Over the years, I have many times encountered a question along the lines of, "Why do RPGs always have tactical sub-games? Why isn't combat simply resolved with the same methods as other situations?"

GDW's En Garde!, despite the fencing game that was the original impetus for developing the larger game structure, was already pretty unusual in 1975 for emphasizing events in the large rather than the small. This is in contrast to the focus on minutes and tens of feet found in the dungeon games that became the common stereotype for design.

One thing we might note is that while the EG! formalisms are well suited to the subject of social climbing in 17th century Paris, they don't provide specific mechanical support for zooming in on other concerns (although those could be explored in more detail in "free style" roleplaying). This paradigm of tight focus and often artificial rules -- more game than simulation -- is characteristic of board games, and more recently of a trend significantly represented by the Forge school of RPG design.

Another thing is that the bulk at least of commercially successful RPGs have been inspired by genre fiction of the "action adventure" sort. Getting down to low-level actions (crossing so many yards of a log bridge, getting a shot or swing at a foe, and so on) is fairly representative of the source material.

Might a game inspired by, say, the novels of Jane Austen treat a life-and-death fight no differently than a tea party? I guess it might, if both were treated in a fair bit of mechanical detail. That seems to be the trend in "storygame" quarters: increase the number of factors and rounds of play in a "universal resolution" system, so that no affair comes off as being treated too cavalierly even if the treatment is from one perspective not much of a simulation and very "game-y."

This can be very flexible in terms of time and space scales. Talk of "conflict resolution" vs. "task resolution" can bog down into arbitrariness and incoherence, but I think at root the contrast is with games in which people insist on an inflexible scale regardless of the situation at hand.

On the other hand, we might note that the original D&D game and others sometimes feature "save or die" events resolved with a single dice roll. My first thought regarding this is that there's a wide consensus that such situations ought to be in a context that permits significant exploration -- various ways of learning about and taking measures against a hazard -- before coming down to the roll.

I never saw most RPGs as flat out tactical until the edition of D&D that had it as the focus rather than an element of a larger game in the normal sense. Most games can be played without minis. But some companies will want to push the tactical side so they can sell minis.

But some players want lots of tricks and stunts to use in combat.

Personally I think that a game can get too tactical and the sessions bog down once combat starts. People obsessing over how much they can move, can they set up this big showstopper power, etc. If I wanted to play a wargame I'd be playing a wargame. I came to RP. Probably why I liked AD&D, Gamma World and Star Frontiers so much. Each was pretty straightforward and you could play however you pleased. And 3rd and 4th ed D&D can be played just fine without all the tactical of course.

I do though love minis and using them to illustrate combat positions and distances when it is needed. In a chamber with lots of furniture and cover? Get the minis out. Jumped by bandits on the road? No need for minis. Just lay in and I'll call it as it falls.

I think one thing that "works" about combat is that you have lots of real-world factors like positioning and cover to deal with, that makes it feel more "real".

Social conflicts tend to be a bit less so. Rolling a d20 for combat feels right because combat is chaotic. But that same d20 telling me how well my speech impressed the king tends to make me feel like I'm not in control of my character.

Really, I think what any mechanical system should seek to address is matters of time, attrition, opportunity cost, and stakes. Combat already has these, with factors like hit points, fire and forget spells, ammunition, reinforcements, etc. To create a system for something else, you should figure out what real things like those that the system interacts with.

I won't be surprised, if I come up with a system that does something like, "Your rousing speech earned you 5 Social Leverage Chips," to hear a bunch of bored players asking when they get to go kill things. And I wouldn't blame them.

(shrugs)  The hobby started out as tactical wargaming.  That's always been, therefore, a basic and seldom-questioned expectation.  The same gamers who flame the RPG forums over games which dare to include a few pages of social interaction rules don't often balk at the same systems having several dozen pages of core combat rules ... or multi-hundred page combat splatbooks.

One of the things Gary Gygax told me way back at a con was essentially. "Hammer down the combat system. In most settings it will be the most common part of the game in use." So I make sure the combat rules do what I want them to do. The rest falls into place usually (but not allways...)

As for rolling on that persuasion check. Often the player is playing a character with stats and abilities they dont actually have. The player could give a rousing speach. But what if their charisma is a 10? This is where the rolls come in.

When GMing I tend to just listen to some oration then glance at the characters stats quick and mentally weigh how well that speech really went across. But thats a tale for some other thread.

But basically an RPG needs a combat system if there is going to be a-lot of fighting. It does not have to be robust to get the job done. That does not inherently make it tactical. It does make it potentially tactical. Some GMs and players just do not click to tactics at all. But the potential is there for those who want it.

I will let players play characters who are more clever or more socially adept than themselves, but they can't just roll the dice for it. If they want to charm someone, they have to describe what their approach is, what kind of points they want to get across, what they know about the target that can be used as leverage, etc. If they want to be a master tactician who can analyze any situation for an advantage, they don't have to draw me a map of a strategy, but they should at least lay out some basic goals and how they want to set about achieving them.

