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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Exactly. Subsystems help different situations in the fiction feel different mechanically, and aid in simulation by providing different modeling tools for different situations.

 

[payn]

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.

Im not so sure. I think the idea that combat is just more granular is one of tradition than actually being natural. Folks just talked it out for a long time because there was no mechanics for the social pillar. There were not really any mechanics for the exploration pillar either, which is where all the make up actions and GM adjudicates rulings over rules developed.

By 3E, they developed a granular skill system but it had an invest or dont bother problem. Exploration became more mechanically developed, but social pillar was basically make a single roll and hope you had invested in doing that social activity. Sub-system after sub system (PF1) were created for the rules over rulings era.

Then, 5E backtracked and split the difference as they had done on so many things. Skill system is set and forget, social pillar left back to talking, etc.. 5E was designed to do a lot of things ok, but nothing particularly well. I think that idea I can smash a triangle block through a circle hole with 5E means its flexible, but I dont think its a strength in itself.

 

[Reynard]

There were not really any mechanics for the exploration pillar either,

There were, they were just GM facing procedures usually tied to some d6 roll or another. It is unsurprising that GMs just started winging it.

 

[Celebrim]

Im not so sure. I think the idea that combat is just more granular is one of tradition than actually being natural. Folks just talked it out for a long time because there was no mechanics for the social pillar.

This is the received wisdom of modern gaming that I've been listening to now for like 25 years. And all the attempts to actually act on those two statements have completely failed. And just like how "hit points are bad" was the talk of the 1980s, and I eventually realized just how a wrong that statement was, I have no come to believe those two statements while just about everyone says them especially all the cool kids who really know about lots of systems and game design are equally as wrong as the whole idea that hit points are bad and what we need is more realism.

There are two unsolvable problems.

The first is that social actions are unlike combat actions in that the best we can manage to make a combat action evocative and real and impactful is to simulate it. We could try LARP and foam swords and so forth, and there is a place for that, but you can't really LARP a fight with a 60' dragon in a crumbling ruin on breakdown that is sliding under your feet while someone casts a lightning bolt. There is a level of fantasy that you just can't manage with foam swords. LARP combat has to be limited to smaller more gritty scales, and it's not perfect solution anyway. So we do tactical wargames as a minigame within the RPG. But social actions are just conversation and dialogue and it's just a whole lot easier and more immersive to manage that and create that and have that be evocative and real and impactful by just having conversation and dialogue rather than trying to manage it as a complex tactical wargame. Sure, we do have some of the same problems of LARPing that LARPing combat does, in that it's hard to always simulate heroic conversation especially if you aren't very much of a thespian, but even that problem is easier to deal with than LARPing swords because we can always dice for how well the invented conversation lands easier and with less disruption than we could for dicing how well the sword hits landed. It's a lot easier to simulate the character leveling up at conversation while LARPing than simulating the same leveling up process with LARP combat. So fundamentally, as just a result of the very different natures of conversation and combat, the solutions that work for one just don't work for the other in a game. Rules heavy works better for combat. Rules lite works better for social pillars.

The other problem is that combat is almost unique in how much it rewards cooperation and teamwork. Social pillars just can't be forced to have the same structure in the general case. You can through good encounter design force players in a social encounter to have to work together, but in general especially with organic social encounters that weren't heavily designed, the best strategy in a social pillar is almost always to let the "face man" handle the encounter by himself. It's hard to force a social engagement to where the help of the socially inept baffoon actually helps rather than hinders success. And so social engagement can almost never be as regularly engrossing for the whole group as combat can be.

 

[payn]

This is the received wisdom of modern gaming that I've been listening to now for like 25 years. And all the attempts to actually act on those two statements have completely failed. And just like how "hit points are bad" was the talk of the 1980s, and I eventually realized just how a wrong that statement was, I have no come to believe those two statements while just about everyone says them especially all the cool kids who really know about lots of systems and game design are equally as wrong as the whole idea that hit points are bad and what we need is more realism.

There are two unsolvable problems.

