How important is combat?

[pemerton]

resolution mechanics can actually discourage roleplaying the underlying action and reduce the amount of game time spent on it.

<snip>

If it is implied that a successful skill challenge can resolve a situation, there isn't much incentive for a player to think about or act out the scenario (obviously DMing will greatly affect how this plays out).

By the skill challenge rules as stated in the DMG, a skill challenge can't be resolved without the players thinking about how their PCs engage the scenario, then engaging it, and then having the GM narrate through the consequences of each skill check.

while the system as a whole describes noncombat actions, the characters themselves are more combat oriented by default.

Again, in my view this is pretty contentious. A 4e bard, for example, has an encounter boost to social interactions, a class boost to untrained skills, and free access to rituals, as class features. And also one of the best skill lists in the game.

skill points were replaced with a less robust system of of trained skills

For example, some players would regard the 4e system as more robust in its support of non-combat action resolution, by avoiding the issue of skill bonuses that become irrelevant as DCs scale.

Many non-combat spells were changed to rituals, and thus were no longer part of the typical caster's daily repetoire.

About half the wizard and warlock utility powers in the PHB are non-combat powers. And low-level rituals are pretty trivially affordable for mid-to-high level PCs.

In my experience the issues here are with WotC adventure design - which provides no support for non-combat activities and action resolution - and also with the guidelines in the DMG, which provide inadequate advice to GMs on how to prepare and adjudicate such scenarios, not with the action resolution mechanics themselves.

NPC and monster stats were redefined to focus on combat statistics. On the whole, the rules for characters were greatly shifted towards combat.

I don't have enough familiarity with 3E to have a firm view on that comparison, but my memory of the 3E MM is that most of the information in it - HD, hp, attacks, damage, special attacks, special qualities etc - pertains to combat resolution. This is certainly true of Basic D&D and AD&D 1st ed monster stats.

There is a degree of confusion in 4e's presentation of NPCs/monsters as to whether their stats are meant to figure in non-combat action resolution at all, or whether the default DCs should do this work.

So while the statement about non-combat resolution mechanics is true, I think the broader reality is thus:

Which seems consistent with my claim that this is contentious! I mean, we haven't even got to the XP rules yet, or the treasure guidelines, both of which - in 4e - disconnect PC advancement from combat encounters more than in any other edition.

This is why I think WotC have a hard time on their hands with their "unity" edition. My own feeling, at this stage, is that it is tending towards a reactionary edition, but it's early days.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

4E isn't focused on combat. It is focused like a laser on action adventure. Since fantasy action adventure is going to include a far amount of combat as part of the action adventure, this makes it appear at casual glance to be more focused on combat than it is.

And that relates to my answer to the OP. Combat itself isn't directly important in D&D, but action adventure is. Only, if you have action adventure, there is a chance that combat could break out fairly regularly. If the game does combat well, and the participants enjoy that aspect, it will tend to break out easily. Whereas, some people like the action adventure part, but would be just as happy if combat was more threat than reality, and over quickly when it happened. You can satisfy all of them by putting the combat frequency and length controls in their hands.

The above is all separate from people who either don't like action adventure, or want their action adventure leavened or even heavily replaced with dancing at the ball, running their castle, participating in the baron's minstrel contest, etc. Chances are, if a group leans heavily this way, they won't like running through the orc fortress in a mad dash for freedom over an hour of game time, or a trap-filled lich tomb, any more than they like a long combat. Or at least not often. (Disdain for "the dungeon" is seldom confined to the combats.) How you satisfy the full range of desires here is more difficult. You need those controls on the action adventure part as a starting place, and then you need some more stuff.

My groups' personal preference is that the non-action adventuring stuff be around in some form, though we are pretty flexible on exactly how. I don't mind the 4E "you are reponsible for doing all that yourself" method, but I'm happy to use more involved means too. The action adventure, however, must be there and work, or we aren't going to bother.

 

[pemerton]

4E isn't focused on combat. It is focused like a laser on action adventure.

<snip>

Combat itself isn't directly important in D&D, but action adventure is. Only, if you have action adventure, there is a chance that combat could break out fairly regularly. If the game does combat well, and the participants enjoy that aspect, it will tend to break out easily. Whereas, some people like the action adventure part, but would be just as happy if combat was more threat than reality, and over quickly when it happened. You can satisfy all of them by putting the combat frequency and length controls in their hands.

I think that RPGs like Burning Wheel and HeroWars/Quest (and I'm sure others that I'm not familiar with) show that it is possible to have effective, mulitple resolution systems, allowing the game participants to increase or decrease the resolution and handling time based on their inclinations.

