Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 5037813" data-attributes="member: 66434">The importance of non-combat rules is directly related to the importance of non-combat activity.&nbsp;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. &nbsp;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? &nbsp;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 &quot;roll&quot; playing effort. Either way, a segment of the playing population will be turned off by the method chosen. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;I am slowly working on such a system but it might take a while.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 5037813, member: 66434"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification