Just that; the question above, for answering on this thread.
Is it really feasible on a practical level to have an RPG where combat doesn't happen?
RPGPundit
The answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.
Depends on what you mean by feasible and define as an RPG.
Economically feasible: Well, I think the market could support this. SA! is not combat oriented. Yes, there is combat but it is really about stealth and thinking up clever ways to accomplish your goals. I could easily see and entirely non-combat game where you solve a murder mystery in character....
Feasible in terms of implementing an RPG model: Yes. You could have a game where the chance/game mechanic is all about gaining fame or solving a crime or playing out a role. Larps could do this quite well but most (that I have seen) include combat mechanics.
Now, if you define RPGs as games with combat...well, no, you can't have an RPG without combat but I do not think that is what you meant.
Bill
Sure. Why not?
Seanchai
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.
Nail, meet head. Watch your thumbs!
While I think it is possible to have an RPG without a dedicated combat system per se, I'm not sure its a good idea.
Allen
I think it's a perfectly sound idea. I'd just have to be in the right frame of mind to play it.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.
I agree with this.
I do agree that you can have campaigns where no combat takes place. In my Traveller campaign, we ran an 8 hour game every week for a year, and we had all of two or three combats in the entire campaign (one was against a kind of snake, one against some mobsters, and one against the military).
But there was plenty of challenge, as the players attempted to build up their merchant company and went from place to place trying to get the best deals, etc., and unravelled a kind of cosmic conspiracy they were caught up in.
The thing is, its one thing to run a campaign without combat, and another to make a GAME without combat. I think that probably, an RPG has to allow for at least the possibility that combat will occur.
RPGPundit
Sure, it should make allowances for combat. Even a game about...oh, I dunno...pastry chefs can devolve into a pie fight.
Hi!
OK, I am going to say "Sure!" with a proviso.
I don't think every game could or should do this.
But I know it has been done and will be done again. Look at Paranoia, if its done right, there is no fighting, same with CoC, no?
These are mainstream games, not "Story Games" or whatever. And if you open the flood gates to include them, there is even more potential for an RPG without fighting.
I don't think every RPG should be devoid of fighting (in fact, D&D would be terrible without combat mechanics), I just think that combat mechanics do not define whether a game is an RPG or not...
Depends on what you call combat... does it mean that you use some special mechanics, different frome mechanics for everything else (like in DnD), or that characters get into combat...
It probably dous not matter, in both cases answer is yes, but if I was about to play a game which has some mechanics dedicated purely to comabt I eould like to use them...
Quote from: RPGPunditJust that; the question above, for answering on this thread.
Is it really feasible on a practical level to have an RPG where combat doesn't happen?
RPGPundit
Is it possible? Yes. Is it feasible? Probably not, at least not in the traditional roleplaying sense. I guess I'd need more information, though, because I can't envision what the game's focus would be. A game without any sort of physical threat is not going to appeal to a lot of people outside of a one-shot, and if not done well, it's going to feel more like a card or board game than an RPG.
I can see maybe a game based on intrigue, but then you'd have to have some sort of mechanic when a character's enemy sends assassins to kill him. I think an investigative game would get fairly boring after a while without being able to confront the murderer/nameless horror at the end. But the main problem I see is that I'd never be able to find players for a campaign that did not involve some sort of combat.
Games like My Life With Master or Nicotine Girls come to mind when someone says "no combat," but I doubt that's what you're looking for. It's been a long time since I looked at Nobilis, but wasn't there a huge emphasis on _not_ picking fights?
Pete
Quote from: dindenverLook at Paranoia, if its done right, there is no fighting, same with CoC, no?
No fighting in Paranoia or CoC? I don't think we run in the same gaming circles. . .
Pete
RPGs need some sort of conflict to remain entertaining, but "conflict" can mean all sorts of things, and not only rolling for damage. It can be problematics, diplomacy, investigation, mysteries, conspiracies, and all sorts of non-automatically-violent oppositions and competitions between characters, groups, allegiances and so on, so forth.
