TheRPGSite

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:
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g253/Lord_Sepulchrave/RPG_Net/Traveller_Combat.jpg)

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.

Quote from: Casey777Granted 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.

You do realize that Exalted combat is all about tactics and resource management, right?

Quote from: RedFoxWhat, you want a cogent argument against that drivel?

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

In the fact D&D does not support other forms of action as valid game strategy, when even in the genre it emulates (high fantasy) has plenty of Social, Mental, Physical, Emotional and Metaphysical conflicts and resolutions.
 

Any role-playing game that limits Logical Player-Character choice (either through risk-reward or the complete lack of choice being available) is an inferior role-playing game. A role-playing game where a logical strategy(like discussion, social networking, complete intimidation and even avoidance) is made unavailable by lack of support by the ruleset.

A superior role-playing game has equal support for the Physical, Mental, Social, and Metaphysical engineering of a characters surroundings actually in play rather than just a construct of a GM as guideposts to a tactical combat encounter.

All this applies of course if the roles are reversed too, if a RPG has no support for combat as a viable resolution, if it is a logical strategy, is an inferior game to a game where all Physical, Social, Mental, Emotional and Metaphysical strategies are given equal say.

A focused RPG is a coloring book compared to an open canvas. A connect the dots to a Sparks workstation. RPG's in and of themselves are not very sophisticated, but if they do not provide the tools for sophisticated play, than they are not sophisticated games.

Quote from: jrientsI deeply believe that combat in games is an unsophisticated solution often incorrectly applied to subtle problems.








That's what makes combat so awesome.

Damn straight.

Quote from: WilYou do realize that Exalted combat is all about tactics and resource management, right?

(smacks self) I was thinking more on the power level and forgot about that despite having played Dawn caste. Insert high powered game with combat not about tactics and resource management here.

It all depends on the game. D&D in almost all it's incarnations is all about beating creatures up and taking their stuff. Shadowrun however, is often played as a game about sneaking past people and taking their stuff.

Quote from: Casey777(smacks self) I was thinking more on the power level and forgot about that despite being an ex-Dawn caste player. Insert high powered game not about tactics and resource management here.

In Ex2e the resource management is even more important, especially with the initiative ticks and whatnot.

I've heard this rant before.

I run all sorts of games. I can honestly say, the games I have run that involve minimal combat are just as exciting as the combat filled ones. It's all about a change of pace. I disagree that all non-combat games are about talking to resolve conflict. It simply isn't true in my experience. If fact most of them are in a sense highly tactical.

My current OtE campaign -The Day Of Living Dangerously - has so far had no combat - we're into the third hour (third game) of the twenty four time frame, and my players have said it is probably one of my more intense campaigns...

Regards,
David R

What Balbinus said.  'Cause you know, god fucking forbid that we might want to do something different once in a while instead of the exact same thing we've been doing since 1983...

KoOS

It all depends on the genre/setting. I tend to run action oriented campaigns so combat comes up a fair bit. But it doesnt have to be the focus. The game I'm running this monday is very loosely based on the movie "Smokin Aces". Everyone is going to play an assassin. Their should be a fair amount of combat. If not Quentin Tarantino/Sam Peckinpah ultra violence. The last campaign I ran the players were a crew of thieves. They avoided combat. They decided that just because they were criminals didnt mean they had to murder. This was a choice made by the players. I truely could have cared less. True be told I was ready for a more violent game. Like the movie "Heat" or "3000 miles to graceland". But it was more like the "Italian job" or "Oceans eleven". So I guess what the players want out of it is going to help determine the level and importance of combat in any game.

For all of you who are equating D&D with combat heavy dungeon crawls, perhaps you could ask John Morrow about it - or just take a look at this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4000).  Seems to me he's doing some pretty heavy character stuff in D&D - imagine that!

It's also interesting that "combat and tactics" are always conflated.  Seems to me that there are games like, dare I say DitV, where tactics aren't the issue at all - at least not in the sense of traditional games.

Combat is one solution to bring to bear on a situation.  Sometimes you talk, sometimes you fight.  The detail, tactics, crunch that ensues if you happen to choose the comabt option is specific to system.

If you refuse to use combat as one of the solutions, you are no better or worse off than if you refuse to use diplomacy - in either case you are arbitrarily removing an option.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's also interesting that "combat and tactics" are always conflated.  Seems to me that there are games like, dare I say DitV, where tactics aren't the issue at all - at least not in the sense of traditional games.

Could you define tactics. I think I get where you're going with this, but...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KrakaJakStuff.

I read this, but seriously, it doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: David RCould you define tactics. I think I get where you're going with this, but...

Well, I'm using it in the more traditional sense; like in Gleichman's Elements of Tactics essay. (http://home.comcast.net/~b.gleichman/)

I understand how something like DitV could be fit into this model; hence the reason many are ready to crown it a "traditional RPG." But there is something different about the feel, from what I've read in explanations and limited actual play readings perused. Perhaps it's just me.

And I'm honestly not going anywhere with it.  It just seems to me that if you go into a situation and you've removed combat as a possible options, you're limiting yourself in no less a way than if you removed diplomacy.  It seems kind of common sense.

I'm not making a value judgement on either approach, I'm just saying that for either to turn up noses at the other is kind of ironic because you're doing the same thing in both cases - limiting yourself, even if by choice.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, I'm using it in the more traditional sense; like in Gleichman's Elements of Tactics essay. (http://home.comcast.net/~b.gleichman/)

I understand how something like DitV could be fit into this model; hence the reason many are ready to crown it a "traditional RPG." But there is something different about the feel, from what I've read in explanations and limited actual play readings perused. Perhaps it's just me.

And I'm honestly not going anywhere with it.  It just seems to me that if you go into a situation and you've removed combat as a possible options, you're limiting yourself in no less a way than if you removed diplomacy.  It seems kind of common sense.

I'm not making a value judgement on either approach, I'm just saying that for either to turn up noses at the other is kind of ironic because you're doing the same thing in both cases - limiting yourself, even if by choice.

Yeah, I thought it was something like this. I was thinking of something else.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYeah, I thought it was something like this. I was thinking of something else.

Care to share?

Quote from: James J SkachCare to share?

Nothing really interesting really. Just that, in most of my non-combat games, stuff like investigation, intimidation, following leads etc involved a lot of tactical thinking. I'm sure it's not within the scope of the discussion here. Most of this stuff happens in combat games, but in non combat games, these elements become crucial (IMO) as a kind of stand in for combat.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RNothing really interesting really. Just that, in most of my non-combat games, stuff like investigation, intimidation, following leads etc involved a lot of tactical thinking. I'm sure it's not within the scope of the discussion here. Most of this stuff happens in combat games, but in non combat games, these elements become crucial (IMO) as a kind of stand in for combat.

Regards,
David R

Ahh..interesting.  I hadn't thought of it that way. That makes conflating them more of combat and/or tactics as opposed to combat = tactics.

Thanks for sharing!

Quote from: TonyLBI 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.

Really? I guess you haven't looked at RPG.net lately?

RPGPundit

Quote from: King of Old SchoolWhat Balbinus said.  'Cause you know, god fucking forbid that we might want to do something different once in a while instead of the exact same thing we've been doing since 1983...

I find that statement incredibly ironic coming from someone with the screen name "King of Old School". ;)

Quote from: James J SkachFor all of you who are equating D&D with combat heavy dungeon crawls, perhaps you could ask John Morrow about it - or just take a look at this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4000).  Seems to me he's doing some pretty heavy character stuff in D&D - imagine that!

