Combat vs. Everything!

[Lmns Crn]

No, it's not a cage match. :(

Today, I've been wondering about the way many games treat combat differently than they treat other actions. I can think of examples of systems (such as standard D&D) where combat has its own system of unique mechanics, which are often quite intricate! I can think of examples of other systems (like my own Triad System) where the conflict resolution mechanics that govern combat are basically the same mechanics that would govern sailing a ship through a storm, winning a joke-telling contest, or beating a rival to a hidden treasure.

It occurs to me that there are pros and cons to each approach, and that the choice to use unique mechanics for combat (or not to do so) makes a strong statement about what the game is going to be about, what its priorities are.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[Lmns Crn]

It occurs to me that I could make another thread exactly like this one, and replace every occurrence of the word "combat" with the word "magic," and it would work just about as well.

[the_taken]

D&D (D20 originator)
+ apparent easy of use, and most recently, easy to gauge combat effectiveness between players and DMPCs
- designers suffer from Gygaxian dungeon design, and often hope that people aren't smart enough to find or exploit their flaws. Earlier editions were actually designed so that nobody understood how the rules worked any more than needed to play the game.
4e looks like it's going to suffer from Warcraftism.

Starwars: SAGA edition (d20 varient)
+ It's starwars
- Guys with blasters often end up doing nothing but shooting, lacking battlefield control options. At high levels, a mooks primary method of attack is "shoot and hope for a crit", at which point he actually is likely to remove a character.

Starfleet Battles (Fan made StarTreck battles game)
+ incredibly detailed game, where a player controls/commands every aspect of a spaceship (or fleet). Fans have made lots of detailed ships and nearly perfect emulation of cannon ships from the shows.
You only need d6s to play.
- incredibly detailed game, where a player controls/commands every aspect of a spaceship (or fleet).
Has a very steep learning curve. Larger battles can literally takes months of sessions to complete.
The video games based of this system suck.

SAME system (Strength Agility Moxy Elan by Frank Trollman)
+ a system based apon the concept where 1 point in any stat is equal to another point in another stat. The game is as balanced as the players want/need it to be, with guidelines on the different play styles applicable to it. Additionally, the system is very versatile, allowing for any number of separations and structural changes to fit any game design.
I used SAME as a base for my 8-stat system, and Pokemon RPG.
- There is no flavour attached to the game; no inspiration from which a prospective DM can centralize his campaign around. Additionally there is no movement or elemental mechanics, so players are left with their own interpretation as to how handle combat beyond sword and psychic attacks.
The biggest downer is that there are not rules at all for leveling up. None. Nothing on how much a character should increase in power, or when, and coming up with these rules can cause physical harm to the unprepared.

[beejazz]

Combat vs. Everything? Combat wins. Nah, I'm just kidding there.

As I see it, there are numerous approaches one could take when designing the mechanics for a game.

1)Everything gets its own subsystem! Want to fight orcs? Cast a spell? Build a robot? Mine for fish? Everything works differently. The benefit here is really just that doing one thing feels different than doing another. In smaller doses, these things can make the game more mechanically interesting. Too much (for example, non-standardized rules for item creation such that every item has a unique subsystem, or rules such that ranged attacks and melee act nothing like one another) can make the game confusing and difficult to learn.

2)Everything gets standardized! Everything could be handled by the same (or similar) dice/skill mechanics (like how in both skills and combat, you roll a d20 and shoot for high numbers). This can make the game simpler and more intuitive in play. It can also make the game rather mechanically dull (such as the swing-hit-swing-miss combat scenario, or the charisma based skills that work just the same regardless of how or even whether you roleplay the situation).

3)Standardized subsystems! It's what I'm going for in my particular brand of stunt mechanic, and you can also see it in stuff like Alternity (the situation die), Iron Heroes (the stunt mechanics), and Unknown Armies (it's roll-under, but better effects require higher rolls... simpler than it sounds). Well implemented, this can give your games the best of one or both worlds. However, it also risks the flaws of both if poorly done.

[LordVreeg]

Hmm.  This is worth replying to.


I think you are right about the priorities.  Our taken friend mentions a lot of different systems, and touches on the amount of time that 'combat' may take.  And in games where combat can take up a whole session, I think it pretty obvious that 'combat' therefor may seem to be the point of that system.
 
However, some may say that events that might end a pc's life, or injure them, or might expend valuable resources deserve greater detailed resolution than other, more mundane aspects of a game.  LC uses the examples of a joke telling contest or sailing a ship through a storm, and while these may be incredibly valuable for creating a better story and a better game (which I am all in favor of), I don't want to spend the same time on them in terms of a game that I would with combat.   Dozens of PC's have lost their lives and ended the carrers of their characters in combat; none have risked so much in a joke telling competition, though such things have sprung up in Celtricia.


