The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Gentlegamer]

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.

 

[1of3]

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.

You have an interesting approach here.

If I understand correctly, the way that hitting with various items works is - to you - a hidden rule. The players only state that they want to hit the dragon with, say, a round-house kick. They have no idea about their chances.

Is D&D not an RPG then? I have a pretty good idea what rolls I need to make for my fighter to hit the dragon. There is hardly anything hidden. (Unless it's not really a dragon but an illusion or something.)



As for a games not needing rules, it does not matter. Any game will have rules. The most common rules for free-form storytelling, for example, are about character ownership. (You cannot state what another player's character does or thinks.)

Actually, D&D has pretty much the same rule. You cannot say, what my character does.

Scene framing (stating what the scenery looks like) is another common topic. That is delegated mostly to the GM in D&D, but player's might still be expected to explain what their home town or their rooms look like. Other RPGs like Feng Shui or Wushu allow players to state the presence of various items.


Now in D&D (and most other RPGs), there are dice and numbers, of course. And succesful players will consciously invoke those numbers to achieve certain results.

"He is bloodied. I'll use my standard action to roll Intimidate, and make him surrender."

Few is hidden this situation. (The target's will defense... maybe.) But tactic there is. The player made the decision to spend a resource (the standard action) in order to try something (roll Intimidate).

Therefore, you can have tactic with near to no hidden information. There is no hidden information in chess after all.

 

[keterys]

Any rule, rule subsystem, or minigame aspect of a RPG should basically hit the following points:
* Does this encourage or discourage the action it's modeling?
* Is this enjoyable?
* How does participation interact with the rest of the system?

And depending on what you're going for, you'll land in different places. For example, it is entirely possible to have basic stats for characters and then have any action - be it combat, social, physical, or investigative (those are how I tend to divide challenges, I'm sure someone has come up with a better division) - decided by player and DM fiat. Amber and Theatrix largely do that.

In some cases, you might decide that particular challenges are best resolved by their own system - combat being the most popular. You can still decide some challenges by player and DM fiat while combat requiring its own ruleset - many groups roll no dice for roleplaying at all. I'd imagine that for most groups, they'd rank the order of rules necessity for challenges like Combat -> Physical -> Investigative -> Social

That is to say, a group will be most willing to not roll dice for Social. Or to kinda sorta throw a roll or two here in there, but still largely rely more on what is said at the table rather than follow a system of rules. People will also be most bothered by rules that seem to interfere with their ability to play in that way.

Personally I'm somewhere in the middle - I think that it's very easy to harm social RP by screwing up the mechanics or DMing thereof. Any game in which you go in expecting to have a good conversation with an NPC and the DM goes 'Roll this skill. Now this skill. Okay, you get the information you need, go to the warehouse, and roll initiative' has clearly missed its mark from my standpoint... but at the same time, I don't like being at a game as a superb negotiator and all of my charismatic skills and powers being ignored and based entirely on what I happen to say.

Nor do I like character creation requiring that I expend valuable resources in order to have RP quirks. For example, the ability to say I can brew a really good beer or like whittling wooden puppets for orphans should not impact my ability to survive a physical or combat challenge.

How the rules all interact with each other really comes up too - for example, I think that a lot of the times system are setup so that you _either_ do social interactions or combat interactions, but they don't really intersect well. Whether that's because you roll a d20 on a social roll and 'poof win the combat' or need to take expensive actions to do social skills during a combat, to use D&D examples.

 

[howandwhy99]

You have an interesting approach here.

If I understand correctly, the way that hitting with various items works is - to you - a hidden rule. The players only state that they want to hit the dragon with, say, a round-house kick. They have no idea about their chances.

Is D&D not an RPG then? I have a pretty good idea what rolls I need to make for my fighter to hit the dragon. There is hardly anything hidden. (Unless it's not really a dragon but an illusion or something.)

Players all begin the game at 1st level (no matter what RPG they play or how powerful their characters). They learn through play what their abilities are in different circumstances and what the distributive odds are for any action involving dice rolls. The chances as you say.