Well, the key is to realize that you don't need detailed rules to cover everything you need to do in role-playing.  In fact, I find alignment in D&D to be a less intrusive personality mechanic (and that's what I think it is -- a very simple personality mechanic) than things like psychological limitations in Champions.  

Believe it or not, D&D 3e is designed to do more than just combat (see the links and quotes I posted elsewhere from Ryan Dancey and Sean K. Reynolds).  And while I also once thought it was mainly just good for combat, running a campaign and playing in a campaign convinced me that it does a decent, if imperfect, job of handling all sorts of things other than combat.

Quote from: John MorrowWell, the key is to realize that you don't need detailed rules to cover everything you need to do in role-playing.  In fact, I find alignment in D&D to be a less intrusive personality mechanic (and that's what I think it is -- a very simple personality mechanic) than things like psychological limitations in Champions.  

Yeah. I think one of the problems of theory (which I know little of) is that system and roleplaying are always conflated.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Thanatos02I read this, but seriously, it doesn't make any sense.

For some reason though, when I read it, I started trying to see if I could smack him, with my mind.  

I wonder if it worked.

Quote from: David RYeah. I think one of the problems of theory (which I know little of) is that system and roleplaying are always conflated.

I think there is another, maybe more important, conceptual problem which is the idea that if something is important, then it needs a lot of rules.  Players need rules for things that they can do better with rules than without rules.  They don't need rules for something just because it's perceived as being important.

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? I guess you haven't looked at RPG.net lately?

:shrug:  Nobody reads all of RPG.net.  Maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places to find this kind of argument.

Quote from: TonyLB:shrug:  Nobody reads all of RPG.net.  Maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places to find this kind of argument.

When you're looking for a fight, chances are you will find one :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? I guess you haven't looked at RPG.net lately?

What, you mean threads like this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=308682)?

But it really depends on the circumstances: for instance, if you are up against something that can steal your identity whenever it wants after it has even once come face to face with you and that simply reincarnates or replicates itself when killed, manipulating the events discreetly across a safe distance might be the most prudent course of action.

People who think D&D is only about combat plainly don't play much D&D.

It's not even true that mechanically it only supports combat, once that was the case but many years ago.

But hey, whatever, why let facts get in the way.

If you play OD&D/AD&D by the book, most of your XP comes from treasure.  Treasure operates as a tangible reward for successfully completing a mission or adventure.  It's never been about strictly combat...it's all about taking stuff! :)

I don't know anyone that thinks D&D is only about combat, but the rules definitely place a high focus on it.

Combat systems are hard to design, and solid, robust combat systems even more so.  If one cannot design one, or one's favorite game has a system that's less than solid, one might as well rationalize it some way, and in the case of the "swine", that's by saying "combat is for doo-doo heads, anyway".  The more handwavey the system or design paradigm, the louder and more frequently they say it.  Silly, it is, really.

Quote from: KrakaJakIn the fact D&D does not support other forms of action as valid game strategy, when even in the genre it emulates (high fantasy) has plenty of Social, Mental, Physical, Emotional and Metaphysical conflicts and resolutions.

Even if you were right, that's a genre emulation argument, not a "sophistication" argument. That's another topic. Suffice it to say that I have had plenty of adventures that have resembled plenty of fantasy literature, and that I consider different media to have different "optimal modes", so strict emulation isn't a necessary requirement for all participants or audiences.

As far as it goes, a significant amount of players are perfectly happy to have social or emotional conflicts player out with minimal or no rules input. (I like a bit more support for non-combat conflicts, but consider many games who claim to support such things to go too far.)

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't know anyone that thinks D&D is only about combat, but the rules definitely place a high focus on it.

You don't get out much, do you?

I guess not. Either that or I am discerning in the people I hang out with. Nah, that can't be it. I'm here. :)

Show me a game that doesn't have a separate section on combat and I'll show you a game no one wants to play.

And really, that's all it amounts to. D&D has a chapter on combat. So does Vampire. So does Exalted (and shit, exalted combat is way more byzantine and complex than D&D), and yet the latter is the darling of the fuckhead Swine, and the former they hate because its "Powergaming".  :confused:

The only games that don't put about the same emphasis on combat that D&D does are games that pretty well no one plays. You know, Forge games.

RPGPundit

Count all the rules, all the prestige class abilties, and all the spells. Count how many are combat oriented and how many focus on non-combat things. You'll find a large majority are aimed at new and innovative ways to kill and disable things. It's much more than "a chapter on combat."

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Nor am I saying that you have to have combat when you play D&D. All I'm saying is that most of the rules are built around combat.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not saying this is a bad thing. Nor am I saying that you have to have combat when you play D&D. All I'm saying is that most of the rules are built around combat.

Count all of the rules in most games and you could argue they are centered around combat. To a very large degree, these rules determine whether your character lives or dies and thus determines whether the game continues or not (at least for individual characters). They are needed to give structure to that most important part of RPGs; whether it continues or not without GM fiat. That's pretty important to lots of people. Add to that the fact that physical harm is more easily identified with than psychological harm (which also has in depth rules in many systems) and it should be no surprise. Also, that kind of action is a bit more exciting than wondering whether nasty bullying aliens reduce your sense of self-worth (or whatever). However, add a bit of one to the other and you have a nice balence.

It's of no surprise to me that the mechanics that determine whether the game continues or not get the lions share of the attention. Maybe the "d&d is a combat based game" meme comes from the fact that there are so many monster manual type books with adverseries to kill/interact with.

None of this means in any way that a game in that system has to be combat based. The experience point thing is also facetious. Assign a CR to a political negotiation, successfully building a dam to stop flooding etc. etc. Or simply give a set amount a session whatever happens. Other methods of xp awards are mentioned in the DMs Guide.

EDIT: One area of d20 that is a missed opportunity IMO to mechanically widen the scope of the game is Feats. These are largely exersises in min-maxing, with combat or combat capability in the long run, almost exclusively their goal. A DM i had about 15 years ago had a feat system, where every 2 levels, we got a "non-weapon proffeciency". My Dwarf thief had 'Able to eat really shit food' like cave crickets, stirges and meat a day or so past its sell by date. This had no mechanical effect, no resistance to poison or anything, but if he ran out of food, he could eat revolting stuff no-one else could (he was a tomb-robber basically). He also had 'hard head' which allowed him to use Bend Bars or open doors with his head! (in case he was tied up!) he used it in Hell once to rescue the party Paladin. But that's another story...

Quote from: BalbinusPeople who think D&D is only about combat plainly don't play much D&D.

Which D&D are you playing?

Quote from: One Horse TownNone of this means in any way that a game in that system has to be combat based.

Precisely.

QuoteThe experience point thing is also facetious.

Had someone brought that up yet? You're right that it's crap I'd be willing to bet that most XP in most games comes from fighting, but you are supposed to get XP for overcoming any encounter, with any methods. Talking your way past the Ogre Magi is worth the same XP as killing him.

Quote from: jrientsWhich D&D are you playing?

Probably the same one I've been playing.

I think it's all very simple and it's a matter of history.

D&D had lots of rules for combat from the start because it was an outgrowth of tactical miniatures play. Other games followed this example (which was reinforced by the fact that most of the genres taken up were action-adventure).

And with combat comes the removal of units. Fighting meant life or death, and that became the implicit stakes in RPGs – does my character live or die?

