Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5034739" data-attributes="member: 23240">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, &quot;non-combat mechanics&quot; 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steenan, post: 5034739, member: 23240"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification