The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Ariosto]

The very notion that one needs a whole lot more rules for combat is suspect. My impression of Amber Diceless suggests otherwise, for instance.

Nor would I expect combat rules to take up more space in a game about non-combatants than, say, rules for child-wrangling or dating or hosting a dinner party take up in Champions.

 

[howandwhy99]

There are lots of groups that will completly ignore the non combat rules but very few who will completly ignore the non combat rules.

This sentence appears illogical to me.

All an RPG really needs is rules on how to run a single character in a world.

This is true, but not specific enough. A necessary condition to being an RPG is a set of game rules created by a GM and hidden behind a screen that specifically focus on the role or roles his or her game is about.

For D&D, there is a combat system because every version of the game has included Fighting-Men or Fighters as a role to be played.

It has also included magic systems for Magic-Users, NPC behavioral systems for Clerics. Unfortunately, it also added on a skill set for Thieves, which isn't a system at all. This mistake has led to a vast number of poorly designed games.

 

[Ariosto]

1E leans towards rule resolution dealing with combat. You don't gain XP in this version for non-combat activities - the only way to literally go up is kill monsters and steal their treasure.

<sigh> ... It's the getting of treasure that really matters, that is the goal, and it's worth just as much whether or not you get into the less profitable (or even purely costly) business of fighting.

If there's little or no treasure to gain from fighting, then that's about how much reason there is to get into a fight. Less if there's some other way to get the treasure.

Nor is gold the only treasure. In reality, money is not real wealth at all -- just a token symbolizing and (one hopes) exchangeable for things of genuine value. In D&D, it's a handy token for experience points. The g.p. value is a starting point for valuation of the total challenge of getting it. See pp. 84-85 in the DMG. Note, for instance:

You must weigh the level of challenge -- be it thinking or fighting -- versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it.

and

Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure.

The experience points are NOT for combat. For instance, getting into a fight that neither vanquishes the enemy nor secures wealth yields NO x.p.. An ordinary orc is worth at most 18 points, a chieftain 52. Trying to gain a level by killing orcs is many times more likely to get your character killed. The fewer you must deal with the better, on the way to relieving their lair of, say, 5000 g.p. worth of treasure (or at least the portion of it in gems) and a couple of potions!

Of course, it could be worth a good few x.p. decisively to drive away, or simply slaughter, a tribe of orcs. Is there no value in security from their raids? Maybe even in the land they occupied?

 

[steenan]

Combat, in general, is no different than any other kind of conflict in the game. A game may focus on combat - even to the point where all rules describe combat only - but it is then only this particular game's focus. There are many fun games I played that use the same resolution mechanics for all types of conflict situations. Some rule systems don't even describe what characters do in these situations, instead directing the narrative structure (eg. Polaris - players may use the mechanics to decide the result and consequences of a duel as well as to decide which NPC the character meets at given point in the story).

In other words, "non-combat mechanics" is a category only meaningful in a game that is designed with a strong focus on combat. And if it is, the necessity of such mechanics depends on the strength of the focus. A game may be fun - and you may still roleplay in it - with only combat rules. Another game may also require another detailed subsystems - for wilderness exploration, for politics, for love affairs, for fate and divine interventions or anything else. It all depends on what the game is about and how strong its focus is.

I would rather mirror the question asked in this thread. Are the combat rules necessary? There are quite a few games that don't see themselves as combat-focused and aim for generic play, but still have separate combat subsystems instead of treating it as just another type of interaction. Is there a reason for it? Does it help those games? Or is it just a sacred cow, a holdover from the earliest RPGs that were all strongly about combat?

 

[Ariosto]

There are quite a few games that don't see themselves as combat-focused and aim for generic play, but still have separate combat subsystems instead of treating it as just another type of interaction. Is there a reason for it? Does it help those games? Or is it just a sacred cow, a holdover from the earliest RPGs that were all strongly about combat?

I think it is primarily the last. However, any situation that entails potential character death is likely to require an extra helping of procedural assurance that the outcome is acceptable.

It need not be a detailed tactical combat simulation. The original D&D rules certainly are not that! Roll 1d20 for each combatant, 1d6 for "hits", and whoever has points left ends that round among the quick rather than the dead. The more hit dice you get, the more hit points -- and decision points before death -- you have on average. That matter of having chances to assess the situation is the reason for rounds. The big question (after whether to fight in the first place) is whether to stand, surrender or attempt to withdraw. The big concern is not so much with process as with consequences: Who won, and at what cost?