That being said, I look at the conflict resolution system for my game, and it is the same skill based system we use for most other resolutions, just longer and more detailed.

[Eclipse]

As far as I look at it? Combat is so detailed because it's the hardest to do without rules. You can very easily have a huge, intricate social scene without any rolls at all, but trying to fairly run a combat without detailed rules requires an extremely mature group with a very fair-minded, intelligent, and easy-going DM. While that group is ideal, it is far from the norm, and even great groups have conflicts (especially important when inter-group combat arises). You can easily do most things with minimal rules or without them altogether (we almost never make rolls besides sense motive and bluff - and even then, only rarely - when in social settings)...except for combat.

As far as I'm concerned, the less rules a system has, the better it is, though it should still have enough rules to allow for a vibrant and interesting setting. Systems that have a page of rules tend to feel monotonus and dry. Systems with 1,000,000 rules are unwieldy (When you can release a full compendium of rules for your system, you /know/ you've gone overboard.) [note]Yes, I'm plugging M&M again.[/note]Ideally, a system would have 1-3 books total, that offer enough flexibility that all those suppliments with new classes, races, etc. would be unnessicary.

- I'm ranting here. I'll start a different thread for that. On the main issue: In my opinion, you don't need/shouldn't have too many rules for non-combat. That's for the players to role play, and if rolls must be made, they should be heavily modified by how well the player actually played it. Combat, however, needs those rules for the game to work properly and, more imporantly, for the game to be the most fun.

[snakefing]

Generally speaking, a big difference between combat and non-combat in a lot of games (most? almost all?) is that combat tends to be described and/or simulated in much more detail. A big part of the reason for that is what Vreeg said: The life and death aspects tend to make combat more tense and interesting intrinsically than, say, an attempt to move silently. It also probably arises from some of the action movie genre conventions that are pretty standard.

It need not be that way. For example, if a character needs to fight his way through a crowd of guards to free the princess before the BBEG sacrifices her, the real question isn't whether he can defeat the mooks - but rather, how long does it take, and how much does it take out of him? In d20, you'd pull out the battle mat and tactically move the fighter and the guards to play it out. But you could imagine just reducing the battle with the guards to a single roll that determines some kind of level of success. This would be a kind of scene-oriented or goal-oriented resolution system. It avoids the details in favor of a degree of success result out of which the player and GM create a narrative.

More generally, it seems to me that there are two general kinds of tasks - skill vs. circumstance and skill vs. skill. The difference is that the circumstance responds purely passively to the character's efforts, whereas a skilled opponent can respond reactively - by changing tactics in response to the flow of events, for example. Detailed resolution mechanics (like typical combat rules) work better with the latter, by enhancing the inherent conflict and drama in the contest between equals. But even there they can drag things down, especially if it is not a contest between equals and the outcome itself is a foregone conclusion.

For example, no one would really want a detailed spell-casting system. (Okay, first I summon the energies of fire. Level 3 success, good enough for 2d4 of damage. Now I have to hold those energies while I shape the wall of fire - level 1 success, you only manage to create 15 linear feet of your wall before you have to choke back on the energy. Now seal the spell - level 4 success, that's 7-12 rounds duration.) Such a system would be interesting in concept, but would drag on too much in actual play.

On the other hand, a detailed system for, say, blow-by-blow resolution of diplomacy or negotiation would potentially be interesting in the right game. Here the verbal thrust and parry, the gradual accumulation of advantage, could be the stuff of drama. (Although, without the life and death aspects of combat, I'm not sure how sustainable that would be. Maybe if you were playing in a game where Status points could be earned or lost, and would be as crucial as combat in determining ultimate success.)

[Thanuir]

Personally I prefer rules with at least two options; to use an intricate subsystem, whether generic or only capable of handling combat, or to deal with the situation in a single roll.

If the battle is uninteresting (a cohort of a PC trying to subdue a guard) and I want to roll dice, a simple opposed weapon skill test is sufficient detail. Or a PC trying to slay mooks fast in a suitably nondramatic situation. If situations like those happen, it is a loss of time to use involved combat rules.

Dramatic and intense conflicts, OTOH, deserve a more detailed set of rules. Or freeforming them with detail. Whichever suits the group playing.


Personally I prefer rules which treat all conflicts in the same way: One simple way to handle them and one involved.
Another good way is to make good and useful subsystems for all common conflicts, which is the way Burning Wheel works, essentially.