So long as you have something to "solve", there's a dynamic for an RPG right there. Now whether you'd have a public for a game that specifically excludes violent altercations depends on how the game's designed. If you want it to be successful, you need to replace the concept of combat by something that is just as cool and fulfilling for the potential players of the game. Might be a sense of paranoia, mystery (à la Call of Cthulhu for instance - you could arguably give the rules - combat system to the PCs without any noticeable difference in the game play by just assuming that "PC fight Old One = Automatic Death" ) or something else. But MAINTAINING the interest after a few sessions of that game seems doubtful. Why? Because violence is just easy, directly fulfilling on many different levels for many different types of players.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.
Pseudo got it in one and is right.
There's only one caveat that comes to mind. Like many other forms of entertainment, the most common and connectable form of conflict involves physical violence - so some kind of combat system should be available.
Although a game session of courtroom drama or mystery investigation or con artististry are always nice. I also wonder about the practicality of running only non-combat games for your group (but that would depend on your group, would they enjoy this?).
Quote from: pspahnNo fighting in Paranoia or CoC? I don't think we run in the same gaming circles. . .
I agree - while I've never played Paranoia, every CoC one-shot I've ever played has had combat in some form, and the CoC campaign I played in a year and a half ago had combat in at least every other session.
Quote from: BenoistRPGs need some sort of conflict to remain entertaining, but "conflict" can mean all sorts of things, and not only rolling for damage. It can be problematics, diplomacy, investigation, mysteries, conspiracies, and all sorts of non-automatically-violent oppositions and competitions between characters, groups, allegiances and so on, so forth.
So long as you have something to "solve", there's a dynamic for an RPG right there. Now whether you'd have a public for a game that specifically excludes violent altercations depends on how the game's designed. If you want it to be successful, you need to replace the concept of combat by something that is just as cool and fulfilling for the potential players of the game. Might be a sense of paranoia, mystery (à la Call of Cthulhu for instance - you could arguably give the rules - combat system to the PCs without any noticeable difference in the game play by just assuming that "PC fight Old One = Automatic Death" ) or something else. But MAINTAINING the interest after a few sessions of that game seems doubtful. Why? Because violence is just easy, directly fulfilling on many different levels for many different types of players.
I played in a short (five sessions) Unknown Armies game this past summer and fall that was like this. Only one combat (in the last session), but lots of tension, paranoia, mystery, and danger throughout.
RPGs without combat are like pr0n without the money shot. They're still roleplaying games, but there's something important missing.
Quote from: Kyle AaronRPGs without combat are like pr0n without the money shot.
What a manly analogy.
Regards,
David R
Well it was intended as parody.
Of course it's still an rpg without combat. What a stupid question. In fact, the combat is the least "roleplaying" part of it, it's the time when rpgs go back to their roots as wargames.
I get it Kyle. If you had said - "RPGs without combat is like sex without foreplay" - I'd still go what a manly analogy....
I'm just in a cheecky mood :D
Regards,
David R
Quote from: RPGPunditIs it really feasible on a practical level to have an RPG where combat doesn't happen?
Even in a game where the players play brains in a jar, there would probably be an opportunity for combat...
(http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/images/47/47titleobr.jpg)
"100 quatloos on the newcomers."
:D
Quote from: David R"RPGs without combat is like sex without foreplay"
Actually, that's my reaction to the whole "Story Now!" idea. There is a reason why all fiction isn't told as short stories that cut straight to the climax. But I digress...
I think it's possible to have an RPG without combat, or even combat rules.
I don't think it's possible for a GOOD rpg without combat, or combat rules.
There's just something to say about being able to get mad at somebody and being able to punch that somebody in the FACE!
I can't think of a single genre or medium-length-or-longer serial that doesn't include at least the risk of physical violence (except maybe Jeeves and Wooster?). Soap operas have angry punches thrown, I'm sure even Merchant-Ivory productions have a slap or two, and as long as that happens you should be able to figure out if the young debutante you've just annoyed is able to slap you or if you can catch her hand before it connects. So unless it's a setting where all inter-personal conflict is handled in other manners (Chess! To the death!) there have to be rules to determine the outcome.
And then, if you have rules to determine the outcome of the conflict, even if it's not labelled as physical combat, there would still be a correlation (Knight takes Rook! Hah! That's like a kick to the groin, sucker!).
