The importance of non combat rules in a RPG.

[Garmorn]

While having a discusion in another tread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269550-siloing-good-bad-3.html) I read this quote:

Only when you know that X is always part of the game does Siloing make sense, to make sure that every character can do X. But imo thats not a very good approach for a role playing game.

At first I simply wanted to have a clearer ideal of what he meant. When I asked responded with the following:

Because a RPG should not have X required.
For example when X = combat, then I would call the game a wargame and not an RPG.

Now my first response is that of all of the rules a RPG has the combat one are the most important. In all of my experience most systems spend more time on combat or combat related rules then any other. Social interaction rules have always been secondary. This also applies to players.

Derren disagrees. I would like to here other people's understanding and of this.

My reasoning is simple: of all of the parts of a RPG, combat is the only one that requires a clear set of consistant rules. Most people have no knowlage of what it is like to swing a sword or mace in a combat to death. This is the least subjective part of any game and choices made here (rules wise) affect the enitre system. There are lots of groups that will completly ignore the non combat rules but very few who will completly ignore the non combat rules. While combat rules donot a game make they can and have destroyed systems.

This does not mean the good combat rules or lots of combat rules means the game is a wargame instead of an RPG. All an RPG really needs is rules on how to run a single character in a world.

 

[Umbran]

My reasoning is simple: of all of the parts of a RPG, combat is the only one that requires a clear set of consistant rules.

I am not sure I agree, but I think that's also secondary.

If a game only provides rules for combat, then it is a combat game - tactical skirmish game or tactical wargame, depending on the scale. I might choose to roleplay while playing it, but if the only rules for task resolution are for combat tasks, then it isn't what I'd call a role-playing game, any more than chess or Advanced Squad Leader is a role-playing game.

That I can choose to ignore non-combat rules is beside the point - I am pretty sure I've ignored far more combat rules than non-combat rules in my time running games.

Most people have no knowlage of what it is like to swing a sword or mace in a combat to death.

Most people don't know anything about picking locks, walking tightropes, or talking their way out of a death sentence for crimes they didn't commit, either. RPGs are full of many fantastic things, many of which aren't specifically combat actions.

 

[jdrakeh]

If a game only provides rules for combat, then it is a combat game - tactical skirmish game or tactical wargame, depending on the scale. I might choose to roleplay while playing it, but if the only rules for task resolution are for combat tasks, then it isn't what I'd call a role-playing game, any more than chess or Advanced Squad Leader is a role-playing game.

Using that logic, the first iteration of D&D wasn't a role-playing game.

 

[Woas]

Most people do not know how to give a speech or litigate in a court room or interrogate properly or know just plain rhetoric, period.

Furthermore there is that old idea of if we were to play a game of Cops and Robbers and I pointed my hand, with the finger pointed like a gun and said "Bang! You're dead!" how do we determine if you are actually dead without me just declaring it and you saying, "Nut-uh! Bang, you are!" In my opinion all of those combat rules are a way to justify our game of C&R.
But something I feel a lot of role-playing games lack, or gloss over, or miss completely are rules to make these non combat situations 'stick'.

My reasoning is simple: of all of the parts of a RPG, combat is the only one that requires a clear set of consistant rules. Most people have no knowlage of what it is like to swing a sword or mace in a combat to death. This is the least subjective part of any game and choices made here (rules wise) affect the enitre system. There are lots of groups that will completly ignore the non combat rules but very few who will completly ignore the non combat rules. While combat rules donot a game make they can and have destroyed systems.

This does not mean the good combat rules or lots of combat rules means the game is a wargame instead of an RPG. All an RPG really needs is rules on how to run a single character in a world.

 

[FireLance]

If a game only provides rules for combat, then it is a combat game - tactical skirmish game or tactical wargame, depending on the scale. I might choose to roleplay while playing it, but if the only rules for task resolution are for combat tasks, then it isn't what I'd call a role-playing game, any more than chess or Advanced Squad Leader is a role-playing game.

I would take a slightly different view. The key difference is not so much the rules of the game, but the options afforded to the players. In many games, the only options afforded to the players are those provided for in the rules: you can't attempt to sneak past a line of pawns to get to the king (although a knight could move or attack over them) and you can't persuade an enemy piece not to attack you (although another of your pieces could "immobilize" it by pinning it).

This is practically a given for competitive games. The rules have to limit each player's options, or you end up playing Calvinball.

However, the presence of a DM means that the players' options need not be constrained by the lack of explicit rules for task resolution, although having such rules is usually a plus - if nothing else, it reduces the need for DM judgement calls and makes task resolution more consistent.

That said, it is certainly possible (and perhaps even likely) for a poor DM to turn an RPG that only provides rules for combat into a tactical wargame by simply disallowing any option that is not explicitly permitted by the rules.

 

[AllisterH]

Well, there's also the situation that many gamers think you don't NEED rules for non-combat situations. It's believed that trying to encourage this is worst than having no rules at all.

As an aside, where does Shadowrun's decking rules fall into the mix? Technically, its not part of the Shadowrun combat rules but at the same time, it has always been described as "combat on the virtual plane".

 

[1of3]

My reasoning is simple: of all of the parts of a RPG, combat is the only one that requires a clear set of consistant rules. Most people have no knowlage of what it is like to swing a sword or mace in a combat to death.

Frankly, that doesn't make sense. If only a clear and consistent rule was required, you could just roll a d2, and one side wins.

There are a few RPGs that work in this fashion, but most RPGs will have more complex rules for combat. Why is that? Because many people want to battle monsters, then feel like heros.

That's not bad. In fact, it's damn fun. But you cannot deduce from the presence of detailed combat systems that they were required in some manner.