Generally, I want to hybridize the two methods discussed in Stars Without Number

QuoteThere is a Persuade skill, and the fact that this and similar social
skills exist sometimes causes players or GMs to simply shut offmore
informal evaluations of social situations. When the PC wants to
convince an NPC of something, they roll Persuade + Charisma and
let the dice tell them how far the NPC is willing to buy their premise.
The actual words and arguments they use are simply decorative.
On one level, this is justifiable. Th e player of the warrior isn't expected
to be a real-life shootist to roll a good attack roll, so why should the
player of the silver-tongued expert con-man have to come up with
a smooth line of patter to use his own abilities? It's legitimate and
reasonable to let the dice determine the success of a conversational
gambit. If a player has spent character resources on something like
social skills, they should see a mechanical benefit from it. Moreover,
relying on a player's conversational talents to move negotiations can
often boil down to a game of finding the right conversational gambit
for the GM rather than rationally persuading the NPC

QuoteStill, some players and GMs prefer to let actual argumentation play a
bigger role. One potential way to do this is to let the player state his or
her case, and then set the Persuade diffi culty accordingly. Convincing
a crime boss to give a PC access to his network of corrupt city offi cials
might be a difficulty 8 test if the player makes a good argument for
it, while a desultory request might be diffi culty 10. Alternately, you
might implicitly adjust the consequences of success or failure based
on the character's total Charisma and skill bonus. A character with a
+5 total might not succeed in persuading the crime boss if they roll
very low, but he'll point them towards someone who might be able to
help them. Th e key for this sort of approach is to let both skills and
player argumentation have a visible effect on the outcome, so that
players feel that both matter.

I *like* the possibility that a rousing speech can fail. But I want to know why, and I want to know what happens after it fails. That is, to say, I think a player who says "I grill the crowd for info on the whereabouts of the bandit fortress" like they would "I swing my sword at the goblin" will probably accept a failure at face value. Which is fine, as long as they can come up with a backup plan on the spot.

Quote from: Shauncat;695560I will let players play characters who are more clever or more socially adept than themselves, but they can't just roll the dice for it. If they want to charm someone, they have to describe what their approach is, what kind of points they want to get across, what they know about the target that can be used as leverage, etc. If they want to be a master tactician who can analyze any situation for an advantage, they don't have to draw me a map of a strategy, but they should at least lay out some basic goals and how they want to set about achieving them.

Generally, I want to hybridize the two methods discussed in Stars Without Number
I *like* the possibility that a rousing speech can fail. But I want to know why, and I want to know what happens after it fails. That is, to say, I think a player who says "I grill the crowd for info on the whereabouts of the bandit fortress" like they would "I swing my sword at the goblin" will probably accept a failure at face value. Which is fine, as long as they can come up with a backup plan on the spot.

We had a huge thread on this recently.
My position remains
i) Get the player to say what they want to do, encouraging them to role play it out.
ii) Get them to roll a dice and do a coresponding resistance or whatever
iii) role play out the result that makes sense of their rolls.

The last part which is where you temper the response of the target of a social check to fit the response that roll would elicit. this encourages the player to participatre in a roleplay exchange.

If their actual idea is crap but the player rolls well I can role play a positive response to it that makes sense of the scenario.

Mercifully with my group the players oration and diplomacy skills about match their stats and character skills.

In my own book there is not a charisma equivalent stat. Diplomacy and interaction was purely based on the players ability to get across what they want.

Quote from: Omega;695548As for rolling on that persuasion check. Often the player is playing a character with stats and abilities they dont actually have. The player could give a rousing speach. But what if their charisma is a 10? This is where the rolls come in.

When GMing I tend to just listen to some oration then glance at the characters stats quick and mentally weigh how well that speech really went across.

Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat?  If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?

Combat* is fun**.

*Some implementation thereof.

**To most of people who play games.

Quote from: Omega;695610Mercifully with my group the players oration and diplomacy skills about match their stats and character skills.

In my own book there is not a charisma equivalent stat. Diplomacy and interaction was purely based on the players ability to get across what they want.

I like the OD&D approach to Charisma. Roll on a bell curve range behind the GM screen, apply Charisma mod, but don't actually tell the players the result. Let them interact with the NPC to find out. I'm surprised it doesn't come up more often as a classic feature.

Quote from: Phillip;695428Over the years, I have many times encountered a question along the lines of, "Why do RPGs always have tactical sub-games? Why isn't combat simply resolved with the same methods as other situations?"

GDW's En Garde!, despite the fencing game that was the original impetus for developing the larger game structure, was already pretty unusual in 1975 for emphasizing events in the large rather than the small. This is in contrast to the focus on minutes and tens of feet found in the dungeon games that became the common stereotype for design.

One thing we might note is that while the EG! formalisms are well suited to the subject of social climbing in 17th century Paris, they don't provide specific mechanical support for zooming in on other concerns (although those could be explored in more detail in "free style" roleplaying).