I'm not saying that every game has to be a cross between Senzar and Feng Shui, where every character is carrying and simultaneously using at least two machine-guns while fighting giant space sharks wielding flame-throwers, but to avoid all combat would be rather artificial. If physical combat isn't a key point, cover it briefly and move on. But you have to cover it, since if it isn't covered at all but is possible then the game isn't really 'complete.'
A lot of complaints I've heard about Scion, for example, deal with the lack of rules for throwing things. Characters most likely aren't going to spend all their game time just hucking things, and it might not even crop up once in a campaign, but the possibility makes the lack of rules an issue.
Take Amber, for example. (And my thoughts and best wishes are with Mr. Wujcik and his family, truly one of the field's true greats.) I only played it, and didn't run it, and so I didn't get the chance to go through the rulebook as thoroughly as I'd have liked, but if I remember correctly combat wasn't a major issue that took up huge amounts of the book. It was covered enough, so you could figure out who won (look at the base scores, then who does what), and then the book moved on to other things.
I've run and played in lots of sessions, in lots of campaigns using lots of systems and settings, that didn't have a single attack roll. I've never run or played in a campaign that didn't have at least one fight, no matter what the game system or setting.
As Pundit asked precisely, he´ll get a precise answer.
No, not on a practical level.
Quote from: SettembriniAs Pundit asked precisely, he´ll get a precise answer.
No, not on a practical level.
Yeah, I was trying to figure out a way to bring that up without sounding like an ass. Of course an RPG with no combat can be done--roleplaying games are all about "making them your own," but I don't think it could ever be done on a practical level.
Pete
Quote from: Nick BowerI can't think of a single genre or medium-length-or-longer serial that doesn't include at least the risk of physical violence (except maybe Jeeves and Wooster?). Soap operas have angry punches thrown, I'm sure even Merchant-Ivory productions have a slap or two, and as long as that happens you should be able to figure out if the young debutante you've just annoyed is able to slap you or if you can catch her hand before it connects.
Quote from: Nick BowerIf physical combat isn't a key point, cover it briefly and move on. But you have to cover it, since if it isn't covered at all but is possible then the game isn't really 'complete.'
A lot of complaints I've heard about Scion, for example, deal with the lack of rules for throwing things.
But is Scion not a role-playing game, then, because its rules aren't complete? What about rules for catching thrown objects, or tying knots? Those happen pretty commonly -- do all RPGs need those?
Furthermore, is completeness of rules really any use? i.e. Is using official hit and damage stats really going to make the debutante slap superior in play? Seriously, even if I did have a game with a full-fledged combat system, I doubt I would break it out for a slap in the face. Would you really roll initiative and calculate damage for such a thing, and would it improve the game if you did?
Quote from: Nick BowerI've run and played in lots of sessions, in lots of campaigns using lots of systems and settings, that didn't have a single attack roll. I've never run or played in a campaign that didn't have at least one fight, no matter what the game system or setting.
This also seems like a bit of a stretch. How long does a game have to go for for it to be considered a role-playing game? i.e. If I played something for just three sessions, is it not a role-playing game? Are single-session convention game right out?
Given that you're stretching to call a slap by a debutante "combat", I'd have to say that all my extended campaigns had combat as well. However, it seems pedantic to say this. The only on-screen violence in my Water Uphill World game was one time when some bullies shoved a PC and another PC shoved back. That was the least violent by a fair margin, but I can't see the point of saying that it wasn't real role-playing -- but if they had actually thrown a punch or something then it would be.
All good points, jhkim; I typed without thinking things clearly. :) I'll try again.
It is a stretch to call a slap 'combat.' But I'm using as a definition of 'combat' any conflict between two or more entities (not counting nature) that is physical, no matter how minimal, from a slap up to a fight to the death. (By physical conflict, I'm including things like magical or psychic/psionic conflict, which isn't really physical but shares the same goal - to inflict injury on the opponent and/or avoid injury (physical, mental, spiritual, what have you) to yourself.)
There are a lot of such conflicts where it wouldn't be worth the trouble to break out the books and roll, just as there are a lot of other conflicts (such as thief vs. lock) where you might not roll, either because the difficulty is so low or this is something that absolutely needs to happen.
