6, and so a skill-1 character has a 7/12, or approximately 58%, chance of success, while a skill-3 character has a 10/12, or approximately 83%, chance of success. That's a meaningful difference, but not utterly overwhelming. (It's comparable to the +5 skill training bonus in 4e, in a world of non-scaling Easy to Moderate DCs.)
Finally, the tables tend to generate at least somewhat rounded PCs. And, being a sci-fi game, equipment can be purchased to try and work around expertise gaps. The various features above combine to permit a reasonably broad range of scenarios to be run.
I find that the existence of the perform, profession, knowledge, and craft skills are at least as if not more important for setting a "tone" for world building as they are in actual PC implementation.
These skills exist in Rolemaster, and to a significant extent they have the function you describe. However, RM has certain other features that make this work. First, it has rules for the allocation of build points that, in effect, result in silo-ing - once you've invested the permitted maximum in Sword, for example, and are trying to decide whether to use your remaining points to boost Ride, Climb, Swim or Play Flute, the performance choice is less obviously sub-optimal, and more about rounding out and colouring your PC than making a deliberate choice to hurt at your main game in order to add some colour.
Second, it has diminishing returns, so 10 ranks gives +50 + stat, while 20 ranks gives only +70 + stat. This means that, for "colour" choices, you don't have to keep investing in order to keep up and keep that colour on your sheet.
3E D&D, at least, lacks both these features. Skill points are tightly rationed, and there are no diminishing returns. So making these sorts of colour choices, and keeping them relevant as the numbers, in general, scale upward, is a real burden.
Here is a tweak that one might make to 3E, to make it more like Rolemaster: a wizard may strike one cantrip from his/her known spells list, in order to add one "colour" ability to his/her sheet (crafter, performer, etc); a fighter may strike one martial weapon from his/her proficiency list in order to do the same. This seems to me to get the trade-offs right, because for a fighter who is a sword specialist, proficiency in war pick is mere colour ("I can use any weapon they give me, should I end up in the fighting pit!"); and for most wizards proficiency in all cantrips is the same (there will be a subset of the total that they default to as their array).
This wouldn't allow
comparisons of expertise to be made, but in a system with steep scaling, and without diminishing returns on skill ranks, I think that is a cost that has to be borne in order to keep things in the "useful colour" category rather than the "I'm hurting my PC in order to express my colour" category.
most people would be talking about Player A and how he could be more like Player B. He has history, background, story, interesting hooks for other PCs and for the DM, good stuff. All around, most DMs would say that they'd much rather have Player B than Player A.
JamesonCourage would suggest that the only way the system could be fair would be by giving Player A more combat capability and more damage than player B. 5/1/1 rather than 3/3/3, after all!
Switch pillars, and the exact nature of the problem becomes apparent. You are rewarding problem players. That inevitably leads to a spiral where problem players become the dominant players, because players who are good (like player B) leave for systems that reward them rather than punish them, and people who are fence sitting see player A and decide to emulate them.
Don't reward problem players. Don't pat the MinMaxers on the back and tell them they've done good. If you want to play an unbalanced character, the system should reward you for it in no way whatsoever.
That's a very nice example.
A game like Burning Wheel or HeroWars/Quest would make Player B pay for that extra stuff. But Player B would get compensation: in Burning Wheel, you can leverage your colour for extra Fate Points, and in HeroWars/Quest you can use your colour to augment in action resolution (in effect Aid Another, but for yourself!) so your 3/3/3 can (with the right narration) be used as 5/1/1 - a concrete example would be that, when PC B confronts the mercenary ringleaders who betrayed his company, he can use his "Smouldering hatred of traitors" ability to boost his "Smack enemies round the head with a hammer" ability.
But D&D doesn't have that style of augment system - the closest it has come is with 4e's inspirational healing, and that is highly contentious. Otherwise, the only source of morale bonuses to combat is from some spells or the odd feat or class feature. And whereas the
whole point of HeroWars/Quest is to encourage melodramatic narration and scene framing so that the players can eke out all those bonuses, in D&D this sort of thing tends to be treated with scepticism (eg see the many complaints about players trying to engage skill challenges in such a way as to leverage their PCs' strengths for success - this is widely seen not as a good thing, of producing more engaging narrative that reinforces PC character and place in the gameworld, but as a bad thing because it makes success "too easy").
Nor does D&D have a BW-style Fate Point system, where you can earn metagame resources by bringing your PC's colour out in witty or destabilising ways in the course of play. (4e's player-designed quests to earn quest XP seems the closest thing to it that I can think of.)
In D&D-like circumstances, where PC colour is not itself a source of mechanical advantage in action resolution, then it shouldn't cost resources at PC build time, and players shouldn't be rewarded at PC build time for not giving their PCs any colour. As you (GreyICE) say, that is a recipe for rewarding boring PC building.
I'm calling for change, not disputing history.
<snip>
I've also called for those mechanics to get expanded and for support for non-combat to be well-supported.
Looking at the D&Dnext playtest, there is not going to be the sort of change you are calling for. It is beyond obvious that the game gives priority - in PC build, in action resolution, in encounter design and scene-framing - to combat as the premier site of action resolution.
Even the new magical item rules refer to magic items as things gained by looting monsters and their hordes, or taken from trapped dungeons. There is not even the canvassing of items as rewards from allies or patrons, or as heirlooms, or any of the other obvious possibilities for magic item placement.