All I remember is fighting duels during lunch. What were the social climbing rules?

QuoteMight a game inspired by, say, the novels of Jane Austen treat a life-and-death fight no differently than a tea party? I guess it might, if both were treated in a fair bit of mechanical detail.

I can pretty easily see an AustenWorld game working, with custom moves* tied to her characters and settings. The Bennett's could be the PC party, with the various suitors played by the GM. Although Lydia running off with Wickham just screams GM move following a failed roll. Actually, Lydia seems the product of a particularly poor roll.

*Stupid jargon, can't you just say "action"? Although in this case I'm okay with fiction, since you'd explicitly be trying to emulate Austen. Although it would turn into a Bronte story, or worse, a Harlequin romance, if the GM didn't show restraint with their moves, since the goal would be clever comedy and light drama, rather than melodrama.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695615Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat?  If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?

I much prefer to let a player use all his tactical ability and diplomatic ability if he wishes to do so. If his PC has poor abilities that will still affect the outcome. In combat the tactically smart player with a weak PC has to deal with that. Likewise I treat the charismatic player with the low-CHA the same; you are free to give a rousing speech but still success will be tougher for you than if you had a high CHA PC. Maybe your character is like Tyrion Lannister, or there's something else about him/her that puts people off. I play a CHA 8 Cleric in a Labyrinth Lord game like that; she's always trying to give stirring speeches, negotiate with NPCs etc, but she's hampered by her innate low charisma, so eventually she'll often give up and turn to one of the handsome CHA 14 oafs in the party to take over.

Anyway for immersive roleplaying games I don't want to discourage players from using their own abilites as well as the abilities of their PC. If a player chooses to play a character as dumb-as-rocks that should be their choice, but unless their PC has been Feebleminded I don't want to force a player to play stupid.

As for the low-CHA player with the charismatic PC; I expect them to step on up and attempt to roleplay their character. Then they get an (eg) Diplomacy check using their character's skill, so if they made an effort at all they should be able to succeed. If the player is just shy they soon learn they can succeed at diplomacy etc. I prefer in-character speech but will usually accept a paraphrase. They need to give some indication of what they're saying before I can set a DC for the roll, though - no "I diplomatise him".

The net result is that success is a hybrid of both PC and player abiliity in both social and combat spheres. I may do this with other areas too; eg if a player knows about rock-climbing and makes a convincing description of how they're climbing the rock face I may set a lower DC for their climb check, as long as it's not slowing the game down - some stuff I just want to gloss over quickly.

Quote from: S'mon;695642I much prefer to let a player use all his tactical ability and diplomatic ability if he wishes to do so. If his PC has poor abilities that will still affect the outcome. In combat the tactically smart player with a weak PC has to deal with that. Likewise I treat the charismatic player with the low-CHA the same; you are free to give a rousing speech but still success will be tougher for you than if you had a high CHA PC. Maybe your character is like Tyrion Lannister, or there's something else about him/her that puts people off. I play a CHA 8 Cleric in a Labyrinth Lord game like that; she's always trying to give stirring speeches, negotiate with NPCs etc, but she's hampered by her innate low charisma, so eventually she'll often give up and turn to one of the handsome CHA 14 oafs in the party to take over.

Anyway for immersive roleplaying games I don't want to discourage players from using their own abilites as well as the abilities of their PC. If a player chooses to play a character as dumb-as-rocks that should be their choice, but unless their PC has been Feebleminded I don't want to force a player to play stupid.

In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.

D&D has Int, Wis , Chr

If instead it had
Grokability*  - how many skills, powers or spells you can learn
Perception - how well you observe things in the environment
Willpower - how well you can resist metal attack and temptation
Appearance - how attractive you are

* didn't like this one but was struggling to find a neutral term

These stats have none of the complexities of how to play a smart PC if you are dim, or how to play a social pariah if you are a charming MF. They still cover the stuff that the old stats covered but now you can totally roleplay how smart, charming, wise or cautious you are without breaking immersion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;695645In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.

D&D has Int, Wis , Chr

If instead it had
Grokability*  - how many skills, powers or spells you can learn
Perception - how well you observe things in the environment
Willpower - how well you can resist metal attack and temptation
Appearance - how attractive you are

When I made my own system that's pretty much how I did it, yup. I always prefer to use the stats as a resource the player can call on, not as a limiter. This means a somewhat restrictive interpretation of INT, especially; but that's not a problem for roll-in-order games where stat importance doesn't have to be balanced vs each other.

For point-buy games I'll tend to give my PC (say) INT 10 and CHA 12 rather than INT 8 or CHA 8, so that I can justify being reasonably smart, talkative etc if the GM queried it. I'll put an 8 in INT only if I really don't want to bother with logic puzzles etc. Had one very annoying GM for 1 session who expected my drunken INT 8 dwarf barbarian PC to help solve a complex logic puzzle - and wouldn't let "I hit it with my giant hammer" count as 'solving'.