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

[Reynard]

One thing that I find interesting is how different TTRPGs handle the shift from one mode of playing (talking to the Baron) to another mode of play (combat against the Baron's guards) based on the things happening in play. Some games try and minimize the mode shift such that the mechanics are the same no matter what is happening in the fiction -- although it is rare to see the game maintain the same time unit of action even if the "rolls" are the same.

Other games are intentionally distinct between modes. This is most common in the difference between combat and, well, not-combat, but some games also have distinct mechanical modes for exploration, social encounters, and/or "downtime." In these cases, the resources that power the players' capabilities may or may not be the same, and (IMO) the good ones use silo'd resources.

So, how do you feel about mechanical shifts for game mode changes? What games do it well, in your opinion? What games do it in a way you DO NOT like?

 

[Reynard]

From a GM's perspective, I like when mode shifts occur. It helps me reset my brain to the new thing that is happening. That probably has a lot to do with me being a trad gamer for my whole life.

 

[payn]

I kinda like both methods.

The downsides that come to mind;
In a mode shift system, it can feel inorganic and often the modes are not equally satisfying.
In a unified system, it can often feel like all pillars are essentially the same and are left to what you make of them.

The upsides I can think of;
Mode shift systems make each action feel distinct and tickle the game portion of the RPG.
Unified systems feel consistent and allow you to effortlessly proceed from one scene to the next.

Examples of mode shift systems;
Efficient: Android by FFG. Each day is portioned out from morning to night. The game is a sci-fi noir investigator game so it naturally sets clocks and scenes for players.
Inefficient: PF2 by Paizo. Adding a mode shift was sort of confusing to the current players. It didnt seem to be something folks were asking for, and it wasnt a rigid or well supported idea, so it went by the wayside. (Let me note that I think PF2 is a fine system, I just think the mode shift aspect is more of an after thought than an actual working feature)

Examples of unified systems;
Efficient: Traveller This system is all about skills. The flatter progression allows you to dive in and the complications are few across all modes.
Inefficient: 5E The unified mechanic doesnt flow well between modes. Unlike Traveller, D&D definitely feels different between combat/exploration/social and not in good ways. Despite having a 20 level progression system, skill systems feels same across all levels.

 

[GMMichael]

One could say that a shift in game mode (application of a different set of rules) is necessary for fitting the feeling of a scene. Conversation amongst friends feels pretty comfortable, so a comfortable set of rules for it is appropriate. Armed combat is decidedly uncomfortable, exacting maybe, so one might expect more rules to fit that change from comfortable.

Minimizing the mode shift sounds like an effort to maintain a feeling throughout a game, then. Changing that feeling as scenes change is going to require different efforts from the GM besides changing rules.

One change I don't like is going from a comfortable, free-flowing scene to a free-flowing, chaotic scene (read: exploration to combat) by introducing rules that require procedural, linear behavior (read: exclusive, turn-based activity).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One thing that I find interesting is how different TTRPGs handle the shift from one mode of playing (talking to the Baron) to another mode of play (combat against the Baron's guards) based on the things happening in play. Some games try and minimize the mode shift such that the mechanics are the same no matter what is happening in the fiction -- although it is rare to see the game maintain the same time unit of action even if the "rolls" are the same.

Other games are intentionally distinct between modes. This is most common in the difference between combat and, well, not-combat, but some games also have distinct mechanical modes for exploration, social encounters, and/or "downtime." In these cases, the resources that power the players' capabilities may or may not be the same, and (IMO) the good ones use silo'd resources.

So, how do you feel about mechanical shifts for game mode changes? What games do it well, in your opinion? What games do it in a way you DO NOT like?

For my game, Crossroads, I do a mix. Resources are universal, and rather than combat i use Conflict mechanics, which are basically the same whether it is physical or social, lethal or nonlethal, etc. A fight, a football game, a negotiation, all use initiative, stances, rounds, and phases.

Hell mass combat or political manubering at scale use the conflict structure.

And investigation, research, preparation for conflict, enviromental challenges, etc, all use Challenge rules while dont use init or stances but do use rounds and phases optionally.

Any scene can be dealt with as a simple challenge, which is looser and uses just skill checks and "you cannot use a spent action again until all pcs have used theirs or passed." But that is for stuff that is more in between scenes.

 

[Deset Gled]

So, how do you feel about mechanical shifts for game mode changes? What games do it well, in your opinion? What games do it in a way you DO NOT like?

I recently got to play a game of Top Secret: New World Order with one of the creators, Jayson Elliott. We were just finishing up a stealthy break-in scene and about to leave in our minivan when a delivery truck pulled up. A couple rolls later, and we were in the middle of a car chase, being shot at by some goons who realized we weren't supposed to be there.

The car chase used a sub-system of the game we hadn't used before. The game still used the same core dice mechanic, but the sub-system added in tables to consult and a different challenge system. I noticed that for a modern game, it used a number of older-school techniques. It definitely added a layer of complexity; some people would probably call it clunky.

And it was 100% awesome. The notable shift in gameplay made it feel exactly like a big scene change in a movie. One minute we were being all sneaky and stealthy, and the next we were in a high action chase. We didn't have music playing, but everyone could still hear the soundtrack change from quiet tense strings to a rock-and-roll explosion. The game changing and using different mechanics was a huge part of communicating that change and making the game feel meaningfully different from one mode to another. We even ended in a dramatic crash.