For me, two of Greg Costikyan's games blew that idea apart. In Paranoia it didn't matter if your chr died because you had half a dozen clones. In Toon your chr couldn't die at all. You might say these were edge cases, but they demonstrated that, in principle, the stakes didn't have to be life and death.

But history is a powerful force, and people kept on making games that centred around modelling combat.

And that's self-fulfilling, because the games attracted people who were interested in combat.

So the problem for some of us has been not "How do we get rid of combat?" but "How do we make anything else interesting?"

People say "Why don't you just ROLEPLAY IT?" To which my reply is: engaging the system is fun. You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?

Quote from: droogSo the problem for some of us has been not "How do we get rid of combat?" but "How do we make anything else interesting?"

People say "Why don't you just ROLEPLAY IT?" To which my reply is: engaging the system is fun. You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?

You can, but for some of us it merely gets in the way.  I used to think socializing mechanics and more finely grained mechanics for everything, not just combat, was a good idea.

Then I was exposed to actually having to game that stuff...  Burning Wheel, Exalted 2nd Edition's social combat, etc.

I came to the conclusion that it was simply easier and more fun to roleplay stuff like that out with the occasional simple mechanical roll to back it up.

YMM, of course, V.

Quote from: RedFoxYou can, but for some of us it merely gets in the way.  I used to think socializing mechanics and more finely grained mechanics for everything, not just combat, was a good idea.

Then I was exposed to actually having to game that stuff...  Burning Wheel, Exalted 2nd Edition's social combat, etc.

It doesn't have to be fine-grained – cf. Risus. But in any case, I'm not saying all games ought to be this way. If you like games that model combat in detail and everything else in less detail, that's cool and you should play those games. I'm just saying that, historically, games  that do this have been in the majority, and games that model other options in the same detail have been rare.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadProbably the same one I've been playing.

Not that I'm big on harshing other people's play styles, but I don't really see the point of using the D&D system for games that don't involve a lot of mayhem.  It strikes me as buying a sportscar simply for Sunday drives through the park.  Aren't there better systems for non-violence oriented fantasy gaming?

Quote from: James McMurrayHad someone brought that up yet? You're right that it's crap I'd be willing to bet that most XP in most games comes from fighting, but you are supposed to get XP for overcoming any encounter, with any methods. Talking your way past the Ogre Magi is worth the same XP as killing him.

I've seen it as a debating point before about the combat-based nature of d&d (d20), that xps are only given out for duffing up monsters. I don't think here, but it's out there. I normally assign a CR for every encounter or challenge that the PCs encounter and overcome, whatever it is.

Yeah, it's pretty common on the WotC boards (or was years ago when I was there). I was wondering if I'd missed some posts or not.

Quote from: jrientsNot that I'm big on harshing other people's play styles, but I don't really see the point of using the D&D system for games that don't involve a lot of mayhem.  It strikes me as buying a sportscar simply for Sunday drives through the park.  Aren't there better systems for non-violence oriented fantasy gaming?

When did we get from "[not] only about combat" to "non-violence oriented fantasy"? There is a difference.

Personally, my minimum is one combat per game. I find my players get itchy if they don't get that much. But I find that the game has good enough skill support to handle investigation and infiltration style games, and don't feel a lot of need for personality mechanics and similar nonsense.

Quote from: jrientsNot that I'm big on harshing other people's play styles, but I don't really see the point of using the D&D system for games that don't involve a lot of mayhem.  It strikes me as buying a sportscar simply for Sunday drives through the park.  Aren't there better systems for non-violence oriented fantasy gaming?

It depends how you define mayhem :D

When I run D&D there are only a couple of combat encounters per session. That may not be much for most folks, but my players do a hell of a lot of damage during those dust ups. D&D has a nice feel to it. It does a certain kind of fantasy really well  (and I love running these kinds of games)- which is probably why D&D will remain a constant in my gaming life.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: One Horse TownI've seen it as a debating point before about the combat-based nature of d&d (d20), that xps are only given out for duffing up monsters. I don't think here, but it's out there.

Well, for some values of "here". In this site's ex-alter-ego Nutkinland, it was a pretty big wailing point for some of the local d20 malcontents.

Quote from: jrientsNot that I'm big on harshing other people's play styles, but I don't really see the point of using the D&D system for games that don't involve a lot of mayhem.  It strikes me as buying a sportscar simply for Sunday drives through the park.  Aren't there better systems for non-violence oriented fantasy gaming?

My Aunt, who would avoid major highways whenever possible because she preferred to drive the speed limit and isn't a daredevil driver, still buys cars with the biggest engines she could find (she used to buy big V-8s) so she'd have the power to pull out into traffic and so forth if she needed in.  She didn't have the V-8 for normal driving and she's the sort of person who drives the speed limit.  She had those big engines so that she'd be able to deal with more unusual situations easily.  The problem is that if you use a system that simply glosses combat over, if it does come up, it may not produce a very satisfying experience.  That doesn't mean that you need something quite as heavy as D&D 3e but it does mean that it's not useless in D&D 3e, even if you don't use it very much.

Quote from: David RWhen I run D&D there are only a couple of combat encounters per session.

In the last D&D 3.5 game that I played in, there were sessions with no combat encounters and plenty of non-combat rolls and activities throughout.  I didn't find the non-combat skills rolls in D&D worked all that badly and were probably as good as most other systems, including lightweight systems hailed as non-combat oriented that try to treat combat as just another sort of conflict.  The main place where the heavy D&D combat mechanics get in the way when you aren't using them is when you create a character or level up, because you need to calculate a lot of combat values.  Other than that, they are easy enough to ignore if you aren't in combat.

Quote from: John MorrowIn the last D&D 3.5 game that I played in, there were sessions with no combat encounters and plenty of non-combat rolls and activities throughout.  I didn't find the non-combat skills rolls in D&D worked all that badly and were probably as good as most other systems, including lightweight systems hailed as non-combat oriented that try to treat combat as just another sort of conflict.  The main place where the heavy D&D combat mechanics get in the way when you aren't using them is when you create a character or level up, because you need to calculate a lot of combat values.  Other than that, they are easy enough to ignore if you aren't in combat.

Yeah. But with the folks I game with, combat is a must (well, there must be a reason for the combat...:D ) I've never encountered any problems with the non-combat skills myself. But I do think IME anyway, combat is a big draw of D&D. I use it for a whole lot of other stuff though...and it supports such play.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI think it's all very simple and it's a matter of history.

While I think there is some truth to that, especially when you are dealing with systems that clone other systems without questioning their assumptions and just make a few changes or improvements, I don't think that's the whole story.  I think you were closer to the real issue when you sid, "And with combat comes the removal of units. Fighting meant life or death, and that became the implicit stakes in RPGs – does my character live or die?"

Over the years, I've played in least as many games with homebrew systems (especially if you count our variant of Fudge combined with elements from our homebrew systems) than published systems.  We did plenty of experimentation down to no dice and no rules.  I see plenty of evidence that lots of other people have, too, including all of the non-D&D published games that started out "indie" (in the designer-owned and published sense).  

Yet the games that treat combat as an abstraction like a lock-picking roll or treat all conflicts the same, whether it's throwing shuriken or insults, never seem to get a lot of traction.  They exist.  There are people who want them to work.  Yet they never gain a lot of popularity.  And I think that's because there is more to the detailed combat rules than just tradition.  Combat is the one part of the game where one character tries to make another character die.  It doesn't get much more serious or important than that.  And thus I think the focus on combat is a reflection of how serious and important it is.

To put it another way, you don't see the dialog scenes in The Matrix filmed in "bullet time".  And where there are other examples that sometimes get the slow motion treatment in movies, like jumping a chasm, many rule systems have more detailed rules for those things (e.g., jumping and Superleap rules in Champions).  Dialog, cooking contests, hacking a computer, and so on just don't have the second-to-second drama that combat does.  

For example, the key hacking scene in the movie Hackers (which was not as bad of a computer movie as it could have been) was handled as a montage that didn't show much of anything and other hacking scenes looked like the director had a tough time making them interesting on screen, even though they were sometimes saying all of the right things.  Lots of things are glossed over or handled in montage in movies but combat rarely is, unless it's because of the sheer number of combatants or the length of the combat (through long stretches where nothing changes).  Most movies are much closer to The Matrix, which has a fetish for combat that will rival any rule systems.

Quote from: droogFor me, two of Greg Costikyan's games blew that idea apart. In Paranoia it didn't matter if your chr died because you had half a dozen clones. In Toon your chr couldn't die at all. You might say these were edge cases, but they demonstrated that, in principle, the stakes didn't have to be life and death.

Both of those games went to extremes to be the way they were and I don't think they had much more of an impact on the hobby than his game Violence did.  Consider what you just said that he had to do to make combat not be a life and death issue for the players -- he had to either make it not matter if your character dies (by making the characters as disposable as a Kleenex tissue) or by making it impossible for a character to die.  That's a pretty narrow niche he had to find to escape the reality that combat normally is a life and death situation.

Quote from: droogSo the problem for some of us has been not "How do we get rid of combat?" but "How do we make anything else interesting?"

As I mentioned earlier, I think many people make a mistake of thinking that more rules will make other things interesting and I think that's often a mistake.  There are other ways to make other things interesting (e.g., equipment lists full of non-combat gear).

Quote from: droogPeople say "Why don't you just ROLEPLAY IT?" To which my reply is: engaging the system is fun. You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?

Well, I would argue that "angling for modifiers" instead of using modifiers to reflect what's going on in the situation is playing the system (aka "Gamist").  I don't consider adding up modifiers or rolling dice to be a "fun" thing I want to increase.  As an analogy, traffic lights and stop signs help make driving safe and efficient and I'm happy they are there (and wouldn't want most of them removed) but that doesn't mean that I like to stop at them nor does it mean I want them added to hallways for pedestrians, supermarket aisles for customers, and so on.  So are you basically making an argument on the basis of enjoyment of playing the system or is there something else you are trying to get at?

Uh, John, dude. You're doing it again. You're arguing against my personal preference. You're hinting that I don't know what I enjoy. It doesn't make sense to do that.

It's kind of like this:

Me: I like green tea icecream. I'd like to see more of it served up.
You: Well, green tea icecream isn't what most peole enjoy, they get along perfectly well with vanilla, and you can put green tea flavouring on your vanilla anyway if you really need to, and green tea icecream is a very small niche that isn't worth bothering about, and anyway, I find a lot of people who think they like green tea icecream are mistaken and what they really want is vanilla....

Whatever is fun, do it. Wang Chung, man.  Life's too short to play games you do not enjoy.

When I game, I want to be awesome.  I want to be the main man, meng -- at whatever my character does.  It's fun.

Sometimes I want to be the guy with all the answers.  Or the hotshot pilot who rocks.  

In many cases, this is my idea of awesome:

(http://www.asianweek.com/020598/images/arts_photo.jpg)

So why should I avoid that?  

Life's too short.  Play games the way you want to.

Quote from: droogUh, John, dude. You're doing it again. You're arguing against my personal preference. You're hinting that I don't know what I enjoy. It doesn't make sense to do that.

Um, at least 3/4 of my reply was about your interpretation of why game systems deal with combat the way they do.  That's not a statement about preference and I disagree with what you were saying.  In fact, I went out of my way to find parts of your argument I agreed with so you wouldn't think I was just disagreeing to disagree.

As for the last part, it almost seems like you are trying to find offense sometimes by interpreting any question about what you say as a personal insult.  Lighten up.  I don't know how you can endure debates on the Internet if you are that sensitive about getting your feelings hurt.

In my reply, I was stating my preference, too.  I'm allowed to do that, right?  I don't think more rules and die rolls are an inherently good thing and I explained why.  

I'm trying to figure out if you were really saying that you'd like more rules for those things because you find manipulating the rules and rolling dice a key part of the fun you have role-playing (i.e., "Gamist" reasons) or whether I'm misreading your comment.  If you enjoy playing with the rules and dice, there is nothing wrong with that.  Really.

Quote from: droogIt's kind of like this:

Me: I like green tea icecream. I'd like to see more of it served up.
You: Well, green tea icecream isn't what most peole enjoy, they get along perfectly well with vanilla, and you can put green tea flavouring on your vanilla anyway if you really need to, and green tea icecream is a very small niche that isn't worth bothering about, and anyway, I find a lot of people who think they like green tea icecream are mistaken and what they really want is vanilla....

No.  It was more like:

You: The reason why people eat more vanilla and chocolate ice cream is that those were the first flavors and people just continue to eat them out of tradition.  I like green tea ice cream because I like tea and there should be more food that taste like tea.

Me: It's not like green tea ice cream hasn't been around and it's not like a lot of people haven't tried it, yet it's still not very popular.  That suggests that the reason for the popularity isn't just tradition but maybe it doesn't give people what they are looking for in green tea.  While I like tea just fine as a drink, I really don't want a lot of the other things I eat to taste like tea because that's not what I want to taste when I eat ice cream, for example.  Are you really saying that you eat green tea ice cream for the taste of the tea rather than one of the other reasons why people normally eat ice cream such as the creaminess, texture, or coolness?

I prefer dulce de leche, Haagen-Daz when possible.

Quote from: John MorrowAs for the last part, it almost seems like you are trying to find offense sometimes by interpreting any question about what you say as a personal insult.  Lighten up.  I don't know how you can endure debates on the Internet if you are that sensitive about getting your feelings hurt.

I'm not insulted. I was initially, but I think it's just your arguing style. I'm finding it very irritating, not least because it's basically apologetics. And so very copious.

That whole long rant about The Matrix and Hackers is surely beside the point. First, they're films, not RPGs. Second, I've already addressed the popularity of RPGs with combat-heavy systems. See if you can find it.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm trying to figure out if you were really saying that you'd like more rules for those things because you find manipulating the rules and rolling dice a key part of the fun you have role-playing (i.e., "Gamist" reasons) or whether I'm misreading your comment.  If you enjoy playing with the rules and dice, there is nothing wrong with that.  Really.

Thanks. It's nice of you to say so.

How about just reading what I wrote?

People say "Why don't you just ROLEPLAY IT?" To which my reply is: engaging the system is fun. You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?

Which bit of that is hard to understand? Why are you dragging in jargon when there's no need for it?

Quote from: James McMurrayI prefer dulce de leche, Haagen-Daz when possible.

You pretentious git!

Fuck you, you lousy bastard! Who do you think you are to impose your ice cream preferences on me or my hobby? I'm hereby declaring war on all legless bowlers. You may have launched the first salvo but I'll be damned if I won't launch the last!

Quote from: droogI'm not insulted. I was initially, but I think it's just your arguing style. I'm finding it very irritating, not least because it's basically apologetics. And so very copious.

