The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Aus_Snow]

As far as this post all I can say is Huh? What are you trying to say because I don't understand what your getting at.

Well, to summarise the meat of it: Many (most?) RPGs are not RPGs, because h&w99 says so. That spiel is nothing new; it's been repeated on this very forum time and time again. It's rather like an echo chamber. Or a peculiar ritual of some kind. Perhaps, if it is done a certain number of times, a summoning will occur?

 

[Garmorn]

Perhaps a better way to state the question is

"How involved/important should the conflict resolution system be"

As mentioned, ShadowRun's cyber rules were certainly as "deep/involved" as the standard combat.

It's been a while, but didn't SR's "rigger" system come close to this as well?

Yes that would diffidently be better then my original effort to state the question.

And yes the 'rigger' rules where close to the cyber rules but where easier to integrate into normal combat.

 

[Ariosto]

I am not squeamish about calling the rules as published one thing, and the activity people undertake with it another.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the first non-combat rule (like say, "If you want to do something different, roll a d20 and if you roll under the appropriate stat, you succeed.") came around in practice very quickly.

Vol. 1, pp. 10-11:
"Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on."
"Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether certain action would be taken, and it allows additional languages to be spoken [per p. 12]."
"Wisdom rating will act much as does that for intelligence."
"Dexterity applies both to manual speed and conjuration. It will indicate the character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc.."

Most of those cases are not quantified in specific rules. That is obviously not an indication that they are not to be part of the game! I would suggest rather that it is an indication that anything might potentially be part of the game.

There is a mindset, far from unusual among D&Ders, by which each addition of a "skill" for one character imputes lack of competence in that area to other characters. Supposed adventurers of the ilk of Leiber's and Howard's heroes are thereby required to be clumsy instead of stealthy, to balk at climbing trees, to fall out of their saddles, to be unable to camp and live off the land ... and so on and on.

If ever you wonder whence comes prejudice against "skill systems" -- that is it.

Back to Men & Magic:

Charisma gets by far the most attention. First, there is a table giving "maximum number of hirelings" (in a sense distinguished in AD&D by the term "henchmen") and a bonus or penalty to Loyalty (which affects employees or followers of all types).

"In addition the charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover. Finally, the charisma will aid a character in attracting various monsters to his service."

That last is specifically addressed in a section on Non-Player Characters that starts on page 12. The Reaction table there can be used more generally to add a chance factor -- "with appropriate plusses or minuses, according to the offer, the referee rolling two six-sided dice and adjusting for charisma" -- to determining the disposition of NPCs in any situation.

Page 13 treats the interrelated factors of loyalty and morale. "Morale dice can cause a man or intelligent monster to attempt to surrender or become subdued. When this happens an offer of service can be made (assuming that communication is possible) as outlined above. Subdued monsters will obey for a time without need to check their reactions, and such monsters are salable."

"Periodic re-checks of loyalty should be made. Length of service, rewards, etc., will bring additional plusses. Poor treatment will bring minuses."

Charisma is the only character factor consistently underlined in reference after reference. That might be just coincidence, but it appears to be the most important factor apart from hit points (the risking of which it can help to minimize). It is given more attention than the other ability scores combined, and more than combat in Vol. 1 (the Naval and Aerial sections in Vol. 3 making up most of the combat rules).

There follows a discussion of Relatives, with particular attention to inheritance and estate taxes. "Characters without a relative will lose all their possessions should they disappear and not return before whatever period is designated as establishing death."

Among other items in Vol. 1 are Magical Research and Books of Spells. Speaking of spells, here are the magic-user's first two lists:

1st Level: Detect Magic; Hold Portal; Read Magic; Read Languages; Protection From Evil; Light; Charm Person; Sleep.

2nd Level: Detect Invisible; Levitate; Phantasmal Forces; Locate Object; Invisibility; Wizard Lock; Detect Evil; ESP; Continual Light; Knock.

Volume 3 gives probably the best discussion of dungeons in any edition (well complimented by the sections in Supplement 1). It also treats The Wilderness; Construction of Castles and Strongholds; Specialists and Men-at-Arms; Rumors, Information and Legends; Player-Character Support and Upkeep; Baronies; the Angry Villager Rule; Healing Wounds; Time; and other non-combat subjects.

 

[Woas]

Ohhh. I understand now. So like in a hypothetical NASCAR game with very detailed racing rules and heavy race car customization shouldn't have, say, as detailed rules for baking too?

Maybe it would be more accurate to replace combat with physical conflict? In most games that is combat but in your example it would be the actual racing. (Of course that also change my original question some)

 

[Primal]

All RPGs do need a Referee to impartially convey the hidden rules to be guessed. That one person is selected to perform this game role is one of the basic rules known to all players. The number of known rules by all participants is very small in truth, while the hidden ruleset is as large as the Referee desires. The greater complexity of the hidden rules, the more enjoyable the play IMO. Though elegance of design in these rules is important too.

Referee rulings are limited, however, to clarifying Players' actions until a hidden rule applies, ("How are you hitting the monster? Sword, fist, headbutt, what?"), and to measuring distances on hidden spatial maps.

There are storygames, another category of games which do not need GMs. These also qualify as RPGs, but under a different definition of roleplaying. There is no deductive reasoning in these games, no strategy. But they are fun self explorations of each player's desires. No GM is needed, (in fact, no rules are needed), but a game can be added as an element to divvy up who gets to add what to the story and under what conditions. Like a group of authors working on a novel.

Traditional RPGs like D&D fall under the roleplay simulation definition from military wargames.

I'm not sure what you mean by "storygames", but not all RPGs need a referee -- some indie systems like Universalis, Mortal Coil, Breaking the Ice or Polaris do not have any referee/GM. Rather, in games like these conflicts in narration or framing is handled via negotation, or bargained with tokens.

In the same vein, as far as the original post goes, the way I see it exact rules for combat are not needed absolutely necessary or relevant in all RPGs. For example, in Polaris you negotiate with your "opponent" (the player across you) what you want to accomplish and what you are willing to pay for that ("I slay the demon with my sword, impaling it through its black heart!" "But only if the demon's soul possesses your sword" etc.). My point is, in many such games the whole "encounter" is handled both in mechanics and narration as a whole, not on a round-to-round basis. Yet, in some games -- like Breaking the Ice -- the themes are quite the opposite from "traditional" RPGs, and there are NO rules for physical violence. It all depends on whatever themes and genres (and *how*) each game handles.

 

[Garmorn]

Ohhh. I understand now. So like in a hypothetical NASCAR game with very detailed racing rules and heavy race car customization should have, say, as detailed rules for baking too?

My stance is not carved in stone, other wise I would not ask for input.

Think action movie (not drama, or romance ect), would a action movie about baking cakes work? Would you put detailed scenes about baking in one? Now would you leave out actions scenes from "Dirty Dozen"? Are they important. How about "Independents Day" that has a lot more character building then action?

After reading the responses and thinking over all that I have done my stance at this point is this:

Combat/physical conflict is the most complex situation that can and needs to be put into detail. With that statement the normally receive most of the page count when it comes to rule mechanics. Social skills systems are less rule dependent and are not as hard system friendly. With two 'facts' in mind there are few rules that govern them in most games.

This counters the original statement that I was responding to: Lots of combat rules or any emphasis on combat rules makes it a war game not a role playing game in my opinion.

 

[Ariosto]

Although howandwhy99 has gone (in other threads, at least) way off into left field from my point of view, I think there is a significant distinction between "role playing" and "narration" -- and between "role playing" and playing an abstract game "handled via negotiation, or bargained with tokens" or by rolling dice or playing cards or what have you.

A single game might involve all of those pursuits, but the degree to which one is emphasized at the expense of another is to my mind important. When "role playing" in the original sense is marginalized enough, it is just obscurantist to insist on calling the thing a "role playing game" without qualification.

That marginalization appears to be the very sine qua non of the "indie system" appellation. Either manipulating the abstract game, or out-of-character narration from an "authorial" perspective -- usually a combination -- displaces the activity of dealing with an imagined situation from the perspective of someone smack dab in it.

An essential characteristic of a real person acting in a real world -- what a "role playing game" in the original sense seeks to emulate, however fantastic the assumed persona and milieu -- is being far from omniscience and omnipotence. The limits of knowledge and power are in fact the defining frontiers of personal identity. One is here, and not over there or then. One determines one's own deeds, not those of others (which is fundamentally what makes them others). What one can "make so" about the world depends upon one's tools -- and even magical tools involve some relationship of cause and effect.

That is precisely the point of the Game Master. An RPG is -- like real life -- a game of limited information. Without mystery, there is no discovery. Without the unpredictable, there is no risk. If all is vapor mutable at a whim, then there is no "there" there.

Above all, without limits defining a world beyond the role, there is no role to play in the first place.

 

[Desdichado]

The only reason combat rules have such primacy is because of the genre conventions on which most roleplaying games are based.

If roleplaying games had been based on Jane Austen novels instead of sword & sorcery short stories mingled with a handful of high fantasy novels, they may not have had combat rules at all.

I think there's still an awful lot of that element which has led to roleplaying games being what they are. People don't want to roleplay sitcoms or court room dramas nearly as much as they want to roleplay action.

That said, I think some roleplaying games are lacking in rules that emulate action situations, including some editions of D&D. D&D hasn't ever really had an integral chase mechanic that's anywhere near as robust as its combat mechanic. The skill system, arguably, addresses a number of other action type situations, but arguably it's also done so in a less robust manner than the combat rules.

Then again, also arguably, the combat rules are too detailed and there's too much focus on them because of Gary Gygax's background in tactical wargames.

I think you do the question a slight disservice by binning things into either combat or social interaction. There's plenty of other types of situations that can come up, too. Social interaction is tricky, though... in a roleplaying environment, you can, well, just roleplay a large chunk of the social interaction without needing any mechanics to do so, and in fact I'd wager most players see that as desireable, at least to some degree.

As to my personal opinion, I think the 3e game (I'm not very familiar with 4e, so I can't comment) had too much in the way of combat rules, and the reliance on tactical grids and minis made the combat scenes suffer; they tended to drag and grind, and the way the rules are written, there are too many incentives to play "boring" rather than adventurous in combat; run up and full attack as much as possible was almost always the best move for a combat character, for instance. I tend to handwave away some of the combat minutiae, and giving decent benefits and easy DCs for more adventurous, swashbuckling types of actions PCs might want to try.

The skill system was pretty good, especially tweaked as Pathfinder or Trailblazer did to consolidate some redundant or overly specialized ones. I still insist on roleplaying out social interactions, coupled with a roll, unless we're in a hurry to move on, in which case a roll is fine. I'm also still unhappy that no chase rules of any kind appeared until the DMG2, and they were kinda an anemic afterthought even then.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm also still unhappy that no chase rules of any kind appeared until the DMG2, and they were kinda an anemic afterthought even then.

It could be argued that chase rules, like rules for tracking and social interaction, don't warrant complexity. Ultimately the story and the needs of the DM will drive the success or failure of such activities, and the die roll is a placebo at best. A player, playing reasonably and in character, will usually persuade the duke, find the tracks, or catch up to his prey, as the story-- not the die roll-- dictates.

So why have rules? Why not just rely on GM fiat? Well, why not do that for combat? The players states his intention to kill the enemy, describes his action, and the GM decides if the enemy falls or if he strikes back and kills the PC. I doubt many players would enjoy such a system.

They might if the final success or failure was hidden behind multiple, sequential instances of GM fiat stretched across several rounds, with multiple milestones of success and failure along the way, and ample opportunities for the players to change their actions in response to that feedback. In combat, hit points come in handy as an easy feedback handle. No such handle of equal ease and satisfaction exists for non-combat challenges.

Hence the desire to model skill challenges (and by extension: chases) as a sequence of rolls, rather than a single roll. The base DC on any single given check drives the likelihood that the final (iterative) outcome will be success or failure-- and that DC is generally weighted heavily towards ultimate success (ie, GM fiat, disguised).

 

[Woas]

Ooops. I meant to say the hypothetical game SHOULDN'T have detailed baking rules in my previous post by the way.

Combat/physical conflict is the most complex situation that can and needs to be put into detail. With that statement the normally receive most of the page count when it comes to rule mechanics. Social skills systems are less rule dependent and are not as hard system friendly. With two 'facts' in mind there are few rules that govern them in most games.

This counters the original statement that I was responding to: Lots of combat rules or any emphasis on combat rules makes it a war game not a role playing game in my opinion.

So you think a hypothetical NASCAR game shouldn't have much more than a single die roll to see who won the 500 lap race since driving/racing isn't complex, or at the least not as complex as physical conflict in your eyes?