Combat is different

[Evil DM]

Hi folks,

I am pretty sure that my topic has been discussed in former times, so bevor you response to my post, you might be also give me just a link.

To be honest there are two issues on my mind which I think are somehow related so I do not want to start another thread.

First I want to call my problem something like Combat is different....

As I play DnD I think my following argumentation might be very clear: A fighting challenge is the most complex players might ever face. The players have to think about taking cover, flanking, using their maneuvers, healing, etc. Enery round, ervery turn the tides of combat might change severly and the players have to rethink their actions.

On the other hand their is something one might call social interaction

PC: "Okay, after the battle I try to convince the arriving guards that we are part of a secret special unit."
DM "Okay, roll for a bluff check."


Oh yeah, that's it. A single roll.

Another example:


PC: "I jump across the chasm of death."
DM: "Okay, but keep in mind that if you fail your character will die."


A single roll. Did I somewhere read that life or death should not depend on a single dice roll?


So what is the difference in both examples given the first and the third?

In both cases the characters can die? No. That is what have them in common.
Ah I see, you have to roll some dice? No. They also have that in common.
Okay, it is the number of dice they have to roll? Right....and?
Let me think. I'd say during the combat the characters have more options to gain an advantage which does not depend on dice rolling. Exactly.

Furthermore while facing a combat challenge you can follow the tides of the challenge. Some rounds can be called successfull (you did much damage) and others can be called a failure (you did not du much damage).

With a single roll this is not possible.

So I must confess that DnD4 did a great job to think about skill challenges. Their you have also to roll a lot of dice and depending on your luck you get a feeling after each roll if this encounter will end up to your favor or not.

Maybe it is some kind of personal feeling and nobody does understand me: But why do I think that combat depends on tactic while all other actions depend on the luck with the dice?

I hear some DMs complaining the like:

- First I toss a great battle at them and afterwards they have to think their way through the political intrigue.
- Ah, this is where all the bluff, sense motive and diplomacy stuff comes in?
- Man no! Would you like to see the story becoming a failure because of some unlucky dice rolls?


If the characters talk to a principle they have to choose their words carefully. And how do we know how a character behaves himself in front of a noble man?
The player rolls diplomacy for his character.

Which leads me to my second topic:

The social interactions should be covered very much through dice rolling? Why? Have a look at how often a player rolls his dice in the heat of the battle. Should that not be somehow balanced with rolling the same amount with social interactions?

But there is some behavior - some opinion - which interfers with my suggestion:
Man. Do you realy wanna trade some well placed roleplaying for some rollplaying? If a player plays his character pretty well, why roll a dice to see the outcome?

Because if I only take the dice for physical encounters and the cleverness of the players for the social encounters I will have characters with three times 18 and and three times 8 as ability scores. Guess where to find them.

So to give my statement a conclusion:

1. Why does combat feel so different.
2. When the characters interact with the world, they do it with their inherent abilities....reflect by their skills.

Any comment?

Cheers, Evil DM.

 

[chitzk0i]

Your observations were also made by the D&D 4th edition designers. They created a system to support a series of skill checks that would decide the outcome of an interaction. That's why they created the Skill Challenge system.

 

[Cadfan]

I hear some DMs complaining the like:

- First I toss a great battle at them and afterwards they have to think their way through the political intrigue.
- Ah, this is where all the bluff, sense motive and diplomacy stuff comes in?
- Man no! Would you like to see the story becoming a failure because of some unlucky dice rolls?

On the off chance that you're referring to me, that's really not my position.

 

[Evil DM]

On the off chance that you're referring to me, that's really not my position.

Be assured, I do not talk about you.


But back to topic:

I mean DnD is an extreme example. With all the maneuvers it is quite obvious, that combat is something like a game within the game. A subsystem within the game mechanics.

But how do other games coup with that issue?

I tried something like shadowrun, world of darkness and dark heresy.
They have in common that combat is not that different since attacking is nothing more than a skill check.

DM: "You shoot at him? Okay, make a balistic check."


And since combat seems more deadlier in these systems you do not have to roll so many times, since the battle might be over before it really began.

But on the other hand - to close the circle - social interactions is in these systems also handled with only one dice roll. In addition you might have something like "degree of success".

But how do other games get along with this? Sytems which are not that combat focused?

Cheers, Evil DM.

 

[timbannock]

But how do other games get along with this? Sytems which are not that combat focused?

Silhouette Core Rules (Heavy Gear, Tribe 8, Jovian Chronicles)...especially with the Tribe 8 2E rulebook...had some serious social "combat" rules that did a lot with Reputation, verbal "attacks" and "defenses" and so on. Unfortunately, they never expanded on it enough for it to really work (never mind actually shine).

Cortex System (Battlestar Gallactica, Serenity) works VERY well, but mainly because they do a lot with a Merits/Flaws style system that greatly impacts how you get "Plot Points" which can be used to increase rolls and edit aspects of the story. But when run right, it's an AWESOME social system. For a quick idea on how I did it, I pretty much allowed players to NOT HAVE TO use their Flaws...but if they did, they'd get Plot Points. So they got to pick and choose when their flaws would come into play, and doing so provided them with some benefits (but also obviously made their lives harder, too...they are flaws after all!).