It's going to look like apologetics when it's defending something against critics.  Some of your argument look the same way, though maybe you don't see it.  As for being copious, that comes from trying to make myself clear and sometimes come from simply explaining what pops into mind when I think about something.  Yes, sometimes my connections are a bit odd and don't help but they usually help me understand what I'm saying and sometimes help other people, too.

Quote from: droogThat whole long rant about The Matrix and Hackers is surely beside the point. First, they're films, not RPGs.

Correct.  But they both have the same basic problem.  They need to make things that happen interesting.  And the same things that push movies to treat hacking in montage but combat in slow-motion detail is part of what drives the disparity in detail between two activities like that in role-playing games.  The pacing, decision points, action, and so forth are all very different.

Quote from: droogSecond, I've already addressed the popularity of RPGs with combat-heavy systems. See if you can find it.

Is it different from the post that I was responding to, the one that starts, "I think it's all very simple and it's a matter of history."?  That's the claim I was addressing.  If you've made other claims elsewhere, that's fine.  If it's clear I'm missing something else you said, links aren't that difficult to add to a reply.

Quote from: droogThanks. It's nice of you to say so.

I'll try to remember to add that standard disclaimer if it makes you happy.  I tend to consider it a fairly standard assumption.

Quote from: droogHow about just reading what I wrote?

I did.  I think part of the problem is that you know what you mean and read that into what you wrote.  What you write is often a lot more sparse and ambiguous than you seem to think it is.  I'll tell you what I tell my wife.  I  don't read minds.  I can only go by what you actually tell me.

Quote from: droogPeople say "Why don't you just ROLEPLAY IT?" To which my reply is: engaging the system is fun. You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?

Your statement that "engaging the system is fun" is not qualified to apply to only you, nor does your statement, "You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?" specify which "you" you are talking about.  Where are all the qualifiers of scope you seem to expect me to include?  I don't think your language is as precise and clear as you seem to assume it is.

What I did in my reply was explain, (A) I'm not the "you" you were referring to in that statement and how I do feel and (B) asked you if you really do enjoy just rolling dice and "angling for modifiers" because that's a very particular preference in play and hardly universal.

Quote from: droogWhich bit of that is hard to understand?

The assumptions and qualifications that seem so clear to you but never actually make it into your replies as far as I can tell.  Maybe I'm just dense.  Maybe you aren't as clear as you think you are.  Maybe being a little more copious would help.

Quote from: droogWhy are you dragging in jargon when there's no need for it?

The jargon had a purpose.  When you said, "You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat", that's the very specific play style that I mentioned and not all people feel that way.  I'm curious if you do.

Quote from: James McMurrayI prefer dulce de leche, Haagen-Daz when possible.

Yes, but what's your Creative Agenda when you eat it?

You wantin' a piece o' this war too bucko?

Quote from: John MorrowYes, but what's your Creative Agenda when you eat it?

Kineticist.

There is no war. There is only a small if vocal minority that thinks Green Tea ice cream is superior to normal more mainstream flavours.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThere is no war. There is only a small if vocal minority that thinks Green Tea ice cream is superior to normal more mainstream flavours.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Quote from: John MorrowNot that there's anything wrong with that.

I agree. But for some, there has to be conflict. They are worried, that the Green Tea Swine will corrupt the flavours making it normal for all to be eating green tea flavoured ice cream and behaving rather twee...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Levi KornelsenKineticist.

I'm waiting to see if anyone is a Chadouist.

John, I'm afraid I can't talk to you. For every line I write you write a page. I don't want to get locked into another ten-page discussion on what I mean and what you mean, so let's just forget it.

Quote from: David RI agree. But for some, there has to be conflict. They are worried, that the Green Tea Swine will corrupt the flavours making it normal for all to be eating green tea flavoured ice cream and behaving rather twee...

Regards,
David R

No need to fear any longer. I've taken it as my sacred duty to make sure that doesn't happen.

This whole thread really comes down to one issue: Pundy is so egotistical that he just can't believe anyone wouldn't realize his way of doing things and thinking are the only right ones for any situation in the world, and that fact is so obvious that anyone who disagrees with him on any issue is either a "swine" or a "retarded".


Jeezus, I hope pundy and steve jackson are never near each other, their combined conceit might cause them to be sucked into each other and form a super black hole made of pure arrogance that could swallow the world.

Quote from: droogJohn, I'm afraid I can't talk to you. For every line I write you write a page. I don't want to get locked into another ten-page discussion on what I mean and what you mean, so let's just forget it.

Sure.  For whatever it's worth, I do think you do have interesting things to say and make good points.  If I didn't care about what you were saying, it would be a lot easier to just ignore your comments.

I find D20 to be a fairly robust, all-around system that handles combat pretty well and in-depth, but which includes a decent non-combat skill system to handle, for example, social situations.

I have found the social system built into the game to be imperfect, but then again, it's not bad and it's at about the level my players have enjoyed. (Though, I also like Burning Wheel's social combat thing.)

Crafting is too limited, in my opinion, and regular D&D's "thief skills" are a little too in-depth. (Sneak and Move Silently vs. Spot and Listen, I'm looking at you.) That mostly seems like a hold-over from the earlier editions.

But, despite those issues, it holds up pretty well. It gives mechanical means of approaching situations from multiple angles and having that angle covered.

Why avoid combat? It depends really heavily on what you're playing. Fighting and not fighting are neither one inherantly superior, and I don't see many people arguing that it is.

Quote from: James McMurrayI prefer dulce de leche, Haagen-Daz when possible.

Do you know that Dulce De Leche is a Uruguayan invention?

RPGPundit

I wondered if you'd say that. Source? :)

Quote from: droogIt doesn't have to be fine-grained – cf. Risus. But in any case, I'm not saying all games ought to be this way. If you like games that model combat in detail and everything else in less detail, that's cool and you should play those games. I'm just saying that, historically, games  that do this have been in the majority, and games that model other options in the same detail have been rare.

Word.  And hey, I like RISUS, so it's all good.  :)

Quote from: RPGPunditDo you know that Dulce De Leche is a Uruguayan invention?

RPGPundit

Kudos to Uruguay. It's a wonderful dessert :)

Don't jump too soon, Imperator. :) At least five different Latin American countries lay claim to dulce de leche. That's why I asked for a source. I'm curious about whether he's seen something I haven't, and wouldn't be averse to having that minor little mystery cleared up. Most places I've seen say that Argentina's claim seems to be the most reliable.

I thought it was the French that made it first centuries earlier, and SA just used a spanish name for it?

It'd be like someone in NA claiming to have invented yoghourt because nobody else spells it that way. :)

Chiming in way too late here, but isn't this an argument that died out after countless iterations almost a decade ago?  Pundit, I realise that you're interested in stirring up activity on the board with controversy, but you need some fresh material.  What's next?  Arguing lead minis vs. pewter?

!i!

Quote from: John MorrowI find that statement incredibly ironic coming from someone with the screen name "King of Old School". ;)

Dude, I'm all about the irony.

But seriously, liking old-school dungeoncrawling and high adventure doesn't mean that you can't like something like investigation-centred Call of Cthulhu or some weird-ass Over the Edge once in a while too.  I like to think that "old school" doesn't have to mean monotonous or robotic or, god forbid, grognardy.

KoOS

Quote from: James McMurrayDon't jump too soon, Imperator. :) At least five different Latin American countries lay claim to dulce de leche. That's why I asked for a source. I'm curious about whether he's seen something I haven't, and wouldn't be averse to having that minor little mystery cleared up. Most places I've seen say that Argentina's claim seems to be the most reliable.

The Uruguayan Answer: Argentina loves to rob other country's inventions. They also claim to have invented Tango, when in fact both Gardel (the most famous tango musician) and the Cumparsita (the world's most famous tango, the song everyone thinks of when they imagine "tango") were from Uruguay.

The more straightforward answer: Dulce de Leche is an invention of the river plate region, and Uruguay and Argentina probably have an equal claim to it.

RPGPundit

Cool. I guess the mystery continues.

Of course, when I first got curious I assumed it was Mexican. :)

Quote from: droogJohn, I'm afraid I can't talk to you. For every line I write you write a page. I don't want to get locked into another ten-page discussion on what I mean and what you mean, so let's just forget it.

Hes right though - thinking people like combat because there are rules for it is backwards - people write lots of rules for combat because they like it.

Quote from: Erik BoielleHes right though - thinking people like combat because there are rules for it is backwards - people write lots of rules for combat because they like it.

Yes, but that's not what I said. What I said was that there was a historical trend towards games with detailed combat systems because of the wargaming ancestry

Then it becomes kind of circular. Wargamers (including me – I came from hex-grid wargames) are attracted. New people who enjoy fantasy combat are attracted. These people then write more games, which concentrate on combat, because they enjoy it and because of the weight of tradition.

Somewhere around Greg Costikyan's games, there's an idea that combat is only one of many activities that can be modelled mechanically. From there you see increasing experimentation with this idea.

It seems to me there are two routes designers have gone here: the Risus/HQ/DitV route, where all activities are treated in the same way, or the BW route, where detailed subsystems are created for particular activities that will be important in that game (a development of the combat system idea).

I think DitV is a particularly clever implementation of the first method, because of the way it pushes you towards violence without ever making it absolutely necessary. Universal mechanics can have personality.

Personally, I'd like to see the discussion get past "Combat good" or "Combat bad" and into the nuances of what the different approaches can give us. Neither can be objectively better, because it depends on what you want to do.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhen did we get from "[not] only about combat" to "non-violence oriented fantasy"? There is a difference.

Personally, my minimum is one combat per game. I find my players get itchy if they don't get that much. But I find that the game has good enough skill support to handle investigation and infiltration style games, and don't feel a lot of need for personality mechanics and similar nonsense.

Quite, I said that people were wrong in thinking D&D was only about combat, which it isn't.  I didn't say that combat isn't a big part of it.

When I play D&D, which I expect to be doing again in around a couple of weeks, my system of preference is Cyclopedia.  I don't actually like 3.5 and really don't like AD&D, in each case for reasons irrelevant to this thread.  Cyclopedia I think is a pretty good game.

And if I play D&D I expect an action orientated game, I expect combats, but I would not be happy if the game was just fighting and kicking in doors and in my experience generally it isn't.

That said, there are tons of good games without combat systems, to take a tangential post of Pundit's on.  A lack of a combat system in no way implies a lack of combat, it may just be that the game uses the same rules for combat as other stuff.  I have mixed feelings on Heroquest, but I've played it a bit now and each time there have been combats, using the same rules as it has for everything else.  Indeed, the absence of specific combat rules actually allows for greater creativity in tactics at times, which can be cool.

Quote from: droogIt doesn't have to be fine-grained – cf. Risus. But in any case, I'm not saying all games ought to be this way. If you like games that model combat in detail and everything else in less detail, that's cool and you should play those games. I'm just saying that, historically, games  that do this have been in the majority, and games that model other options in the same detail have been rare.

Risus is a very interesting case.  Most unified mechanic systems essentially turn every mechanic into what looks to me like a skill check.  Risus comes at from a different angle, where every important skill check can be handled exactly like a combat.

That's why Risus works for me and so many games with universal mechanics don't.

Well I tend to avoid it when possible. It probably is because I don't like violence or pretending to inflict violence on others, which is why most of my characters are pacifists (or are mostly all talk, or are cowards or otherwise not likely to murder anything). It could also be because I've been subjected to violence before and I don't really enjoy fantasizing about it. Though I don't mind video game violence because of its total lack of reality, somehow when I game my imagination pulls out all the stops.

Its not that I find it boring, its more that it reminds me of a time that I don't ever want to relive, and I have issues with emotionally.

Though for some reason I do have a yearning to play a murderous anti-hero character who brutally strangles people.

I don't think sophistication has anything to do with why I tend to avoid combat when I play, and only include it when I run because I know people expect it, even then I tend to modify things so that the characters have chances to shine when the combat itself is de-emphasized.

Also what is a BNG?

A Biter Non-Gamer (BNG) is a person who no longer games in a group, because every campaign they were ever in was a disaster, and every group imploded - naturally, they conclude that this means that gamers are all fucked in the head, and "gaming is broken." Despite not gaming, they retain a strong interest in it. Unsuccessful at the practical side of gaming, they turn to the theoretical, and so they spend a lot of time online discussing rpgs, and often are attracted to rpg theory. In abstraction Bitter Non-Gamers find absolution for their misanthropy.

This person is often found at The Forge in large numbers, or in rpg.net in small numbers (about 1 or 2%, according to a poll (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=279944) I posted once). They don't want to game, but are still posting on an rpg forum. They seem like more than 1 or 2% because they're very talkative. After all, they have no campaign to plan for, do they?

Quote from: JimBobOzA Biter Non-Gamer (BNG) is a person who no longer games in a group, because every campaign they were ever in was a disaster, and every group imploded - naturally, they conclude that this means that gamers are all fucked in the head, and "gaming is broken."

There are also plenty of people who still want to play but don't because they can't find a group, don't have the time, or whatever.  Years ago, on rec.games.frp.gurps, S. John Ross pointed out that he could tell who was actually playing and who was just thinking about the game by the questions they asked.  People who are playing ask practical questions about things that actually come up during game sessions.  People who don't game tend to obsess over edge cases and "What if?" scenarios.  So even where they aren't bitter and would like to game, people who aren't actually gaming also color the discussions on a forum.

Certainly there are people who can't game, but would like to (Lonely & Lazy Gamers), and these are distinct in conversation style from those who do game, and like it (Normal Gamers). However, I'd rather sit around talking to LLGs than BNGs. It's a bit like when you go on a date with a woman for the first time - it's more pleasant talking to someone who is merely lonely or lazy, than someone who is lonely or lazy and bitter.

Which of course has nothing to do with combat in rpgs, maybe we should start another thread and stop derailing this one. I was just answering the question about what is a BNG.

Now Morrow, go make yourself useful and comment on my Cheap warp drives (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4198) thread so I can make a new campaign to get over the trauma of the implosion of the last one :p

Quote from: JimBobOzNow Morrow, go make yourself useful and comment on my [ur=http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4198]Cheap warp drives[/url] thread so I can make a new campaign to get over the trauma of the implosion of the last one :p

Morrow does seem to be the go to guy, when a campaign needs a bit of rescuing...

Regards,
David R

Late to the thread.

Why avoid combat?  At it's most basic, combat expends resources, and those resources are better conserved.  The more you conserve your resources, the more you can do, and presumably the more you accomplish.

Also, since the early versions of D&D are the prototype for what we consider an RPG, we should look to AD&D1 for this reinforcement.  AD&D1 gave reward for treasure obtained.  While there were rewards for slaying monsters, those rewards were much smaller than those for merely grabbing the treasure.  With a good plan, the vast bulk of the reward could be obtained without slaying the monster guarding it.  And since the party had saved resources, they could proceed to the next encounter and the next potential reward.