Imagine there was non-combat support. Now give me further reasons.
The further reasons are nicely illustrated by GreyICE.
In a party-based game, which D&D unequivocally is, a PC who can't conribute in some meaningfully way in the bulk of scenes is a problem PC. (It is a further question whether or not that PC's player is a problem player.)
Of course, that gives rise to the question "What counts as contribution?". But D&D has a very narrow answer to that question - "contribution" means helping the party succeed in overcoming the challenge at hand. Whereas in Burning Wheel, say, a non-combat PC who has the "Hide from Battle" trait can still contribute to a fight by (say) running away, or swooning in shock as soon as an arrow lands near him/her - thereby earning Fate Points for expressing PC colour, which can be usefully deployed in subsequent situations. BW also has strong linked check mechanics, which means that a crafter can make craft checks before battle to contribute bonus dice in battle - whereas D&D has no mechanics for this sort of thing, and fairly clearly is not going to.
Would D&D be a better game rewritten as HERO, or GURPS, or RuneQuest, or Burning Wheel? Maybe - but given that all those games are already out there, and easily accessible, if one wants that sort of game one doesn't need to try and turn D&D into it! There is something that D&D does better than any of those games - epic fantasy with a tendency towards a gonzo tone, in which over-the-top combats are an integral site of conflict resolution - and I'm not sure that that is a problem.
This is about being able to play specific, well-known archetypes, like the wise old sage who seemingly knows everything but sucks in a fight.
In the playtest, take the Sage background, the Jack-of-All trades specialisation (to boost your knowledge skills), and the Wizard class with the following spells known: Detect Magic, Light, Mage Hand, Alarm, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Feather Fall and Shield.
The Magic Item document alludes to Identfiy and Read Magic as further spells that aren't currently on the spell list. Assuming they are 1st level and a cantrip respectively, in due course you'll be able to swap Read Magic for Mage Hand, and Identfiy for Feather Fall, thereby (I think) fitting the archetype even better.
Another path to much the same archetype would be the same background and specialisation, but a Warlock who takes Breath of Night and Fabrication of the Weave as his/her invocations. Make sure your DEX is reasonably low and your proficiency with finesse and missile weapons won't prevent you sucking in a fight with weapons. You do have Eldritch Blast at will, but that's part of what it means to be a Warlock after all - your sage-ry has opened up paths to power that mortals were not meant to tread! Your greater hit points than the wizard also reflect your infusion with eldritch power. (I'm thinking along Palpatine-ish lines for both these features of the build.)
A third path would be once again the same background and specialisation, but a Cleric who takes the Sun Domain, the Detect Magic Orison, and who prepares Comprehend Languages and Protection from Evil. Yes, you also have the Searing Light spell, but that is not
you being effective in combat. That is the heavens striking down evil monsters in response to your prayers! It's true that your PC would have Medium armour proficiency, but you don't have to buy any - spend your money on holy water and parchment instead! ("Yes, I learned something of the ways of the warrior in my youth, but those days are long behind me now!"). Your high hit points reflect divine providence and favour.
Suggested stats (assuming human): 18 INT if wizard or warlock, 18 WIS if cleric, and 15 in the other of these two; 14 CHA; 13 CON; 11 DEX; 9 STR.
If I make a level 10 Wizard and run him as a sage, but then hand his sheet to someone else, they'll see his attack bonus, his spells, etc., and they know he's proficient in combat.
You're saying "ignore the rules"
In D&Dnext, what you describe won't necessarily be the case. Certainly, of the 3 builds I suggest, each retains a +2 weapon attack from 1st to 5th level - with my suggested stat array, these PCs will suck at fighting from 1st to 5th!
It's true that, with the current playtest documents, gaining levels might make you have to choose spells and abilities that dilute your sage-ish-ness. For the wizard, you can just ignore some of your spells gained per level. Then they won't be on your PC sheet, and you can fill your slots with your sage-y spells. It's true that your PC sheet will be modestly house-ruled, but that's not a big deal in this case, I don't think. Maybe you can also get your GM to let you learn Augury as a wizard spell (wizards can get it in 4e, after all). But here are nine spells you could add as you levelled that wouldn't muck up the archetype too badly: Sleep, Continual Light, Counterspell, Gentle Repose, Hold Person, Resistance, Rope Trick, Dispel Magic, Suggestion. (If my memory is correct, sages using Hold Person has precedence going back to Gygax's DMG!)
By the rules, the cleric has access to the whole list, but you are not obliged to prepare combat spells, and you could put a note on your sheet saying "only ever prepares the following spells" and expect someone else who came along to play your PC to honour that. Here are some more spells from the playtest that I think fit the archetype: Cure Light Wounds, Divine Favour, Healing Word, Sanctuary, Augury, Consecrate, Cure Moderate Wounds, Gentle Repose, Cure Serious Wounds, Dispel Magic, Remove Affliction, Speak with Dead.
The warlock has the most restricted choices at the moment, but even there Baleful Utterance, Shadow Veil or Visage of the Summer Court would all seem to be viable choices for a warlock sage that support rather than undermine the archetype.
My conclusion: given that it's just a playtest, D&Dnext actually supports the "wise old sage who sucks in combat" archetype pretty well, at least at the PC build stage. It doesn't really have the action resolution mechanics for you to get the maximum out of your wide spread of Lore skills, but that's another story.
