Forked: GTS - A need for "A robust system that handles things outside of combat"?

[Mallus]

And as for the original question, put me down as a fan of rules-heavier combat/rules-lighter non-combat.

I prefer to have a relatively small set of defined character abilities that can be used in multiple ways and multiple situations. I don't mind if the rules don't differentiate between a ladies man and, say a crack sergeant/leader of men, for example. I'm fine with the DM/GM using their rulings to make the distinction felt during play.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I'd like a nice non-combat system mostly because I'm intrigued by the idea of rolling dice then explaining what the dice rolls mean in terms of the narration. In an ideal world, this would apply in combat as well - the player rolls attack and damage and, based on those rolls, narrates what happened.

I'm also interested in maybe handling "noncombat" things as basically like combat, where various situations have a hit point value, defenses, and so on. When the situation (debate, exploration, etc.) reduces to 0 hp, then it's "dead."

 

[alleynbard]

Some good stuff

Have some XP.

 

[Ariosto]

Johnathan Moyer: Maybe Risus or The Pool would suit you better.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I think 4E would work better with non-combat encounters if they had integrated tables and the like into the DMG, instead of relegating it to the PHB.

WotC, if you're listening - for DMG2 introduce some tables on how to handle social challenges! Optional rules, more robust NPC tables, occupations, expanded rules for forced movement and overland travel will help. Look towards AD&D DMG for inspiration.

 

[Herschel]

Actually, I think a good system for handling things outside of combat should focus less on rules for the players and more on guidelines for the DM.

One of the key advantages that tabletop games (still) have over computer games and video games is flexibility of PC action. ....

This. I'll just quote what I wrote in the other thread here:

I think it's more trying to get information for different learning styles than an actual set of rules.

One of the main things that brought me back to the current edition of D&D is that the RPG portion is more free form and back in the hands of the DM to do with and adjudicate as wanted/needed. I'm looking forward to the new chapter in DMG2.

I really like the way there are very few listed "skills" for non-combat situations but I know my son, for example, who has never been a DM wants/needs some things written out for him as a guide. I felt fairly natural just "jumping in", but I'm very outgoing and have a lot of experience being highly visible and interacting with people. Public speaking has never bothered me. I'm more of a "show me and let me jump in and learn while doing". I'm probably not in the majority though.

Others I know like to learn by reading all the material and having scenarios presented as examples before they actually run a game. They also may not feel confident being in front of a group without most everything lined up.

Different strokes for different folks. I guess what I'm saying is I don't think there's any need for more rules around role playing, just more guides and hints as to how to do it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Unpredictability has led to more raw fun than any situation that I can recall planning. Using abilities in a variety of ways in and out of combat helps keep the action fresh and exciting. The more " combat only" abilities there are then the more they feel like mashing the attack button instead of being an interesting ability.

See, I don't see this as a detriment at all. I want to deal with the fallout from when the PCs do something off-the-raiis. That's the whole point of sandbox gaming. That's where the "yes, and" rule comes in.

Okay - you make the bartender dance a jig. When the spell wears off, he goes and reports your actions to the guards. Now what do you do? Those are great spring boards for adventures and campaign left-turns.

I like predictability. I've had too many games just fall apart due to "unpredictability" both in and out of combat.

I admit, I'm rather bad at adapting to things that come out of left field on the fly. That's why I don't like them. Some people are better than others at adapting on the fly. I suck really badly. My game goes from a well oiled machine to me staring at my notes, dumbfounded and not sure what to say in a couple of seconds flat if someone does something completely unexpected.

Telling my bartenders to dance a jig normally fails to have any consequences at all in my games because I don't like to deal with them. Mainly because my carefully planned plot about a race of mysterious shadow creatures trying to take over the world becomes the game about the PCs running from the law and hiding out in barns, slaughtering innocents, in no time when I enforce the consequences of their actions. Which is no fun for me at all. When I sit down expecting to run one game and end up with another...well, it just isn't what I want to do with my time.

Sure, sometimes it's fun to go a little off the rails and have something unexpected happen. But I'd rather prefer it happens in small ways. Something that is controllable, like they make fun of someone I expected them to be polite to rather than in large ways like charming the king into handing over his kingdom or beating the BBEG in a round without taking damage when it was designed to be so hard that nearly everyone might die.

I like crafting an experience. I want it to be fun because I designed it to be fun rather than because the players decided to do something completely unrelated to what I had planned for the session. I'm sure that it could be fun for the players, but I like the fact that I can throw a bunch of 4e characters into an adventure and be 99% certain it'll go the way I want it to.

 

[Korgoth]

I find combat in 4E to be a Thundertusk Bore. I don't think combat is its strong point... it takes a million years and is essentially a chore of chipping away at a mass of hitpoints like a sculptor with his chisel.

I don't see how 4E could be helped by adding in yet more rules, this time to differentiate a ladies' man from a Henry Kissinger from a Mussolini, etc. I don't even like having a Diplomacy skill in the first place... but if you must, simply make the differentiation a point of role playing. If your character is charismatic and has a high Diplomacy but is uglier than a warthog, don't use your Diplomacy to pick up women. Instead, just say "Kronkulug tries to make a suave gesture, but notices with embarrassment the saliva coursing down his snaggletusk, and leaves the feast early and alone."

Role playing, in other words. You don't need rules to do it.

Now I do agree that 4E should have clarification as to what the powers actually do outside of combat, but this raises the whole issue of the nature of the powers themselves. For me, 4E's biggest flaw (after The Grind) is that the semantic content of the powers, monster descriptions, etc. are entirely unrelated to how they behave in the world. A naked Grecian pugilist could have an AC of 32 just because he's supposed to be a level-appropriate foe, and the powers may have this or that "special effect", but it makes no difference whether a given power involves swinging a sword, summoning a shimmering green fist or causing the red giant Vulpeculae to crash into your opponents face and then go supernova... the power does X damage and assigns Y effect, save ends. Ho hum.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Johnathan Moyer: Maybe Risus or The Pool would suit you better.

I'm familiar with those - and many other games of that ilk. Sadly, they don't work for me.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Personally, I like roleplaying games which have mechanics to support non-combat scenarios. There are lots of different ways of doing things:

* Spycraft 2 Dramatic scenes for seduction/interrogation/manhunts/chases etc is one entertaining way of doing it.
* Heroquest has a skills based conflict resolution system which moves seamlessley between violent combat and social manipulation.
* Dogs in the Vineyard has yet another way of handling things which includes a neat method for escalating a conflict from words to punch ups to weapons drawn IIRC.
* I imagine there are many other systems out there that also handle non-combat stuff, my experience is fairly limited.

I've enjoyed playing all these, and none of them has reduced my roleplaying experience. Early indications were that 4e was going to have some kind of robust and interesting mechanic to make non-combat encounters as interesting and eventful as combat encounters, but they decided along the way that they couldn't do it.

Obviously a large number of people here don't fancy mechanics that support rules based resolution events of things outside of combat. I wonder - is that because you've tried and disliked systems in one or more alternatives to D&D?

Regards