But combat in 4e has something else - inbuilt pacing tendencies, that result from the way PCs are configured in comparison to monsters and NPCs, and that (when they work at their best) render each combat a mini-action adventure. For a modular system to deliver this sort of play seems a bit of a challenge - at least, the core character build rules will have to inlcude (or make room for) those aspects of character build (eg abilities that unlock healing surges during combat) that underlie the pacing.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But combat in 4e has something else - inbuilt pacing tendencies, that result from the way PCs are configured in comparison to monsters and NPCs, and that (when they work at their best) render each combat a mini-action adventure. For a modular system to deliver this sort of play seems a bit of a challenge - at least, the core character build rules will have to inlcude (or make room for) those aspects of character build (eg abilities that unlock healing surges during combat) that underlie the pacing.

3E has built in pacing tendencies, too. They are just different ones, and somewhat of an accident instead of deliberate, if I remember designer comments at the time correctly (not a sure thing ). For that matter, original D&D had purposeful pacing, but it was so ad hoc, and then so pulled different ways by various AD&D options and playstyles, that it wasn't readily apparent, and could easily go off the rails at any time.

In any case, I think its pretty tough to modify that pacing with options while sort of hiding it by sprinkling it through the system. Pretty much the only way I see is to have spots in the core where you plug in pacing options, swapping them out as you want. That is, you can't have healing surges just sitting there and some people ignore them. You have a place where people specify how combat healing is driven, and depending on what option you pick, you use surges or cleric magic or time or just suffer. Those all have pacing effects, of course.

I do think that the amount of hit points has to be seriously cut down, and the base system changed to accommodate it, because modular options can work around pacing by adding or removing pieces, but it can't deal with one game having tough monsters with 40 hit points getting hit with swords for 1d8+3, and another option having the same monster with 300 hit points and getting hit for 3d10+6. The hit points and weapon damages themselves are too basic to easily scale like that. Pick a relatively modest middle ground for the base stuff, surround it with a mathematically sound base system, and then options at least become possible.

 

[hanez]

Well there's definitely two sides to the issue. Skill challenges and rituals, for example do codify noncombat actions arguably more than other versions of D&D. There's two other big issues that I see. One is that resolution mechanics can actually discourage roleplaying the underlying action and reduce the amount of game time spent on it. This has always been the argument with the 3.X Diplomacy skill. If it is implied that a successful skill challenge can resolve a situation, there isn't much incentive for a player to think about or act out the scenario (obviously DMing will greatly affect how this plays out).

Another is that while the system as a whole describes noncombat actions, the characters themselves are more combat oriented by default. As is being discussed extensively elsewhere, 4e redefined the classes using a new set of combat roles; the roles now being postulated as the fundamental basis of the classes. Character classes classically seen as less combat oriented (rogue and bard, for example) were remade under these combat roles, while NPC classes like expert and aristocrat were not included. Also, skill points were replaced with a less robust system of of trained skills, and there was a substantial degree of skill consolidation-especially of noncombat skills. Many non-combat spells were changed to rituals, and thus were no longer part of the typical caster's daily repetoire. Great complexity was added to combat and combat abilities; fighters were required to select from an extensive list of powers, tactical movement and modifiers were emphasized by these powers. NPC and monster stats were redefined to focus on combat statistics. On the whole, the rules for characters were greatly shifted towards combat.

So while the statement about non-combat resolution mechanics is true, I think the broader reality is thus:

Interesting response, it will take me a while to "absorb"... but I see it is more complicated then my simple assertions. As someone who really tried 4e, who convinced his whole campaign to sell there books, who subscribed to DDI, we/I failed in that system at making non combat fun.... it eventually degraded into a linked minis games where just kept trying and eventually gave up. It took a while to give pathfinder a try after the loss of spirit from that horrible campaign.... hah funny but true.

I can see however that doesn't neccesarily mean the system didnt have the rules but rather the focus of the classes had also changed. There is just sooo much to the psycology of gaming and how rules and options are presented that you really have to see how real players will act. I guess it can be also argued that since most of my players were bombarded with sooo many powers, they had less game time to focus on non combat options, the official adventures didn't help either. Sigh... anyways.

Anyways, thanks for the replies so far its been enlightening.

 

[pemerton]

I think its pretty tough to modify that pacing with options while sort of hiding it by sprinkling it through the system. Pretty much the only way I see is to have spots in the core where you plug in pacing options, swapping them out as you want. That is, you can't have healing surges just sitting there and some people ignore them. You have a place where people specify how combat healing is driven, and depending on what option you pick, you use surges or cleric magic or time or just suffer. Those all have pacing effects, of course.

This makes sense to me, but is very abstract.

What I mean by that is, yes, I agree that modularity is going to require a handful of clear decision-points for players - there can't be "spriknling through the system". But I'm completely failing to envisage what the game is going to look like.

In 4e, for example, it is important that monsters, on the whole, have more hit points than PCs, and PCs win fights by falling back on their deep reserves (which require in-play decisions to activate) and by spiking their damage and applying more clever lock-down. (At least, this is how it plays at my table. But it seems like deliberate design.)

