The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Primal]

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.

What? I thought many indie systems had innovative mechanics for social interaction, and many also treat social/physical/mental/magical/etcetera conflicts mechanically equally viable choices (and often use the same, simple core mechanic for social and physical conflicts).

Also, those indie games (i.e. conflict resolution) are what inspired the 4E skill challenge system.

 

[keterys]

On that note - what indie systems have the best conflict resolution systems, particularly for social and investigative challenges? I'd like to do some research

 

[Garthanos]

On that note - what indie systems have the best conflict resolution systems, particularly for social and investigative challenges? I'd like to do some research

Weirdly I think there is some interesting elements in something inspired by Jack Vance.... The Dying Earth RPG Home Page

Specifically with regards to other conflict forms getting equal show time.

 

[keterys]

Damn, their quickstart rules link is dead. I'll try to track that down though, thanks.

 

[tyrlaan]

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.

All so very, very on point. I was trying to put together a system with unified mechanics for all conflict resolution. I was also trying to have relatively robust combat rules. By extension, I needed to have robust non-combat rules.

That opens a MASSIVE can of worms. If everything uses the same mechanics and level of detail, there's a lot to include. Social interaction, of course, but beyond that - investigation, stealth operations/infiltration, puzzles/riddles, trap handling, survival, travel, crafting, etc. Sure, some of those can be rolled up into higher groupings to shorten the list a bit, but then look at the nuances of just one category.

Social interaction - haggling with a merchant, convincing a king to go to war, tricking guards into granting passage, seduction, interrogation, telling a rousing tale to garner favor/respect, bragging contests, insult contests, etc. Let's up the ante and talk about the really complex - person A is trying to convince a king to go to war against kingdom X, person B is worried about convincing the king to hire his smiths to make arms and armor, person C is trying to convince a king to go to war against kingdom X and Y, person D thinks peace is the best option but is in the same adventuring party as A, B, and C so he's trying to subtly sabotage their efforts, person E is the NPC vizier of the king who wants the king to go to war but hates the adventuring party so she wants to finagle the king disliking the party's suggestions but following hers, person F is the queen and she secretly lusts after person C and wants to make sure the outcome sets up a good scenario for her to pursue her desires. And so on.

By no means am I suggesting it's impossible, but it's a heck of a lot of work to bring detail to all aspects of a game. And as Stalker0 said, I worry how detailed social interaction rules would impact, say, my complex example above.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The importance of non-combat rules is directly related to the importance of non-combat activity.

If I design a game whereby the players roleplay soldiers on the battlefield and the scope of the game remains focused on battle then designing rules for dealing with time spent off the field is a wasted effort.

For a more general rpg where combat and non-combat activity will be important aspects of play there needs to be some decision making on the level of abstaction/simulation that is desired from the game before any rules get designed. Does the game want to try and simulate something closely? Should mechanical resolution be a detailed and involved process or done quickly and simply?

The biggest obstacle to non-combat mechanics is the unknown player factor. The game will be designed to rely heavily on player input or not. If it does rely on player input then the mechanics will not be detailed enough, and if it doesn't then it will be seen as more of a "roll" playing effort. Either way, a segment of the playing population will be turned off by the method chosen.

In order for a single game system to appeal to a wider audience both the combat and non-combat portions of the game need to be simple at the core but very detailed/more complex as an option. The combat/non-combat mechanics should be adjustable individually to allow players to add in extra complexity only where desired. This flexibility should remain throughout the system at all levels of play. In effect this would allow the same game to be played as basic or advanced to appeal to both types of gaming groups.

I am slowly working on such a system but it might take a while.

 

[maddman75]

On that note - what indie systems have the best conflict resolution systems, particularly for social and investigative challenges? I'd like to do some research

Dogs in the Vineyard is interesting because social conflcits and combat conflicts are treated as being different points on the same continuum. It starts with arguing, if you lose the argument you can either accept the loss or raise the stakes to get physical. If you fail while pushing and shoving, you can raise the stakes again to start punching. If you fail then, you either accept the faliure, or draw guns. Once you draw guns, people start to die. Is what you're arguing about worth killing someone? Or getting killed yourself?

Mouseguard treats all conflicts with the same rules. Each side (GM and a team of mice) will choose three actions - attack, defend, feint, and maneauver. The GM's and PCs reveal at the same time and has different effects, sort of like a four way rock-paper-scissors. Whatever is being done gets translated into these terms. In an argument an Attack might be strongly stating your position, while a Feint might be conceding part of your opponent's argument in order to trip them up.

Most Indie games don't have seperate combat/social rules, but a common resolution system. InSpectres for instance, making a skill roll means the player gets to narrate the scene. So if they're successful, not only does the NPC spill his guts in an interrogation, but the player gets to decide what he says!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Most Indie games don't have seperate combat/social rules, but a common resolution system. InSpectres for instance, making a skill roll means the player gets to narrate the scene. So if they're successful, not only does the NPC spill his guts in an interrogation, but the player gets to decide what he says!

How can the player decide what the NPC says without already knowing what the NPC knows?

 

[Mallus]

How can the player decide what the NPC says without already knowing what the NPC knows?

The player temporarily becomes the author of the NPC, so they decide what the NPC knows. When you come right down to it, everything in the game is kind of fiction.

 

[maddman75]

How can the player decide what the NPC says without already knowing what the NPC knows?

The central concept of InSpectres is that the GM doesn't decide *anything* ahead of time. He doesn't know what the NPC knows either. If the player were to lose the roll, then the GM would get to narrate the scene, and could say what he wants or have some other event entirely happen. This applies to events in the game too - if they are investigating spooky lights in a house, a player who makes his roll could decide that the house is haunted by an angry spirit, or someone has been doing satanic rituals, or that Old Man Corruthers is doing it with smoke and mirrors.

I'll admit that its a pretty out there game, but one of the design goals was to have a game that could be ran with no prep at all. And its a comedy game so if things don't make sense that's kind of OK. The setting is sort of Ghostbusters on Reality TV.