Combat: Why? (was Re: Diceless Roleplaying Game)
INTER*ACTION
> In article <loren...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> lo...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:
> >
> >Diceless roleplaying does not force ONE-TRUE-PATH roleplaying. What it does
> >is emphasize fun storytelling rather than combat. Roleplaying games with
> >dice all tend to emphasize combat, because they allow players to minimax
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Since, to my knowledge, Amber is the only game currently available that
> doesn't use dice, you've just said "Every RPG on the market except one (and
> one more in the works) emphasizes combat". That's WAY too much of an
> overstatement.
Is it? I'd say that all RPGs currently on the market over-
emphasize combat.
Think about the role-playing games you own. I personally have a
collection of well over fifty, with experience of a great many
more, and I can only think of one that doesn't have a combat
system -- a section of the rules that quite specifically
describes how to run combat within the game. Some games seem to
consist of almost nothing but combat; but I'd say that on average
the combat system takes up about 3-4% of the pagecount of a
typical RPG. More if you consider what percentage of skills,
equipment and spell lists are devoted to combat-orientated
items.
Let's take that figure of 3-4% at face value: if the game
designer thinks it's worth taking up that much of the rulebook to
focus on combat, it's a reasonable gauge of the amount of
emphasis that they've put on it in the game background.
How much of your life do you spend in combat? 3-4%? Somewhat less,
I'd imagine.
How much do movies, TV shows and books focus on combat? Granted,
some contain a lot more than 3-4%; but how many contain no combat
at all? Probably about a third: they have plots, structures and
characters who have no need of combat. The concept of resolving
problems physically simply isn't a part of their world-view. So
why don't RPGs reflect that? Why does every single RPG require a
section of the rules specifically about combat? Is the market for
RPGs really so adolescent that a game that doesn't pander to the
"kill stuff" mentality won't survive?
Okay: the answer to the question on your lips. The only RPG that
(to my knowledge) doesn't have a combat system is DALLAS: The
Television Role-Playing Game, published by SPI in 1980. Not a
notable success in the history of RPG development. The ground-
breaking GHOSTBUSTERS gets close, and has a skill system loose
enough that it doesn't actually need specialised combat rules,
but didn't make it. If you know of any more published systems
that don't have a combat system, especially if it's because they
don't need a combat system, I'd like to hear about them.
I'm going to throw out a challenge to any RPG designers out
there, whether professional or amateur. See if you can create a
game setting, background and set of rules and mechanics that doesn't
require a system for player characters to engage in combat of any
kind (physical, magical or psionic). If you can do it, and make it
playable and interesting, I'd like to see it. I may even be
interested in publishing it.
This hobby's got to start growing up sometime: it might as well
start here.
--
James Wallis (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk)
Publisher of INTER*ACTION: The Journal
of Role-Playing and Storytelling Systems
Trevor Barrie
>Is it? I'd say that all RPGs currently on the market over-
>emphasize combat.
>
>Think about the role-playing games you own. I personally have a
>collection of well over fifty, with experience of a great many
>more, and I can only think of one that doesn't have a combat
>system -- a section of the rules that quite specifically
>describes how to run combat within the game. Some games seem to
>consist of almost nothing but combat; but I'd say that on average
>the combat system takes up about 3-4% of the pagecount of a
>typical RPG. More if you consider what percentage of skills,
>equipment and spell lists are devoted to combat-orientated
>items.
>
>Let's take that figure of 3-4% at face value: if the game
>designer thinks it's worth taking up that much of the rulebook to
>focus on combat, it's a reasonable gauge of the amount of
>emphasis that they've put on it in the game background.
>
>How much of your life do you spend in combat? 3-4%? Somewhat less,
>I'd imagine.
Well, yeah, but most of my time is spent between poking around the internet
and looking for work :). What rules are required for this? Rulebook space is
used for material that actually requires rules, such as combat.
>
>How much do movies, TV shows and books focus on combat? Granted,
>some contain a lot more than 3-4%; but how many contain no combat
>at all? Probably about a third: they have plots, structures and
>characters who have no need of combat. The concept of resolving
>problems physically simply isn't a part of their world-view. So
>why don't RPGs reflect that? Why does every single RPG require a
>section of the rules specifically about combat? Is the market for
>RPGs really so adolescent that a game that doesn't pander to the
>"kill stuff" mentality won't survive?
>
True, all RPGs I've seen are baed on genres that sometimes involve combat.
Most genres do at least include the POSSIBILITY that combat may at some time
ensue. Introspective-type stories may not, but these don't make great
role-playing, because they're not interactive. Consequently, most games
include combat as part of their overall action-resolution system.
The bottom line is that I don't think allowing combat to occur in a game is
the same as emphasizing it. Suppose you were making a Shakespearean
role-playing game. This game would have to at least include sword-fighting
rules ( I, with only limited knowledge of Shakespeare, can think of two
sword-fights in Shakespeare right off the bat). Does that mean that the game
over-emphasizes combat? Do you think Shakespeare over-emphasized combat
because he included sword-fights?
On the other hand, a purely dramatic game (as opposed to action-drama, which
most of my favorite games cover) is a worthwhile goal, and one I'd be
interested in seeing.
Trevor Barrie
...Paul
INTER*ACTION <jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <2qenhd$m...@bud.peinet.pe.ca> tba...@bud.peinet.pe.ca (Trevor Barrie) writes:
>> In article <loren...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> lo...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:
>> >
>> >Diceless roleplaying does not force ONE-TRUE-PATH roleplaying. What it does
>> >is emphasize fun storytelling rather than combat. Roleplaying games with
>> >dice all tend to emphasize combat, because they allow players to minimax
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Since, to my knowledge, Amber is the only game currently available that
>> doesn't use dice, you've just said "Every RPG on the market except one (and
>> one more in the works) emphasizes combat". That's WAY too much of an
>> overstatement.
>
>Is it? I'd say that all RPGs currently on the market over-
>emphasize combat.
>
>Think about the role-playing games you own. I personally have a
>collection of well over fifty, with experience of a great many
>more, and I can only think of one that doesn't have a combat
>system -- a section of the rules that quite specifically
>describes how to run combat within the game. Some games seem to
>consist of almost nothing but combat; but I'd say that on average
>the combat system takes up about 3-4% of the pagecount of a
>typical RPG. More if you consider what percentage of skills,
>equipment and spell lists are devoted to combat-orientated
>items.
What you're missing is the purpose of combat systems. I can probably think
of several games that, while they have combat systems (and several that
have DETAILED combat systems), actually play down the combat aspect.
Most games have combat systems because the world is a violent place. It
doesn't matter where or when, but violence will be there. You cannot have
a utopian world; it just doesn't happen (though it's arguable as to whether
or not you could roleplay one).
The problem is this: Combat is one of the biggest problems PCs face. Why?
Because it's the difference between the life of a character and the death of
a character. It's usually more detailed than other skills because players
are (rightfully so) more interested in knowing what's happening, and the
situation requires more detail to ensure fairness.
While a GM can say "Okay, you passed your Engineering roll, you've managed
to find the faulty pressure regulator and replace it", it's not as easy
to say something like "Well, Mr. Bad Guy just hit you with his sword. You
take damage, I guess." "How much?" asks the player. "Dunno. No rules for
it. I guess you're unconscious and bleeding." Will this player want to
play when he goes to counter-attack and finds that the GM has "randomly"
determined that his hit DOESN'T cause unconsciousness?
Also, Amber isn't devoid of combat. I can remember seeing a whole section
to "How to GM Combat" or something like that (I don't own the book). My
last character was a "secret guardian", and made a point of removing threats
to what he was guarding; needless to say, combat was a big part of his
character.
Just remember, before you go spouting off about how system X emphasizes
combat and/or violence, to sit down and look at whether or not i actually
does. Most combat rules are there for completeness (although there are,
of course exceptions... <cough>BattleLords<cough>). For instance, it's
my belief that Cyberpunk games should be non-violent. What!? Yes. Thinl
about it. In the hard-core cyberpunk worlds, your characters should not
be toting guns around, in hard armor, with skin weaves up the yin-yang.
The point behind cyberpunk is that the characters are small people in a
big world, and are struggling to survive along with the other dregs of
humanity. Plus, cyberpunk characters should be in constant fear of death,
and should be smart enough NOT to get into firefights... But that's just
my opinion. I could be wrong. (kickback to Dennis Miller)
...Paul
--
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Paul, cle...@aol.com. yIlImQo'qu' Don't Panic! alt.galactic-guide yIlaD
"When doth life leave the weary?
'Tis not death I fear, but the end of living." -- Paul
Andrew Finch
has just entered combat. The opponent may be unintelligent and immobile,
but certainly still a threat. Combat is simply an extension of
confrontation. Confrontation is a struggle for control. Do I get to have
it my way or not? All RPG's must deal with confrontation by one method or
another. In Theatrix, the combat system is an extension of the dramatic
confrontation process. Many games use a whole new set of rules,
specifically to handle combat. They do this for detail. If your character
can die, then your going to want a lot more control, so the fight seems
'fair' and logical, and not 'arbitrary'. Dice are used to alleviate the
possibility of blame as well. Because such systems are almost separate
entities, fights can become a reason in themselves for their occurence.
And without a reason, you need the dice to take up the blame for anything
bad that happens. All Theatrix combats have a reason. They don't occure
outside the container that runs the entire system, ie. the plot. Our
combat system is a huge amount of detail about how to make these Scenes
serves their purpose, while still maintaining consistency, and
believability. You should see the section on wounds. It has far more
detail than any hit point system I've ever seen. If a character does
something stupid during a fight, or if the fight is especially deadly,
then they can die. But because the fight was never arbitrary, you never
need to hide behind dice. The GM can explain exactly why they died, what
was wrong, and how it happened. If the fight was tough, and the players
came unprepared, this may be reason enough. In any case, this is simply
an extension of confrontation. The character climbing that cliff could
fall and die. A character can botch a date with a girl he really likes. A
character can end up with a sword through his gut.
Having a combat system, doesn't gaurantee 'good' combats, which is what's
important. Not having a combat system, doesn't mean you don't deal with
confrontation, but only that you'll be less prepared to deal with openly
violent confrontation. The maturity of a system is not in its combat
rules, but in its approach to confrontation, of which the combat rules
are just a special case.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Allen Ka-Lun Au
>Just remember, before you go spouting off about how system X emphasizes
>combat and/or violence, to sit down and look at whether or not i actually
>does. Most combat rules are there for completeness (although there are,
>of course exceptions... <cough>BattleLords<cough>). For instance, it's
>my belief that Cyberpunk games should be non-violent. What!? Yes. Thinl
>about it. In the hard-core cyberpunk worlds, your characters should not
>be toting guns around, in hard armor, with skin weaves up the yin-yang.
>The point behind cyberpunk is that the characters are small people in a
>big world, and are struggling to survive along with the other dregs of
>humanity. Plus, cyberpunk characters should be in constant fear of death,
>and should be smart enough NOT to get into firefights... But that's just
>my opinion. I could be wrong. (kickback to Dennis Miller)
You are not wrong. In fact you just hit the mark of Cyberpunk genres.
Unfortunatly, most of the players of Cyberpunk or Shadoerun does not share
your mentallity. They will look at all the new and cool gadgets and guns
and they'll go beserk on them. My last Gm did that. Needless to say, I
stopped playing after my character got shot up because I made a realistic
character instead of a combat monster.
Anyway, To contribute to this thread, it doesn't matter if it is diceless
or not, it is the GM. i once Gm a Champs game that had a whole session
involving non-combat. (it was a trial) and my players enjoyed it. I
made sure each character was threatened.(not physically, mind you, ethicily)
The point is, remember, Champs is a game involving super heroes and 10 to 20
d6's per attack.
>
>...Paul
>
>
>--
>+ + + + + + + + + + +
>Paul, cle...@aol.com. yIlImQo'qu' Don't Panic! alt.galactic-guide yIlaD
> "When doth life leave the weary?
> 'Tis not death I fear, but the end of living." -- Paul
Bo
Rick Cordes
>designer thinks it's worth taking up that much of the rulebook to
>focus on combat, it's a reasonable gauge of the amount of
>emphasis that they've put on it in the game background.
>
>How much of your life do you spend in combat? 3-4%? Somewhat less,
>I'd imagine.
This is absurd. I spend at least 30-40% of my time fighting,
and as far as I can tell, about 30-40% of the people I know spend
at least 100% of their time fighting.
>
>why don't RPGs reflect that? Why does every single RPG require a
>section of the rules specifically about combat? Is the market for
>RPGs really so adolescent that a game that doesn't pander to the
>"kill stuff" mentality won't survive?
I think rules should mirror reality. I spend at least 1/3 of
my life either sleeping and/or dreaming, and yet rules at best are
cursory. In real life most indoor fatalities occur in either the
kitchen or the bathroom where the real people I know easily spend
3-4% of their time... and what do we have for rules? Nada, Zip, Zilcho!
>
>I'm going to throw out a challenge to any RPG designers out
>there, whether professional or amateur. See if you can create a
>game setting, background and set of rules and mechanics that doesn't
>require a system for player characters to engage in combat of any
>kind (physical, magical or psionic). If you can do it, and make it
>playable and interesting, I'd like to see it. I may even be
>interested in publishing it.
>
>This hobby's got to start growing up sometime: it might as well
>start here.
>
Hah! I accept the challenge. I call my game Calculus 101. It is
a diceless game. Character's select their major talent, and then
depending on how well they do in periodic trials (tests) or random
rpg improvisations (quizzes), they may or may not have to adapt their
profession. Characters can cooperate but they have to be subtle. All you
need is paper and pencil, and a single rule book. It's really alot of fun!
(Sleeping and/or dreaming occur almost just like real.)
Sincerely, -Rick
Trevor Barrie
>
>Most games have combat systems because the world is a violent place. It
>doesn't matter where or when, but violence will be there. You cannot have
>a utopian world; it just doesn't happen (though it's arguable as to whether
>or not you could roleplay one).
>
[ delete ]
>
>While a GM can say "Okay, you passed your Engineering roll, you've managed
>to find the faulty pressure regulator and replace it", it's not as easy
>to say something like "Well, Mr. Bad Guy just hit you with his sword. You
>take damage, I guess." "How much?" asks the player. "Dunno. No rules for
>it. I guess you're unconscious and bleeding." Will this player want to
>play when he goes to counter-attack and finds that the GM has "randomly"
>determined that his hit DOESN'T cause unconsciousness?
I think you're missing his point. There are plenty of genres in other media
(text, comics, film, etc.) where combat never occurs, or occurs with little
enough frequency as to be insignificant. But there are, to my knowledge, no
role-playing games (other than, perhaps, the afore-mentioned Dallas game,
which I haven't seen) that reflect this genre. They all seem to deal solely
with action or, at best, action-drama. While I don't agree with his main
point - allowing combat <> emphasizing combat - I do feel he HAS a point.
Trevor Barrie
INTER*ACTION
> of several games that, while they have combat systems (and several that
> have DETAILED combat systems), actually play down the combat aspect.
>
> Most games have combat systems because the world is a violent place. It
> doesn't matter where or when, but violence will be there. You cannot have
> a utopian world; it just doesn't happen (though it's arguable as to whether
> or not you could roleplay one).
I'm not aware of any role-playing games set in "the world"; and I
believe such a game would be tremendously boring. Every RPG is
set in a different world, using descriptions and rules to create
an image of how that world works, and part of the problem I was
describing is that the only worlds that the designers of
commercial RPGs want to describe are ones in which violence is
important.
--
James Wallis
Publisher of INTER*ACTION: The Journal of Role-Playing
and Storytelling Systems (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk)
Sylvan Clebsch
side of the fence wants games that encourage a non-violent approach to life,
on in which daily intrigue or whatever dominates, whereas the the others
want action, adventure, fantasy even... hmm, I seem to already be choosing a
camp. But let me point out: whatever camp you choose: are you buying a
role-playing game for the rules, or for all the low-quality fiction that the
author couldn't get published any other way? Personally, I am terrified by
almost EVERY currently published RPG: they are 90% crap fiction that some
total idiot wrote about some particular campaign they ran, and built rules
out of. Thanks, kneejerk, but if I want a novel I'll buy one by someone who
can actually get published AS A NOVELIST. I'd prefer Clive Barker (urk) to
that crap. Someone mentioned 3-4% of the book space spent on combat rules...
yes, you are right, UNFORTUNATELY. I REFUSE to purchase a game where 4% of
the pages are a bullshit half assed combat system, another 6% deals with the
other rule systems, and you have 90% stupid amateur writing. Think about
it: a 128 page rules book (fairly average, if not a bit large for most RPGs)
and at 4% (5 pages!) you think too much time is spent on combat?! And I have
to wade through 114 pages of garbage?! If you want great ideas for
scenarios, etc, don't read the Amber rulebook: read the REAL BOOKS that the
game was based on!!! The GAME should be providing RULES. If this is beyond
you, might I ask: why do you read rec.games.design? Isn't there a news group
like: alt.12step.for.second-rate.authors? If you are actually interested in
GAME design, I would expect you to be interested in systems, systems
building and systems analysis. THAT is what I am here for, personally
(thanks to the person who posted about the WW2 WRG btw- actual useful
information about SYSTEM DESIGN (gasp) was included).
wow... I seemed to have launched into a tirade. didn't really intend to, but
there you go...
