The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[FireLance]

The answer is not "needlepoint."

I'm certainly not implying that it should be (or even that the answer is "non-combat rules" in general).

I'm coming from the whole "competent human DM tends to be more flexible than a machine" angle, myself.

 

[KidSnide]

It seems to me that the you need non-combat mechanics for most of the same reasons you want combat mechanics. Depending on your tolerance for complexity, you may want:

1) A system that allows the players (and DM) to track how close or far away they are from success or failure. This provides a feeling of progress and, while close to failure, a sense of excitement. (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I subscribe to PCat's theory of making the skill challenge explicit and letting the PCs track successes and failures. It is also why a visible "bloodied" condition is such a good idea.)

2) Mechanics that allow different characters to interact with the challenge in different ways. Giving players their areas of expertise (relative to the other PCs) differentiates the characters and gives them different ways and opportunities to shine.

3) A system that provides opportunities for interesting decisions and tactical reasoning. In a skill challenge, there is the opportunity for creativity in how to apply your better skills in (non-obvious) ways that are appropriate to the situation. In Dogs in the Vineyard, there is the similar strategy of bringing in traits and relationships into the conflict, as well as the decision as to whether or not to accept the more severe consequences of escalation.

4) An excuse and a mechanism to get everyone at the table engaged in solving the problem. Some systems are better at this than others, but a more complicated system can provide more chances for every play to contribute input.

The one thing I'll note is that social challenges may not need a rules mechanism, because the player's ability to act out the interaction can itself be the source of these characteristics.

-KS

 

[jmucchiello]

The central thing out of war gaming that blossomed into RPG was the referee adjudicating actions that
1) each player could not have full knowledge of (tunneling, espionage, etc)
2) could not have concrete rules for by the very nature of the type of action (generally non-combat)

Wargames themselves grew out of military strategy training exercises where a senior officer judged the tactics of the junior officer reenacting historic battles using "miniatures" on a tabletop. The movements of the other player's units could be secret or not and initially there were no concrete rules at all, just the experience of the senior officer to determine what happens when company A meets company B on the specified terrain.

D&D's concept of DM was not in any way new. What was new in D&D was the man to man element and the ability to walk off the battlefield into a local tavern and hit on the wench therein.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Using that logic, the first iteration of D&D wasn't a role-playing game.

The first iteration of D&D had no rules for combat. Players were referred to the Chainmail Man-to-Man combat rules. Similarly, players were referred to Outdoor Survival for wilderness rules.

You're both wrong: OD&D had rules for combat. It also had lots of rules for non-combat activities.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You're both wrong: OD&D had rules for combat. It also had lots of rules for non-combat activities.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that rules for non-combat activities don't exist, only that they aren't given the same complexity (read by some as "fair treatment" or "due diligence") as the rules for combat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that rules for non-combat activities don't exist, only that they aren't given the same complexity (read by some as "fair treatment" or "due diligence") as the rules for combat.

I disagree here. OD&D combat rules were no more complex than anything else. I would say that all rules would be equally sparse and open to individual interpretation as intended.

 

[howandwhy99]

My observation about AD&D and the like is they had nothing but rules. I guess whether those rules are combat rules or "non-combat" rules comes down to a matter of perspective. Everything published seems to have some numerical, if/then, or die roll attached to almost every last scrap of description. I can understand the view that these were only combat rules as some thought was obviously given to balance these rules within the combat system. But they were also balanced under the magic system and the rules for controlling NPCs. Which meant sometimes an option was not the best for combat, but was better for magic-users or clerics.

I think the classic mistake is thinking combat is somehow not roleplaying. As if learning the rules for combat rather than those for anything else means players are not roleplaying. RP and combat are not opposites and "non-combat" rules are not necessary to make a game a RPG.

 

[Chrono22]

My observation about AD&D and the like is they had nothing but rules. I guess whether those rules are combat rules or "non-combat" rules comes down to a matter of perspective. Everything published seems to have some numerical, if/then, or die roll attached to almost every last scrap of description. I can understand the view that these were only combat rules as some thought was obviously given to balance these rules within the combat system. But they were also balanced under the magic system and the rules for controlling NPCs. Which meant sometimes an option was not the best for combat, but was better for magic-users or clerics.

I'd have to agree that AD&D is stuffed with rules, as opposed to guidelines or suggestions. Some of those rules (thieves' cant) add tremendously to the roleplaying though. Seeing another player's expression after asking him for some gold- or having an entire secret conversation with the DM in plain view of the rest of the group- priceless.

I think the classic mistake is thinking combat is somehow not roleplaying. As if learning the rules for combat rather than those for anything else means players are not roleplaying. RP and combat are not opposites and "non-combat" rules are not necessary to make a game a RPG.

I'd say they are. Otherwise we could categorize every single combat game (even as far back as Super Mario) as a roleplaying game. There has to be a line.

 

[Gimby]

I'd say they are. Otherwise we could categorize every single combat game (even as far back as Super Mario) as a roleplaying game. There has to be a line.

I'm not sure there does beyond "Is this meant to be played as an RPG?"

Consider the original Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader - its clearly a tabletop wargame, right? The default described mode of play is one. But there are a suprising number of typical roleplaying game trappings attached to it, which were expanded on in later books. Its trivial to play it as a full-blown RPG (albeit a very lethal one). Within the Warhammer line in general there is definately an attempt to promote "flavourful" or "characterful" armies and lots of background given on the setting and characters within it - certainly of the order found in a lot of RPG setting books.

But with all that, its still a wargame *because it describes itself as one*. That, I feel is the only really useful distinction that can be made. Take the gamut of RPGs - there are some with no out of combat rules at all - and no combat rules either. Just general rules for conflict resolution of some kind. Or look at many LARPs - there are often only rules for combat as its assumed the players will "hard skill" or gloss over any out of combat tasks.

So I think the only line that can be drawn is "is this self-described as an RPG?" If it is, its an RPG. If its not, it isn't. What does line-drawing actually gain?

Note here - self-described used deliberately. This has no bearing on non-authorial claims of RPG-ness or not. Also just because something is described as an RPG doesn't mean it can't be critised for being a really bad one.

 

[Gentlegamer]

You're both wrong: OD&D had rules for combat. It also had lots of rules for non-combat activities.

D&D itself didn't have the complete rules for combat. Players were referred to Chainmail man-to-man rules. It is impossible to learn how to run combat from just the original D&D set alone.