The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Primal]

If you can make a court-room battle interesting beyond a single ho-hum check, there's apparently a huge untapped market waiting for you. Billions and billions of dollars to be made on frustrated WoW players who would rather be emulating Perry Mason than Conan.

Well, 'Burning Wheel' by Luke Crane has "social combat" system which works on the same engine (only with social actions, e.g. debate and counterargument, instead of combat ones) as combat does (write down your next three actions, and certain actions have bonuses/benefits against other actions). I've been told that it works really well, and using this system social arguments/court cases are just as exciting as combat encounters.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, 'Burning Wheel' by Luke Crane has "social combat" system which works on the same engine.

I have also heard great things about Burning Wheel; Luke also wrote Mouse Guard (iirc).

I would also put Dread in the non-combat genre, successfully so, at least in the sense that the mechanic isn't specifically tailored to tactical combat any more than any other conflict.

I've been told that it works really well, and using this system social arguments/court cases are just as exciting as combat encounters.

Perhaps we'll have to revisit the conversation in 30 years, but I am confident there's more to the continued success of the D&D genre than merely tradition or a lack of non-combat alternatives.

 

[Garmorn]

I suppose football is just about heavy men running into eachother to you. And race car driving is just about driving in circles.

Well, that was what you thought, apparently, when you based the game off of perspectives of what gaming entails that are over thirty years old and even predate roleplaying games.

Yep. You got it on the mark here. I am biased. I like good products that do what I need them to do. 4e doesn't fill any need for me, and it takes the brand in a direction I don't like- backwards.

Sports in one persons view is nothing more then stylized combat. Most of the team sports have there roots in combat. Does that mean modern foot ball is a combat game?

Any physical contest between groups can be done the same way as combat. Can you point out one good system that will give you all of the tension of a courtroom and still keep it from being my word against your or DM fiat?

 

[Chrono22]

Marketing Loyalty: How Tactics Kill Strategy
^This article explains in good detail some of the mistakes that were made as part of the marketing of 4e.
Brand loyalty is a powerful asset, but only so long as you maintain it. Changing the mechanics was understandable- see the transition from 2e to 3e, most people embraced the changes- but only so long as the fundamental assumptions about play are not compromised.
When I play Call of Cthulu, I do so for a sense of inevitable dread and an atmosphere of insane horror. If a revision of the game were to be released wherein the main characters defeat Cthulu and save the world from gods beyond the stars... that wouldn't be the same game, even if it had the same mechanics.
Or let's say a new edition of Paranoia was released, wherein the atmosphere is one of a grim dystopia, with the players working together to overthrow the vile machinations of the Computer... once again, same subject matter, different game.
The assumptions that players and the GM bring to the table, the expectations they have about the game- that defines what the game means. Changing that means removing what makes a PnP RPG unique.

Sports in one persons view is nothing more then stylized combat. Most of the team sports have there roots in combat. Does that mean modern foot ball is a combat game?

What is the objective of play? Is it the same as combat? No? Then they are not the same.

Any physical contest between groups can be done the same way as combat. Can you point out one good system that will give you all of the tension of a courtroom and still keep it from being my word against your or DM fiat?

Just off the top of my head, Dogs in the Vineyard could work.
Burning wheel also, apparently. I'm working on my own RPG, that has great potential to provide mechanical/roleplay support for such scenario.
And I disagree, no, combat can't represent all physical challenges or conflicts.

 

[Garmorn]

Marketing Loyalty: How Tactics Kill Strategy
^This article explains in good detail some of the mistakes that were made as part of the marketing of 4e.
Brand loyalty is a powerful asset, but only so long as you maintain it. Changing the mechanics was understandable- see the transition from 2e to 3e, most people embraced the changes- but only so long as the fundamental assumptions about play are not compromised.
When I play Call of Cthulu, I do so for a sense of inevitable dread and an atmosphere of insane horror. If a revision of the game were to be released wherein the main characters defeat Cthulu and save the world from gods beyond the stars... that wouldn't be the same game, even if it had the same mechanics.
Or let's say a new edition of Paranoia was released, wherein the atmosphere is one of a grim dystopia, with the players working together to overthrow the vile machinations of the Computer... once again, same subject matter, different game.
The assumptions that players and the GM bring to the table, the expectations they have about the game- that defines what the game means. Changing that means removing what makes a PnP RPG unique.

So, I don't see your point. D&D 4e is a very well done clean up of the mess that 3e had caused. It is well put together and as the same feel (outside of the now balance wizard). The basic system is still in place. The races, classes and so forth are still working. While I can see some not liking it. After all I did not like 1e by the time 2e came out but I don't think any one who did not change a unthinking fanboy.

So why is every one that plays it blind fanboys that don't think? Explain who 4e is similar to GURPS, or Rolemaster or Amber.

 

[Chrono22]

So, I don't see your point. D&D 4e is a very well done clean up of the mess that 3e had caused. It is well put together and as the same feel (outside of the now balance wizard). The basic system is still in place. The races, classes and so forth are still working. While I can see some not liking it. After all I did not like 1e by the time 2e came out but I don't think any one who did not change a unthinking fanboy.

So why is every one that plays it blind fanboys that don't think? Explain who 4e is similar to GURPS, or Rolemaster or Amber.