...Paul
Trevor Barrie <tba...@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote:
>enough frequency as to be insignificant. But there are, to my knowledge, no
>role-playing games (other than, perhaps, the afore-mentioned Dallas game,
>which I haven't seen) that reflect this genre. They all seem to deal solely
>with action or, at best, action-drama. While I don't agree with his main
>point - allowing combat <> emphasizing combat - I do feel he HAS a point.
>
>Trevor Barrie
Remember: J R Ewing was shot.
George Novodvorsky
: ...The only RPG that
: (to my knowledge) doesn't have a combat system is DALLAS: The
: Television Role-Playing Game, published by SPI in 1980...
: ...I'm going to throw out a challenge to any RPG designers out
: there, whether professional or amateur. See if you can create a
: game setting, background and set of rules and mechanics that doesn't
: require a system for player characters to engage in combat of any
: kind (physical, magical or psionic)....
I may be the only person on the net to actually have _seen_ DALLAS: The
Television Role-Playing Game, and it _does_ have combat. In fact, the game
is nothing _but_ combat, just like a game of Illuminati, which it closely
resembles.
The players take the roles of various characters in the TV show and
_directly_ compete against each other using their characteristics / skills
(little difference is made between the two), to score points. They can use
seduction, or influence, or power plays, or whatever, but basically it is
combat: you compare two numbers and roll dice.
If you accept physical, magical, or psionic varieties of combat, how is
that different from influence combat? Even AD&D (shock-horror) has a
"psychic contest" rule, where two contestants basically stare at each other
until one gives in (maybe it's in Oriental Adventures? whatever). Does
that make it less combat because the loser doesn't end up bruised?
In many ways, the loser of an influence contest can be hurt more than the
loser of a fistfight. And if you do restrict your definition of combat to
the loser being physically hurt, that seems to agree with the poster who
said that climbing a cliff is combat between the climber and the cliff.
When it comes right down to it, we roleplay to do what we would like to at
least try to do in real life without the nasty consequences (O.K., if you
roleplay an evil character, and say that you wouldn't be that way in real
life even if you could, consider your conscience as a consequence you are
avoiding). Combat is very exciting, and has very nasty consequences.
Roleplaying in a game with combat isn't immature unless you consider
roleplaying entirely immature. Is it really somehow less mature to dream
about fighting spies and slaying dragons than to dream about succeeding in
business or seducing gorgeous blondes (or blonds - chacun a son gout)?
S.P.I. died for our sins.....
James Wallis
> Interesting, the opinions dealt with in this thread. It appears that one
> side of the fence wants games that encourage a non-violent approach to life,
> on in which daily intrigue or whatever dominates
Emotion, intrigue, scheming, passion, diplomacy, moral dilemmas...
just anything where the answer to any given problem is "I kill
it now" or "I work out how to kill it, then I kill it", or even "I
go and get the item I need to kill it, then I kill it".
> whereas the the others
> want action, adventure, fantasy even... hmm, I seem to already be choosing a
> camp. But let me point out: whatever camp you choose: are you buying a
> role-playing game for the rules, or for all the low-quality fiction that the
> author couldn't get published any other way? Personally, I am terrified by
> almost EVERY currently published RPG: they are 90% crap fiction that some
> total idiot wrote about some particular campaign they ran, and built rules
> out of. Thanks, kneejerk, but if I want a novel I'll buy one by someone who
> can actually get published AS A NOVELIST.
Er... actually I do both professionally. Writing novels pays the
bills; designing RPGs and RPG supplements is fun and stops me
going insane. And I'm not alone: Greg Costikyan, John M. Ford,
Mike Stackpole, Marc Gascoigne, Carl Sargent, Dave Morris and
many other RPG designers are getting more novels than games
published these days. There's also the fact that fiction
publishing pays better than writing RPGs and the publishers treat
you better, but that's by the by.
> I'd prefer Clive Barker (urk) to
> that crap. Someone mentioned 3-4% of the book space spent on combat rules...
> yes, you are right, UNFORTUNATELY. I REFUSE to purchase a game where 4% of
> the pages are a bullshit half assed combat system, another 6% deals with the
> other rule systems, and you have 90% stupid amateur writing. Think about
> it: a 128 page rules book (fairly average, if not a bit large for most RPGs)
Most RPGs are about 256 pages, and the trend is upwards. And if
the writing is published and the author's been paid for it, it's
by definition not "amateur". Just thought I'd point that out.
> and at 4% (5 pages!) you think too much time is spent on combat?! And I have
> to wade through 114 pages of garbage?! If you want great ideas for
> scenarios, etc, don't read the Amber rulebook: read the REAL BOOKS that the
> game was based on!!! The GAME should be providing RULES. If this is beyond
> you, might I ask: why do you read rec.games.design? Isn't there a news group
> like: alt.12step.for.second-rate.authors? If you are actually interested in
> GAME design, I would expect you to be interested in systems, systems
> building and systems analysis.
No, you seem to be interested in mechanics, and there is a
significant difference between mechanics and systems. The AMBER
rulebook does have a lot of rules in it: it quantifies and
describes how the AMBER universe works in great detail. It just
doesn't do it by tying everything down to numerical values and
putting them into charts and tables.
I am interested in systems design and systems analysis in RPGs;
that's why I wrote an 8000-word article on the subject for the
first issue of INTER*ACTION (plug, plug). That issue also contains
a thoughtful article by Greg Porter on the different generations
that role-playing games have gone through. While I wouldn't say
that your entire argument can be reduced to "I like third-generation
games; everything after that is crap", your viewpoint does seem to
be a little two-dimensional.
--
James Wallis
Publisher of INTER*ACTION: The Journal of Role-Playing
and Storytelling Systems (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk)
James Wallis
> In article <2qh7ps$c...@bud.peinet.pe.ca>,
> Trevor Barrie <tba...@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote:
> >enough frequency as to be insignificant. But there are, to my knowledge, no
> >role-playing games (other than, perhaps, the afore-mentioned Dallas game,
> >which I haven't seen) that reflect this genre. They all seem to deal solely
> >with action or, at best, action-drama. While I don't agree with his main
> >point - allowing combat <> emphasizing combat - I do feel he HAS a point.
> >
> >Trevor Barrie
>
> Remember: J R Ewing was shot.
Yes, but it's not possible to shoot him in the DALLAS RPG -- one of
the reasons that the game didn't succeed: despite some nice rules
systems, it didn't simulate the show it was based on properly, and
that's the kiss of death for any licensed game. Still, it's worth
a look if you ever happen across a copy in a bargain bin.
--
James Wallis
Publisher of INTER*ACTION: The Journal of Role-Playing
and Storytelling Systems (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk)
INTER*ACTION
> INTER*ACTION (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : ...The only RPG that
> : (to my knowledge) doesn't have a combat system is DALLAS: The
> : Television Role-Playing Game, published by SPI in 1980...
>
> : ...I'm going to throw out a challenge to any RPG designers out
> : there, whether professional or amateur. See if you can create a
> : game setting, background and set of rules and mechanics that doesn't
> : require a system for player characters to engage in combat of any
> : kind (physical, magical or psionic)....
>
> I may be the only person on the net to actually have _seen_ DALLAS: The
> Television Role-Playing Game, and it _does_ have combat. In fact, the game
> is nothing _but_ combat, just like a game of Illuminati, which it closely
> resembles.
My original post was written with my trusty copy of DALLAS beside
me. I also, incidentally, have the Yaquinto boardgame which is
truly excellent. Always hated the TV programme...
> The players take the roles of various characters in the TV show and
> _directly_ compete against each other using their characteristics / skills
> (little difference is made between the two), to score points. They can use
> seduction, or influence, or power plays, or whatever, but basically it is
> combat: you compare two numbers and roll dice.
Earlier in this thread someone was trying to claim that climbing a
cliff also counts as combat. No. Sorry. Both of you are talking
about contested actions. In my original post I was specifically
talking about "I've got a bigger gun/sword/fireball/mindblast/
virus than YOU" combat systems which pander to adolescent
mentalities, and wondering why DALLAS was the only published RPG
to date that didn't have one.
Of course it's impossible to design a playable RPG that doesn't
include some way of resolving contested actions, otherwise
characters couldn't interact with their environment in any
meaningful way. But that's not the point.
> If you accept physical, magical, or psionic varieties of combat, how is
> that different from influence combat? Even AD&D (shock-horror) has a
> "psychic contest" rule, where two contestants basically stare at each other
> until one gives in (maybe it's in Oriental Adventures? whatever). Does
> that make it less combat because the loser doesn't end up bruised?
Yes. If you're male, twelve and spotty, screwing somebody over in
a business deal or staring them down in a bar is not nearly as
cathartic or interesting as blowing them full of bloody holes
with a .75 Recoilless Phallum. Most role-playing games are about
power and almost all of them deal primarily in physical power:
the ability to cause physical damage to other people.
> In many ways, the loser of an influence contest can be hurt more than the
> loser of a fistfight. And if you do restrict your definition of combat to
> the loser being physically hurt, that seems to agree with the poster who
> said that climbing a cliff is combat between the climber and the cliff.
That's specious: if you accept the cliff-climbing argument, then
trying to catch a ball is combat between the character and the
ball. Trying to break a password program is combat between the
program and the character. Trying to translate a manuscript is
combat between the character and the language... Physical injury
doesn't come into it. These are simply actions against a given
difficulty level; the only way they resemble combat (in most
RPGs) is that you throw dice to resolve them. Perhaps that's
where the confusion is coming from.
> When it comes right down to it, we roleplay to do what we would like to at
> least try to do in real life without the nasty consequences (O.K., if you
> roleplay an evil character, and say that you wouldn't be that way in real
> life even if you could, consider your conscience as a consequence you are
> avoiding). Combat is very exciting, and has very nasty consequences.
Again, no. I role-play to get inside the minds of people entirely
unlike myself; I find it a useful tool for developing and
understanding fictional characters. My favourite character at the
moment is a merchant. He's in his forties, fat, unpleasant, a
demon in business but a complete scumball in every other aspect
of his life. Beats his wife. Cheats people. Lives for money. It's
given me a fascinating insight into that kind of mentality, but
there is no way I would ever want to be like him, either in this
world, or the one in which he exists (Tekumel; Empire of the Petal
Throne).
> Roleplaying in a game with combat isn't immature unless you consider
> roleplaying entirely immature. Is it really somehow less mature to dream
> about fighting spies and slaying dragons than to dream about succeeding in
> business or seducing gorgeous blondes (or blonds - chacun a son gout)?
No, but it would be nice for consumers to have the option of
buying a role-playing game that didn't deal entirely in fighting
and slaying. As you said at the start of your post, the DALLAS
game wasn't exactly a huge success and is very hard to find these
days. Nonetheless, it stood a better chance of breaking RPGs
through into the mass-market than any other game since, because it
dealt with ideas that almost everyone could relate to. If you
watched "Dallas", you should have been able to understand the
ideas behind the DALLAS game. Unfortunately it had a rule system
written by a team used to designing wargames, and was not exactly
user-friendly.
While I'm still interested in seeing if anyone can design a RPG
which doesn't require a combat system, I will refine my original
question a little: is it possible to develop an interesting and
playable RPG that isn't concerned entirely with power, power
levels and conflicts between power levels? I still believe it is:
what about a RPG that deals with personal growth, or quests for
fulfilment or understanding? Or is that too close to real life?
--
James Wallis
Publisher of INTER*ACTION: The Journal of Role-Playing
and Storytelling Systems (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk)
Joseph Behrmann
> In article <2qiskt$s...@news.bu.edu> g...@cs.bu.edu (George Novodvorsky) writes:
> > INTER*ACTION (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > The players take the roles of various characters in the TV show and
> > _directly_ compete against each other using their characteristics / skills
> > (little difference is made between the two), to score points. They can use
> > seduction, or influence, or power plays, or whatever, but basically it is
> > combat: you compare two numbers and roll dice.
>
> Earlier in this thread someone was trying to claim that climbing a
> cliff also counts as combat. No. Sorry. Both of you are talking
> about contested actions. In my original post I was specifically
> talking about "I've got a bigger gun/sword/fireball/mindblast/
> virus than YOU" combat systems which pander to adolescent
> mentalities, and wondering why DALLAS was the only published RPG
> to date that didn't have one.
>
> Of course it's impossible to design a playable RPG that doesn't
> include some way of resolving contested actions, otherwise
> characters couldn't interact with their environment in any
> meaningful way. But that's not the point.
I think the problem here is that you are trying to create an rpg that
simulates life in some meaningful way; but doesn't resolve one of the
traditional ways that life solves problems, conflict and power struggles.
Your definition of combat is a 2D representation of the complexities of
conflict. Physical combat is merely a small facet of "contested actions",
a small subset in fact. To deny combat in a game, means that you have
purposefully crippled the game, disabling some "features" to prove a point.
Life itself is conflict, the struggle to survive, no matter how you define
your life and ideals. If you want to live, you are struggling constantly
against the forces of nature, however abstracted, that are trying to stop
you from surviving. Even in the modern world, you struggle to make enough
money to eat, you struggle to have enough happiness so you don't go mad,
you struggle to accomplish some lofty goal of world peace, whatever you
want, you're struggling, conflicting against the forces of nature.
Now, while physical "combat" is a big part of many games and systems, it is
merely a mirror of life, with some rules changed to make it more "fun" than
real life is. RPGs are simulations of real life, however abstracted. Thus
they must in some way deal with the problems and hazards of existence, to
not deal with those points is to deny they exist an purposefully cripple
your game from being the "best" simulation of that part of life.
Character interactions, even subtle word plays and political machinations
are "combat" or struggles. Climbing a mountain is most certainly a
struggle, you are trying to keep from dying. If you fail your climbing
roll, you are most likely going to plummet downwards and injure yourself,
possibly fataly.
> > If you accept physical, magical, or psionic varieties of combat, how is
> > that different from influence combat? Even AD&D (shock-horror) has a
> > "psychic contest" rule, where two contestants basically stare at each other
> > until one gives in (maybe it's in Oriental Adventures? whatever). Does
> > that make it less combat because the loser doesn't end up bruised?
>
> Yes. If you're male, twelve and spotty, screwing somebody over in
> a business deal or staring them down in a bar is not nearly as
> cathartic or interesting as blowing them full of bloody holes
> with a .75 Recoilless Phallum. Most role-playing games are about
> power and almost all of them deal primarily in physical power:
> the ability to cause physical damage to other people.
I defy you to provide one example that does not include conflict or
struggle. Besides a game that says, "You sleep all of the time, fed by
mystical IV tubes and cleaned by magical catheters. You can do nothing,
whatsoever, the universe is composed entirely of you." And even that
situation provides for conflict and struggle.
> > In many ways, the loser of an influence contest can be hurt more than the
> > loser of a fistfight. And if you do restrict your definition of combat to
> > the loser being physically hurt, that seems to agree with the poster who
> > said that climbing a cliff is combat between the climber and the cliff.
>
> That's specious: if you accept the cliff-climbing argument, then
> trying to catch a ball is combat between the character and the
> ball. Trying to break a password program is combat between the
> program and the character. Trying to translate a manuscript is
> combat between the character and the language... Physical injury
> doesn't come into it. These are simply actions against a given
> difficulty level; the only way they resemble combat (in most
> RPGs) is that you throw dice to resolve them. Perhaps that's
> where the confusion is coming from.
Well my dictionary defines combat as: 1) A battle or fight; struggle. 2)
To fight or contend with; oppose in battle 3) To resist 4) To do battle;
struggle.
And battle as: 1) Any fighting, conflict, or struggle. 2) To contend with;
struggle; strive.
So you see, the cliff-climbing example is a valid "combat". It involves
struggle against something, in this case nature and yourself. Anything
that involves struggle or strife is combat. I think this can be abstracted
down to one word: interaction. Personally, the reason that I buy RPGs is
to have a consistant, detailed, and "realistic" method of dealing with
interaction, in its myriad forms.
