The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[bardolph]

My reasoning is simple: of all of the parts of a RPG, combat is the only one that requires a clear set of consistant rules. Most people have no knowlage of what it is like to swing a sword or mace in a combat to death. This is the least subjective part of any game and choices made here (rules wise) affect the enitre system. There are lots of groups that will completly ignore the non combat rules but very few who will completly ignore the non combat rules. While combat rules donot a game make they can and have destroyed systems.

This does not mean the good combat rules or lots of combat rules means the game is a wargame instead of an RPG. All an RPG really needs is rules on how to run a single character in a world.

How to run a combat is certainly a high priority when designing most role-playing games (though Call of Cthulhu is a notable exception).

The reason for this isn't just that players don't know how to swing an axe or fire a crossbow. It's because combat is complicated, and typically has more moving parts than any other kind of encounter.

Having a clearly defined set of rules makes it easier to visualize what's going on, and easier to know what your options are when presented with a situation. Also, it helps the DM to arbitrate consistently enough so that the players can accept the results without challenging the DM's fairness.

Of course the argument that too much emphasis on combat makes a wargame and not an RPG is specious. What makes it an RPG is the DM: the typical wargame has no DM, and therefore the rules must be the final arbiter.

 

[maddman75]

Of course the argument that too much emphasis on combat makes a wargame and not an RPG is specious. What makes it an RPG is the DM: the typical wargame has no DM, and therefore the rules must be the final arbiter.

Agreed. Having a lot of combat doesn't make it a wargame, so long as the events in the game are imagined as a narrative and there is an arbiter beyond the rulebook. It just makes it a violent RPG.

I disagree that an RPG *must* have lots of combat rules. This is plain from the large number that don't have such rules. Those that do are just designed to have a lot of combat. Violent RPGs are popular, so most games feature them.

 

[Desdichado]

It could be argued that chase rules, like rules for tracking and social interaction, don't warrant complexity. Ultimately the story and the needs of the DM will drive the success or failure of such activities, and the die roll is a placebo at best. A player, playing reasonably and in character, will usually persuade the duke, find the tracks, or catch up to his prey, as the story-- not the die roll-- dictates.

There's no reason why your same logic can't apply to combat results too.

The point is, there's a big disparity between rules for combat and rules for other situations, even other "action" situations, that is probably based on two main factors 1) sword & sorcery genre conventions, and 2) Gary Gygax's wargaming background and approach to D&D.

There's no reason why RPGs have to take that approach, however, that's the approach they took for better or for worse, and other than a few indie game elements here and there, that approach has colored almost all games that have followed as well.

 

[jbear]

I guess the different versions of dnd demonstrate, in a way, that it can be done differently and still work. Each way will be to the tastes of some more than others. I guess that's the thing about different tastes.

My memories of Ad&d was a far more descriptive/counterdescriptive flowing battle where a few scribbles on paper with a pencil were all that were needed to set the encounter. Roll and see how things turn out. I can't remember any rules for non-combat. So if they existed they were irrelevant to how me and my friends were playing the game. The DM described what was going on. We described how we reacted. We rolled the dice and waited to see what happened next.

3e there seemed to be alot more rules, both for battle and what went on outside of combat, so the scribbling on paper became somewhat more sophisticated. I couldn't keep track of so many rules, so action outside of combat was a little bit 'swingy'. I tried to have the notions I did have memorised influence my decision making, in so far as to how i made my rulings as DM (didn't get to play). But looking things up in books brought the game to a halt, so it was often preferable to wing it and look up the rule later for next time.

My experience with 4e combat is the most sophisticated and tactical of the versions I have played. It's streamlined enough that I may only stop the game to check the effects of a condition once a game, every couple of sessions. And even that is just a glance at my DM screen. There are no major guidelines to rules outside of combat, so I have reverted to how I played AD&D, describing the situation, letting my players react, describing the consequences of their reaction and/or rolling the appropriate dice to see how things turn out... or even not rolling if the players have impressed me sufficiently with their ideas or roleplaying.

I have found this makes non-combat encounters very fluid. Sometimes I structure them with a skill test, where I create one-off rules I consider appropriate and fun for the situation. Although 4e combat is very tactical, and the rules are combat orientated, my games have the same amount of combat and roleplaying situations as any of the other versions I have played. For me the system is an engine I use to drive my adventures. Like a car. It's not the same driving a hummer as it is to drive a 1950's mini, but that doesn't mean it alters my destination or even the route I take to get there.

 

[Garmorn]

Not exactly. The rules in Melee took up about 20 small pages, so call that about 10 pages. (Wizard was about the same, plus 6 small pages of spells.) The rules in Advanced Melee took up about 30 full-sized pages.

Man, it has been I while since I ran a campaign using those rules. (My first one was using those rules). Are any of the rules still available? I just remember them being what was called pocket size.

Well, what they'd be better served by is not really the point, is it? Does one expect the first RPG to really find the best way to serve a genre, except by accident?

That being said, improv theatre might serve modern sensibilities, but would not actually make much sense in the original context - there's not a whole lot of improv to the social rules Austen was writing about. I think the fairly strict rules of who can talk to whom, and when, based on social status, gender, and all, could be made into game-fodder with a pretty elaborate "social engagement" system, not too unlike how we currently model combat engagements.

Role dice to explain thougs - Rolled - a 1

Improve has very good social and story telling conventions but are considered true games. A pure social interaction campaign would do better using those conventions IMO. Now if you are going to class them as a game I need to rethink my entire line on how they mess with what is commonly referred to as RPGs

So in your opinion a hypothetical detective RPG where you develop evidence or maybe a fantasy-Spanish Inquisition-esque RPG where you use rhetoric to root out and flush demon possessed villagefolk from the town should be dealt with by a die roll or two since they are not dramatic or complex enough to warrant multiple pages of rules?

There is not much complex physical action. I will say again (hopefully in a better way - Skill: Posting = -10). It is physical actions that need clear rules. More complex the actions the more complex the rules then to be. Social/non physical actions are harder to translate into hard and fast rules therefore do not get as much space and normally don't need the level of or depth of rules.

 

[Chrono22]

I'd say social interaction is at least as complicated as combat, if not more so, for several reasons.
Only humans seem to do it fluently- other animals can do it with limited success, but the depth and breadth of the information they share isn't even close.
Also, most gaming groups don't do it. Or at least, not very much- it seems too complicated, daunting, or slow to them to hold their interest.
From a game perspective, each participant has different views on politeness, respect, and social conventions in general. They do carry this over into play.
If an RPG offered rules/guidelines that allowed the PCs/DM to acknowledge personality traits, ambitions, and archetypes, it could provide a framework for guiding the narrative. This could speed up the process of social interraction, assist socially inept players, and help the DM and player cooperatively create dynamic and interesting plots and dialogues.

Sure, a freeform approach to interaction or noncombat conflicts could accomplish the same thing- but then it totally depends on player and GM ability. Most groups I play with aren't filled with masters of improv. Noncombat rules could help.

 

[Garmorn]

I'd say social interaction is at least as complicated as combat, if not more so, for several reasons.
Only humans seem to do it fluently- other animals can do it with limited success, but the depth and breadth of the information they share isn't even close.
Also, most gaming groups don't do it. Or at least, not very much- it seems too complicated, daunting, or slow to them to hold their interest.
From a game perspective, each participant has different views on politeness, respect, and social conventions in general. They do carry this over into play.
If an RPG offered rules/guidelines that allowed the PCs/DM to acknowledge personality traits, ambitions, and archetypes, it could provide a framework for guiding the narrative. This could speed up the process of social interraction, assist socially inept players, and help the DM and player cooperatively create dynamic and interesting plots and dialogues.

Sure, a freeform approach to interaction or noncombat conflicts could accomplish the same thing- but then it totally depends on player and GM ability. Most groups I play with aren't filled with masters of improv. Noncombat rules could help.

While I will agree this is a great goal, currently no one has the knowledge or skills to create such a set of rules. From what I hear the 4e skill challenge system is an attempt. (No comment on level of success). Until a basic approach that works are discovered social skills/rules are not going get much books space simply because there is not a developed set/approach.

 

[Chrono22]

No one has the knowledge or skill to make such a rule set? I'm doing it right now

It's unclear what the designers intentions were for skill challenges, as they keep contradicting themselves in later supplements and articles. I don't think they actually support player engagement or represent an actual challenge.

 

[Stalker0]

I think many RPGs focus on combat rules....because noncombat rules are much harder overall.


The reason is that rules can often help combat, it enhances the tactical play that many players enjoy, or it provides a variety of different actions that players can use. Also...the results tend to be more concrete. The enemy is dead and I am not. I hit or I didn't, etc.


Noncombat encounters can be much more subtle in their goals, and one thing I have found is that rules tend to hinder social encounters. Describing a combat action and then rolling some dice magnifies the tension and excitement of combat.

However, saying a few sentences, rolling a die, and then saying a few more lines tends to have the opposite effect. Players will lose the momentum of their conversations and have more trouble acting in character when they break it up with dice rolling.



Now that said I don't think noncombat rules are completely out of place. Perks and Flaws are mechanics that can often have noncombat aspect, and are one of my favorite parts of nonDnd systems. I like getting to buy a "nemesis" flaw and come up with my personal foil....or buying some contact perks and creating my social network of informants.

Also I think drama point systems that allow players to customize the scene slightly are wonderful roleplaying tools that allow a player to contribute and become further immersed in both combat and noncombat situations.

 

[maddman75]

One of my favorite approaches is to not proscribe behavior, but to apply modifiers. If you succeed in a social attack, you give them penalties if they don't do what you want, or bonuses if they do. This keeps it from being a straightjacket, allows NPC to PC social skill use or PC to PC, and allows social skills to have combat effects. I used a system like this in Buffy - if you taunt a foe, for instance, and succeed then they have a one time penalty to do anything but attack you.

That's the real problem. You can set up some kind of contest easy enough, but what does it mean if you beat someone on the social roll?