Its one of the long-standing hallmarks of the Swine to suggest that games with combat are somehow less "sophisticated", and the more combat a game has the worse it is.

Not to mention suggesting that "finding ways to avoid combat" is somehow a laudable goal in and of itself, like it somehow proves that you're a superior player.

Why the fuck?! In what way does this make any sense at all? In some games, like CoC, this is often taken to utterly absurd extremes.

Is there anyone here who really believes this shit?

RPGPundit

Depends on the genre. Does james bond stop and duke it out with everylittle minion in the bad guy base or does he use deception, disguise and/or stealth to acheive his goals?

In a game that's more subtle than "Kill the creatures and steal theiur treasure" stealth can be a fun element, as in trying to outwit the stupid ogre guards and get past them can be more fun that tackling them head on and starting new PCs a few minutes later.

You seem to be "thinking" that it has to be one way or another, all stealth and avoiding combat or all killing everything that moves. Actually there's no need to go to either extreme, as either can be boring if used too often or taken too far. After a few firefights or pitched melees, players may find the idea of stealth an interesting diversion, likewise after sneaking or bluffing your way into the white house and doing the job, it might be fun to just run and gun your wa out.

Moderation, pundy, moderation. Not everyone has to take everything to an excsssive extreme.

I deeply believe that combat in games is an unsophisticated solution often incorrectly applied to subtle problems.








That's what makes combat so awesome.

Quote from: RPGPunditIs there anyone here who really believes this shit?

I dunno.  Law of averages says there's probably somebody who believes it, but I haven't heard anyone touting the opinion in more than a decade, myself.

I do know that people have different thresholds for how much of a game they're comfortable dedicating solely to combat and tactics.  In some games, for instance, I've been known to wish that there were a little less combat, in order to leave room for more of other stuff.  Mostly not, though ... most folks aren't as bloodthirsty as me.

I wonder whether that's the original grain of truth from which silly overstatements emerge is, on this issue:  not that a game has too much combat, but that as a consequence it can have too little other stuff.

Quote from: RPGPunditNot to mention suggesting that "finding ways to avoid combat" is somehow a laudable goal in and of itself, like it somehow proves that you're a superior player.

...

Is there anyone here who really believes this shit?

RPGPundit

The venerable Old Geezer on rpg.net, who, as he'll tell you time and time and time and time again, knows and has played D&D with Gary Gygax will tell you that this is indeed a splendid idea.

Well you'd know it if you can wade through the thousands of the "No gaming is better than bad gaming," "Kill them and take their stuff," "I loathe D&D3.x," and some variation of "I know Gary Gygax," replies as is his wont...

Quote from: MoriartyThe venerable Old Geezer on rpg.net, who, as he'll tell you time and time and time and time again, knows and has played D&D with Gary Gygax will tell you that this is indeed a splendid idea.

This strikes me as a different case than Pundit outlines.  As I read it, one avoids as many combats as possible in a Gygaxian campaign so that you are in top form the combats that will inevitable occur.  That's a horse of a different color from a Vampire chronicle where the GM expects everyone to talk out their little problems.

My friend and sometimes-GM, mrlost (his handle on rpg.net) literally hates combat in RPGs.

Then again, despite getting gaming far more regularly than me, he complains as much as a BNG about gaming.  He hates combat.  He hates the way the players act.  He hates that things don't go a certain way.  He hates the rules.  He hates the system.  He hates the setting.  etc. etc.

Well, as someone who has posted here expressly asking for tips for running combat free games I suppose I should comment.

It's not a hatred of combat, it's not looking down on combat, it's sometimes wanting a bit of a change.

No more, no less.  The idea of a campaign with no or minimal combat is attractive to me because it's different, and because it will present different challenges.  When I run campaigns with little combat, and sometimes I do, the next campaign I run usually has lots of combat which we come back to with renewed joy.

Dominus makes an excellent point here, it's about moderation, about mixing it up a bit.  There's nothing wrong with combat, but it doesn't have to be the focus of every game either.