> > When it comes right down to it, we roleplay to do what we would like to at
> > least try to do in real life without the nasty consequences (O.K., if you
> > roleplay an evil character, and say that you wouldn't be that way in real
> > life even if you could, consider your conscience as a consequence you are
> > avoiding). Combat is very exciting, and has very nasty consequences.
>
> Again, no. I role-play to get inside the minds of people entirely
> unlike myself; I find it a useful tool for developing and
> understanding fictional characters. My favourite character at the
> moment is a merchant. He's in his forties, fat, unpleasant, a
> demon in business but a complete scumball in every other aspect
> of his life. Beats his wife. Cheats people. Lives for money. It's
> given me a fascinating insight into that kind of mentality, but
> there is no way I would ever want to be like him, either in this
> world, or the one in which he exists (Tekumel; Empire of the Petal
> Throne).
Sounds like you role-play to struggle. You're struggling against your own
beliefs and goals, combating your own feelings to accomplish a goal.
Personal growth is a struggle against the inertia of well established
habits.
> > Roleplaying in a game with combat isn't immature unless you consider
> > roleplaying entirely immature. Is it really somehow less mature to dream
> > about fighting spies and slaying dragons than to dream about succeeding in
> > business or seducing gorgeous blondes (or blonds - chacun a son gout)?
>
> No, but it would be nice for consumers to have the option of
> buying a role-playing game that didn't deal entirely in fighting
> and slaying. As you said at the start of your post, the DALLAS
> game wasn't exactly a huge success and is very hard to find these
> days. Nonetheless, it stood a better chance of breaking RPGs
> through into the mass-market than any other game since, because it
> dealt with ideas that almost everyone could relate to. If you
> watched "Dallas", you should have been able to understand the
> ideas behind the DALLAS game. Unfortunately it had a rule system
> written by a team used to designing wargames, and was not exactly
> user-friendly.
Well, as I said before, I buy games to have a method of dealing with
interaction in a rational, meaningful, and consistent manner. I can
provide the situations that these interactions arise within quite well
without having a game cripple me from doing something that should be able
to be done, that is physical combat.
Perhaps I'm in the mood to explore the feelings and morals of a character
that handles situations in a physical manner, and eventually overcomes his
innermost hatred of himself to deal with the world in a "mature" manner.
Without combat, I couldn't play this character, his ability to hurts others
and be hurt is crucial to his realization of the ramifications of his
actions. The vision of a dead and bloody friend might be the turning point
in his life.
> While I'm still interested in seeing if anyone can design a RPG
> which doesn't require a combat system, I will refine my original
> question a little: is it possible to develop an interesting and
> playable RPG that isn't concerned entirely with power, power
> levels and conflicts between power levels? I still believe it is:
> what about a RPG that deals with personal growth, or quests for
> fulfilment or understanding? Or is that too close to real life?
I don't believe its possible to have a game that doesn't deal with
struggle. As a writer you should know that struggle is the essence of a
plot. Struggle of some manner, causes the characters to grow and change,
evolving within the setting and structure of the story. Self-growth and
understanding is a struggle against ignorance, prejudice, and inertia. The
word quest implies that it is a struggle to acquire something, that it
isn't easily available.
I believe that all RPGs to some extent deal with personal growth. If the
people within the game don't at first realize it, they will eventually, or
they won't grow. Eventually, someone is going to starting thinking beyond
the blood-letting, or the GM is going to provide them with the consequences
of their actions, and then they'll grow. No one's born into a full
realization of who they are or where they are going. In fact it can be
argued that no one ever truly reaches that point, the whole process of life
is a struggle to find one's place within it, and since life's rich pagent
continually changes, so does our position.
I think your quest for a game that doesn't model struggle will be
fruitless, or if you do find a game like that, you won't be satisfied with
it.
Joe
P.S. In a previous post you mentioned some articles in your magazine, if
you would please send me information on how I can get a copy of your
magazine, I'd greatly appreciate it. I live in USA if that presents any
problems to you.
--
Joseph Behrmann - jgb...@pitt.edu - behr...@psc.edu - Quote of the Day:
"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in
faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how
like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world,
the paragon of animals! And yet to me what is the quintessence if dust?
Man delights not me....... "
- Shakespeare, Hamlet
R. Dan Henry
combat, which means SOME combat rules. A successful RPG will envolve
tensions and conflicts, which means that sooner or later, somebody's
probably going to want to throw a punch. If you want character interaction,
you have to accept that some interactions are violent.
Even if you role-play Congress, fist-fights have broken out there! A game
that didn't allow for combat would be pretty arbitrary.
* R. Dan Henry, Dept. of Philosophy, UC Riverside *
* rdh...@ucrac1.ucr.edu * "Strange Dan" the Wereduck*
* "Can I still get an A if I only answered half the *
* questions?" - student, at end of final *
Jose Garcia
Trevor Barrie <tba...@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote:
>In article <768310...@wonder.demon.co.uk> jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk (INTER*ACTION) writes:
>
>>Is it? I'd say that all RPGs currently on the market over-
>>emphasize combat.
>>
>>designer thinks it's worth taking up that much of the rulebook to
>>focus on combat, it's a reasonable gauge of the amount of
>>emphasis that they've put on it in the game background.
>>
>>How much of your life do you spend in combat? 3-4%? Somewhat less,
>>I'd imagine.
You imagine correctly. Unfortunately your logic on game design and word
counts leaves something to be desired (no flame intended).
I spend 33% of my life sleeping. Should the page counts of rpgs devote
33% of their word count to sleeping rules?
Really though I would place more weight on how much of an emphasis is
made by the game on the use of force not by the presence of combat rules but
by the games genre conventions, examples of play, source material et. al
>
>Well, yeah, but most of my time is spent between poking around the internet
>and looking for work :). What rules are required for this? Rulebook space is
>used for material that actually requires rules, such as combat.
Part of it is a game genre convention as well. Gamers are willing to
accept arbritrary decisions in some matters but not in others. For example
most gamers I know wouldn't think twice about a GM arbritrarily deciding that
their PC didn't get a job. However the same player will take offence if the GM
arbritrarily decides that the character loses a fight. There's nothing right
or wrong about it gamers and genre conventions don't place and equal amount of
empahsis on everything, the more exciting and dramatic an activity the more
nitpicky things become.
>
>>
>>How much do movies, TV shows and books focus on combat? Granted,
>>some contain a lot more than 3-4%; but how many contain no combat
>>at all? Probably about a third: they have plots, structures and
>>characters who have no need of combat. The concept of resolving
>>problems physically simply isn't a part of their world-view. So
>>why don't RPGs reflect that? Why does every single RPG require a
>>section of the rules specifically about combat? Is the market for
>>RPGs really so adolescent that a game that doesn't pander to the
>>"kill stuff" mentality won't survive?
I think you're being too hard on rpgs. Consider the demographics of the
gaming industry which are just beginning to shift away from very young teenage
males to not so young teenage males. We'll always have rpgs constructed around
juvenile and violent themes but we're slowly getting rpgs catering to a more
sophisticated mindset.
I also think its unfair to do a direct % comparison between rpgs and mass
media, the demographics are much different. Both movies and rpgs are directed
toward certain age brackets. If you compare the movies addressed to teens and
young adults with rpgs I think you'll find much more favourable comparisons.
There is no rpg industry collorary to Merchant and Ivory for say (both in
terms of manufacturers and audience).
>>
>
>True, all RPGs I've seen are baed on genres that sometimes involve combat.
>Most genres do at least include the POSSIBILITY that combat may at some time
>ensue. Introspective-type stories may not, but these don't make great
>role-playing, because they're not interactive. Consequently, most games
>include combat as part of their overall action-resolution system.
>
On that point I disagree with you (yes I realize I'm talking to two
different people here). There's nothing about combat which is intrinsicly more
interactive than other forms of behavour. I've played in roleplaying games
with no combat and extremely intense interactions between the players. While I
don't have a handy Interactivity Meter I think I can safely say that
roleplaying situations are at *least* as interactive as slugfests.
>The bottom line is that I don't think allowing combat to occur in a game is
>the same as emphasizing it. Suppose you were making a Shakespearean
>role-playing game. This game would have to at least include sword-fighting
>rules ( I, with only limited knowledge of Shakespeare, can think of two
>sword-fights in Shakespeare right off the bat). Does that mean that the game
>over-emphasizes combat? Do you think Shakespeare over-emphasized combat
>because he included sword-fights?
If I were roleplaying Shakespeare I wouldn't use a very complex combat
system, in fact I wouldn't use a dice based system. Imagine a piss boy nailing
Macbeth with a critical hit in the battle which preceeds the play. Or even
worse McDuff (is that right) losing to MacBeth when he was sorta prophesized
to win.
>
>On the other hand, a purely dramatic game (as opposed to action-drama, which
>most of my favorite games cover) is a worthwhile goal, and one I'd be
>interested in seeing.
That's a feeling I share.
--
Jose Garcia
James Wallis
> In article <2qgiar$g...@bud.peinet.pe.ca>,
> Trevor Barrie <tba...@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote:
> >In article <768310...@wonder.demon.co.uk> jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk (INTER*ACTION) writes:
> >>
> >>How much do movies, TV shows and books focus on combat? Granted,
> >>some contain a lot more than 3-4%; but how many contain no combat
> >>at all? Probably about a third: they have plots, structures and
> >>characters who have no need of combat. The concept of resolving
> >>problems physically simply isn't a part of their world-view. So
> >>why don't RPGs reflect that? Why does every single RPG require a
> >>section of the rules specifically about combat? Is the market for
> >>RPGs really so adolescent that a game that doesn't pander to the
> >>"kill stuff" mentality won't survive?
>
> I think you're being too hard on rpgs. Consider the demographics of the
> gaming industry which are just beginning to shift away from very young teenage
> males to not so young teenage males. We'll always have rpgs constructed around
> juvenile and violent themes but we're slowly getting rpgs catering to a more
> sophisticated mindset.
>
> I also think its unfair to do a direct % comparison between rpgs and mass
> media, the demographics are much different. Both movies and rpgs are directed
> toward certain age brackets. If you compare the movies addressed to teens and
> young adults with rpgs I think you'll find much more favourable comparisons.
>
> There is no rpg industry collorary to Merchant and Ivory for say (both in
> terms of manufacturers and audience).
And why isn't there? You can't say definitely that the market
doesn't exist, because it's a market that no publisher has yet
tried to tap. The market for RPGs at present is dominated by young
males because all the product is aimed at young males, because the
market is dominated by young males: it's a vicious circle. At the
same time, the people who were teenaged when D&D first came out
are in their thirties now, and are probably getting very
different pleasures out of RPGs (if they still role-play, of
course) than they did when they started. Why isn't anybody
targeting that market sector?
--
James Wallis
Publisher of INTER*ACTION: The Journal of Role-Playing
and Storytelling Systems (jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk)
Loren Miller
>Because it's the difference between the life of a character and the death of
>a character. It's usually more detailed than other skills because players
>are (rightfully so) more interested in knowing what's happening, and the
>situation requires more detail to ensure fairness.
Actually, I would claim that combat gets more detail because designers tune
the rules so that player characters don't get killed as easily as they
should. If game combat is more survivable and more pleasant than real-life
combat, then that very fact encourages player characters to kill Kill KILL!
Horror games get around that by making game combat almost as dangerous and
unpleasant as real combat, but they still give PCs a break.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller LO...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when
Ramez Naam
can be an integral part of the game without combat itself taking place
very often. The home-rules game I run, Multiverse, has arguably the
most detailed and realistic combat system I've ever seen. Combat in
Multiverse, whether physical or magical, is deadly and uncertain. You
can never be quite sure what the other person is capable of, and even if
you are, there's still a large possibility of permanent injury or even
death, anytime you enter combat. In addition, the rules make it very
difficult for one character to fight several others at once, without
being slaughtered. The net effect of all this effort put into the
combat system is that my players rarely, if ever, enter combat.
Instead, they work alliances, use the threat of political and physical
violence, and try to gather what resources they need, in order to meet
their goals. Someone who reaches for his sword (or fire-bolt) every
time he faces opposition won't last long. He'll simply get unlucky
eventually, or get ganged up on. In most situations, the characters
involved (both PC's and NPC's) have a fair idea of how a fight between
them would go, and the side witht the superior resources to bring to
bear simply gets its way, unless the matter is one of _extreme_
importance, in which case desperate battles are fought, and sometimes
even won by the heavy underdog.
This all seems long-winded to make the point I'm trying to, I'm sure,
but it bears saying once, clearly: A combat system affects the way
characters treat combat. If it's easy, and clean, and offers little
opportunity for PCs to really get hurt, they'll get into fights
constantly. If, on the other hand, it's dirty, nasty, nitty-gritty, and
lethal, it'll discourage random violence.
--
Ramez Naam Nothing matters very much,
na...@uiuc.edu and very few things matter at all.
Champaign, IL -Lord Balfour
ludator
Simple facts. No RPG exists to simulate /reality/. People have enough
of reality already. They exist to simulate /a believable fantasy/. Now,
it just so happens that for some people, the believability limits are
smaller than for others. But if you were to take the most die-hard
"realism" RPG, at its core you would still find fantasy and fiction.
No one wants a game where their PCs wake up at 7:OO, eat breakfast, get
to work by 9, get off work at 5, and spend the weekends with their
friends fishing. Nobody wants a simulation of reality, because they
already /have/ reality. What they play RPGs for is to jump into a
/different/ definition of "reality", to become the hero of an adventure,
and to experience a little of the excitement they read about or watch on
TV.
For the most part, combat -- and, to avoid confusion, I will say physical
one man fighting another combat -- is an integral part of the adventurous
fiction. It is not, admittedly, the end-all-and-be-all of adventure
fiction, but it sometimes seems that way. The importance of combat in
any genre is related to what genre you are playing.
The importance of /conflict/ is incontestable. Conflict is what drives
adventure stories; it is why you have both a hero AND a villain. Whether
that conflict takes place on the field of honor, in court, etc. is
malleable, but there must be an antagonist. yes, sometimes in fiction
the antagonist is "the elements" or some similiar non-being -- but in the
long run, human/intelligent enemies are more interesting.
The problem with "diceless" systems IN GENERAL (disclaimer, disclaimer)
is that too often, they ignore the fact that dice exist to provide the
semblance of free will. Any game is meaningless if you either can't win
or you can't lose -- why play? When you write a novel, you decide what
happens, and believability takes a back seat to your whims. Authors have
only the burden of /telling/ the story, and do not need to worry about
what might happen. Spiderman really never has to worry about dying,
because he is the hero; he only has to worry about his sales falling :-)
Gamers, on the other hand, strive (at least in theory) to /live/ the
story, which is a major difference; when /gaming/ Spiderman, there must
be a real chance of his losing, or else the game is pointless. Dice
provide that chance, and traditional game mechanics are thus systems to
weight the dice, changing the odds from mere coin flips to more
believable results.
Thus, any diceless game system must have an alternate system of mechanics
that a) provide the mechanism to determine win vs. loss and b) weight
that mechanism according to believable limits (Spiderman will never out
armwrestle the Hulk). Every system I have seen has chosen "GM fiat" as
the mechanism, which fails because the GM can rarely be "Weighted" properly.
Just my opinions, although definitely not humble...
__ _ __ Vox Ludator (lud...@io.com) is brought to you by Earlville,
\ \ | | / / a tiny little division of Hellmark.
\ \| |/ / **********************************************************
\ \_/ / * "Ahh... you desire MEANING... Then listen to the music *
\___/ * and not the song..." -- Ambassador Kosh, _BABYLON 5_ *
| |_____ **********************************************************
|_______| Make the world safe for supers! Join Disposable Heroes!
For more information, check my .project file...
Bruce Johnson
>From: jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk (James Wallis)
>Subject: Re: Combat: Why? (was Re: Diceless Roleplaying Game)
>Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 14:26:19 +0000
[Much deleted]
>The market for RPGs at present is dominated by young
>males because all the product is aimed at young males, because the
>market is dominated by young males: it's a vicious circle. At the
>same time, the people who were teenaged when D&D first came out
>are in their thirties now, and are probably getting very
>different pleasures out of RPGs (if they still role-play, of
>course) than they did when they started. Why isn't anybody
>targeting that market sector?
Because as adults we're doing our best on the personal growth and
enlightenment every day (as well as working, paying the bills, taking out the
garbage, etc.) Playing a game where you occasionally get to take on a very
clear Bad Guy, and deal with them in a very simple, direct fashion, ie:
combat, is quite cathartic. If you want to get onto a discussion of whether
that's a horrible way to deal with frustration, this discussion has moved far
beyond the scope of game design. The single reason people play RPG's is
escapism. You want to get away from the gray, frustrating daily grind of
Real Life (TM) into something else. Slaying dragons is fun; 'searching for
personal growth' is just far too close to real life to be escapist.