IMNSHO, this shows the real limitations of rules-light systems. When everything uses the exact same mechanics, eventually everything starts to feel the same. The crunch and complexity of a good sub-system, used the right way, doesn't just change mechanics. It changes the feel. It changes the style. When done well, it's amazing.

OTOH, I also recently had a session zero for a new 5e game, and still got anxious when a player mentioned wanting to play a grappler. My 3e era grappling sub-system trauma kicked in for a few seconds. So there is a dark side to sub-systems, too. They're good for making a change when you want the game to feel different. But using them to break up something that should be smooth (like, in the middle of combat) is a mistake.

 

[djotaku]

I struggle the most with this in Cosmere TTRPG. They have a specific mechanic for social modes where there's essentially an emotional HP called "focus". When you're trying to convince an NPC to do what you want (and it's not something they would normally just do) you have to wear them down to 0 focus. The table I run for seems not to act like the campaign game designers intended. They never really ask enough questions or try enough to wear down the person. It ends up being clunky.

I have the rules for Paizo games (Humble Bundle), but haven't played or GM'd yet.

But for 5e this is butter for me. There's no mechanic so I decide if someone rolls persuasion or performance or deception. And whatever they roll, I can decide it's the right number if they accompany it with a convincing performance. (That is, if they say "i convince the dude" they need to roll high. If they provide me with reasons why the dude should cooperate and they make sense I allow for a lower roll)

 

[Nytmare]

I'm a huge fan of how Torchbearer (and to a lesser extent the rest of the Burning Wheel family) handles it.

You have unified methods for how, broadly, problems are solved; but you have distinct phases of play based off of where those problems are faced. On top of that, you need to collect resources and metacurrencies in each phase to then use in the other phases of play.

During the Adventure phase you're trying to get your hands on valuables because you need valuables to be able to buy things in town. Trying to get those valuables means that you're going to be DOING things, which means that time will pass, which means The Grind is going to wear you down and beat you up. Just doing things is fine, but to get better at things, you need to also occasionally learn from your mistakes, so on a meta level, you want your character to also sometimes fail at doing things so that your skill levels will go up. One of the ways that you can stack things against your character is to use their Traits against themselves for penalty dice. Doing that will also earn you a metacurrency called a Check.

You NEED Checks because during the Camp Phase, those Checks are what you exchange to be able to trigger narratively important scenes. Cooking a meal, recovering/removing negative Conditions, fixing damaged armor; all of the things a character might want to get done while they break for camp have to be paid for by the player putting the character in situations where they are learning from their mistakes.

Once you escape the dungeon and you return back to town you enter the Town phase, where the player and character have a chance to recuperate and enjoy the fragile security of civilization. But it's easy to turn into a delicate game of press your luck, where you're trying gauge what you need to have, so that you'll be able to survive outside the walls vs what it's all going to cost, and whether or not you'll actually be able to pay for everything and escape your growing debts.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[jian]

Generally we tend to have four play modes: investigation, talking, fighting, and downtime.

• Investigation can be, well, just research and investigation but also includes any other between-scenes time-critical activities. It rarely has a system such as a clock, but does tend to require occasional skill checks. It segues easily in and out of:
• Talking, which is any social on-screen scene when PCs and NPCs chat about important things (or unimportant things). Rarely involves skill checks unless the player insists that their PC is better at this stuff than they are, in which case that's fine. Sometimes builds naturally to a confrontation and thus:
• Fighting: Pretty much every game we play has solid meaty tactical rules for this. I think we all know how this works.
• Downtime: Which is what happens between adventures. Some games, such as Birthright or Ars Magica, have really solid rules for this. I think this is where our group tends to run into mode-shift problems most, because you're going from a standard RPG to a resource management sim game.

We've played a lot of games with more robust systems for investigation and talking (such as Dogs in the Vineyard, Smallville, and Blades in the Dark). As the GM I've always found clocks artificial and clunky. The Smallville system for social/physical combat works OK, because you basically decide that chats are also fights using the same rules, but it can have fiction/action conflicts that can feel artificial - OK, so I've made him Angry, but how? How is he defeated when his Anger exceeds d12?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I like it when a game book helps me find what I am looking for. (at least, that helps me answer the OP question)

So if the game as meaningful Social rules, I like it when the book has a Social chapter.
same for combat rules, its nice to have a Combat chapter.

Some games, like 2d20 (Infinity especially) make the rules, resolution, stats, items, everything the same same - just different names. So in Infinity you can have a 1d6 gun that aids harm (combat) or you can have a 1d6 blackmail letter that aids resolve loss (social) - but the rolls, and rules are identical (other than different stats and skills used of course.
So that's fine too.

I am also ok with how Apocalypse World handles Combat, Wound and Persuasion entirely differently (other than its core mechanics of 6-, 7-9, 10+) and even that is altered with how you take harm...
So that's fine too.

Cortex Prime did amazing things with "Stress" dice, I loved that, so very much... it was same same for all action types, just different stress.

Regardless, I think its nice when rules are simple, concise and require no math operations (please no division mid-game! )