There are situations where it might hypothetically matter whether Lady Derbyshire's slap connects with Lord Fancybottom's cheek, or whether he catches it in time. If the slap connects, Lord Fancybottom rubs his cheek and watches while Lady Derbyshire marches away. If he catches her hand in his, Lord Fancybottom pulls Lady Derbyshire in for a kiss. It's a physical conflict, so it's 'combat.' Even if it's just the most basic resolution - each character rolls a die and adds a skill/stat modifier - it's still a combat system.
Completeness of rules isn't really all that relevant, I see. In any event there isn't any bright line for completeness, where an RPG 'must' have rules for A, B, and C. The old Indiana Jones game didn't have rules for character creation, after all, and it was still an RPG.
I guess my thinking is that an RPG does have to have some kind of rules, however basic, for conflict resolution to be an RPG. Even as basic as just flipping a coin when a player and the GM can't agree on exactly what happens. Otherwise it's not really a game (IMO) but improv theatre - also a fine exercise, but different. For it to be an RPG (again IMO) it isn't necessary to refer to the rules every session, or at all, or for the rules to be followed slavishly, only that there are rules available if there's need to refer to them.
If there are rules for conflict resolution, those rules can be extended to resolve physical conflicts - 'combats.' If there aren't rules for conflict resolution, then my position is that it's not an RPG - it's just not complete enough. I don't know where the fuzzy line between RPG and not-RPG is, but that would be far enough to one side to be to me not an RPG.
By game I mean the rules. Any game that can be used for one session is an RPG, and some (like Toon, TFOS or Feng Shui) are perhaps more suitable as one-shot games. I'm certainly not suggesting that a game (session or campaign) that doesn't involve combat isn't role-playing, and I apologise if it sounded like I did. Certainly having every, or even most, encounters that the PCs run into turn into a dice-heavy slugfest would be less entertaining than playing with more varied interaction between the characters and the world around them.
Hopefully that makes a bit more sense. In any event, I'm no authority, I've been known to be wrong about things before (many times, actually), and most important it's really really late here.
You could have a game with a traditional kind of setting and story, but not have a traditional combat system, if the rule was that anything that catches you will kill you. Technically that would be a 'combat system', but it's not what people usually mean by the term.
The rules could concentrate on things like how far you could travel in a day through particular kinds of terrain, hiding, disguising your tracks, masking your scent from predators, exposure, disease etc.
OK, here's an idea for a traditional setting without a combat system: a human colony on an alien world which has returned to a tribal, non-industrial society. The society's highest taboo is violence between members of the society, perhaps because of a crisis in the past (maybe the same one that meant they lost their technology). However, it's still murderous in indirect ways. People can be exiled for all sorts of real and imagined crimes. Generally, exile from one tribe doesn't mean exile from every tribe, so if you can make it somewhere else you're safe. Paradoxically, young people are admired for stealing from each other etc, but also punished harshly if they're caught. Also, people gain social status by going on dangerous 'vision quests' in the wilderness - even if they don't have a vision, but all the more so if they discover some 'magic' of the ancients or talk to one of their 'ghosts'. The 'wilderness' is sharply distinct from 'civilisation' - there are places that crawl with dangerous monsters, and places where they simply don't go, and no one knows why. Sometimes the ghosts of the ancients appear to a whole tribe, and tell them they have to move somewhere else, or be destroyed by monsters.
The default adventure for this setting is that the party is a group of young people who have been exiled for some crime or other, and are trying to make it to the safe area of another tribe.
Depends.
If it the denies the PCs the choice of entering combat, than it isn't an RPG, unless there is a really good ingame justification for this. This means games like Settlers of Catan aren't RPGs (even though you may roleplay your settles), because it limits you to certain actions and you can't just decide to start raising an army and attack the neighboring settlement or poison their grain supply or whatever. The same applies to all games, where there is a limited game environment (so the Descent and Heroquest board games can never be RPGs either).
On the other hand, just because something is allowed ingame doesn't mean there has to be a detailed rules mechanic for it. If combat is allowed, but resolved like any other roll (or if combat boils down to "Both players roll a dice each. The character of the player who rolls highest survives, the character of the player who rolls lowest dies."), than it's still an RPG. If the PCs can enter combat, but the players don't have many ways of affecting the outcome, than it certainly is a very gritty one at that, where players should really think twice about starting a fight.