The real problem here, as I see it, is not whether RPG's devote a lot of
time or little time to combat per se, but whether GM's do. Someone mentioned
a cyber punk game where their 'reasonably designed' character got mauled each
time. That isn't the game's fault, but the gamers. Any game system can be
set up to be non-violent if you're willing as a GM to bend the rules where
necessary. The problem then becomes one of defining challenges for the
players that don't involve or discourage violent resolutions. Because RPG's,
even the best of them are pretty simple, cartoonish versions of reality, the
challenges have to be pretty clear cut and direct. Over emphasizing subtlety
and introspection makes that cartoonish version very murky and hard to read.
At that point boredom sets in, and you no longer play.
Just my $0.02
Bruce Johnson
The University of Arizona
This place...have an OPINION????
Steve Gilham
>[snip]
Hi, James!
> How much do movies, TV shows and books focus on combat? Granted,
> some contain a lot more than 3-4%; but how many contain no combat
> at all? Probably about a third: they have plots, structures and
> characters who have no need of combat.
Let's consider the same question, only we weight the percentages by
$$$ grossed (i.e. those voted most popular have most influence).
Things like Star Wars and Arnie movies push the action-adventure with
obligatory combat further up the scale. It's not just that violence is
easy to write, but it's popular with the audience too.
> This hobby's got to start growing up sometime: it might as well
> start here.
That's a rather judgemental attitude. Myself, I say "If you enjoy
what you're doing, what's the problem? If you don't then you change it."
There's a place for letting one's hair down after a day's grind at the
office; and the action adventure genre RPG enables one to do this sort
of thing in the privacy of one's own home. OK, it burns off fewer
calories than the (this is hearsay, forgive me) Japanese custom of
going down into the basement and beating the tar out of an effigy of
the boss, but it's rather more sociable.
I'm quite happy that there can peacefully co-exist a whole spectrum
between the poles of Nintendo, table-top wargaming, campfire
storytelling, art-house-film direction and whatever other extremes you
care to mention; and different people will gravitate to different
parts of that configuration space. I don't believe in any illusion of
progress or value judgements in this hobby, just of "de gustibus, non
disputandum est". Play your fat, ugly, money-grubbing sexist merchants
all you like, it doesn't mean anything to me. Just don't expect me to
necessarily enjoy doing the same sort of thing. Thwe same goes for
combat-heavy arms race games.
Of course I could argue that there have been a lot of "mine's bigger
than yours" in the thread (of the sort "My mean-time-between-combats
is bigger than yours" {about every 6 sessions, now you ask}) :)
In sum - live and let live and it'll do wonders for the blood pressure.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |Lives of great men all remind us
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |We may make our lives sublime
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |And departing, leave behind us
arc.ug.eds.com |Tel:(44)223-314041 x304 |Footprints in the sands of time.
John H Kim
rules _do_ emphasize combat - by doing their best to make combat clear,
fun, and interesting - and doing nothing of the sort for other activities.
Think of the typical 3rd-gen RPG combat starting. You have
initiative, then you have an array of tactical choices in closing. You
have a wide set of maneuvers (attack with a weapon, charge, grapple, etc.),
and detailed stats on your weapons, and carefuully tracked damage.
Now take another activity - say, trying to shake someone who is
tailing you in a spy scenario. The rules will generally say - "Roll
against skill and compare to the opposing roll" - devoting at most a
paragraph to it, usually in the description of the shadowing skill.
This is the heart of the problem. Trying to lose a tail in a spy
scenario is a tense, exciting scene - and could very well be a matter of
life and death. By adding detail to the resolution, the rules could much
more easily reflect this.
Imagine a cyberpunk game in which netrunning was resolved by a
simple roll of Hacking Skill against Security Rating. Perhaps it wouldn't
be as interesting that way?
RPG's emphasize different activities by the detail and interest
which they put into the resolution. Note some non-combat examples: the
_James Bond_ RPG gives detail to vehicle chases as well as to personal
combat; various cyberpunk RPG's give detail to netrunning; _Ars Magica_
gives detail to arcane study and laboratory work; _Thieves Guild_ gives
detail to burglary and other theft. _Dallas_ (although I don't own it)
apparently gives detail to various power plays.
Now then, it is certainly possible to make play interesting
without help from the rules, but the rules do emphasize combat as the
interesting thing to do - especially to new and/or young players.
In particular, without help from rules players tend to feel
less confident in knowing how things will be handled, what their
choices are, and what chances their character has. _Detail_ is always
good - specific maneuvers and tricks, modifiers, and so forth. Many
games have a list of what seems to me arbitrary modifiers, not well-
thought out or playtested (i.e. put there for GM's to ignore).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>> >is emphasize fun storytelling rather than combat. Roleplaying games with
>> >dice all tend to emphasize combat, because they allow players to minimax
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that is important in simulation of combat.
>Think about the role-playing games you own. I personally have a
>collection of well over fifty, with experience of a great many
>more, and I can only think of one that doesn't have a combat
>system -- a section of the rules that quite specifically
>describes how to run combat within the game. Some games seem to
>consist of almost nothing but combat; but I'd say that on average
>the combat system takes up about 3-4% of the pagecount of a
>typical RPG. More if you consider what percentage of skills,
>equipment and spell lists are devoted to combat-orientated
>items.
Two reasons:
1/ Combat actually matters a hell of lot to the player - if combat arises
even if only very rarely, then that is where the the player's character
will DIE. You can stand arbitrary (sp?) decisions from GM and make-it-up
as you go in most places but a lot harder when your characters life goes
on the line.
2/ Combat is very difficult to simulate or adjudicate fairly with so many
factors involved. Even with FUDGE style simplifications, it was difficult.
If players will accept,
GM: " hmm you meet up with NPC X who has combat skill of y%, you have only
z%, he doesnt feel like letting you live and you cant run away, so sorry
you are dead. Another game anyone..?"
then okay, you dont need complex combat rules, but in my experience, players
will NOT accept it and even in very low combat games, sooner or later, combat
seems to happen.
Great Cthulhu
First, a comment to those who believe that you don't need a combat system. I
disagree, because even in situations where combat is clearly not the primary
focus (like the much-used Dallas example), it can come up (JR was shot!).
When that happens, you need some rules because most of us don't have much of
an idea of how effective different combat maneuvers ought to be. Combat is
always an option (even if not necessarily a good one) in ANY world which
involves mobile creatures. It is therefore necessary for ANY game system to
model that, unless you LIKE playing sessile creatures. B^)
Even GURPS: Scooby Doo (renowned for its lack of combat) needs some semblance
of combat rules to enable Freddie to dodge out of the way of the cropduster
that is being flown at him. B^) B^) B^)
jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> Think of the typical 3rd-gen RPG combat starting. You have
>initiative, then you have an array of tactical choices in closing. You
>have a wide set of maneuvers (attack with a weapon, charge, grapple, etc.),
>and detailed stats on your weapons, and carefuully tracked damage.
> Now take another activity - say, trying to shake someone who is
>tailing you in a spy scenario. The rules will generally say - "Roll
>against skill and compare to the opposing roll" - devoting at most a
>paragraph to it, usually in the description of the shadowing skill.
There's a fundamental difference here. I think most of us have a
significantly better idea of how shaking a tail ought to work (or, rather, how
effective the actions one might come up with would be) than how combat ought
to work. This is, IMHO, the basic reason why games do tend to provide more
rules for combat: because they're NEEDED. You don't need special rules to
lose a tail; in many systems, the standard rules for perception and relevant
skills can be used to break this task down as much as desired. Sure, you can
break it down into a single set of rolls. You can also model the same process
with a series of rolls depending on more detailed actions (like, say, "I duck
around a corner into the alley and hide in a shadowed doorway." The chase
isn't OVER until the tailer gives up searching the area, which may be a while
in game time).
> This is the heart of the problem. Trying to lose a tail in a spy
>scenario is a tense, exciting scene - and could very well be a matter of
>life and death. By adding detail to the resolution, the rules could much
>more easily reflect this.
I don't think special rules are needed to do this; the base rules for
perception and such will often do just fine. However, I don't think it is
reasonable to do combat that way, so you need new rules for combat.
[stuff deleted]
> In particular, without help from rules players tend to feel
>less confident in knowing how things will be handled, what their
>choices are, and what chances their character has. _Detail_ is always
>good - specific maneuvers and tricks, modifiers, and so forth. Many
>games have a list of what seems to me arbitrary modifiers, not well-
>thought out or playtested (i.e. put there for GM's to ignore).
Detail IS good, true. However, if you try to come up with special rules for
every imaginable case, you'll end up with a huge rule book. IMHO, current
games are at the right stage in this respect.
--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"I didn't like the way he was bleeding, so I made him stop."
-from Mutant League Football
GS d-(+) p-@ c++ !l u++ e+++ m+(-) s+/+ n- h---(*) f+ !g w+ t+ r++ y+
John H Kim
of RPG rules or the center of RPG's. (I continue to use combat to refer
to violent fighting - those who don't like that, deal).
Paul <cle...@magritte.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>The problem is this: Combat is one of the biggest problems PCs face. Why?
>Because it's the difference between the life of a character and the death of
>a character. It's usually more detailed than other skills because players
>are (rightfully so) more interested in knowing what's happening, and the
>situation requires more detail to ensure fairness.
OK - this might be true for some genres. I am running a Star Trek
game, however - and fairly regularly engineering or pseudo-science skills
are the ones which really make the difference on the big issues: Can the
science officer navigate the ship through the space-time rift? Can the
engineer shut down the overstrained engines without blowing up the ship?
Etc.
I think this is also very true in many other genres as well.
>
>While a GM can say "Okay, you passed your Engineering roll, you've managed
>to find the faulty pressure regulator and replace it", it's not as easy
>to say something like "Well, Mr. Bad Guy just hit you with his sword. You
>take damage, I guess." "How much?" asks the player. "Dunno. No rules for
>it. I guess you're unconscious and bleeding."
Excuse me? Well, if you assume stupidity on the part of the GM,
then you also should have starship Engineering rolls like: "OK, the engines
are damaged." "How damaged?" "They blow up, I guess."
It is easy to say that rules don't work by assuming stupidity
on the part of the GM. Obviously, for diceless resolution to be
reasonable, then the GM has to be able to handle description and maintain
a veneer of impartiality. There is much more to doing this than just
rolling dice.
James Wallis
> James Wallis wrote:
> > This hobby's got to start growing up sometime: it might as well
> > start here.
>
> That's a rather judgemental attitude. Myself, I say "If you enjoy
> what you're doing, what's the problem? If you don't then you change it."
(...)
> I'm quite happy that there can peacefully co-exist a whole spectrum
> between the poles of Nintendo, table-top wargaming, campfire
> storytelling, art-house-film direction and whatever other extremes you
> care to mention; and different people will gravitate to different
> parts of that configuration space. I don't believe in any illusion of
> progress or value judgements in this hobby, just of "de gustibus, non
> disputandum est". Play your fat, ugly, money-grubbing sexist merchants
> all you like, it doesn't mean anything to me. Just don't expect me to
> necessarily enjoy doing the same sort of thing. Thwe same goes for
> combat-heavy arms race games.
(...)
> In sum - live and let live and it'll do wonders for the blood pressure.
I'm not saying that every game should have less combat in it. For
many people, combat is the main reason that they role-play. I'm
simply saying that there ought to be an alternative, for those
people who are getting bored of slugfests, and who may well leave
the hobby if they can't find an alternative. Surprising numbers of
people do play games by the book, particularly professional people
who don't have the time to adapt existing rules systems or design
new adventures, and so are dependent on the published materials
they can buy. At the same time, these people are likely to be in
the older age bracket who may be becoming less interested in the
sort of power-conflicts that brought them into the hobby
originally.
James Wallis
> In article <768521...@wonder.demon.co.uk> jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk (James Wallis) writes:
> >From: jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk (James Wallis)
> >Subject: Re: Combat: Why? (was Re: Diceless Roleplaying Game)
> >Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 14:26:19 +0000
>
> [Much deleted]
>
> >males because all the product is aimed at young males, because the
> >market is dominated by young males: it's a vicious circle. At the
> >same time, the people who were teenaged when D&D first came out
> >are in their thirties now, and are probably getting very
> >different pleasures out of RPGs (if they still role-play, of
> >course) than they did when they started. Why isn't anybody
> >targeting that market sector?
>
> enlightenment every day (as well as working, paying the bills, taking out the
> garbage, etc.) Playing a game where you occasionally get to take on a very
> clear Bad Guy, and deal with them in a very simple, direct fashion, ie:
> combat, is quite cathartic. If you want to get onto a discussion of whether
> that's a horrible way to deal with frustration, this discussion has moved far
> beyond the scope of game design. The single reason people play RPG's is
> escapism. You want to get away from the gray, frustrating daily grind of
> Real Life (TM) into something else. Slaying dragons is fun; 'searching for
> personal growth' is just far too close to real life to be escapist.
Actually, there are many reasons for why people role-play for
recreation. Gary Fine, in his book "Shared Fantasy: role-playing
games as social worlds" (University of Chicago Press, 1983) gives
four main reasons for it: "the educational components of gaming;
gaming as an escape from social pressure; games as aids in
increasing one's sense of personal control or efficacy; and games
as aids in dealing with people". These four are usually summarized
as Socialising, Education, Escapism and Catharsis.
Russel Simmons
attmept at realism but mostly for the simple fact that unlike most
activities that you can engage in, combat of some form is almost sure to
provoke some sort of excitement (in real life combat quite a rush) in
just about everybody. Aside from sex, combat is arguably the most
intense action that someone can engage in, as it invokes our most primal
fight or flight instincts. I realize that there are many many other
things that can produce as or more intense reactions in people (certain
things for certain people), yet fighting seems to have a universal
appeal. Of course combat does not provoke that kind of reaction in
everyone, but for a company designing a game, the most sure-fire way to
get people excited and involved in the game is to include some form of
combat as an integral part.
In many ways the appeal of combat could be seen to also stem from the
competition inherent in fighting. In this sense most sports could be
considered largely pacified forms of combat. And combat against other
people, as in sports, is particularly exciting, which can be shown by
the boom of network computer games that pit human vs. human rather than
human vs. machine.
I realize this is a little too deep in theory but I think it is a very
likely explanation why most people enjoy combat games so much and the
companies therefore produce them for us.
--
Russ Simmons
p...@imsasun.imsa.edu
Trevor Barrie
> On that point I disagree with you (yes I realize I'm talking to two
>different people here). There's nothing about combat which is intrinsicly more
>interactive than other forms of behavour. I've played in roleplaying games
>with no combat and extremely intense interactions between the players. While I
>don't have a handy Interactivity Meter I think I can safely say that
>roleplaying situations are at *least* as interactive as slugfests.
I think you missed my point here. I'm not saying that combat is more
interactive than actual roleplaying; far from it. My point is that, in
virtually all genres where people interact with each other, there's a
chanced that one will take a swing at another. Not all, of course, but in
general, I think that's true.
> If I were roleplaying Shakespeare I wouldn't use a very complex combat
>system, in fact I wouldn't use a dice based system. Imagine a piss boy nailing
>Macbeth with a critical hit in the battle which preceeds the play. Or even
>worse McDuff (is that right) losing to MacBeth when he was sorta prophesized
>to win.
Well, I wouldn't use a _complex_ combat system either. But I would use a
combat system. It may be one as simple as "the better person always wins" or
"the more significant character always wins", but it would still be a
system.
Trevor Barrie
John H Kim
Gibson's point seems to be that combat needs special rules because people
don't understand it well. I say nonsense - if anything, players at least
think they know more about combat than they do about many other things
that the PC's engage in.
My comparison was between how current systems handle combat to
how they handle, say, shaking someone who is tailing you in a spy
scenario.
Great Cthulhu <d...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>There's a fundamental difference here. I think most of us have a
>significantly better idea of how shaking a tail ought to work (or, rather,
>how effective the actions one might come up with would be) than how combat
>ought to work. This is, IMHO, the basic reason why games do tend to
>provide more rules for combat: because they're NEEDED.
In short, bullshit. You can argue the case of shaking a tail, but
as far as the range of activities which PC's tend to get involved in -
combat does *not* stand out as being less well understood. Mountain
climbing, surviving in the wilds of Tibet, starting landslides, scuba
diving, bomb disposal - there are enormous numbers of much more specialized
activities PC's engage in.
There are those who say - "In real life, those things aren't fun."
Well, let me clue you in here - in real life, combat isn't fun. If the
same effort and thought was put into resolving other activities as
resolving combat - those other things would be a lot more interesting.
