Distinct Game Modes: Combat vs Social vs Exploration etc...

[zakael19]

I like games that have an expectation of a "Downtime" with a different zoom level built in, be that via loose procedures or genuine mechanics and currencies. It can be idk, "safe" feeling for the players to move into the Downtime period and know that they can engage with those procedures without worrying about escalation and surprises (most of the time); focusing down on character moments and personal business.

Then we coalesce back up and focus on group-stuff and big problems and all that again.

 

[Scott Christian]

I actually think that is one of the beauties of D&D and PF, all three modes can use the same rules. Yes, there are subtle shifts, but not really. Whether in combat or exploration or role playing, you are still having to roll to determine some outcomes. The turn based is a little more rigid during combat, but overall, it is still very much the same mechanics.

 

[Celebrim]

So, how do you feel about mechanical shifts for game mode changes?

I like them. Cramming all the different rules into a single unified system often just ignores that the things being simulated are wildly different in character. Applying your combat rules to social interactions is a big sign the designer is more into formalism and rules as read, rather than rules in play and play testing.

I think that you can make compelling minigames for the main moments of excitement and a generic test mechanic for almost everything else. Each minigame looks at the situation you are trying to simulate and deals with its unique characteristics while trying to also be useful in play. Of course, that doesn't mean that the minigames have to be wholly distinctive, but if combat, persuasion, evasion, mass combat, sanity/horror/stress and so forth play out differently in the real world then its reasonable they should play out differently at the table. And having minigames recognizes that a great simplified tactical combat system might be at a loss when running a chase scene and far too granular to run a combat with 2000 combatants on each side. Morale, command and control, and so forth might be not important considerations at the tactical level, but be hugely important to how mass combat would play out. It makes sense to know whether something is 8 feet from something else when you have a detailed map, but less sense when you are engaged in a chase that goes over miles or tens of miles of terrain. That you can defeat someone in combat doesn't mean you can defeat someone in a debate with the same degree of finality - I like for example how in DitV someone can always try to trump defeat at social combat by resorting to violence.

 

[Reynard]

I actually think that is one of the beauties of D&D and PF, all three modes can use the same rules. Yes, there are subtle shifts, but not really. Whether in combat or exploration or role playing, you are still having to roll to determine some outcomes. The turn based is a little more rigid during combat, but overall, it is still very much the same mechanics.

That is interesting. I see them as very different. Sure, they use the same resolution system, but combat has a ridiculous amount of granular resources pointed at it, exploration very few, and social next to none. The challenge resolution in each is entirely different, for example.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't mind firm transitions, such as in Alien or other YZE games, nor more flexible, such as in Sentinel Comics or Daggerheart.

 

[Scott Christian]

That is interesting. I see them as very different. Sure, they use the same resolution system, but combat has a ridiculous amount of granular resources pointed at it, exploration very few, and social next to none. The challenge resolution in each is entirely different, for example.

I 100% agree. Combat is a lot more granular. I just mean, that in the big picture, it is all the same. Disarming a trap vs convincing a shopkeeper to lower the price vs swinging a sword. There is a bunch more variables in some as opposed to others, but it still resolves the same way. As I said before, I actually think that is one of the games' strengths.

 

[Reynard]

I 100% agree. Combat is a lot more granular. I just mean, that in the big picture, it is all the same. Disarming a trap vs convincing a shopkeeper to lower the price vs swinging a sword. There is a bunch more variables in some as opposed to others, but it still resolves the same way. As I said before, I actually think that is one of the games' strengths.

But they don't. Convincing s shop keeper and disarming a trap maybe, but combat does not look like that. You can't make a skill check to defeat the goblin.

 

[Scott Christian]

But they don't. Convincing s shop keeper and disarming a trap maybe, but combat does not look like that. You can't make a skill check to defeat the goblin.

I understand. But a skill check is the same thing as an attack with a sword. It's all the same. One uses dex and proficiency, and the other uses dex/strength and proficiency. Combat just has one little extra step, damage. The overall way you determine success is the same. Add up the numbers and determine if it beats the DC.
Maybe I am not being clear enough. I agree combat has more variables. But the rules all lean into the same mechanics.

 

[dbm]

I think it is useful to differentiate between mechanics and procedures. D20 games have a solid mechanic in d20 + mods vs DC. And they tend to have a robust combat procedure which uses that mechanic. But often they don’t have many other procedures.

A game which balances this well, for me, is Savage Worlds. It has two important mechanics - the exploding skill roll, and using cards for initiative. Then it has several procedures which cover things likely to take a focus in game: combat, chases, debate, mass combat. And there is a broadly applicable ‘dramatic task’ procedure and a broadly applicable ‘quick encounter’ procedure.

Skill rolls are naturally always important. Where the implementation shines is in how things like the card system are well integrated into all these things. A player can buy edges for their character which increase card draw, and because card draw is incorporated into all the systems (pretty much - there are couple where it isn’t a factor) those edges retain their value whether it’s a combat, a chase, or doing a major dramatic task like casting a ritual or disarming a doomsday device.

There are also other procedures for things like Interludes (quiet moments where the characters can just hang out and talk) and while these don’t require skills rolls or card draw they do generate bennies for the characters, which is another tent-pole mechanic for Savage Worlds.

 

[Reynard]

I understand. But a skill check is the same thing as an attack with a sword. It's all the same. One uses dex and proficiency, and the other uses dex/strength and proficiency. Combat just has one little extra step, damage. The overall way you determine success is the same. Add up the numbers and determine if it beats the DC.
Maybe I am not being clear enough. I agree combat has more variables. But the rules all lean into the same mechanics.

You are talking about a core mechanic. Not quite the same thing, as @dbm articulated.