So, from the beginning, avoiding combat was the sign of more intelligent, sophisticated, and more proficient play.  This mantra has been handed down to modern RPGs, but the original reward system reinforcing it has been removed.  So, if anything, the modern paradigm demonstrated by D&D3 and it's experience based on defeating monsters without discourages bypassing the monster to achieve the reward, as dealing with the monster directly is the reward.  So, the old version of what used to be intelligent play is rendered ineffective and what used to generally be considered "gung ho" and overly violent play is rewarded.

Quote from: jrientsThat's a horse of a different color from a Vampire chronicle where the GM expects everyone to talk out their little problems.

And this, comparatively, is a far cry from nearly every Vampire chronicle I've ever seen. Vampire is (or was, anyhow) quite combat-intensive by default, despite many claims to the contrary (there was even a special book of nothing but combat maneuvers).

Quote from: mrlostWell I tend to avoid it when possible. It probably is because I don't like violence or pretending to inflict violence on others, which is why most of my characters are pacifists (or are mostly all talk, or are cowards or otherwise not likely to murder anything).

Well, that almost explains it.  Though your favorite genre fiction (Heroes Die) includes epic, brutal, mind-blowing acts of violence.

So I'm a tad confused.

Quote from: jdrakehAnd this, comparatively, is a far cry from nearly every Vampire chronicle I've ever seen. Vampire is (or was, anyhow) quite combat-intensive by default, despite many claims to the contrary (there was even a special book of nothing but combat maneuvers).

Thus is the amusing paradox of WW's games.

In actual play, I've found them to be no less combat heavy than your average D&D game, completely in opposition to the supposedly "all about story and roleplaying" play that's held up as the ideal goal.

And yet even though that gameplay isn't actually happening, they hold it up like it is, and lord over D&D and the like for being "rollplaying" or whatever fucking stupid derogatory term they're using this week.

I should know.  I was one of those guys.  And I had a lot of friends.

Personally, I still think that Exalted came about as a sort of silent acknoledgement of this fact.  they created a new game designed expressly to let their fans revel in the powergaming they accused everyone else of being all about, while simultaneously feigning superiority because it was "their game".

Yup, like I've said before, Exalted is like the "Arts Channel" for gamers.

You know, the "Arts Channel"? That one, whatever it might be called in your neck of the woods, that at night is absolutely filled with pornography, but "artsy" pornography, so intellectualoid pretentious twits can wank while still claiming to look down at people who buy playboy or watch Debbie Does Dallas, because they're just "watching porn", while the art snobs are watching "art films"?

Exalted is exactly like that.  I'll never forget the claim one exalted swine said to me, which pretty much sums up their whole little sick delusional justification: "D&D is just POWERGAMING, while Exalted is a game about dealing with the issues and themes of having incredible power." :rolleyes:

Fucking idiots.

RPGPundit

On the subject of avoiding combat:

As a player: Good Boy!
As a DM: Bad Dawg!

Quote from: RPGPunditExalted is exactly like that.  I'll never forget the claim one exalted swine said to me, which pretty much sums up their whole little sick delusional justification: "D&D is just POWERGAMING, while Exalted is a game about dealing with the issues and themes of having incredible power." :rolleyes:

Exalted isn't really like that - whoever said that got it very wrong. Exalted is about hitting someone so hard that their fourth-cousin's great-great-great-grandmother's best friend's dog feels it.

EDIT: That sounds to me like the reaction of someone who has been told all these years that powergaming and munchkin characters are bad, then they run into a game that they like (Exalted) that glorifies all of that so they have to work it into their worldview somehow.

EDIT EDIT (I'm cleaning and thinking at the same time): The funny thing is that all of the gonzo things that you see in other roleplaying games that are generally thought to be too over the top - flying bears shooting lasers from their eyes, handguns that blow up skyscrapers, y'know Rifts and Synnabar and whatever else - have a perfectly good home in Exalted. Somehow, Exalted makes it cooler.

QuoteSomehow, Exalted makes it cooler.

No, it really doesn't.  Unless you've been drinking the "storyteller game" koolaid for the last ten years.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo, it really doesn't.  Unless you've been drinking the "storyteller game" koolaid for the last ten years.

That's bullshit too, though. I like Exalted a lot, and I'm not really a fanboy of any fucking stripe.

Quote from: Thanatos02That's bullshit too, though. I like Exalted a lot, and I'm not really a fanboy of any fucking stripe.

There's nothing about Exalted that other games haven't done before, and nothing about it that makes it any better than those games.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's nothing about Exalted that other games haven't done before, and nothing about it that makes it any better than those games.

It's not a matter of the originality, it's a matter of the mixture. It's still not better, but it's certainly not any worse as a result.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo, it really doesn't.  Unless you've been drinking the "storyteller game" koolaid for the last ten years.

I dunno.  It has a pretty cool setting.  If only it could be easily de-coupled from its mechanics...

Quote from: WilExalted isn't really like that - whoever said that got it very wrong. Exalted is about hitting someone so hard that their fourth-cousin's great-great-great-grandmother's best friend's dog feels it.

EDIT: That sounds to me like the reaction of someone who has been told all these years that powergaming and munchkin characters are bad, then they run into a game that they like (Exalted) that glorifies all of that so they have to work it into their worldview somehow.

Yeah, but THAT is what Exalted is for. Its for all the White-wolfers who were desperate to still seem like the cool l33t kids who aren't into "teh rollplaying" (ie. D&D), but were starting to realize that they really really wanted to powergame. But, you know, couldn't do so without losing their Groovy Card.

So Exalted became a powergame a thousand times more stupid and fucked up than anything D&D ever put out, but it was ok because White Wolf said "Its ART". Why is it art, and D&D is crap? Only because WW said so. But that's all they needed.

Its also no surprise that WW put out Exalted at a time when WW was starting to seriously bleed people from their WoD line, people who were starting to get fed up with having to play black-beret-wearing vampire pansies.  Exalted was their desperate last-ditch measure to keep those people, by giving them an option where they could still feel elitist but could satisfy their most base monty-haul powergaming rollplaying desires.

WW Swine are pretty fucking typical of any supposed elite.  Their condemnation of public pecadillos are meant to hide very huge private perversions.  Most WW gamers turned out to be WAY worse "rollplayers" than any D&D player I know. The worse D&D feat-fetishist looks utterly normal compared to the charmosexuals of Exalted.

QuoteEDIT EDIT (I'm cleaning and thinking at the same time): The funny thing is that all of the gonzo things that you see in other roleplaying games that are generally thought to be too over the top - flying bears shooting lasers from their eyes, handguns that blow up skyscrapers, y'know Rifts and Synnabar and whatever else - have a perfectly good home in Exalted. Somehow, Exalted makes it cooler.

No, it doesn't.  That's just a stupid bullshit claim by the clique over at RPG.net, backed up by the WW pseudointelligentsia.  In reality, Exalted is a pathetic fucking game that is unbelievably stupid mechanically, and has the hypocritical gall to be annoyingly pretentious about being "ART" while engaging in the kind of powergaming nonsense that, were it a D&D product, would have had the WW-ers demanding that it be burnt at the stake and thrown to the lions.

In other words, its really bad "Art Porn".

RPGPundit

Honestly, I don't give a shit about what Exalted is 'for', or why other people play it. Of course, I've also always thought the artificial break between D&D players and WW players was both artificial and dumb. I really don't know who these mysterious Vampire players are or where they hang out, but they're so far from me and the players I know as to seem fictional.