Anyhow, shaking a tail is not well understood by most people. The
average GM will *not* have a good estimate of the chances of a given person
picking up on the tail? Now how will that be effected by tag-teaming? How
do chances scale with the number of the team? How much does communication
among the team effect this (i.e. radios, special signals, etc.)? Heck,
most players won't even think of obvious moves like taking your hat off
in a crowd.
>
>You don't need special rules to lose a tail; in many systems, the standard
>rules for perception and relevant skills can be used to break this task
>down as much as desired. Sure, you can break it down into a single set
>of rolls. You can also model the same process with a series of rolls
>depending on more detailed actions
...
>However, I don't think it is reasonable to do combat that way, so you
>need new rules for combat.
Heck, many GM's won't even take into account the obvious choice
on the part of the tail in choosing range (closer means you are less
likely to lose him, but more likely for him to spot you). If you can
easily break apart shadowing into either one roll or a series of detailed
actions, why can't you do the same for combat. In particular, if a given
combat is not all that important, why can't you resolve it in one set of
rolls?
RPG's generally _force_ detail in combat situations, and omit
detail in non-combat resolution, in a number of ways:
(1) They suggest simple one-roll resolution of non-combat situations.
(2) They lump non-combat skills together, while splitting up combat skills
in fine detail (i.e. distinguishing braodsword and katana skill, or
katana skill from Fast-Draw: katana while there is only one skill for
History or Stealth).
(3) They list arbitrary and unreasonable modifiers for non-combat actions,
and fail to mention important details (i.e. including rules for
getting impaling weapons stuck in combat, but not mentioning the bends
in scuba diving).
My point is this - current RPG's do focus on combat. By removing
detail from combat, and adding it to other activities, you can change some
of this. You complained about `special case rules' - not neccessarily.
There is a lot that can be done with fairly universal mechanics: just
explain the steps, the skills involved, and the modifiers. What it cannot
do is provide information and detail.
Combat rules in general do *not* provide information, but rather
just mechanics: i.e. here is how to resolve grabbing someone - this is
something which everyone pretty much understands. In contrast, you might
have a section on climbing which actually explains about different
techniques and equipment. Scuba diving might cover the equipment,
problems that can occur, and so forth.
Tim Dunn
This I would assume means that they want to have details where the genre
source material is detailed, and they want to gloss over the stuff that
the genre source material glosses over.
John H Kim <jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
> RPG's emphasize different activities by the detail and interest
>which they put into the resolution. Note some non-combat examples: the
>_James Bond_ RPG gives detail to vehicle chases as well as to personal
>combat; various cyberpunk RPG's give detail to netrunning; _Ars Magica_
>gives detail to arcane study and laboratory work; _Thieves Guild_ gives
>detail to burglary and other theft. _Dallas_ (although I don't own it)
>apparently gives detail to various power plays.
I've yet to see a James Bondian car chase scene (in the films, from
whence the game is inspired; it bears little resemblance to the
Flemming works) that I didn't classify as combative to some degree.
Likewise, with most cyber-junk games trying to draw parallels
between netrunning and videogames (to appeal and appease the high
correlation between gamers and vidiots) the actions all seem to
be allegorized into violcence between icons, programs and whathaveyou.
Moreover, the amount of detail I want in a game is more dependent on
the referee. If the referee is wholly without any feelings for gun
combat, then Phoenix Command would be a lost cause. S/he would run
it sloppily, get the rules mixed up, and would follow the rules to
ruin in the case of a bad series of rolls that led to what would
normally be an unacceptable conclusion (in the eyes of a referee who
was as into firearm combat as the imaginary first person).
Likewise, if the referee were into futuristic forms of computer
security from fiction or from fact and extrapolation, then I would
expect him/her to detail out as much as expedient (this factor is
determined by referee skill) the netrunning and whathaveyou.
The key to this is (obviously) the knowledge and skill of the referee.
However, the first action of a skilled referee is to choose a genre
that s/he can run, knows the genre conventions, has a sense of the
mood of the genre. One of the crucial genre conventions is the dis-
tribution of the limelight.
Thus, I feel a skilled referee would choose a genre that s/he knows,
then using that knowledge, try to simulate the genre as much as is
possible. That a given game system has rules or has not rules for a
given action is acutally rather immaterial: if the action that the rules
seek to simulate is beyond the scope of the game (such as the effects
of airstrikes in a martial arts game), then I would think the skilled
referee would not use them.
--
Jose Garcia
Bruce Johnson <joh...@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu> wrote:
>In article <768521...@wonder.demon.co.uk> jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk (James Wallis) writes:
>>From: jou...@wonder.demon.co.uk (James Wallis)
>>Subject: Re: Combat: Why? (was Re: Diceless Roleplaying Game)
>>Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 14:26:19 +0000
>
> [Much deleted]
>
>>The market for RPGs at present is dominated by young
>>males because all the product is aimed at young males, because the
>>market is dominated by young males: it's a vicious circle. At the
>>same time, the people who were teenaged when D&D first came out
>>are in their thirties now, and are probably getting very
>>different pleasures out of RPGs (if they still role-play, of
>>course) than they did when they started. Why isn't anybody
>>targeting that market sector?
>
> Because as adults we're doing our best on the personal growth and
>enlightenment every day (as well as working, paying the bills, taking out the
>garbage, etc.) Playing a game where you occasionally get to take on a very
>clear Bad Guy, and deal with them in a very simple, direct fashion, ie:
>combat, is quite cathartic. If you want to get onto a discussion of whether
>that's a horrible way to deal with frustration, this discussion has moved far
>beyond the scope of game design. The single reason people play RPG's is
>escapism. You want to get away from the gray, frustrating daily grind of
>Real Life (TM) into something else. Slaying dragons is fun; 'searching for
>personal growth' is just far too close to real life to be escapist.
>
don't think that's all rpgs are. There are simple and cathartic movies, there
are also subtle and sophisticated movies. In my experience there is no reason
why rpgs can't have just a great a range as movies do.
The reason why there aren't such rpgs dominating the marketplace is more
of a reflection of the current audience than the inherent dynamics of the
medium itself.
Not to say that mature rpgs are "superior" to less sophisticated ones or
that they will eventualy dominate the marketplace (the Arnold Schwarzeneger's
of this world will always make more money than the Anthony Hopkins).
I personaly can attest to game sessions that were un-cathartic and
sophisticated. Something which I'm sure several other people can attest to as
well.
--
Jose Garcia
Jose Garcia
Loren Miller <lo...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <2qgm82$e...@usenet.rpi.edu> cle...@magritte.its.rpi.edu (...Paul) writes:
>>The problem is this: Combat is one of the biggest problems PCs face. Why?
>>Because it's the difference between the life of a character and the death of
>>a character. It's usually more detailed than other skills because players
>>are (rightfully so) more interested in knowing what's happening, and the
>>situation requires more detail to ensure fairness.
>
>Actually, I would claim that combat gets more detail because designers tune
>the rules so that player characters don't get killed as easily as they
>should. If game combat is more survivable and more pleasant than real-life
>combat, then that very fact encourages player characters to kill Kill KILL!
>Horror games get around that by making game combat almost as dangerous and
>unpleasant as real combat, but they still give PCs a break.
>
reasons are always more compelling for making PCs reasonable when it comes to
violence than lethal mechanics. GMs don't like killing off PCs and have plenty
of ways of preventing it from happening (not the least of which is simply not
throwing real nasty things at the PCs). Lethality in my experience hinges much
more on the GM and the game enviroment than the rules.
Regardless of lethality the best way to get PCs fingers off the triggers
is to make the non violent solutions more interesting. Which can be a simple
or a herculean task depending on the tastes of the players involved.
In the OTE series I was playing in last year we avoided violence like the
plague. Partly for in character reasons (my character didn't want to risk
getting shot and/or stabbed) but largely because we were having a blast with
all the non violent things going on.
>
>--
>+++++++++++++++++++++++23
>Loren Miller LO...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
>Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when
--
Jose Garcia
Tim Dunn
> Hum. Well, more about the need/emphasis of combat systems. Doug
>Gibson's point seems to be that combat needs special rules because people
>don't understand it well. I say nonsense - if anything, players at least
>think they know more about combat than they do about many other things
>that the PC's engage in.
You'll be surprised at how different the varied opinions on combat are.
Some people draw their "knowledge" from watching Ah-nold films. Others
may feel the depiction of combat in "gritty" vietnam films is more of
what the animal is like. Still others may find "Hill Street Blues" to
be the 'truth'.
Isn't this like 3 blind men and the elephant?
I'll say that if the genre the game is striving to evoke has combat, then
certainly, rules for combat should be included. In fact, these rules
should be sufficiently detailed that all the players "know" what combat
is like under this particular genre.
--
Great Cthulhu
> Anyhow, shaking a tail is not well understood by most people. The
>average GM will *not* have a good estimate of the chances of a given person
>picking up on the tail? Now how will that be effected by tag-teaming? How
>do chances scale with the number of the team? How much does communication
>among the team effect this (i.e. radios, special signals, etc.)? Heck,
>most players won't even think of obvious moves like taking your hat off
>in a crowd.
I still maintain that if you resolve everything at the individual person,
individual action level it will work just fine. To pick up on the tail, in
GURPS, I'd use Perception or perhaps Shadowing modified by appropriate enhanced
senses, with possible positive modifiers if the player states that he's on the
lookout for such things and negative modifiers for range and crowd density
(I'd probably use the missile range mods, perhaps tweaked some). If the
tailers are communicating, the effects will make themselves felt directly, and
their coordination will have obvious benefits. Other members of the tailing
team will be at the right place at the right time because they have been told
where to go; you don't need mechanics for that. I just don't see the problem.
Sure, perhaps players won't think of "obvious moves." If their characters are
skilled, I'd give a skill roll for such relevant information. And, if the GM
doesn't happen to realize this but a player tries it (and points out why it
should work), only a truly rotten GM would not take this into account, IMHO,
and there's probably nothing we can do to help such poor folks. If neither
the player NOR the GM realizes this, then it doesn't really matter, does it?
> Heck, many GM's won't even take into account the obvious choice
>on the part of the tail in choosing range (closer means you are less
>likely to lose him, but more likely for him to spot you). If you can
>easily break apart shadowing into either one roll or a series of detailed
>actions, why can't you do the same for combat. In particular, if a given
>combat is not all that important, why can't you resolve it in one set of
>rolls?
You can break combat down on your own assuming you know enough about combat to
do so. I maintain that combat is one of the things that most people do not
know enough about to handle that way on their own. IMHO, it would be much
harder to do that for combat than for picking up a tail. Believe me, I've
tried to do some research in the area of how combat really works. I think the
most striking thing I've found out is that accounts of battles are often
blatantly wrong (see John Keegan's _The Face of Battle_... he points out a
number of examples of eyewitness accounts of battles that are simply
impossible). Your mileage may vary, but I don't feel I NEED detailed rules in
most other areas. I DO think I need detailed combat rules.
I also have some difficulty with the concept of "unimportant combat." In the
games I run, there is no such beast. Risking one's life should never be
"unimportant," and there IS a risk of loss of life in virtually any combat,
hence the lack of "unimportant combat." If, for some reason, you have to deal
with a fistfight in a location which provides no possible improvised weapons,
then MAYBE you can deal with that with a single set of die rolls, but IMHO
that situation is sufficiently rare that I'm not worried about it (and it IS
an obvious extension in such a case to simply use a quick contest of skills).
> My point is this - current RPG's do focus on combat. By removing
>detail from combat, and adding it to other activities, you can change some
>of this. You complained about `special case rules' - not neccessarily.
>There is a lot that can be done with fairly universal mechanics: just
>explain the steps, the skills involved, and the modifiers. What it cannot
>do is provide information and detail.
Yes, there's a lot that can be done with generic rules; however, you
essentially need something new to add detail in any area, whether it be an
entirely new task resolution method or simply a table of modifiers. That
takes space, and some of us don't LIKE flipping through pages to find the
table of modifiers needed for each different type of action (nightmares of a
system an order of magnitude worse than RoleMaster come to mind... run away,
run away!) that comes up in a game.
> Combat rules in general do *not* provide information, but rather
>just mechanics: i.e. here is how to resolve grabbing someone - this is
>something which everyone pretty much understands. In contrast, you might
>have a section on climbing which actually explains about different
>techniques and equipment. Scuba diving might cover the equipment,
>problems that can occur, and so forth.
In some sense, mechanics ARE information. A modifier for standing in the same
area as a body lying on the floor in a fight might not be obvious to someone
who has never been in a fight; the fact that fighting in an area where things
are littering the floor (even if you are NOW standing with both feet placed
flat and firmly on the ground) is more difficult IS information. I'm not sure
whether you consider a die roll modifier a mechanic, but I do. It's not on
the same order as the basic task resolution mechanic(s), but it is
nevertheless a mechanic; it is a method for reflecting some part of the
reality being modeled in the game.
A short climb does not have the sort of rapidly changing conditions one often
finds in a fight. A long climb will be broken down into a series of shorter
ones by most GMs I've seen. I don't see the need for extra detail in this
area, because the actual effects of the equipment and techniques used (and
thus the chances of "success" in a short time segment) won't change nearly as
significantly in a climb over the course of, say, a minute as they will in a
group combat. A greater amount of detail is thus needed to handle the combat;
shorter time scales require greater detail for accurate treatment. IMHO, it
is sufficient to break a long climb down into shorter stretches and possibly
assigning different modifiers and giving choices along the way ("Well, Dave,
you've come to a tough overhang. It's probably safer to try to work your way
around, but it'll cost time... what do you want to do?") depending on the
situation at hand.
John H Kim
complained to others about ambiguous uses of "combat" and
"diceless". I didn't have a choice - a big thug up and made me
do it. Yeah, that's it.
Steve Gilham <ste...@arc.ug.eds.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>> Think of the typical 3rd-gen RPG combat starting. You have
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Please define your generation scheme; I've seen so many contradictory
>ones over the years. I don't *think* you mean RuneQuest, which is the
>majority-verdict of the schemes I can remember
Sorry. I am talking mainly about some recent skill-based systems,
like GURPS, Hero, Traveller: the New Era, Cyberpunk 2020, and so forth.
These typically have no classes, point-based character generation, a
profusion of skills, and an detailed blow-by-blow combat system.
I don't actually buy into the generation scheme very much, but
it is apparently fairly common. I don't really want to argue about it -
there are many things I don't like about classifying games this way.
I'll avoid it in the future.
>
>> Imagine a cyberpunk game in which netrunning was resolved by a
>> simple roll of Hacking Skill against Security Rating. Perhaps it wouldn't
>> be as interesting that way?
>
>I reduced netrunning just that way to make cyberpunk games *more*
>interesting (for the 80% of the players not involved).
I agree - I did the same thing for the cyberpunk game I
ran. I was speaking in a much more limited sense: the detail
regarding netrunning makes the _netrunning_ more interesting
(regardless of the rest of the players or the campaign).
In a given campaign, there are some things you want to gloss
over and resolve quickly - and others which you want to spend time
on. The same campaign could have a much different flavor if you
used, say, _Phoenix Command_ for the fights and glossed over the
in-betweens, or if you resolved each combat in one set of rolls.
Steve Gilham
> Think of the typical 3rd-gen RPG combat starting. You have
^^^^^^^^^^^
Please define your generation scheme; I've seen so many contradictory
ones over the years. I don't *think* you mean RuneQuest, which is the
majority-verdict of the schemes I can remember
> Imagine a cyberpunk game in which netrunning was resolved by a
> simple roll of Hacking Skill against Security Rating. Perhaps it wouldn't
> be as interesting that way?
I reduced netrunning just that way to make cyberpunk games *more*
interesting (for the 80% of the players not involved).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Barrie
> RPG's generally _force_ detail in combat situations, and omit
>detail in non-combat resolution, in a number of ways:
[deletia]
>(2) They lump non-combat skills together, while splitting up combat skills
> in fine detail (i.e. distinguishing braodsword and katana skill, or
> katana skill from Fast-Draw: katana while there is only one skill for
> History or Stealth).
While this may make combat more detailed, I'd like to point out that this
could, in some systems, serve to de-emphasize combat. How? Because, if
combat is broken down into a lot of skills, it becomes more expensive to
make a combat-master than a master of other skills, which can serve to
discourage those types of characters.
Just a thought,
Trevor Barrie
George Harris
>
>> If I were roleplaying Shakespeare I wouldn't use a very complex combat
>>system, in fact I wouldn't use a dice based system. Imagine a piss boy nailing
>>Macbeth with a critical hit in the battle which preceeds the play. Or even
>>worse McDuff (is that right) losing to MacBeth when he was sorta prophesized
>>to win.