 

[MichaelSomething]

This is practically a given for competitive games. The rules have to limit each player's options, or you end up playing Calvinball.

Calvinball may very well be the desired game to some players. A lot people chaff at rules for non combat situations. Didn't many people hate Skill Challenges because they think it destroys roleplaying?

Also, this old thread of mine may of interest since it related to the question at hand.

 

[1of3]

This is true, but not specific enough. A necessary condition to being an RPG is a set of game rules created by a GM and hidden behind a screen that specifically focus on the role or roles his or her game is about.

In fact, the existence of the GM is a rule itself.

Even if the GM is supposed to make rulings on certain things, there most be some prior rules that set up the participants' responsibilities in the first place.

The role of the "GM" is also not fixed. The GM might do any number of things or not (depending on the rules book you use and what you make of it). You could also make an RPG with two GMs or rotating GMs or no GM at all.

 

[howandwhy99]

In fact, the existence of the GM is a rule itself.

Even if the GM is supposed to make rulings on certain things, there most be some prior rules that set up the participants' responsibilities in the first place.

The role of the "GM" is also not fixed. The GM might do any number of things or not (depending on the rules book you use and what you make of it). You could also make an RPG with two GMs or rotating GMs or no GM at all.

All RPGs do need a Referee to impartially convey the hidden rules to be guessed. That one person is selected to perform this game role is one of the basic rules known to all players. The number of known rules by all participants is very small in truth, while the hidden ruleset is as large as the Referee desires. The greater complexity of the hidden rules, the more enjoyable the play IMO. Though elegance of design in these rules is important too.

Referee rulings are limited, however, to clarifying Players' actions until a hidden rule applies, ("How are you hitting the monster? Sword, fist, headbutt, what?"), and to measuring distances on hidden spatial maps.

There are storygames, another category of games which do not need GMs. These also qualify as RPGs, but under a different definition of roleplaying. There is no deductive reasoning in these games, no strategy. But they are fun self explorations of each player's desires. No GM is needed, (in fact, no rules are needed), but a game can be added as an element to divvy up who gets to add what to the story and under what conditions. Like a group of authors working on a novel.

Traditional RPGs like D&D fall under the roleplay simulation definition from military wargames.

 

[Umbran]

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

I didn't play the very first iteration, and have not read the rules, so I could not say. But seeing as it was a very direct variation of wargame rules, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. I am not squeamish about calling the rules as published one thing, and the activity people undertake with it another.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the first non-combat rule (like say, "If you want to do something different, roll a d20 and if you roll under the appropriate stat, you succeed.") came around in practice very quickly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I like having rules for non-combat situations, but I believe that those rules should be relatively light.

I also think that the target numbers for skills should be static, so that what is challenging at low levels is a cakewalk at high levels and vice versa; I am not a fan of including skill checks designed to "challenge" PCs of a particular level. Not only does this make setting up encounters more difficult, but it makes it harder for the PCs to know how to react to the world. If the DCs of checks will always be roughly "roll a 10" if you can Take 10, and "roll a 20" if you can Take 20, then why not just say "Take 10" and "Take 20" for various checks, leaving the DCs and the skill ranks out of it?

EDIT: Because this sounds contradictory to what I wrote later, let me elucidate: the DC should be static relative to the level of difficulty. If the characters take actions to reduce the level of difficulty, this affects the roll or the DC, but only because the level of difficulty has changed. Thus, picking a lock is always more difficult than climbing a tree, and a 1st level rogue might not have much of a chance to pick most of the locks she encounters. Later, when she can pick most locks, this will show that the character has improved.

This is in contrast too, IME, what became the "ever moving mark" of 3e skill checks.​

I think the thieves's skills in 1e modelled static chances better than the 3e skill system does in practice, but I like the format of the 3e system better. (Shrug) Nothing's perfect.

As for interactive skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc.), I prefer to have the player roleplay, and then use the check to determine how the words are taken. So, effectively, the results of roleplay determine the DC of the check.

I also do this for searching. If the player states he is looking under the pillow, then he will find the object hidden there. If he instead states that he is looking at the bed, there is a roll with a high chance of success. If he instead states only that he is searching the room, there is a roll with a moderate chance of success. If he just takes a minute to look around, there is a roll with a relatively low chance of success.


RC