There many nice RPGs as well that do not feature seperate combat systems. (If you do not yet know one, you can try The Pool. It's only 6 pages.)

 

[jdrakeh]

As an aside, where does Shadowrun's decking rules fall into the mix? Technically, its not part of the Shadowrun combat rules but at the same time, it has always been described as "combat on the virtual plane".

Well, it is combat, just digital combat and, that being the case, it came with its own special set of rules. Same thing with using remotes to bomb the beejesus out of somebody (i.e., rigging). Older editions of Shadowrun had lots of different combat systems.

 

[Ariosto]

I might choose to roleplay while playing it, but if the only rules for task resolution are for combat tasks, then it isn't what I'd call a role-playing game ...

What if the rule is "role play it"?

Maybe I'm misreading, but this seems to equate "role playing" with rolling dice or some such mechanism. Jdrakeh's observation is close enough to literally true, and in fact I've seen that very paradoxical judgment proffered.

To my mind, the essential role playing in an RPG is dealing with the imagined world on the basis of the perceptions, via the powers, and with the freedom, of one's imagined persona. It's putting oneself "in the shoes of" a magician, spaceman, cowboy, mutant or whatnot.

That one can engage in any sort of activity falling within that scope is what matters, not how the outcome is determined. It's not that chess has "no rules" for non-combat activities -- it is a "war game" only by superficial connotations of no relevance at all in play. It is likewise not a lack of tables for drinking beer or flirting with girls that makes ASL not an RPG. ASL is simply not about such activities! If they were part of the game, then I imagine they would receive the same sort of treatment as everything from bicycling to radio operation.

 

[Stormonu]

My reasoning is simple: of all of the parts of a RPG, combat is the only one that requires a clear set of consistant rules. Most people have no knowlage of what it is like to swing a sword or mace in a combat to death. This is the least subjective part of any game and choices made here (rules wise) affect the enitre system. There are lots of groups that will completly ignore the non combat rules but very few who will completly ignore the non combat rules. While combat rules donot a game make they can and have destroyed systems.

I disagree. The reason for combat rules were there because you couldn't take the DM (or player) outside and beat them with a stick to a get a result. You could use your own interpersonal skills to try and talk make a deal with the DM playing the Duke, answer a riddle or how you were going to open a particular door or what not. Back in the day, Gary and crew thought this to be the superior way to handle things. The random rolls in early D&D were only for those things you couldn't do sitting at a table - picking a lock, disarming a deadly trap, using magic or sucker-punching an illithid.

From at least 1E or earlier there were consistent rules for other things in D&D besides combat. And those rules were "your character knows what you know." This was the old answer for things that came up in the game. Later on, it became more and more important to separate what your character knew and could do from what you the player knew and could do - thus expanded mechanics for systems beyond combat. By 3E, the difference between what the character could accomplish and what the player could accomplish had reached its greatest point. Perhaps the best example is the use of Knowledge checks to know information about monsters. Compare that to 1E and 2E where what you knew about monsters depended largely on how many times you'd encountered them in past sessions/campaigns or read out of the MM.

This does not mean the good combat rules or lots of combat rules means the game is a wargame instead of an RPG. All an RPG really needs is rules on how to run a single character in a world.

Quite true, what is usually telling is how much time is spent on combat rules and options vs. other part of the game. Likewise, its often telling in whether combat is a different subsystem or is rolled right into the system's overall framework. None of these stop a game from an RPG, but they sure point a finger on what they think is important.

Dungeons & Dragon Miniatures/Mageknight/Battletech is definately a wargame. You don't do anything but fight.

Look at White Wolf's game - combat is handled pretty much like any other skill check in the game (ability + skill, count rolls on 1d10 that are 8 or higher). Combat generally has no more subsystems than any other part of the game (compare the Majesty power of a Deava vampire to the Brawling attack of a Brujah vampire, for example). You could be in fights all night in a WoD game, or just one and it would only give you 1 XP - of possibly 5.

1E leans towards rule resolution dealing with combat. You don't gain XP in this version for non-combat activities - the only way to literally go up is kill monsters and steal their treasure. There are some out-of-combat abilities (thief's abilities, some spells, optional "secondary roles" and the like), but most role-playing in the game only comes out of the gaming advice in the PHB & DMG and not rules. Yet, during its day it is most decidedly thought of as an RPG.

2E is like 1E, but adds in XP for things beside combat. Many options are added in (like kits and NWP) that have little or nothing to do with combat but are designed to round out the character. I'd personally say in many ways it's evolved into a full-fledge roleplaying system, though it still (heavily) shows its wargame roots.

3E pretty much falls in the middle; a more intense subsystem for combat that supports a battlegrid and multiple resolution rolls to decide outcome, with a skill system that can handle results with a single cast of the die for most actions beyond the combat arena. Still, while heavy on combat there are plenty of abilities and items that have nothing to do with combat (Quaal's feather tokens, as a minor example). An RPG with a heavy wargame simulator, to be sure.

4E gives the impression it leans towards an even heavier combat engine. Skills and Skill challenges cover some aspects beyond the combat arena, but the game moves towards a more 1E approach to non-combat situations; your character is good at it if the player says so (and the DM agrees). Oddly, most of the RP advice has moved to the DMG, where players may never see it.

Does an RPG need rules other than combat rules to be successful? I believe it does, or you're just playing a boardgame/wargame. You can RP in those as well, but it's not the norm or the game's intent you do so. Is 4E, with its heavy combat emphasis, then an RPG? Yes, though more in the 1E sensibilities than the more modern RPGs that I'm used to dealing with (Lot5R, WoD, Serenity, Burning Wheel, etc.) However, I think 4E has become polarized to those who enjoy a tactical game of combat to a fantasy world simulator or storytime hour.