I think this example points out some of the basic differences
amongst the various points of view here. "If I were roleplaying Shakespeare..."
Shakespeare is an author/playwright, and his works are works of literature.
Some people prefer that their gaming be in that style; i.e. plot driven,
with everything centered around whatever is most dramatic/funny/tragic/what-
ever. Others, however, prefer a game that is more character-driven, not in
the sense that characters drive a story, but rather what happens is purely
a result of what the *characters* want/try to do (at their players' behest,
usually), and the consequences of that in interaction, ideally impartial,
with a game-world which follows the conventions of the *role-playing* genre
(as opposed to literary genre). So, if you prefer a more literary style
of gaming, you aren't going to be eager to have some occurance you know
nothing about throw a monkey wrench into the works and send the session
into a confused muddle. Conversely, if you prefer a more "simulationist"
style, you are going to be impatient with a GM who tries to steer the cam-
paign into a preplanned direction, when you just want an honest chance
of achieving or failing to achieve your goals, based on just your charac-
ters abilities rather than the "appropriate" outcome.
So, yes, if I were role-playing MacBeth, I would be upset if a
piss-boy nailed him in the first act. However, I would *hate* to role-play
MacBeth, because he is a tragic hero. He is destined to die in Act V.
He is *doomed*. Some people just don't think that is fun.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George...@bbs.oit.unc.edu or, preferably gha...@jade.tufts.edu
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John H Kim
reclarifying that I have not suggested removing combat systems entirely.
David Finch called for games which have no need for combat, which
therefore do not have combat systems. Neither of us suggested removing
combat systems from games in genres which feature combat.
Tim Dunn <td...@netcom.com> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>Doug Gibson's point seems to be that combat needs special rules because
>>people don't understand it well. I say nonsense - if anything, players
>>at least think they know more about combat than they do about many other
>>things that the PC's engage in.
>
>You'll be surprised at how different the varied opinions on combat are.
>Some people draw their "knowledge" from watching Ah-nold films. Others...
Yes - sorry about my use of subtle language. I said players
at least *think* they know more about combat. I'd certainly agree
that opinions differ on what combat is really like. OTOH, opinions
will also differ on what cryptography is really like, or what mountain
survival is really like.
If the game makes clear its genre, then that goes a long way
towards clarifying what combat is like. For example, many people would
have a reasonable idea what a _Three Musketeers_ combat is like.
>
>I'll say that if the genre the game is striving to evoke has combat, then
>certainly, rules for combat should be included. In fact, these rules
>should be sufficiently detailed that all the players "know" what combat
>is like under this particular genre.
Yes, but they don't _all_ need to be as detailed as they tend
to be nowadays. I never suggested not having a combat system at all
(that was David Finch, I think). My main suggestion was to have games
about less combat-heavy genres, with more information and detail in
non-combat activities.
John H Kim
even more at length with Doug Gibson in particular about combat vs.
spotting someone tailing you; and in general about combat mechanics
vs. non-combat mechanics.
I am trying to condense here. I will distinguish between
detailed mechanics and free-form resolution - even though there is a
wide spectrum in between these.
Doug's point seems to be that combat, and combat alone, requires
detailed mechanics. Frankly, I find it odd that someone could perfectly
well understand advanced electronics, scuba diving, hang-gliding, mountain
climbing, wilderness survival, security procedures, bomb disposal, and
many more - but be incapable of understanding personal combat.
Great Cthulhu <d...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>You can break combat down on your own assuming you know enough about combat to
>do so. I maintain that combat is one of the things that most people do not
>know enough about to handle that way on their own. IMHO, it would be much
>harder to do that for combat than for picking up a tail. Believe me, I've
>tried to do some research in the area of how combat really works.
Well, offhand, who cares if it is realistic? In fact, none
of the combats I have seen in RPGs nearly qualify as 'realistic' -
and frankly, I wouldn't want them to be (realistic combat is nasty).
Similarly, other technical activities are rarely realistic. Somehow
I doubt that an off-the-cuff, no-experience handling of shadowing
will accurately represent the methods of professional spies. And so
forth and so on.
Focus on what you want to, by all means. It appears that you
are interested in detail and realism in combat - but not interested in
doing the same for other activities. That's fine. But I think there
are people who are not interested in perfect realism and detail in
combat - but would be interested in more detail in other activities,
making them more in-depth and interesting.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
For brevity, I am cutting out the shadowing example, and including
only this...
[Re: resolving mountain climbing]
>
>A short climb does not have the sort of rapidly changing conditions one often
>finds in a fight. A long climb will be broken down into a series of shorter
>ones by most GMs I've seen. I don't see the need for extra detail in this
>area, because the actual effects of the equipment and techniques used (and
>thus the chances of "success" in a short time segment) won't change nearly as
>significantly in a climb over the course of, say, a minute as they will in a
>group combat. A greater amount of detail is thus needed to handle the combat;
>shorter time scales require greater detail for accurate treatment. IMHO, it
>is sufficient to break a long climb down into shorter stretches and possibly
>assigning different modifiers and giving choices along the way ("Well, Dave,
>you've come to a tough overhang. It's probably safer to try to work your way
>around, but it'll cost time... what do you want to do?") depending on the
>situation at hand.
This whole section just confuses me. Do you really think you
can get an accurate treatment of mountain climbing without any actual
information or experience on the subject? I would think this is
obvious.
It seems to me clear that the short/long time scale issue has
nothing to do with it. You put in detail and accuracy where you want
it. To you, it is "sufficient" to have a superficial and off-the-cuff
handling of climbing.
In my mind, it is a possibly fatal and highly technical undertaking,
and it might be nice to make it more in-depth and interesting. Just as
there is no such thing as an "unimportant combat" when death is a possible
result - there is no such thing as an unimportant climb of significant
heights.
The problem with resolving it is that most players and GMs don't
know much about mountain climbing, and consequently things tend to get
abstracted into a few rolls and simplistic choices. Providing more
information helps this.
Jose Garcia
>John H Kim <jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>> Hum. Well, more about the need/emphasis of combat systems. Doug
>>Gibson's point seems to be that combat needs special rules because people
>>don't understand it well. I say nonsense - if anything, players at least
>>think they know more about combat than they do about many other things
>>that the PC's engage in.
>
>You'll be surprised at how different the varied opinions on combat are.
>Some people draw their "knowledge" from watching Ah-nold films. Others
>may feel the depiction of combat in "gritty" vietnam films is more of
>what the animal is like. Still others may find "Hill Street Blues" to
>be the 'truth'.
>
>Isn't this like 3 blind men and the elephant?
>
determine what "realistic" combat is like is pointless - even real world
firearms experts disagree over the issue.
What an rpg should do is to portray a certain genre convention "combat in
this system is like this...". One of the best ways to demonstrate this is via
examples of combat or references such as "Combat in MyGame (tm) works like it
does in the Hong Kong kung fu movies of the 70's". That gives you something
tangible, everyone can know what to expect.
>I'll say that if the genre the game is striving to evoke has combat, then
>certainly, rules for combat should be included. In fact, these rules
>should be sufficiently detailed that all the players "know" what combat
>is like under this particular genre.
>
Rules don't communicate much. First of all the effects of rules aren't
always obvious. And several players (probably most) don't own a copy of the
rulebook. And there's also games where what there is a huge difference between
what the designer intended combat to be like and what the rules actualy do. In
cases like these the lack of descriptions leaves players hanging in the wind.
--
Jose Garcia
Andy Skinner
. . .
Focus on what you want to, by all means. It appears that you
are interested in detail and realism in combat - but not interested in
doing the same for other activities. That's fine. But I think there
are people who are not interested in perfect realism and detail in
combat - but would be interested in more detail in other activities,
making them more in-depth and interesting.
Would you have RPG rules describing all the various activities that characters
could undertake in some genre? You sound like you would like some info on
what some actions are really like (or the more fun romanticized versions of
them, like you want for combat) and how to interpret them using game mechanics.
Can game rules be a reference for that much information, or are you suggesting
using a library and applying some set of rules? If the former, I guess a
game would define its genre largely by which actions it covers in detail.
I've been hoping that you'd give some examples on how to put more detail
into other kinds of actions. Is there some generic system for handling things
in more detail, or do you have to work it out differently for different
actions? Is it just breaking the action into different steps, and then
applying some knowledge of the specific action to interpretation by the
game mechanics? A combat done on a round or blow basis gives characters the
chance to run away--I wouldn't want a single roll determination if that meant
I could get killed without bugging out if things went against me. Climbing a
cliff with several rounds is sorta similar, in that you "win" over the cliff
gradually. However, if you succeed at the beginning, you could be setting
yourself up for a worse failure later. In combat, if you start winning, it
should get easier (I guess, since I don't know anything about combat).
I'll propose an obvious generic mechanic for actions that you want to play
in more detail. Y'all (can I say that here in Philadelphia?) tell me
whether you can use it in general, or whether you need to handle every action
differently. Sometimes it's useful to state the obvious.
Break up the action into different steps (some distance up the cliff, blows
traded in combat, number of guards slipped past, blocks or neighborhoods
passed while trailing someone, ...). Rolls must be made for each step, with
difficulty modifiers (perhaps changing per step) and with bonuses for things
the character does to help that step (or penalties for dumb things: bonehead
bonuses). Particularly good successes give bonuses on the next step. Or,
you could have successes whittle down some number similar to hit points in
combat. The better your success on a step, the more of this "resistance" or
whatever is used up, so the number of steps it takes is affected by how well
you do. Say that in FUDGE, a cliff is said to be of Good difficulty: a Good
climber can get up it most of the time, or it takes a Good effort to get up
it. The GM could also assign it a number of feet or yards, and knock off
some for each level of success better than Good: a Good climb advances you
1 yard, a Great effort gets you 2, etc. The first method I suggested has
a fixed number of steps you need to succeed at. The second (I think more like
combat usually is now) varies in length depending on how well you do.
Is this useful? It is the kind of thing I hoped somebody would mention in
one of these posts. Justifies rec.games.design a bit more, too.
Jonathan O'Donnell
>Actually, I would claim that combat gets more detail because designers tune
>the rules so that player characters don't get killed as easily as they
>should.
I played in a Bunnies and Burrows freeform (interactive fiction) game
where all combat was decided by a toss of the coin. Needless to say,
there was no combat.
Loren Miller
> So, yes, if I were role-playing MacBeth, I would be upset if a
>piss-boy nailed him in the first act. However, I would *hate* to role-play
>MacBeth, because he is a tragic hero. He is destined to die in Act V.
>He is *doomed*. Some people just don't think that is fun.
Horror roleplaying games have already demonstrated that some people enjoy
playing characters who are definitely going to die, the only questions being
how soon and how horribly. I see no reason why people couldn't have just as
much fun playing doomed characters in a classic tragedy as they have playing
doomed characters in a horror story.
John H Kim
OK - I'll try to clarify what I am looking for in these non-combat
mechanics.
Andy Skinner <ski...@fuzzy.stdavids.picker.com> wrote:
>Would you have RPG rules describing all the various activities that characters
>could undertake in some genre? [...] Can game rules be a reference for
>that much information, or are you suggesting using a library and applying
>some set of rules?
Well, part of both, really. If you reduce the 30+ page combat
rules to only 5 pages or so, then that gives 25 pages for other activities.
You put detail into the activities that you want to focus on.
For example, say I was making a Gothic Fantasy game. Rather than
combat, I want to concentrate on mysteries and intrigue. So I have
detailed sections on perception/clue-finding, and on social interactions.
For Perception, to start with I'd have a table like:
-4 or more Engaged in other activity
-2 Everyday
0 Looking around
+2 Searching for a specific class
+4 Know exactly what you are searching for
+6 Know exactly what and where to search for it
This makes clear the sort of effect which role-playing has on
results. One player looks around a crime scene for clues, another
searches for a dropped weapon, and a third looks for a onyx dagger -
then they will have different results. This motivates the players to
_think_ about what they are looking for.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
For social intrigue, I'd require that PC's and NPC's have some
basic personality traits specified in order of dominance. Thus there
is an explicit base for the Judge of Character mechanic I talked about
earlier.
In addition, separate from Judge of Character is the Read Stress
skill, which is used to spot lies by involuntary responses - but can
be fairly unreliable. It is resisted by Guile, which is essentially
skill in telling lies. There are thus separate skills: one for feigning
other personalities or emotions (Acting/Pretend), and one for telling
lies calmly and smoothly.
For example, a character with a good Judge of Character might spot
someone out as a slimy con-man, but might not be able to tell what he was
lying about and what was the truth.
There should also be a fairly in-depth discussion about problems
in using Influence skills (i.e. Persuasion, Bargaining, etc.) My basic
idea would be to choose these skills so that they more represent first
impressions - thus the player would roll first, then the GM would use
that roll to color the rest of the encounter.
I might or might not include mechanics for eloquence or
improvisational skills. Basically, for a character with, say, a high
diplomacy skill I would give guidelines for allowing the _player_ to
take more time in deciding what to say. This might also allow the
player to take back a slip of the tongue a certain number of times,
depending on his skill.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Andy's suggestion for a generic resolving mechanism:
>
>Break up the action into different steps (some distance up the cliff, blows
>traded in combat, number of guards slipped past, blocks or neighborhoods
>passed while trailing someone, ...). Rolls must be made for each step, with
>difficulty modifiers (perhaps changing per step) and with bonuses for things
>the character does to help that step (or penalties for dumb things: bonehead
>bonuses). Particularly good successes give bonuses on the next step. Or,
>you could have successes whittle down some number similar to hit points in
>combat. The better your success on a step, the more of this "resistance" or
>whatever is used up, so the number of steps it takes is affected by how well
>you do.
Hmmm. I've played in a unpublished game called _Spellcrafter_
which had very close to this sort of mechanic. While it was quite
consistant and clear, in the end I didn't think very much of it. Breaking
down an action into a series of rolls does by itself not make the action
more interesting. In fact, dragging out the resolution can just make
things more boring.
IMO, the interesting thing is not the rolls or the results,
but rather the role-playing and character choices which go into them.
Having a resistance track and more steps just increases the mechanics,
it doesn't make the resolution more interesting.
EXAMPLE:
Say a character is climbing a sharp mountain peak. The GM makes
a roll for him to estimate the difficulty of the climb, and possible
pitfalls. If he fails, the GM will lie to him about these. Now he must
choose how safe he is going to play it - if he takes a lot of equipment
and plays it safe, then crises may be averted - but it will take longer,
and he will be more fatigued from the extra load and work of driving in
pitons. With the extra time, he might not be able to make it to the
peak and back by nightfall.
Say he decides to play it looser. Now he will be less fatigued
and sharper, but the consequences of a mistake could be much worse.
He makes his roll, and by comparing this to the difficulty of the
mountain, the GM decides on a number of crisis points, choosing their
nature based on the particular mountain. One might be keeping a hold of
the cliff from a particularly strong gust of wind, one might be regaining
traction when crawling up a sheet of ice, and so forth. Each of these
might take different sorts of rolls and modifiers (Strength, Dexterity,
etc.). Different equipment will help on different crises - so just
what he specified as his equipment makes a difference.
Here the action has been broken down into a series of rolls,
but the basis is in the action. If the character was sufficiently
skilled, he might have done the whole thing in one roll - no crises
occured.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Shadowing is somewhat different. The shadowers have a critical
decision here: follow him closely, with greater risk of being spotted; or
follow at a distance, with greater risk of losing him. It has two critical
initial rolls: one roll for the shadowers to keep onto him (with various
modifiers for the nature of his planned trip, and their strategy); and one
roll for whether the target notices he is being followed - with results
ranging from nagging suspicion to being sure of the person.
If he doesn't spot them, that's it - they follow him to where
he is going. If he does, then the ball is in his court - he can alter his
plans. You should repeat these rolls each time he tries a different
method to lose them.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Anyhow, my point is that it is detail and choices which make
the resolution interesting. Hopefully the examples have conveyed some
of that feeling.
Jose Garcia
George Harris <George...@launchpad.unc.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2ql01j$t...@ionews.io.org> jga...@io.org (Jose Garcia) writes:
>>
>>> If I were roleplaying Shakespeare I wouldn't use a very complex combat
>>>system, in fact I wouldn't use a dice based system. Imagine a piss boy nailing
>>>Macbeth with a critical hit in the battle which preceeds the play. Or even
>>>worse McDuff (is that right) losing to MacBeth when he was sorta prophesized
>>>to win.
>
> I think this example points out some of the basic differences
>amongst the various points of view here. "If I were roleplaying Shakespeare..."
>Shakespeare is an author/playwright, and his works are works of literature.