In short: The more options/maneuvers/weapon classes etc. you put into the game, the more gaming "ammunition" your players have to affect the outcome of the combat in favour of their PCs and therefore the easier it is for them to commit themselves to combat, because they know they have plenty options and one of them might be the right one to win this.
Quote from: KrakaJakI think it's possible to have an RPG without combat, or even combat rules.
I don't think it's possible for a GOOD rpg without combat, or combat rules.
There's just something to say about being able to get mad at somebody and being able to punch that somebody in the FACE!
Using some arcane combination of telepathy and/or time travel KrakaJak stole my exact answer, word for word. Curse you, KrakaJak!
Quote from: jrientsUsing some arcane combination of telepathy and/or time travel KrakaJak stole my exact answer, word for word. Curse you, KrakaJak!
Actually, if you look close enough you'll see his thumb drive poking out of your rear USB port.
Quote from: James McMurrayActually, if you look close enough you'll see his thumb drive poking out of your rear USB port.
That sounds very dirty! Now I suspect him of both stealing from me and sexual harassment!
It's entirely possible to design an RPG where there is no explicit combat system - which is as close as you can get without arbitrarily saying "characters will never initiate violence against each other, under any circumstances", which most people will find very limiting.
On the other hand, it's important to consider what role combat systems actually play in RPGs; they provide a mechanism for resolving combat which will go into significantly more detail than the game's core mechanic (or closest analogue if there isn't a core mechanic). Which, sure, is stating the obvious, but the question is
why go into such detail about combat in the first place?The way I see it, there's basically two reasons to take this approach. The obvious reason is that
combat is what we are interested in when we play the game in question. In some games, there's supposed to be lots of fighting, and that's cool; sure, it's entirely viable to play entire sessions D&D, Exalted, and Shadowrun where no fights happen, but it's uncommon at least partially because fights are (or are at least supposed to be) fun and exciting in those games.
On the other hand, I don't think this reason is sufficient; there's plenty of RPGs with detailed combat systems where you're expected to avoid major fights to the best of your abilities (Call of Cthulhu springs to mind). There is another reason why nigh-all RPGs provided detailed combat systems, and I'd say it's this:
most of the time, combat is considered too important to leave to the core mechanic. Let's face it, in almost all violent situations death is a possibility, and therefore the stakes are as high as they can reasonably get; as such, I think many gamers would be deeply uncomfortable where killing a character is treated like any other task in the game, because, well, it'd end up resembling something like this:
Quote from: The System Where Combat Is Just Another Task, Page 731, Example of Play.ANNE: "My character shoots Bob dead."
BOB: "I get out of the way!"
GM: "OK, guys, time for a contested roll, Anne's Shooting vs. Bob's Dodging."
*Roll, roll, roll...*
ANNE: "I win."
GM: "OK, Bob dies."
BOB: "Wait, don't I get a saving throw? Don't I have a pool of hit points or a wound track? Don't we roll to see how serious the wound is? Shouldn't we have rolled initiative?"
GM: "Nah, this is The System Where Combat Is Just Another Task, you don't do any of that stuff in TSWCIJAT."
Now, there are a few systems combat is, in fact, just another task -
Dogs In the Vineyard springs to mind - but those tend to be games where
every task (or, more strictly, conflict - there's a big difference between the "task resolution" and the "conflict resolution" approaches) is resolved using an extremely detailed core mechanic, because
every task/conflict is ascribed equal importance by the system. But the vast majority of RPG systems assign special importance to particular things and gloss over others; indeed, very early RPGs pretty much provide mechanics
only for those things which they regard as important, and provide little-to-no mechanics for the rest.
So, in conclusion, it's entirely possible to design an RPG where no importance is ascribed to combat, and it's resolved using the same basic core mechanic as every other not-very-important action. However, it would fall apart unless there was a "gentleman's agreement" between players and GM that combat situations will not come up in the game; without that understanding, there's always the chance that a fight will happen, and such a system will usually produce unsatisfying results from combat.
Combat is what gives RPGs meaning. Without it, you have nothing.
Quote from: RPGPunditThe thing is, its one thing to run a campaign without combat, and another to make a GAME without combat. I think that probably, an RPG has to allow for at least the possibility that combat will occur.
I think this is reasonable. This is what separates an RPG from a game like Monopoly, the ability to do anything your character would feasibly be able to do.