The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Ariosto]

The only reason combat rules have such primacy is because of the genre conventions on which most roleplaying games are based.

I think it tends to carry over a bit beyond that, but I agree about that being the main thing.

If roleplaying games had been based on Jane Austen novels instead of sword & sorcery short stories mingled with a handful of high fantasy novels, they may not have had combat rules at all.

Until the "indie RPGs" came along to shake things up with their new concept of "dramatic action".

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

Yeah, mine, too.

 

[lulzapalooza]

Most games in which we control (or portray) characters are role playing games. Sky Fox, Solid Snake, Cloud Strife, Aryl Flynn, Indiana Jones, Master Chief, and your level 4 Shadowrunner are all characters who we could imagine ourselves as. An RPG is simply your imagination; the game is simply how you go about playing.

 

[MichaelSomething]

People don't want to roleplay sitcoms or court room dramas nearly as much as they want to roleplay action.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJWiohNd3Us"]Objection![/ame]

One time my group has to convict an enemy noble via a trail. It was done via a skill challenge. I think using a skill challenge was the best way to handle the situation.


The thing is, I still think you're right. Looking at the RPG product at my FLGS, it's mostly stuff designed for combat.

 

[howandwhy99]

Although howandwhy99 has gone (in other threads, at least) way off into left field from my point of view,

1of3 and I have gone far of thread topic. I'll stay on point, if I post again.

1of3, PM me or start a new thread, if you wish to continue.

 

[Garmorn]

Ooops. I meant to say the hypothetical game SHOULDN'T have detailed baking rules in my previous post by the way.




So you think a hypothetical NASCAR game shouldn't have much more than a single die roll to see who won the 500 lap race since driving/racing isn't complex, or at the least not as complex as physical conflict in your eyes?

No. The race is a form of conflict (I think you missed my earlier post). Since it is a key type of physical conflict in that game, it needs rules to resolve it.

I will admit to having changed my mind of say combat to any major repeated physical conflict.

 

[Garmorn]

The only reason combat rules have such primacy is because of the genre conventions on which most roleplaying games are based.

If roleplaying games had been based on Jane Austen novels instead of sword & sorcery short stories mingled with a handful of high fantasy novels, they may not have had combat rules at all.

sniped

I think you do the question a slight disservice by binning things into either combat or social interaction. There's plenty of other types of situations that can come up, too. Social interaction is tricky, though... in a roleplaying environment, you can, well, just roleplay a large chunk of the social interaction without needing any mechanics to do so, and in fact I'd wager most players see that as desireable, at least to some degree.

Actually now that you brought the Jane Austin books up I think those would be better served using improv theater.

Personally I have not seen any rule set that does social interaction justice. I have not seen either of the 4e DM's so can't comment on the skill challenge system.

I must clear up some thing here. I do not mean to say a system has to complex but if all the rules are given a equal level of treatment the the combat/conflict rules are always the largest. One of my favorite systems was Fantasy Trip. Very simple rules. Combat took up 2 pages. It was 1 page for every thing else but a long list of skills and spells. A good part of the skills and spells where combat related.

 

[Umbran]

Actually now that you brought the Jane Austin books up I think those would be better served using improv theater.

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.

 

[Ariosto]

One of my favorite systems was Fantasy Trip. Very simple rules. Combat took up 2 pages.

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.

 

[Woas]

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?

I will admit to having changed my mind of say combat to any major repeated physical conflict.