The first is that social actions are unlike combat actions in that the best we can manage to make a combat action evocative and real and impactful is to simulate it. We could try LARP and foam swords and so forth, and there is a place for that, but you can't really LARP a fight with a 60' dragon in a crumbling ruin on breakdown that is sliding under your feet while someone casts a lightning bolt. There is a level of fantasy that you just can't manage with foam swords. LARP combat has to be limited to smaller more gritty scales, and it's not perfect solution anyway. So we do tactical wargames as a minigame within the RPG. But social actions are just conversation and dialogue and it's just a whole lot easier and more immersive to manage that and create that and have that be evocative and real and impactful by just having conversation and dialogue rather than trying to manage it as a complex tactical wargame. Sure, we do have some of the same problems of LARPing that LARPing combat does, in that it's hard to always simulate heroic conversation especially if you aren't very much of a thespian, but even that problem is easier to deal with than LARPing swords because we can always dice for how well the invented conversation lands easier and with less disruption than we could for dicing how well the sword hits landed. It's a lot easier to simulate the character leveling up at conversation while LARPing than simulating the same leveling up process with LARP combat. So fundamentally, as just a result of the very different natures of conversation and combat, the solutions that work for one just don't work for the other in a game. Rules heavy works better for combat. Rules lite works better for social pillars.

This is a whole pile of feelings and preferences being paraded as correct.

The other problem is that combat is almost unique in how much it rewards cooperation and teamwork. Social pillars just can't be forced to have the same structure in the general case. You can through good encounter design force players in a social encounter to have to work together, but in general especially with organic social encounters that weren't heavily designed, the best strategy in a social pillar is almost always to let the "face man" handle the encounter by himself. It's hard to force a social engagement to where the help of the socially inept baffoon actually helps rather than hinders success. And so social engagement can almost never be as regularly engrossing for the whole group as combat can be.

This is exactly what I was talking about folks. There is nothing wrong with the traditional approach if it works for you. Acting like its the only and/or correct approach is because you dont have experience contrary or you didnt like it.

 

[Celebrim]

This is a whole pile of feelings and preferences being paraded as correct.

No, it's not. It's some objective observations combined with one actual preference. And the fact that it is in fact not just a pile of feelings and preferences is I think also demonstrated by the fact you make no attempt to demonstrate that the claims I made were erroneous or subjective.

The real preference is the claim that things are more fun when the imagined shared fantasy world is engaged with in a way that makes it feel more real, in the sense of we can all imagine what is going on in the shared fantasy world together, seeing and hearing in our mind what is happening in the fantasy world based on what is happening at the table.

And if that isn't your preference then fine. You can say in response, "Well I don't care whether the process of social interaction has no more in common with conversation and dialogue than rolling a dice has with swinging a sword", then if that is the case, then there really isn't an added advantage to having transcripts of actual conversation and dialogue in as far as it would impact your enjoyment. But what you can't say is that it is merely a feeling on my part that actual conversation and dialogue is more like conversation and dialogue than rolling a dice. That's not a feeling or a preference.

This is exactly what I was talking about folks. There is nothing wrong with the traditional approach if it works for you. Acting like its the only and/or correct approach is because you dont have experience contrary or you didnt like it.

Once again, the fact that you aren't actually addressing what I said is just demonstrating to me that the problem with my argument is that you don't like it and not that it is wrong. For one thing, I never said anything about this being the only correct approach or that anyone had to play my way. That's a poisoning the well sort of a attack that has no bearing on what I said or what I believe.

I think hit points are the best mechanic for simulating injury in a game, but I'm currently playing a system that lacks them. Why? Because, while I do think in the ideal world hit points would be better for the system than not having them, inventing a whole system is hard and redoing a system in the middle of the campaign probably unwise. I'll probably address a WEG D6 system with a Traveller style character burner and something more like hit points in some future iteration of my play. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And of course, if no one cares about the advantages a hit point provides, they are welcome to play without them.

Likewise, if you want to go some other way and try to have elaborate social combat systems and unified mechanics, feel free. But I am telling you that the design adopted traditionally isn't arbitrary and that there are real serious design concerns that tend to pull a game towards rules heavy combat and rules lite social. Maybe at some level there is a preference there, but so is say a kiss over a slap to the face. I recognize those preferences aren't universal, but they are pretty common.

 

[payn]

No, it's not. It's some objective observations combined with one actual preference. And the fact that it is in fact not just a pile of feelings and preferences is I think also demonstrated by the fact you make no attempt to demonstrate that the claims I made were erroneous or subjective.

The real preference is the claim that things are more fun when the imagined shared fantasy world is engaged with in a way that makes it feel more real, in the sense of we can all imagine what is going on in the shared fantasy world together, seeing and hearing in our mind what is happening in the fantasy world based on what is happening at the table.