\

Please don't strawman me. I never claimed you were an unthinking fanboy, or the reverse. 4e obviously doesn't challenge the assumptions you had about play, so you obviously don't perceive any problems with it.

Here are some of the assumptions that I bring to play concerning D&D which previous editions supported:

A high level of risk.
The decisions I make have a consequence, good or ill.
Adventuring is about challenging your preconceptions and experiencing the unknown.
Players' and DM's preferences dictate the direction and focus of play.

Here are some assumptions 4e supports, which are in direct contention with previous assumptions:
Low level of risk.
Decisions are statistically inconsequential.
Adventuring is a series of combats.
If it isn't combat, it is secondary to the purpose of play.

 

[FireLance]

Why emphasize combat as the central aspect of a pnp RPG, if this feature is not unique to pnp RPGs?
This really does confuse me. Many modern videogames/roleplaying games do combat better. Aion, for example. It has awesome graphics, a good story, and a rich world. Combat is flexible and subject to player choice.. and it is calculated automatically instead of by slow paper-based rules. Then do we play DnD for the social aspect? Perhaps, but once again this feature is not unique to DnD. Cards, watching movies, MMOs...
I have to conclude that the biggest reason we play pnp RPGs is because they facilitate imagination. They generate user interest by allowing the user to create their own content based on their own desires. Combat in this sense is just a means to an end. It's a medium for allowing player imagination and input to create change and have consequence. Other mechanics can do it- mechanics for race car driving, deep space exploration, sewing...

Making combat central to DnD seems counterintuitive to me. What has made DnD unique for me has never been the combat. It's the sense of exploration, wonder, and fellowship it engenders.

I had to go back to this post to figure out what the fuss was about.

Yes, the current strength of P&P RPGs is that they facilitate imagination and user-created content. However, that does not invalidate the point that what most people like to imagine (or to imagine their PCs participating in) is combat.

In fact, I would argue that combat is a fundamental assumption about D&D. When the PCs enter a 10' by 10' room and see an orc guarding a chest, many players automatically reach for their dice in order to roll initiative.

Now, you might argue that 4E overemphasizes combat and underplays the other aspects of D&D which are important to you. However, if that is your point, I don't think you are making it clearly enough.

 

[Garmorn]

Please don't strawman me. I never claimed you were an unthinking fanboy, or the reverse. 4e obviously doesn't challenge the assumptions you had about play, so you obviously don't perceive any problems with it.

Here are some of the assumptions that I bring to play concerning D&D which previous editions supported:

A high level of risk.
The decisions I make have a consequence, good or ill.
Adventuring is about challenging your preconceptions and experiencing the unknown.
Players' and DM's preferences dictate the direction and focus of play.

Here are some assumptions 4e supports, which are in direct contention with previous assumptions:
Low level of risk.
Decisions are statistically inconsequential.
Adventuring is a series of combats.
If it isn't combat, it is secondary to the purpose of play.

So my Lvl+0 encounters don't come close to killing my party member? My player character quite often run out of healing surges and healing in combat (The party include a paladin and a Cleric.) The average combat sees at least one character drop. This is low risk?

Reread you own statements about fanboys.

4e supports my role heavy campaign there far your opinion is not a fact. 4e only assumes that all characters at a set level should be equal in combat. It give the same traditional weight to combat as the previous 3 editions.

 

[FireLance]

Here are some of the assumptions that I bring to play concerning D&D which previous editions supported:

A high level of risk.
The decisions I make have a consequence, good or ill.
Adventuring is about challenging your preconceptions and experiencing the unknown.
Players' and DM's preferences dictate the direction and focus of play.

Here are some assumptions 4e supports, which are in direct contention with previous assumptions:
Low level of risk.
Decisions are statistically inconsequential.
Adventuring is a series of combats.
If it isn't combat, it is secondary to the purpose of play.

I hadn't seen this response when I made the post above.

Could you elaborate on how 4E fails to support any of the above as a function of the rules, and not based on how the players and DMs choose to approach the game? For example, a DM could choose to run a higher-risk game by pitting the PCs against challenges that are 3 or more levels higher than they are.

 

[Chrono22]

I had to go back to this post to figure out what the fuss was about.

Yes, the current strength of P&P RPGs is that they facilitate imagination and user-created content. However, that does not invalidate the point that what most people like to imagine (or to imagine their PCs participating in) is combat.

In fact, I would argue that combat is a fundamental assumption about D&D. When the PCs enter a 10' by 10' room and see an orc guarding a chest, many players automatically reach for their dice in order to roll initiative.

Now, you might argue that 4E overemphasizes combat and underplays the other aspects of D&D which are important to you. However, if that is your point, I don't think you are making it clearly enough.

My point is that it overemphasized features that aren't unique to D&D, as a selling point for D&D. As MMOs and other electronic RPGs advance, they will become bigger competition against D&D and pnp RPGs as a whole. This leaves two alternatives. Play to the strengths of pnp RPGs, and remain a niche product with a limited customer base, or become "mainstream" and abandon the features that made your product unique in the first place.
IMO, trying to compromise by convincing WoW-players to join your fanbase is a bad long-term strategy. In the first place, it fractures your fanbase. Secondly, it necessitates abandoning the features that made your game a niche product in the first place. If WotC thinks blizzard was competition before, just wait until it tries to release its first 4e MMO.

Really though, I'm saying all of this, because of a misconception that combat is ever the primary reason people role play.