Any RPGs that focus on roleplaying instead of combat?

[Bedrockgames]

Just a minor point, i mentioned abstraction in passing and was not trying to draw a firm line in the sand around that point (what is or is not possible when the mechanics are abstracted). My point was just that i tend not to enjoy myself as much when social interaction uses mechanics similar to combat, because for me, that impedes my direct experience and connection to the interaction and the setting. I think expanding on that personal observation to set up a rule or theory of gaming is a mistake. If it helps explain why you think you have difficulty with social mechanics great, but i find people often get lost in debating the reasons they dont like something and confuse defending the explanation with defending their dislike. You see this all the time in these debates where each side seems convinced that if it can prove mechanic A isn't X, or mechanic A really is Y, or mechanics A and B actually do operate on the same principle, then the other side must relinquish its position that mechanic A isn't fun but B is. At its core, I am simply saying i do not find social combat fun, and i find social mechanics can be intrusive. The truth is it is sometimes very hard to know why you dont like a particular rule (i myself have really tried to understand my own dislike of things like diplomacy for years). So far this is my best explanation, but it is simply an attempt to explain...not sure how well it will hold up under scrutiny.

 

[ThirdWizard]

EDIT: Nothing here to see.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thirdwizard, I wasn't responding to you or addressing your points, I was responding to the two posters who agreed with me.

 

[booga69]

I'd definitely recommend Shadows of Esteren

 

[Rechan]

Oh man, so many.

Paranoia. Paranoia is... I actually don't know if there are straight up rules to Paranoia.

Hillfolk is Robin Laws' new RPG. The way I've had it explained is that it's sort of like improvising dramatic TV shows, like The Sopronos, House of Cards, Carnivale etc, which are about character relationships and drama and such.

Prime Time Adventures is an RPG about, well, creating TV shows. The mechanics are more about scenes focusing on characters and having dice to make dramatic changes/actions. Those don't have to be combat - one of the examples used is actually a comedy show.

Monsterhearts is a paranormal romance rpg - its focus is teenage monsters in love. The only violent move possible is "lash out physically".

I would wager GUMSHOE, because its primary focus is investigations.

Penny For My Thoughts is more of an improv/question game than an RPG.

I figure most of your Horror RPGs are because in general, in most horror RPGs, if you fight you get dead.

 

[Rechan]

Also the discussion of roleplay/mechanics/whatnots:

If I'm a skinny guy, I can pretend to be a beefy barbarian and have rules to let me beat people up. All that I need is the dice. I should also be able to pretend to be a clever-tongued scoundrel even if I, the player, am socially awkward. The dice should let me talk my way out of it because even though I can't, my character should be able to because that's what his training is in.

All mechanics are, at their heart, are a device to do the following: "I want to do x. Do I succeed, y/n?" It's all variations on a coin flip. So there's not a whole lot of difference between "I slap the king" and "I lie to the king". It succeeds or it doesn't, and something should probably help determine success beyond pure conjecture.

 

[steenan]

While I fully agree with your first paragraph, I disagree with the second.

The mechanics being only about deciding on success and failure is a very limited view and it is a source of many problems with D&D.

There are many games where mechanics decide whether an intention was realized, not whether a task was successful. There are games where bad rolls still allow for success, but with a cost or complication. There are games where mechanics dictate things that don't causally depend on characters' actions. There are games where mechanics form a groundwork for negotiation between players or distribute narrative rights.

None of these can be reduced to success/failure.

 

[sabrinathecat]

I'd disagree with that statement, many of them have detailed combat rules, but that doesn't mean they revolve around combat. That usually has more to do with the group and what story players are trying to tell with those rules.

Most roleplaying games revolve around conflict of some form, and more often that means combat.

THIS.
The biggest argument I hear about 4e D&D is that it's all combat and there's no way to Role Play. B S!!!!
It is entirely possible to Role Play, no matter what the system. That is up to the GM and the Players.
Why are combat rules so complicated and detailed? Because combat is complicated and detailed. Imagine having to detail the rules of conversation, including grammar. The Chicago Manual of Style is 3.5 inches thick!

RPGs have a certain level of escapism, and are based around conflict resolution (D&D was based on classic miniatures war-gaming). When the discussion devolves to violence, you can surrender or deal with it. The players are supposed to be heroes.

I played a Champions game with a total pacifist. While fun in some ways, he was largely useless in others. When it came to combat, he would apply first aid and healing powers to anyone who was down, to make sure the murderous member of the group didn't get to outright kill anyone.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

While I fully agree with your first paragraph, I disagree with the second.

The mechanics being only about deciding on success and failure is a very limited view and it is a source of many problems with D&D.

There are many games where mechanics decide whether an intention was realized, not whether a task was successful. There are games where bad rolls still allow for success, but with a cost or complication. There are games where mechanics dictate things that don't causally depend on characters' actions. There are games where mechanics form a groundwork for negotiation between players or distribute narrative rights.

None of these can be reduced to success/failure.

Sounds like you're describing Hillfolk, which I just started reading.

I really like how Robin Laws gets one of the fundamental problems in most social conflict scenes. When a PC is in an argument with an NPC, or finds someone trying to persuade them to concede a point, the natural reaction of the player is to never give in. And that makes for poor drama - in TV shows and plays, characters make concessions and compromises all the time. Instead of basing it on how high your dice roll, the Dramasystem in Hillfolk provides a currency of points that can be traded and saved up, so that you can pace when you lose in dramatic scenes, and when you get to make a difference and win. And it's an entirely different mechanic from the procedural scenes, like combat and chase scenes and stuff that doesn't involve character drama.

It's such a refreshing way to look at dramatic conflict. I love it.

 

[RedGalaxy00]

A common game overlooked for it's powerful roleplaying capabilities is the Smallville Roleplaying Game. Probably because it's called "The Smallville Roleplaying Game". However, a quick look through the rulebook shows that it can be used for any setting, with 1001 different outcomes. Honestly, it's highly underrated, and is quite fun. (It was built off of the Cortex rule system, by Margret Wies, I think is how her name is spelt. They also did Supernatural, Serenity, Leverage, and others... but Smallville is probably my favorite.)