And if that isn't your preference then fine. You can say in response, "Well I don't care whether the process of social interaction has no more in common with conversation and dialogue than rolling a dice has with swinging a sword", then if that is the case, then there really isn't an added advantage to having transcripts of actual conversation and dialogue in as far as it would impact your enjoyment. But what you can't say is that it is merely a feeling on my part that actual conversation and dialogue is more like conversation and dialogue than rolling a dice. That's not a feeling or a preference.



Once again, the fact that you aren't actually addressing what I said is just demonstrating to me that the problem with my argument is that you don't like it and not that it is wrong. For one thing, I never said anything about this being the only correct approach or that anyone had to play my way. That's a poisoning the well sort of a attack that has no bearing on what I said or what I believe.

I think hit points are the best mechanic for simulating injury in a game, but I'm currently playing a system that lacks them. Why? Because, while I do think in the ideal world hit points would be better for the system than not having them, inventing a whole system is hard and redoing a system in the middle of the campaign probably unwise. I'll probably address a WEG D6 system with a Traveller style character burner and something more like hit points in some future iteration of my play. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And of course, if no one cares about the advantages a hit point provides, they are welcome to play without them.

Likewise, if you want to go some other way and try to have elaborate social combat systems and unified mechanics, feel free. But I am telling you that the design adopted traditionally isn't arbitrary and that there are real serious design concerns that tend to pull a game towards rules heavy combat and rules lite social. Maybe at some level there is a preference there, but so is say a kiss over a slap to the face. I recognize those preferences aren't universal, but they are pretty common.

You are right, I didnt address it because I dont want to get in a line in sand pissing contest on this. I want to discuss the topic. I dont care if you think it needs to be a certain way and everything else is wrong and anyone who thinks so is a hipster. Maybe next time you want to have an actual discussion, be mindful of not poisoning the well on your way to doing so.

 

[Fenris-77]

A different set of considerations have to deal with genre. Some games, like dungeon crawl games for example, have very clearly definable and separate phases to the game. At the table you tend to see play broken up into larger segments of one or the other pillar. This is even more specific in some flavours of OSR that have a specific design principle that says combat goes in the dungeon not in the town (or some version of that). These larger chunks limit the number of shifts back and forth between various subsystems, mechanics, and for things that do shift often, like combat and exploration, those games tend to provide very clear guidance.

On the other hand we have games like (just to pick a couple) Vampire or Monster of the Week. Those games still have play in all three pillars, granted probably more social and less exploration, but whatevs. What those do that is different is they (potentially) shift back and forth between the various pillars potentially much more frequently, even within specific scenes. The more you have to shift mechanics when you shift pillars they more those shifts have the potential to disrupt and bog down play. Unified systems, if well designed, probably handle this constant shifting better than games with more distinct subsystems and mechanics for each pillar. I'm generalizing, obviously, but hopefully in a useful way.

 

[Reynard]

I think Blades in the Dark is a game that is well designed with different modes of play intentionally baked into the design, to the point of breaking up actual play sessions into specific phases. I think that is a feature of the FitD system, rather than the PbtA antecedent, but I could be wrong (only knowing a few PbtA games).

 

[Celebrim]

I want to discuss the topic.

The topic is why we have separate systems for social, exploration, combat, and other pillars of play, and why also we prefer (or do not prefer) separate systems.

I have asserted that the design decision to use separate systems is not arbitrary because the things being simulated have different qualities. I am asserting that as objective fact. A conversation has different properties than a combat. A conversation can be metaphorically a combat, and have many overlapping qualities with a combat, but each still has distinctive features not shared with the other.

The only actual preference I'm asserting is for the process of play to produce a transcript of play (like if you recorded it or video taped it) that would allow you to imagine very concretely what was happening in the fictional space. For example, there is an objective difference between saying, "The Queen agrees to your demands." and the "The Queen says, "For you Sir Robert, who have done so much to protect the person and the crown of England, I can not graciously say no without appearing churlish. You will have your ships, and my blessing and good wishes, and all that England can do for you."

It's a preference which one you like, but it's not subjective that they are different.

I dont care if you think it needs to be a certain way and everything else is wrong and anyone who thinks so is a hipster. Maybe next time you want to have an actual discussion, be mindful of not poisoning the well on your way to doing so.

There is a whole ton of projection going on there.