Which, aside from internet assholes (of which there are many), they might be.

I don't care if Exalted isn't inherantly better then other games on the market. I like the setting fairly well (I've made personal edits, though). I like the mechanics fairly well. I like the game a lot. My friends and I have always had a good time playing it. I play it for the same reason I play shitloads of D&D. Because I have fun. I didn't know there was another reason, but I don't care either.

Maybe I saw that art porn on TV and just viewed it like all the other porn, but with different trappings. Who cares why its on TV?

Exalted has a great setting and lots of features a lot of people find fun.

Is it original?  I neither know nor care, why does that matter if it's fun?

Quote from: BalbinusExalted has a great setting and lots of features a lot of people find fun.

Is it original?  I neither know nor care, why does that matter if it's fun?

Because a game can't be published without an agenda behind it, man.  Don't be silly.

Quote from: RedFoxBecause a game can't be published without an agenda behind it, man.  Don't be silly.

Very true that. Most of the time that agenda is to sell copies and make some money. :p

Quote from: One Horse TownVery true that. Most of the time that agenda is to sell copies and make some money. :p

It's all about hookers and blow.  And mad credz with the RPG publishing crowd.

QuoteSo Exalted became a powergame a thousand times more stupid and fucked up than anything D&D ever put out, but it was ok because White Wolf said "Its ART". Why is it art, and D&D is crap? Only because WW said so.

Personally, I think that is the feel to aim for - shameless pandering that still makes people feel clever.

Quote from: One Horse TownVery true that. Most of the time that agenda is to sell copies and make some money. :p

Many realistic game authors would suggest there are better ways to meet such an agenda than publishing RPGs. :p

Quote from: Caesar SlaadMany realistic game authors would suggest there are better ways to meet such an agenda that publishing RPGs. :p

It's a business, so that is the first consideration, however, having recieved a few paychecks myself, i have to agree!

Quote from: JimBobOzThis person is often found at The Forge in large numbers, or in rpg.net in small numbers (about 1 or 2%, according to a poll (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=279944) I posted once).

'Sfunny, I've noticed a few people on the Forge post that they don't game. Some of them may have been bitter. Never seemed like a lot, though. Most folks seem to play, and enthusiastically at that.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: RedFoxBecause a game can't be published without an agenda behind it, man.  Don't be silly.

Not unlike posts by homosexuals, eh? I'm onto you, buddy, so watch it.

To the original post, since I neither know, nor care, about Exhalted:

Yes, Pundit, there are times to avoid combat. SOmetimes, it's time for the ol' "Shoe leather express" and time to get the fuck out of there.

SOmetimes you're outnumbered and in a bad tactical situation. Anyone with half a brain is going to run and get the fuck into a better position, or at least run and hide.

However, knowing when to fight and when not to is what makes it fun.

As a GM, why should every encounter be intended for the PC's to fight and win?

Case in point: The other night, the party was low on ammo, and needed to get the fuck out of the city. Should they have engaged in combat with every zombie horde they met? Or should they have done what they did, which was sneak around, use silenced weapons or machetes, and slithered their way out of the city without taking on the over 25,000 zombies in the city? (The city had an original population of 80,000+)

BUT, there was plenty of combat, just with bladed weapons or silenced firearms.



But avoiding ALL combat ALL the fucking time... well, I guess if it's your thing to play "peace-niks and protestors" then be my guess.

Even James Bond had to throw down against the big bad guy sooner or later.

Quote from: T-WillardCase in point: The other night, the party was low on ammo, and needed to get the fuck out of the city. Should they have engaged in combat with every zombie horde they met? Or should they have done what they did, which was sneak around, use silenced weapons or machetes, and slithered their way out of the city without taking on the over 25,000 zombies in the city? (The city had an original population of 80,000+)

BUT, there was plenty of combat, just with bladed weapons or silenced firearms.



But avoiding ALL combat ALL the fucking time... well, I guess if it's your thing to play "peace-niks and protestors" then be my guess.

Even James Bond had to throw down against the big bad guy sooner or later.

Yeah, see, my point was more to do with the attitude some gamers have about RPGs themselves, that they claim that games with less combat are somehow by default "more sophisticated". It really had nothing to do with the issue of avoiding combat in the game, which is a whole other story, and obviously a very good idea (often players make things much harder for themselves by not avoiding combats that are entirely avoidable).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYeah, see, my point was more to do with the attitude some gamers have about RPGs themselves, that they claim that games with less combat are somehow by default "more sophisticated". It really had nothing to do with the issue of avoiding combat in the game, which is a whole other story, and obviously a very good idea (often players make things much harder for themselves by not avoiding combats that are entirely avoidable).

RPGPundit

OK, thanks for clearing it up.

Creating a genre where avoiding conflict sounds like it oughta be Hippie d20!

Quote from: T-WillardOK, thanks for clearing it up.

Creating a genre where avoiding conflict sounds like it oughta be Hippie d20!

Come on, man. You're not telling me you never saw any of that riot footage?

Quote from: RedFoxI dunno.  It has a pretty cool setting.  If only it could be easily de-coupled from its mechanics...

Risus

Everything goes better with Risus

(alternatively BESM would be a good fit)

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonRisus

Everything goes better with Risus

(alternatively BESM would be a good fit)

There's too much baggage.  By which I mean there's too many setting bits that are wedded tightly into special mechanics.  Virtue flaws, anima flare, attunement, charm combos, sorcery and martial arts levels, etc.

It's easier just to use a setting that has something of the flavor of Exalted in a different system than to try a conversion, which is why I use BESM + Uresia.

Seen this (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bferrie/resources/exaltedindex.htm), Red?

I think something people are missing in this thread is the distinction between a conflict and a combat.

A conflict is when at least two people want things that can't be fit together - "Give me your cash!" "No, I want the cash, too!" or "The PM has ruined the country, time for a new PM," "Okay but only if he's from my party!" "No way!"

A combat is a violent way of resolving that conflict.

It's quite possible to have constant conflict without any combats. For example, here on this forum we're often arguing this or that point - we're having a conflict; we try to resolve this conflict by means of discussion and argument. It's not less interesting a conflict simply because we're not using swords or firearms (though sometimes I think... no, forget that I brought it up).

In a roleplaying game, one of the things which is interesting is the conflicts which arise, between NPCs, PCs, between NPCs and PCs, between love and duty, honour and reward, and so on. Some of these conflicts can be resolved by combat, and combat itself is exciting and fun (at least when it's only roleplayed). But they need not be resolved by combat. Sometimes just the threat of combat will make the other guy back down, and sometimes it needn't even be brought up, things can be resolved by negotiation, bribery, blackmail, and so on.

It's not either mass slaughter or Hippie Free Love d20. There's a whole swag of things you can do in between those; some of them involve combat, but most don't.

If we roleplay for challenges, well honestly resolving conflicts without smacking the other guy in the head is often more challenging than simply slotting him. It doesn't take much brains or creativity to say, "my character draws his sword." Figuring out other ways out of the situation takes a lot more creativity and imagination.

Sometimes we don't want to be bothered by that, and want the vicarious release that roleplayed combat brings, and that's fair enough. But sometimes we'd like to try something else.

So in summary, sometimes we avoid combat because it takes creativity and challenges us. Sometimes we avoid combat because it's fun.

Quote from: droogSeen this (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bferrie/resources/exaltedindex.htm), Red?

No.  It looks fascinating but sadly I'm completely unfamiliar with HeroQuest.