Otherwise, this is yesterday's rant, the days of people implying combat free gaming was more sophisticated died sometime back in the 1990s I think.  In my experience, when I asked for tips on a combat free game a bunch of folks just assumed I thought it somehow superior instead of the more obvious truth, that I just fancied something different for a bit.

Theme, Mood, Flavor. Combat is just an optional ingredient in RPG design.

Some games it's good to have combat: D&D for example. There are no non-combat classes, and no significant way to earn XP without combat, it is in the players worst interest to avoid it.

Some Games, it's a bad idea: In a game of Unknown Armies, a character entering into a fight will end up very hurt and probably dead and definately a little crazier. All you can do  is give youself edges, there's still a chance you will end up dead.

Some games try to split the difference: WoD games carry the psychological implications of Violence. However, after a few fights, impassioned crimes become easier to deal with (Manslaughter, Self Defense and Murder). Callous crime and murder are still on the bottom end of the totem pole for character actions.

If a playr finds a creative and entertaining way to avoid a combat, than I will commend him. I think he's a superior player to the guy who says "Well, I've got enough hit points, let's just kill them".

I also think games that are strictly combat focused (like D&D) are inferior RPG's to those that allow and incourage other in character choices to resolve conflicts (Like Amber).

Doesn't mean D&D is any less fun =)

Quote from: KrakaJakI also think games that are strictly combat focused (like D&D) are inferior RPG's to those that allow and incourage other in character choices to resolve conflicts (Like Amber).

Fortunately, you're wrong.

Quote from: RedFoxFortunately, you're wrong.

Good comback

Quote from: KrakaJakGood comback

What, you want a cogent argument against that drivel?

Prove that games focused on combat are less sophisticated than those that focus on something else.

Quote from: RPGPunditIs there anyone here who really believes this shit?

I don't believe that games with more or less combat are less sophisticated, but I also never, ever place the PCs in situations where combat is the only option. Last week in my Exalted game, faced with a small horde of Fair Folk nasties running towards him ready for a brawl the Eclipse PC stood in the middle of the path, held his empty hands out and yelled, "STOP!". This tactic impressed me enough that I had the hobgoblins - not used to any human ever attempting to express any authority - stop momentarily in bewilderment. By the time the Fair Folk noble showed up that was right behind them, the stage had already been set for a wary - and potentially violent - encounter. It did not end in violence, either. I'm not going to say that the scene was better for not having a violent ending, but it certainly was not any less fulfilling.

I'd never say avoiding combat indicates a "superior" game, but like Balbinus and Nox(!) say: moderation and doing what's appropriate to overcome the challenge.  And like jrients said, it's a matter of choosing your battles appropriately.

It's also a matter of context.  I love dungeon crawls, and try to find ways to fit dungeon-like scenarios into my games whenever possible.  In those situations, it's all about the fighting and the looting and treasure.  Fight away!  However, even when exploring a dungeon, players learn to avoid combats to conserve their strength.  And there might be times where it's just plain smart to take the nonviolent route; in AD&D, where the majority of your XP comes from treasure, sneaking past the ogre and snatching his stuff is pretty smart play!  (Still better is recruiting the ogre as an ally so you can take the stuff of something bigger!)

I don't know.  In all of these debates, I like to take some stuff from column A and mix it up with some other stuff from column B.  My games are pretty traditional, and I give my players plenty of opportunities to mix it up with some bad guys.  But constant combat can get a little repetitive.  I like throwing little puzzles in here and there, a bit of roleplaying between the action scenes, etc.  And I never discourage my players from getting into fights if they want to fight; sometimes it's the only choice, and other times, there might be consequences for what they've done (a gunfight in the middle of a crowded city street is bound to attract some attention from the authorities).

Quote from: RPGPunditNot to mention suggesting that "finding ways to avoid combat" is somehow a laudable goal in and of itself, like it somehow proves that you're a superior player.

My take on combat in rpgs:


Granted that reflects my playing style and choice of games but even in something like Exalted or a supers game good strategy & tactics would come into play for me. Avoid combat until you choose to fight or have to. I do think a player who knows more when to fight and when not to is a superior player.