>Some people prefer that their gaming be in that style; i.e. plot driven,
An example which I think you've taken out of context. The example I cited
was a purely hypothetical circumstance to demonstrate how different gaming
paradigms require different mechanic paradigms.
[analysis deleted]
>
> So, yes, if I were role-playing MacBeth, I would be upset if a
>piss-boy nailed him in the first act. However, I would *hate* to role-play
>MacBeth, because he is a tragic hero. He is destined to die in Act V.
>He is *doomed*. Some people just don't think that is fun.
>
I wasn't trying to demonstrate why any paticular set of mechanics is
inferior to another just that some gaming paradigms call for different
mechanical solutions. I agree MacBeth would make for a dull rpg *for me* but
I think it serves its purpose as a hypothetical example.
While the example is a tad extreme I think you can agree with me that
there are differences in the paradigms of rpg players. Some players want to
simulate "reality", others want to focus on interpersonal interaction, for
others the "quality" of the story that unfolds is more important and still
others just want to blow things away and have fun.
Now while you can play rpgs using any set of mechanics regardless of
your paradigm, certain mechanics are better suited to certain paradigms than
others. Players who want quick and dirty combat and don't care about details
won't enjoy Phoneix Command while the reality simulationists do. Personal
interaction types might dislike rules governing their characters behavour
(alignment, pysch lims, etc) while the very same rules might be just what the
doctor ordered for other types. Its only logical that the same is true for
task resolution, the use of random die rolls as opposed to other means
(getting back to the original point here).
--
Jose Garcia
Dr Richard M Vickery
have been saying, however it seems to me that John has
kinda skipped Andy's question about a multi-stage action
resolution procedure (what a mouthful!). I think
that these are nice, but they must be interesting
and enhance character choices and not be simply (as John said)
a drawn out process that could just as well be simulated by one roll.
A multi-stage procedure should provide new information at each stage
for the characters to operate on, and preferably this will open
up new avenues of action. I would gues that this couldn't work in rock
climbing to any great extent - the effort is in the preparation and
the cliff does not change in an unexpected way very dramatically
as one ascends. Repairing a car probably would work, and might
even be interesting, but would require the rules to cover car mechanics
(or player and GM to have this knowledge).
Two constraints on procedures for which a multi-stage resolution would
be good seem sensible
(1) it must involve interaction with intelligent beings
(2) it must be of immediate and urgent importance to the character's
well-being. This seems to me to leave three main areas:
talking oneself out of trouble/negotiating/parley
fighting (if option A fails)
running away/pursuit (if option B is not attractive).
Other actions such as cliff climbing, singing or car repair can be
covered by a single roll modified by task difficulty, character
aptitude and character preparation.
I think that of the three good for multi-stage resolution
only combat recieves enough (too much) attention in most systems.
Conversely most systems are poor at determining whether an NPC
convinces a character in an argument.
I use related, but not identical methods to resolve the three cases,
which basically involves a whittling down mechanism with various
(and cunning) modifiers for character action.
Interesting discussion - thanks people!
--
Richard Vickery \ / Our Quest is for meaning,
Physiology, UCL (London) (oVo) but the Meaning IS the quest.
ph. 44-71-387 7050 x3256 ) (
fax 44-71-383 7005 ^ ^ Life's a Hoot!
Paul Jackson
John H Kim <jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
> For example, say I was making a Gothic Fantasy game. Rather than
>combat, I want to concentrate on mysteries and intrigue. So I have
>detailed sections on perception/clue-finding, and on social interactions.
>
> For Perception, to start with I'd have a table like:
>
>-4 or more Engaged in other activity
>-2 Everyday
> 0 Looking around
>+2 Searching for a specific class
>+4 Know exactly what you are searching for
>+6 Know exactly what and where to search for it
>
> This makes clear the sort of effect which role-playing has on
>results. One player looks around a crime scene for clues, another
>searches for a dropped weapon, and a third looks for a onyx dagger -
>then they will have different results. This motivates the players to
>_think_ about what they are looking for.
Your example is fascinating in that it actually shows how hard (and, IMO,
wrong) it would be to specify the rules at this level of detail. If I make
the further assumption that the crime scene is a reasonably small space (eg,
a room or an apartment) I'd say the odds of somebody noticing an onyx dagger
would be identical whether they're looking for clues, looking for a weapon
or looking for an onyx dagger. The item is, itself, sufficiently odd as to
attract attention.
Now, if the clue was a business card I'd agree that the odds should perhaps
be different depending upon what was looked for.
In other words, the perception modifier also has to take into account how
bizarre the item is in the location being searched. It also has to take
into account the size of the item, how well hidden it is, etc etc etc.
While one probably could come up with a codification of all of this, it
really does seem better to rely upon the intuition of the experienced GM
to come up with a net modifier to the search based upon all of these factors.
All but the worst/least inexperienced GMS will already take into account
factors such as the character explicitly looking for the right thing in the
right place.
--
Paul Jackson
John H Kim
I discussed in a previous post.
This seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding. I did
_not_ intend to imply that the modifiers I listed for attention should be
the only modifiers there are to the Perception roll - that would be silly.
Besides the modifier for the attention being paid, there is a
basic difficulty for the Perception roll: how hard the object is to
see, how far away it is, etc. The GM can set the basic difficulty without
knowing what the players are doing - then modify their roll based on
range, attention, and time spent looking.
Paul Jackson <pa...@turing.toronto.edu> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>> This makes clear the sort of effect which role-playing has on
>>results. One player looks around a crime scene for clues, another
>>searches for a dropped weapon, and a third looks for a onyx dagger -
>>then they will have different results. This motivates the players to
>>_think_ about what they are looking for.
>
>Your example is fascinating in that it actually shows how hard (and, IMO,
>wrong) it would be to specify the rules at this level of detail. If I make
>the further assumption that the crime scene is a reasonably small space (eg,
>a room or an apartment) I'd say the odds of somebody noticing an onyx dagger
>would be identical whether they're looking for clues, looking for a weapon
>or looking for an onyx dagger. The item is, itself, sufficiently odd as to
>attract attention.
So what's your point? It seems to me the modifiers work just fine
in that case. If the onyx dagger is sufficiently obvious (i.e. laying on
a red carpet in the apartment), then obviously a Perception roll is not
needed - anyone who is in a position to see it (does a thorough search of
the apartment) will notice it. In terms of the system, the difficulty of
the task is very low - such that in most cases you will have an automatic
success. (I should mention here that the roll I am basing this on is a
bell curve roll from 0 to 5).
Now it can be argued that *any* sort of specificity of this sort
is pointless, since there are exceptions. Consider in a detailed combat
system the example of cutting a helpless victim's throat. Roll to hit,
roll damage, etc. - using the full combat system is pointless and doesn't
work. At least my Perception mods still work in this case.
__________
>
>In other words, the perception modifier also has to take into account how
>bizarre the item is in the location being searched. It also has to take
>into account the size of the item, how well hidden it is, etc etc etc.
Yes - I thought this was obvious and implied, sorry. The basic
difficulty of the Perception roll should take all these into account -
the GM can set this most easily by considering how hard it would be for
an average person to notice it just by looking around for a given period
of time and at a given distance. The _modifiers_ are the character's
Perception rating, the time spent looking, the range, and the attention
modifier.
>
>While one probably could come up with a codification of all of this, it
>really does seem better to rely upon the intuition of the experienced GM
>to come up with a net modifier to the search based upon all of these factors.
>All but the worst/least inexperienced GMS will already take into account
>factors such as the character explicitly looking for the right thing in the
>right place.
Two points. First of all, in my experience most GM's will *not*
make clear how or how much they are modifying based on how the players
specify the search. The players often think that describing their
search is just gloss on the basic "We search the place". To them, the
thing that should make a difference is their character's Perception
stat/skill.
My primary motivation for putting the table in is to make it
_explicitly clear_ to the players the sort of difference it makes if
they specify their search. By putting in the table it is made clear
that you are _requiring_ detailed description rather than "We search
the place".
In my experience, GM's are really *lousy* at handling Perception
rolls. At worst is: "Roll Perception." (roll) "Did you make it?" (Yes)
"OK, then, you see...". The GM doesn't take any modifiers: the only way
they distinguish is - is a Perception roll required or not. This is
fairly common.
A step up is: "Roll Perception." (roll) "How much did you make
it by?" (6) "Uh, well - did anyone else do better?" (No) "OK - you see
the clue - there are a set of wagon tracks..." Here the GM may
subconciously be taking into account modifiers like attention - but it
is clear to the players that there is not a logical system behind this.
They are not encouraged to go into detail, as it is not clear what
difference it will make.
Andy Skinner
Paul Turing says that we need to trust to intuition, since we can't put
info about every case of every action down. I partly agree with this, but
I'd like to see suggestions for GMs to use when they want to pay more attention
to some action. Not all suggestions will apply to all situations. All of
them need to be more than just more rolls to make. They need details about
the activity and the possible hazards of not succeeding at it and the possible
benefits of doing very well.
Here are some things we have so far, and a bit more:
1) Learn something about the action--either use a library, or when designing
a game for a specific genre which requires an action to be covered in more
detail, write up a description of how the character should go about it, and
what factors make it easier or harder.
2) Multiple steps--I'm listing three different kinds. Probabilities for
success vary with this--characters' performances average out over multiple
attempts (in FUDGE terms, a character with Good skill might get Good a couple
of times, a Fair, and a Superb, for example), and the overall chance of
success decreases because there are more opportunities to fail. You have to
think whether a success means there were no failures. I think bonuses to later
steps should be given for good successes at earlier steps. I also think that
giving the character the chance to get in over his head is important in making
it interesting--a miserable attempt to climb the cliff at the beginning will
only leave them standing at the bottom; early success and then a big failure
will leave them lying in the bottom. That would add a realistic tension, I
think. Also note that I agree with John K. that you don't want to just have
to roll some number of times.
A) Whittling down the difficulty or resistance or something--do this if the
actions are exciting enough to want to see everything (do you want to
imagine each swing or shot in a combat?) or if you want to give the
character a chance to change tactics depending on how it is going. I
give combat as an example because you are whittling down hit points, but
I know you could change that--instead you are trying to back them up or
whatever. This could be repeated attempts to do the same thing, I guess.
I think the ability to use different tactics _and_ to change tactics in
the process is an important factor in increasing interest in other actions.
B) Specific sub-actions--John mentioned sizing up a mountain cliff before
trying to climb it. I like Ars Magica's suggestion of using (don't
remember exactly--don't flame me) perception + sword skill to gauge an
enemy's ability and dexterity + sword skill as the attack.
C) Some set number of times you need to succeed--this doesn't seem very
interesting to me.
3) Different modifiers for different situations. I don't think I'd want this
specified for me (I'd definitely want to use GM intuition), unless it were for
specific systems that wanted to explain how something worked, like a magic
system. One thing that I like about John's increasing modifiers for looking
for more specific things: increasing specificity helps you find the thing you
are looking for, but it reduces what you can find. For Faerie Queen & Country
has a general spontaneous magic system--you can make a spell more specific,
which may limit it, but it also limits what could go wrong. A very general
spell based on some kind of destruction action (I destroy you) could go wrong
and destroy anyone or anything that is a "you"--so maybe it protects yourself.
It could also destroy them loudly and messily, or in a faint hiss and dissolve.
(Don't have that system in front of me, either, so I'm kinda winging it.)
"I break the goblin's bones" can go wrong too, but with far fewer possible
outcomes. Well, this seemed more relevant when I first thought of it.
4) Specify some actions that might be appropriate and some that can be used
to oppose those actions. John explored those a bit. Of course, players will
come up with clever uses of things to apply, and I don't think they ought
to be limited to a few actions.
5) Allow marginal successes--this was sent to me by John Morrow:
>Try this in FUDGE. If the cliff requires a Good to climb and the
>climber rolls a Fair, they are part way up the cliff and need another
>roll. If they roll less than a fair, they can't make it. If they
>roll a Good or better they make it in one shot. Try it.
I assume the second roll is based on the character's skill as well, right?
All this isn't worded that helpfully yet. What I'm getting at is whether one
can design some approaches to tasks to make them more interesting and tell
the GM to use some combination of these methods, or do you have to describe
each activity completely separately, with its own mechanics? I don't like
the latter approach. (I know this is going to .advocacy as well as .design,
but I'm not interested in getting into the "different mechanics for different
acitivites" argument.)
Sorry for rambling a bit. I know I'm not particularly concise.
Stephan Fassmann
>All this isn't worded that helpfully yet. What I'm getting at is whether one
>can design some approaches to tasks to make them more interesting and tell
>the GM to use some combination of these methods, or do you have to describe
>each activity completely separately, with its own mechanics? I don't like
>the latter approach. (I know this is going to .advocacy as well as .design,
>but I'm not interested in getting into the "different mechanics for different
>acitivites" argument.)
I am sorry about quoting the whole thing, but in this case I think
it will be helpful. This sounds a lot like the system used in Prime
Directive. It is a skills based system, you roll vs your score in certain
catagories, you can have supporting skills helping your primary skill so
you have a better chance to succeed, and if circumstances allow make
multiple attempts on doing something.
There are also success levels Complete/Moderate/Minimal/Fail/Botch
that can be made to be clear as to what is happening as you do an action,
and several Minimal successes can equal a Complete Success. I'll use the
climbing example used in the other thread: You survey the rock face and
there is an outcropping that can get in the way on the way up so the GM
decides that first you have to get up to there, make it around the
overhang and then you can finish to the top, making it a multistep process.
You roll a moderate success vs. your climbing skill in gettin to the
outcropping, meaning it wasn't the easiest or most effecient climb but you
slightly tired, so the GM assigns a -1 to trying to get over the outcropping.
Then for the outcropping you use your flexiblity skill and
strength score to support your climbing skill, which the GM deems as
reasonable, and that helps you gain a Complete success and you climb around
the outcropping without problem.
On the final leg you Botch your climb meaning partway up you grab a
loose rock causing you to slip and fall back to the outcropping but you
broke your ankle in the process, (if you had gotten a Failure you would not
have broken your ankle, and could try again, a Minimal would have gotten you
to the top but you would be very tired) and you now have some serious
modifiers against you trying to get off that rockface. :-)
Unfortunatly I don't think James Wallis would like PD, since it is
set in the Star Fleet Universe where most of the major powers of the galaxy
are at war with each other, so there is a tendancy for combat, but usually
on the large scale (planetary bombardment).
I like the system, but you would have to leave out the combat
section but that would not be hard, since there is a built-in tendancy
towards dipolmacy and espionage.
Stephan Fassmann InterNet: $ste...@sasb.byu.edu GEnie: S.FASSMANN
carpe diem carpe noctem
Paul Jackson
John H Kim <jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
> This is a reply to Paul Jackson regarding the Perception mechanic
>I discussed in a previous post.
>
> This seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding. I did
>_not_ intend to imply that the modifiers I listed for attention should be
>the only modifiers there are to the Perception roll - that would be silly.
>
I realized that you didn't intend it to be the only modifier. Its just that
this particular modifier was both too simplistic (in that explicitly looking
for something should NOT automatically have the same bonus regardless of
situation) and too complex (in that it codifies something that really
doesn't need to be codified).
>>Your example is fascinating in that it actually shows how hard (and, IMO,
>>wrong) it would be to specify the rules at this level of detail. If I make
>>the further assumption that the crime scene is a reasonably small space (eg,
>>a room or an apartment) I'd say the odds of somebody noticing an onyx dagger
>>would be identical whether they're looking for clues, looking for a weapon
>>or looking for an onyx dagger. The item is, itself, sufficiently odd as to
>>attract attention.
>
> So what's your point?
My point was that I don't think there would be any modification at all for
perceiving the dagger regardless of whether the person was looking for an
onyx dagger or for a general clue. If we assume that the dagger is hidden
such that there is a net modifier of -1 ignoring attentiveness, then looking
explicitly for an onyx dagger as opposed to looking for a clue should yield
the same -1. At best, the search would take a little less time.
> Two points. First of all, in my experience most GM's will *not*
>make clear how or how much they are modifying based on how the players
>specify the search. The players often think that describing their
>search is just gloss on the basic "We search the place". To them, the
>thing that should make a difference is their character's Perception
>stat/skill.
I agree that GMs don't make it clear. I just assume (both as player and as
GM) that it is happening.
>
> My primary motivation for putting the table in is to make it
>_explicitly clear_ to the players the sort of difference it makes if
>they specify their search. By putting in the table it is made clear
>that you are _requiring_ detailed description rather than "We search
>the place".
>
You're fixing a problem that I don't think exists in the groups I play with.
>
> In my experience, GM's are really *lousy* at handling Perception
>rolls. At worst is: "Roll Perception." (roll) "Did you make it?" (Yes)
>"OK, then, you see...". The GM doesn't take any modifiers: the only way
>they distinguish is - is a Perception roll required or not. This is
>fairly common.