In AD&D, on the other hand, after a level or two the PCs often have more hit points than the monsters (except for the wizards and thieves), significantly better AC, and win fights by a combination of attrition and area attack spells.

Do you have any thoughts on how a minimal core of hit point generation, defences generation, damage rolls, etc can support (with appropriate modules) both approaches?

 

[pemerton]

There is just sooo much to the psycology of gaming and how rules and options are presented that you really have to see how real players will act.

I am one of those who think the presentation of 4e had a degree of impact on the way it was perceived and/or taken up by gamers that (from my point of view, for example) was completely unexpected.

Just one example: the uniform structuring of class abilities (via the power system) has been categorised by many, many players as "every PC having spells". Whereas I don't think I ever heard anyone say that a barbarian, in 3E, used spells, even though the only real difference between a Barbarian's rage, in 3E, and a X times per day use of the Emotion (Rage) spell, is the formatting.

(And if you say, well one was EX and the other SP, I want to reply that in 4e, some powers are Martial, and others Arcane. But for whatever reason, that doesn't seem to cut it.)

 

[Herschel]

It's almost a paradox:

Combat rules are the most important rules in the game because roleplaying doesn't need any rules to work right.

The amount of combat in any given game doesn't matter a dingo's kidneys.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Do you have any thoughts on how a minimal core of hit point generation, defences generation, damage rolls, etc can support (with appropriate modules) both approaches?

I see hit points as trying to do too much--in any version, but certainly in a modular D&D design. So the minimal core supports modules by mainly being narrowed down to its critical job, and doing that well.

Let me go the long way around. In his design diaries for Arcana Evolved, one of the things Monte Cook discussed when doing that game was that he had to break down 3E into all of its core parts and assumptions, and then rebuild them all up again from scratch with his alternates. I got the impression he knew this would happen, having worked on 3E originally, but even he was surprised at the degree to which it was necessary.

If you look casually at AE, with its set of classes and race and spells and feats and skills, you might mistake it for a more casual knock-off of 3E. It's only when you play it, I think, that you see what he is talking about in those diaries. (See the d20 World of Warcraft tabletop rules for something that was a casual knock-off with a veneer or WoW fluff--not really faithful to either D&D or WoW in the process. Or on second thought, don't, as you'll be wasting your time.)

I happen to play 3E practically straight for awhile right before AE was available, and then immediately switched to playing AE practically straight for awhile. No appreciable 3rd party stuff, no serious house rules, and not even 3E stuff in the AE game (though you could readily mix them), with adventures I wrote entirely myself designed to accept the central assumptions and mechanics of those games at face value. It was a bit of culture shock--almost entirely pleasant and interesting, but still a shock. Everything that you used to do before, conceptually, you could still do, often better. Who did it, how they did it, how it interacted with everyone else--that was the shock. In some ways, it was more of a shock than 3E to 4E, because 4E telegraphed that it was so different.

I think the reason this happens is that an RPG design may often have a core structure that is fairly consistent, the surface of it is filled with little compromises, which have then been judiciously rounded off to aid in play. The canonical example is probably armor as AC. Once you understand the design, it makes perfect sense (like it or not). But that's because you can see the compromises that were made. As you well know from frequent discussions that we have participated in over the last year, healing surges have their own pieces and assumptions that have been rounded off, that people frequently must unpack before they can effectively critique the design.

So to get back to hit points, I think that Monte and Mike and company can break down hit points into its pacing pieces, narrative aids, tactical parts, simulation of damage, luck, etc. side, and so forth. Then I think they can see what parts they want to vary, pull those out of the base system, and replace them with other constructs that will support variance more than 4E (or 3E or whatever) would straight. But how exactly that will look, I can't say. I know Monte did it at least once before, and that Mike understands what he did and repeated some of it in 4E, and I've seen the process work from the inside in other disciplines (e.g. software design).

One of the characteristics of such an approach is that things that used to be bundled together get split, and things that used to be separate get bundled--like healing surges have surface analogies with elements of 3E healing and pacing, but no direct correspondence when you look deeper. Thus my prediction and expectation that there is a core, critical element recognizable as hit points that will still be there--though perhaps not in the ways that most of use would say today.

I know that is barely less abstract that what went before, but that's the problem with intuition on design.

 

[Traken]

I say it should go the GURPS route in regards to combat vs. non-combat. Provide pretty good and comprehensive rules for both. Judge a character's power by how much they attribute to the team or quest. Don't force or even encourage a certain play-style.

That way, people who like crunchy-combat get crunchy-combat. People who like crunch-roleplaying get crunchy roleplaying. People who want free-form roleplaying get it too.

Of course, this will probably never quite work with the D&D class system and the general trend of wanting to hold everyone's hand all the time.