What traditional RPGs are, games with rules hidden behind a screen, falls under the definition of Roleplay Simulation. Specifically convergent RPS. Divergent RPS would be more akin to the storygame RPG design. These are sociological terms and relate to the kinds of roleplaying exercises folks in those circles perform. Convergent exercises are where one person knows the truth and the others are guessing at it, divergent exercises are where all participants have a hand in determining what is true.

As for a games not needing rules, it does not matter. Any game will have rules. The most common rules for free-form storytelling, for example, are about character ownership. (You cannot state what another player's character does or thinks.)

Actually, D&D has pretty much the same rule. You cannot say, what my character does.

Scene framing (stating what the scenery looks like) is another common topic. That is delegated mostly to the GM in D&D, but player's might still be expected to explain what their home town or their rooms look like. Other RPGs like Feng Shui or Wushu allow players to state the presence of various items.

I agree, rules are based on patterns of behavior. No matter how a group of authors who gather to write a novel for sale choose to work together their will be some agreements made as to how it will be done. These are rules, but I would be wary about calling the act a game. It sounds too much like the ludic fallacy about treating the following of laws and other agreements in our world as a game.

My meaning was not to state games did not need rules. I said storytelling does not need rules. Storytelling is actually the opposite of following rules as rules are predefined stories of their own right. Scripts to follow by people. Not following the script, the rules, means a person is not playing the game. Storytelling is the act of making scripts, not the following of them. Rules can be added to this endeavor, but they are not essential. That was the point I was attempting to convey at least.

Now in D&D (and most other RPGs), there are dice and numbers, of course. And succesful players will consciously invoke those numbers to achieve certain results.

"He is bloodied. I'll use my standard action to roll Intimidate, and make him surrender."

Few is hidden this situation. (The target's will defense... maybe.) But tactic there is. The player made the decision to spend a resource (the standard action) in order to try something (roll Intimidate).

Therefore, you can have tactic with near to no hidden information. There is no hidden information in chess after all.

IMHO what you are talking about are simulation games, not RPGs. All games are strategy games to some extent as they involve navigating the rules effectively. But in a traditional RPG these rules are hidden. The strategy not in navigating them, but determining them. In a storytelling RPG the rules relate to a game that has nothing to do with the story, but rather determines who gets to tell what part of a story.

A number of people believe any act included in other's creating of a story is also a storytelling act, and therefore roleplaying. For instance, the person who cast the dice I use, the person who created the paper for the RPG books, the cartographer who drew the map I borrowed of a town in Iowa. In this philosophy, all these people were engaged in roleplaying when they performed these acts as they helped craft the story our group is telling.

I don't fall into this current ideological trap of literary theory, one where everything experienced in the world should have the word "story" prefixed to it. It's a philosophical black hole. To my understanding, the game you are playing above is a simulation game. Perhaps it is added on to a storygame as in 4E? Or perhaps is it one of the dysfunctional designs? (I use that term here as I believe professional game designers refer to freeform games) By which I mean the kind where the rules are in front of the screen and a GM "just sort of makes up" whatever is not covered by the rules. Either way, attempting to play a simulation game as a RPG won't work. At best it only works as a narrative resolution mechanic incorporated within a larger storygame RPG.

 

[maddman75]

Most of the games I play feature more research, investigation, and interaction than combat, and therefore the rules involved are pretty important.

So why have rules? Why not just rely on GM fiat? Well, why not do that for combat? The players states his intention to kill the enemy, describes his action, and the GM decides if the enemy falls or if he strikes back and kills the PC. I doubt many players would enjoy such a system.

So if the players have cornered the shady character and made strong arguments that they know he's involved, make threats that he's going to prison if they turn him in, and make promises that they'll keep his name out of it if they just tell him what they know, why should all that effort be left up to GM fiat? Make it into a game, where they can try different tactics based on what their characters are good at, take into account the environment and adversary, and roll the dice. Maybe the guy sings like a canary, or maybe he clams up. Or starts spewing lies. Any of these could lead to interesting results.