 

[JDJblatherings]

PC: "Okay, after the battle I try to convince the arriving guards that we are part of a secret special unit."
DM "Okay, roll for a bluff check."
....
PC: "I jump across the chasm of death."
DM: "Okay, but keep in mind that if you fail your character will die."
.......

A single roll. Did I somewhere read that life or death should not depend on a single dice roll?

The player and the DM are shorting themselves in both examples.

Yeah combat has systems and subsystems that add a lot of detail to resolution but other situations can have a lot going on in them too and player and DM are both cheating themselves out of a fuller experience if they resolve them all with a single die roll.

slippign past the guards-
Are they just walking up to the guards or do they see them from afar first? Can the PCs evaluate how tough the guards are? How close can they get before the guards challenge them? How about a disguise? Is there time to forge fake orders? Can the PCs just sneak past the guards? Can they use a prisoner escort scheme? Do the guards look anxious, bored, hungry, poor?

jumping over the pit-
running start? with friends- why not tie off a rope? Have a grappling hook? How's the footing look on the other side? Can an ally catch the fool before they leap to their doom? Can they spot a something to grab on the way down and actually grab it?

 

[jasin]

But how do other games get along with this? Sytems which are not that combat focused?

Exalted has special abilities (charms, Exalted calls them) that are as crunchy and interesting for non-combat skills as they are for combat skills.

You might be so good with a sword than you can make it shoot bolts of energy, or so good with a dagger that you can throw one and make it split into a rain (4E rogue's Blinding Barrage, anyone?).

But you might also be such a good rider that you can make your horse walk on air, or such a good writer that you can mind-control people who read your letters, or such a craftsman that you can sculpt stone and forge iron with your bare hands, such a sailor that he can keep a shattered ship together by sheer will, or such a good actor that you can reweave others' memories.

Some 4E utilities (rogue in particular) take a few short steps in the same direction, but compared to the number of combat powers, there's no doubt that combat is different.

 

[Uruush]

In Skill Challenges, if a player does something clever, tactically or otherwise, you should reward them with a +2 bonus.

And Skill Challenge DCs should be set so that those +2s are really desirable.

 

[Evil DM]

slippign past the guards-
Are they just walking up to the guards or do they see them from afar first? Can the PCs evaluate how tough the guards are? How close can they get before the guards challenge them? How about a disguise? Is there time to forge fake orders? Can the PCs just sneak past the guards? Can they use a prisoner escort scheme? Do the guards look anxious, bored, hungry, poor?

jumping over the pit-
running start? with friends- why not tie off a rope? Have a grappling hook? How's the footing look on the other side? Can an ally catch the fool before they leap to their doom? Can they spot a something to grab on the way down and actually grab it?

I must somehow chuckle. My first thought was: This point of view depends on your level of detail you play with
My second thought was:
Maybe you are right and I am turning somehow in a circle (rough german translation ). If I am used to handle non-combat situations with a single dice roll - I give them as much detail / flavor as one can expect from a single roll.

Let me try to explain it like this:
For the combat I have all the details I need technicaly written on my record sheet. Attack bonus, AC, savings, DR, etc.
I do not think about them - I just need to use the numbers the way the rules told me.

For non-combat situations I have to think about the details on my own. As for the example with the guards I can just roll a bluff / diplomacy check and are done. Technically. As the rules told me.

It feels like:
DM: "So you see a riddle in front of you, which says that..."
PC rolls: "I got a 27 intelligence check...do I solve it?"

But what does that mean in-game? What does my character say by using a skill? Maybe it is not me who talks best to the guards because my fellow is a paladin. Maybe we are in a dwarven city and the guards will be quite satisfied that we killed an elf.

But these are issues related to the world.

So you could make something like a table with modifiers related to circumstances:
You are from country X and now in country Y this gives you...
Your are from race A and talking to race B this gives you...

This would be some first step where players have the possibility to choose their actions carefully. To get an advantage right before rolling the dice.

But to get back to what you said.
I think I try something like:
During combat the rules tell you what to do. For non-combat situations it is more up to the players.

Cheers, Evil DM.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Evil DM,

Interesting discussion.

I suppose if you look at it from the point of view of "fun", then perhaps most players feel that structured combat is "fun" while unstructured/semi-constructed non-combat is "fun". The preference is to not overly structure roleplaying/exploration while keeping combat carefully structured.

From my own perspective, I prefer freeform roleplaying for non-combat encounters because it keeps the flow of the action going. To overly codify this means stiltifying the process which to me is not as enjoyable.

However in answer to your perspective on non-combat encounters, perhaps you could change your frame of reference to view non-combat similarly to combat. For example let's take the getting past the guard thing. Most likely a couple of rolls here on the PCs part and a single roll on the guards to notice the PC. Is this the entire non-combat encounter? No, it is like a round of combat, not the entire encounter. If the rest of the non-combat encounter includes jumping over a pit, finding and disarming a trap and then quickly finding the McGuffin before the sleeping monster wakes up, and then retreating back again, then you have the entire non-combat encounter with its multitude of rolls and variety of decision points.

Skill challenges while appearing similar rely very much on the imagination of the players to make them interesting. With a group of players who prefer mini-combat, chances are that all you're going to have is an extended dice rolling process that was most probably better adjudicated with a single roll in the first place.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise