The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Gentlegamer]

The game has its origins in a tactical miniatures combat game, and it seems counterintuitive to make combat the central focus?

Read what you just wrote. Why invent a new game-form for combat when you already have one? That's one clue on why D&D grew out of wargaming not as a combat-focused game.

The central thing out of war gaming that blossomed into RPG was the referee adjudicating actions that
1) each player could not have full knowledge of (tunneling, espionage, etc)
2) could not have concrete rules for by the very nature of the type of action (generally non-combat)

This refereeing non-codified descriptive actions is the heart of what a role-playing game is, and is why D&D as a game is distinct from its war game rooted inspiration.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If people played DnD primarily for the violence, they wouldn't play it in the first place. There are better and faster methods.

Ah yes, indeed. This bears repeating, hence the quotage.

 

[billd91]

This refereeing non-codified descriptive actions is the heart of what a role-playing game is, and is why D&D as a game is distinct from its war game rooted inspiration.

But it's not exclusively distinct because, throughout its tenure, D&D has always had a substantial combat element and a substantial subgroup of players who play it mainly for the tactical combat challenge it presents. In other words, it maintains a deliberate connection to its roots in having a significant emphasis on combat.

I would argue that the non-combat space within D&D has expanded and contracted a bit over time as different supplemental materials have appeared throughout the editions. But a significant combat core has always existed. It's not the totality of what the game has been or can be, but there are many players out there for whom that part of D&D is enough.

 

[billd91]

If people played DnD primarily for the violence, they wouldn't play it in the first place. There are better and faster methods.

Careful. All this statement needs is one counter-example to debunk it.

 

[Woas]

Combat always has been so important (long before D&D - millenia before D&D), and always will be.

Combat has as it's stakes: DEATH! Many times involving the facing of apparently insurmountable odds.

Mortal combat does I suppose but certainly not all physical combat needs to end in death. Plus why couldn't a court-room scene where a life sentence (or death penalty) be just as dramatic with as much at stake?

There are no higher stakes with which to create dramatic tension with.

You're saying if a situation arose in game where a there was a court room 'battle' and it didn't come to olde fashioned fisticuffs and fights to the death it is automatically not worth any weight by game mechanics, considered ho hum and should be resolved with but a simple "Lawyer, DC 15" check?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You're saying if a situation arose in game where a there was a court room 'battle' and it didn't come to olde fashioned fisticuffs and fights to the death it is automatically not worth any weight by game mechanics, considered ho hum and should be resolved with but a simple "Lawyer, DC 15" check?

If you can make a court-room battle interesting beyond a single ho-hum check, there's apparently a huge untapped market waiting for you. Billions and billions of dollars to be made on frustrated WoW players who would rather be emulating Perry Mason than Conan.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Woas]

Ahh, I didn't say combat has to end in death, I said the Stakes always involve death. There's ALWAYS the risk of death when violence is used. Even if not intended. Not so with other non-combat challenges. There may be the risk of death there also, but not always.

I see what you are saying then.
But where does defeat come in? Death afterall is just one form of defeat. You feel that unless defeat does not have some permanent aspect to it, it will should not be as important?

With the results of combat having a more likely a chance of an absolute outcome (namely DEATH), rules for adjudication are necessary to maintain a semblance of "fairness" and mitigate the pain of "Death through DM Fiat".

So long as the out-come of non-combat situations is not death, DM fiat is an acceptable tool then you believe? What about non-combat situations where death is at stake though? How are those kept fair?

It's impossible to come up with a mechanical system that would handle every possible non-combat situation. How do you quantify things like NPC motivation, thoughts, feelings, etc. Think the plethora of rules covering combat can be overwhelming? This would be absolutely scary to think about let alone attempt. This is why non-combat resolution mechanics tend to be more general in scope and require a large amount of DM involvement.

Yet there are RPGs that do this and do it well. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. So it is your belief that a resolution system to arbitrate every single plausible 'combat' situation is possible? Can you extrapolate this thought out for me more?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Personally, I think any DM can run combat. Non-combat encounters, in order to be done well, absolutely require the best effort a DM can muster. Non-combat encounters are where good DM's shine.

And as I noted above, compelling non-combat mechanics are where good game designers shine.

 

[Chrono22]

No, it's an extremely good idea, hence the undying popularity of Dungeons and Dragons and the countless other games it has spawned in the "Kill things and take their stuff" genre.

I suppose football is just about heavy men running into eachother to you. And race car driving is just about driving in circles.

It's pure tradition that keeps these games selling, and selling, and selling. Sure.

Well, that was what you thought, apparently, when you based the game off of perspectives of what gaming entails that are over thirty years old and even predate roleplaying games.

Ahhhh... Now we get to the heart of your biases.

Yep. You got it on the mark here. I am biased. I like good products that do what I need them to do. 4e doesn't fill any need for me, and it takes the brand in a direction I don't like- backwards.