To be honest, GM Fiat is not a bad thing. It is there to cover situations that don't come up very often at all. So if you're playing some indie game of being bankers or something, there probably aren't detailed rules for gunfights. Or if you're playing a game of explorers killing monsters and getting treasure, you probably aren't cross examining witnesses that often. In either case, GM Fiat can provide a reasonable way to resolve things.

But to suggest that I should use GM fiat for social rolls, which make up probably 75% of the rolls in my game doesn't seem like a sound strategy.

Nor do they replace roleplaying. No one at my table ever gets to say "I use Diplomacy on him." and roll a die. I ask exactly what they are saying to him, try to get them to be as specific as possible in first person. That might change the DC, depending on the personality of the target and the situation that is going on. It might call for a skill besides diplomacy, without the PC even realizing it! If the PC trying to be diplomatic to the cop says "Hey come on, help a buddy out. I'm a PI and I do a lot of work with Detective Johnson down at the precienct." but unknown to him Johnson is a corrupt psycho that ruins those who stand in his way. The PC should then roll Intimidate instead.

Don't fear social rolls, they are my friends.

 

[Garmorn]

Man, I knew I don't convey what I mean very well sometimes, but I was really off the mark this time.

First I don't mean to imply that other rules are not wanted. Combat rules normally are the largest section in an rule I have played for several reasons.

1) Combat is the most detail action in any game. For example a rule on driving a vehicle does not take up much space but if you want to do it during combat you need the basic rule (which skill use ect) and then how it affects the combat ect.

2) Any special abilities that can be used in combat like magic or psionics need additional rules.

3) Most player want a nice combat system with lots of options. This requires rules if only to facilitate DM's adding thins.

I did not mean to insulate that other rules are not need but that other rules normally don't need to as complete or as complicated.

Players all begin the game at 1st level (no matter what RPG they play or how powerful their characters). They learn through play what their abilities are in different circumstances and what the distributive odds are for any action involving dice rolls. The chances as you say.

a lot sniped

I don't fall into this current ideological trap of literary theory, one where everything experienced in the world should have the word "story" prefixed to it. It's a philosophical black hole. To my understanding, the game you are playing above is a simulation game. Perhaps it is added on to a storygame as in 4E? Or perhaps is it one of the dysfunctional designs? (I use that term here as I believe professional game designers refer to freeform games) By which I mean the kind where the rules are in front of the screen and a GM "just sort of makes up" whatever is not covered by the rules. Either way, attempting to play a simulation game as a RPG won't work. At best it only works as a narrative resolution mechanic incorporated within a larger storygame RPG.

As far as this post all I can say is Huh? What are you trying to say because I don't understand what your getting at.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

Well, my little brown books present the Alternative Combat System on pages 19-20 of Men & Magic, and address The Wilderness on pages 14-20 of The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.

 

[Woas]

In any game? In some games. If there was a NASCAR or Formula 1 RPG I'm sure it would have pretty detailed driving rules. The games that have a large section on combat typically rely on tactical combat as the crux of the game 'experience'.

1) Combat is the most detail action in any game. For example a rule on driving a vehicle does not take up much space but if you want to do it during combat you need the basic rule (which skill use ect) and then how it affects the combat ect.

Can you justify why combat is the only activity in an RPG that requires more rules than anything else to draw out the drama of the situation at the table past more than a minute or a single yes/no dice roll? Why can't a race be just as dramatic an edge-of-your-seat, or more so, then combat?

 

[Garmorn]

In any game? In some games. If there was a NASCAR or Formula 1 RPG I'm sure it would have pretty detailed driving rules. The games that have a large section on combat typically rely on tactical combat as the crux of the game 'experience'.

I would love to see such a game but the closest I have seen are Carwars and take off from Speed Racer that had combat, but point taken.

Maybe it would be more accurate to replace combat with physical conflict? In most games that is combat but in your example it would be the actual racing. (Of course that also change my original question some)

 

[AllisterH]

Perhaps a better way to state the question is

"How involved/important should the conflict resolution system be"

As mentioned, ShadowRun's cyber rules were certainly as "deep/involved" as the standard combat.

It's been a while, but didn't SR's "rigger" system come close to this as well?