>
> A step up is: "Roll Perception." (roll) "How much did you make
>it by?" (6) "Uh, well - did anyone else do better?" (No) "OK - you see
>the clue - there are a set of wagon tracks..." Here the GM may
>subconciously be taking into account modifiers like attention - but it
>is clear to the players that there is not a logical system behind this.
>They are not encouraged to go into detail, as it is not clear what
>difference it will make.
Here we have a large difference in style. I prefer the method of :
"roll the dice and see if the result is obvious. Only if it is not obvious
bother to do exact calculations to see if it was a success". This greatly
speeds up play at the cost that some results aren't exactly as dictated
by the dice when my intuition is a little off (in practice, the primary
problem arises that a very high or a very low roll tends to override the
modifiers and automatically succeed or fail)
So, what you see as a flaw I actually see as a virtue.
--
Paul Jackson
John H Kim
for attention. It looks like Paul and I have some basic style differences,
but I do have some useful comments here, though.
Paul Jackson <pa...@turing.toronto.edu> wrote:
>I realized that you didn't intend it to be the only modifier. Its just that
>this particular modifier was both too simplistic (in that explicitly looking
>for something should NOT automatically have the same bonus regardless of
>situation) and too complex (in that it codifies something that really
>doesn't need to be codified).
OK - codification is always going to be simplistic. Reality in
general does not neatly resolve itself into workable types and numbers.
So I take it that you are against tables and numbers in general, and
prefer only the loosest guidelines from your system.
As I said before, I think that is reasonable. It is a matter of
style, I think - some people prefer to have an absolute result, and then
modify that for particular situations (Hero, CORPS, GURPS, etc.); others
prefer to have only loose guidelines (Over the Edge, Amber).
>
[Re: spotting an onyx dagger]
>My point was that I don't think there would be any modification at all for
>perceiving the dagger regardless of whether the person was looking for an
>onyx dagger or for a general clue. If we assume that the dagger is hidden
>such that there is a net modifier of -1 ignoring attentiveness, then looking
>explicitly for an onyx dagger as opposed to looking for a clue should yield
>the same -1. At best, the search would take a little less time.
Um, well, you're wrong. Obviously in some situations success is
automatic - in this case the modifier is irrelevant. But for example,
say that the person only had 10 seconds to go over a room. Someone who
was looking for clues in general might look at what papers are on the desk,
or what is on the bookshelf, or the marks on the walls. Someone who is
looking for an onyx dagger will have a better chance of spotting it: they
would glance at the desk and then ignore it, and scan the floor but ignore
the walls; they would know to look harder at dark backgrounds since the
item itself is black.
Obviously there are going to be exceptions. The point is to give
a general guideline, not an absolute. This is useful as a baseline
expectation to the players, so they know approximately what to expect.
It also serves as an aid to the GM - primarily as a reminder of things
to take into account.
>
>John H Kim <jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>> My primary motivation for putting the table in is to make it
>>_explicitly clear_ to the players the sort of difference it makes if
>>they specify their search. By putting in the table it is made clear
>>that you are _requiring_ detailed description rather than "We search
>>the place".
>
>You're fixing a problem that I don't think exists in the groups I play with.
That's fine. I know that the problem exists in other groups,
however, and thus I am designing to correct it. Do you think that
guidelines of this sort interfere with your style of play, or do you
just regard it as an unneccessary addition to ignore?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Here we have a large difference in style. I prefer the method of :
>
>"roll the dice and see if the result is obvious. Only if it is not obvious
>bother to do exact calculations to see if it was a success". This greatly
>speeds up play at the cost that some results aren't exactly as dictated
>by the dice when my intuition is a little off (in practice, the primary
>problem arises that a very high or a very low roll tends to override the
>modifiers and automatically succeed or fail)
Hmmm. I used to favor this method as faster and easier, but I
have grown to dislike it for precisely the problem you mention. IMO, it
tends to emphasize the _die roll_ rather than the action as determining
the result. What I would like to do is to make it as easy as possible to
estimate the odds prior to the roll.
Nicholas Charles Argall
: In article <2qtp9u$r...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
: John H Kim <jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
: > This is a reply to Paul Jackson regarding the Perception mechanic
: >I discussed in a previous post.
: You're fixing a problem that I don't think exists in the groups I play with.
The purpose of our fictional new system was to encourage good roleplaying
in the people that HAVEN'T got the experience of most of the people who
mail to this newsgroup. The stuff is useful, IMO.
I think you missed the point. Obviously experienced roleplayers are going
to run things faster and looser, but for the novices, it would be damn
useful to be explicitly told to try to be specific.
Nick
Tom Lehmann
breaking an activity into several steps is a good start but there is more to
it. The GM must also provide information that hints at potential trade-offs
and the trade-offs must be meaningful to the characters involved. Otherwise,
there is no reason to dwell on the action being simulated.
For example, climbing a clift with excellent equipment, little or no chance of
falling and actually hurting oneself and no time pressure is boring to simulate
in detail. However, if the characters are in a hurry (trying to cross a
frontier quickly or whatnot) then there is a real trade-off between time and
safety. The GM can then present information such as "Roll your perception;
hmm...well, you think you see a quicker route but it looks pretty steep. What
do you want to do?" Perhaps the player comes up with the idea of posting one
party member (strong, good climber) a bit higher on the current route so that
other members can cross a tricky bit while attached to a rope that the belaying
character can try to provide support with. Or perhaps the GM hints at this
possibility after a player states "My character takes a few moments to study
the route. I've rolled my mountain-climbing skill successfully; do I see a
way to make the passage safer?"... and so on.
My point is that its not neccessarily human interactions or fine detail that
adds drama to non-combat situations; it's the sense of having conflict; choices
and tradeoffs that are meaningful to the characters involved.
Single rolls allow one to gloss over detail in favor of moving the story along.
However, they need not be "succeed or suffer bad consequences". One very nice
approach is to have characters make a roll (with mods for general plans,
equipment brought along, guides hired, etc.). If they succeed, tell them
their plan went well and they reached the border without incident. If they
critically failed, then dump them directly into the dramatic scene, e.g. "All
was going well until midway during the climb, a rock gave way. Wendy started
to slide. Bruce, make a strength roll to grab onto her. OK...you've grabbed
her but your're in a bit of tight spot. Here's what you see..."
From a design point of view, what you want are fairly flexible mechanics that
allow situations to be simulated in *appropriate* detail. When I GM, I use
essentially the *same* game mechanics in combat as in all other situations.
Yes, you tend to go more often into "high detail" mode when involved in combat
(because of the risk to player characters as many people have noted) but I
don't see how that's any different from shaking a tail, summoning a demon or
climing a clift... you use the detail when it's appropriate -- either because
it's a danger situation or a situation with important consequences to the
characters.
tom
Rick Cordes
> I think this example points out some of the basic differences
>amongst the various points of view here. "If I were roleplaying Shakespeare..."
>Shakespeare is an author/playwright, and his works are works of literature.
>Some people prefer that their gaming be in that style; i.e. plot driven,
>with everything centered around whatever is most dramatic/funny/tragic/what-
>ever. Others, however, prefer a game that is more character-driven, not in
>the sense that characters drive a story, but rather what happens is purely
>a result of what the *characters* want/try to do (at their players' behest,
>usually), and the consequences of that in interaction, ideally impartial,
>with a game-world which follows the conventions of the *role-playing* genre
>(as opposed to literary genre).
Are the alternatives then either passive players on an active
landscape, or active players on a passive landscape? Do you think that
having the machinations and characters of a Shakespeare intrigue moving
about with the player characters necessarilly intrudes upon player
perogatives, anymore than anything they might encounter?
It would seem that if either the players or the referee assume a
passive role, something is going to be lacking. The idea of roleplaying
is for players to provide characters, and referees to provide situations.
Perhaps it is a matter of taste and unfortunate when players or referess
have to cope with situations or characters they don't like, but it would
be stodgy to constrain either to how they should fulfill their roles.
Duocently, Rick
John Cooper
>amongst the various points of view here. "If I were roleplaying Shakespeare..."
>Shakespeare is an author/playwright, and his works are works of literature.
>Some people prefer that their gaming be in that style; i.e. plot driven,
>with everything centered around whatever is most dramatic/funny/tragic/what-
>ever. Others, however, prefer a game that is more character-driven, not in
>the sense that characters drive a story, but rather what happens is purely
>a result of what the *characters* want/try to do (at their players' behest,
>usually), and the consequences of that in interaction, ideally impartial,
>with a game-world which follows the conventions of the *role-playing* genre
>(as opposed to literary genre). So, if you prefer a more literary style
>of gaming, you aren't going to be eager to have some occurance you know
>nothing about throw a monkey wrench into the works and send the session
>into a confused muddle. Conversely, if you prefer a more "simulationist"
>style, you are going to be impatient with a GM who tries to steer the cam-
>paign into a preplanned direction, when you just want an honest chance
>of achieving or failing to achieve your goals, based on just your charac-
>ters abilities rather than the "appropriate" outcome.
Excellent analysis, George.
I am often inspired by literature, cinema, theatre, and comics. I often
find myself wanting to play in an RPG campaign with the same look and feel
of some book or movie I recently read or saw. There are a lot of books and
movies that are natural source material for RPGs. To that extent, there is
a strong tie between RPGs and other entertainment media. The Indiana Jones
movies were not only highly entertaining cinema, but great source material
for roleplaying!
A well designed (and written) RPG will model its genre (be it literary
or cinematic) accurately. That means that for an RPG to remain faithful to
a literary source, it may take what you call a literary approach toward
gaming. In other words, for some genres (or sub-genres) plot-oriented
play is more appropriate than character-driven simulationist play. One
example is Vampire. It's primary inspiration is literary in nature, and so
it (perhaps) appropriately advocates a plot-oriented slant toward play. A
game like Cyberpunk 2020 is almost always going to be character-driven
because the genre itself is.
Of course, the simulationists will play Vampire their way, and plotists
will play Cyberpunk 2020 their way. But isn't it possible that some RPGs
are designed with a particular style of play in mind, primarily based on
the genre or source material they wish to recreate?
-John
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| John R. Cooper | Internet: j...@vivitech.com, |
| Vivid Technologies, Inc. | jco...@world.std.com |
| Waltham, MA 02154 | AOL: JRCooper (jrco...@aol.com) |
+--------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| "God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends." |
| This may not be true, but it sounds good and is no sillier than any |
| other theology. |
| -- Long's Notes -- |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
(snip)
> You'll be surprised at how different the varied opinions on combat are.
> Some people draw their "knowledge" from watching Ah-nold films. Others
> may feel the depiction of combat in "gritty" vietnam films is more of
> what the animal is like. Still others may find "Hill Street Blues" to
> be the 'truth'.
Hmmm. Don't forget the people that gain their opinions by SCA combat. Ouch! The
most remarkable thing I have found about "real" combat (SCA fighting and foil
fencing) is how quickly it is over. You square off - WHACK! WHACK! Somebody
dies. Usually takes about 10 seconds. Foil fencing is over even sooner.
Then again, how many of us would really want this level of realism in a GAME?
--
** to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com | (502) 493-3401 | All opinions my own **
Soldier of fortune / He's a man of war
Just can't remember / What he's fighting for.
_Showdown at Big Sky_, Robbie Robertson
R. Dan Henry
>From: to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
>Subject: Re: Combat: Why? (was Re: Diceless Roleplaying Game)
>Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 22:45:43 GMT
>> You'll be surprised at how different the varied opinions on combat are.
>> Some people draw their "knowledge" from watching Ah-nold films. Others
>> may feel the depiction of combat in "gritty" vietnam films is more of
>> what the animal is like. Still others may find "Hill Street Blues" to
>> be the 'truth'.
>Hmmm. Don't forget the people that gain their opinions by SCA combat. Ouch! The
>most remarkable thing I have found about "real" combat (SCA fighting and foil
>fencing) is how quickly it is over. You square off - WHACK! WHACK! Somebody
>dies. Usually takes about 10 seconds. Foil fencing is over even sooner.
Armor helps. And so does the defensiveness that the fear of real bloody,
nasty death or maiming can produce.
>Then again, how many of us would really want this level of realism in a GAME?
Foil fencing uses light, thrusting weapons. Heavy, slashing weapons give
slower fights. Good armor gives longer fights. Caution gives longer fights.
Lengthy speeches (ala Shakespeare, Homer, etc.) between lunges gives longer
fights. And as you say, too much "realism" can be a problem. In this case,
you die quickly and have little chance to surrender, run, call on your god,
etc. Oh, yeah, and confined quarters and obstacles that hinder weapon use
can make the fight last longer, too. Of course, some fights will be short,
even in game systems designed not to be too deadly. Like a 20th level AD&D
fighter vs. a kobold.
A faster melee combat system might be better (faster meaning a round is 2 or
3 seconds) in a "universal" system, so you can stab a guy with a gun before
getting shot. Otherwise, assume some artistic, cinematic swordplay. It lets
you get in more dramatic speeches. "You killed my father, you tortured my
mother, you turned my pet turtle into soup... now you shall pay with your
life on my grim steel!"
* R. Dan Henry, Dept. of Philosophy, UC Riverside *
* rdh...@ucrac1.ucr.edu * "Strange Dan" the Wereduck*
* "Can I still get an A if I only answered half the *
* questions?" - student, at end of final *
John H Kim
>Hmmm. Don't forget the people that gain their opinions by SCA combat.
>Ouch! The most remarkable thing I have found about "real" combat (SCA
>fighting and foil fencing) is how quickly it is over. You square off -
>WHACK! WHACK! Somebody dies. Usually takes about 10 seconds. Foil
>fencing is over even sooner.
>
>Then again, how many of us would really want this level of realism in a GAME?
Uh, _realism_? Is there some RPG where you play SCA enthusiasts
or foil fencers?
I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
unjustified. SCA players are trying to _win_. Medieval combatants
will probably be trying to _live_. Even if you kill your enemy, any
wound you receive could easily kill you through infection.
I am not an expert on this sort of thing - I don't claim to
know reality in this case. I just want to maintain a reality check
on some claims.
CX6...@musica.mcgill.ca
>to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com wrote:
>I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
>unjustified. SCA players are trying to _win_. Medieval combatants
>will probably be trying to _live_. Even if you kill your enemy, any
>wound you receive could easily kill you through infection.
>I am not an expert on this sort of thing - I don't claim to
>know reality in this case. I just want to maintain a reality check
>on some claims.
I must agree 100% with John, here. "Combat" without the risk of
death lacks the single most important psychological element of real
combat. Without the threat of death, this SCA or competition "combat"
is not combat - it is a sport or a game. Sports and games have a very
different psychology associated with them than does combat. The fact
that mocked-up weapons are being used in a direct physical contest
between the participants does not mean SCA-styled "combat" is in any
way realistic. There is a superficial resemblance between the contest
and certain forms of combat, but all-in-all these combat games are
better likened to football or hockey, not to real, life-or-death
physical conflict.
Also important is that SCA-styled "combat", foil fencing etc. all
have basic codes of conduct and safety rules that must be obeyed. This
is because the objective is to "win" without anyone getting hurt. The
objective of real-life combat is to survive while possibly *killing*
the other guy. I see no similarity between the two. You generally can
not fight "dirty", run away, beg for mercy etc. in "combat" sports -
while in real-life conflict, these options are often more useful than
going for the kill.
An amusing anecdote - in a "just for laughs" match with an SCA
type, I shocked the fellow by tripping him with a low-line kick and
then hitting him on the head with my shield . Oh - "no rules" was
understood, but even with "no rules", he carried the rules around
inside his head. Now imagine if I were really trying to kill him.
Just a thought.
-Kromm
______________________________________________________________________
| cx...@musica.mcgill.ca <- Peasant Mail
Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm |pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca <-
(aka Sean M. Punch) |pu...@chopin.physics.mcgill.ca <- NeXT Mail
McGill University |--------------------------------------------
High Energy Physics | "Why did you bore a hole in your head?"
Montreal, Quebec, Canada|"To let the people out." "You mean voices?"
| "No. People. Arms, legs - everything."
John H Kim
ideas on this thread. This is mostly in reply to Andy Skinner. I still
think that in a published game, it would be very useful to most GM's to
have specific information and examples.
Now, then - several people have mentioned forming a general outline
of non-combat resolution. I don't think this obviates the need for
specifics on particular tasks - but anyhow, here's my take on things.
This is intended as a possible outline for tasks of almost any sort -
suggestions of ideas rather than rules. The following are a set of general
steps, not all of which may be neccessary for a given task.
1) Perception/Estimation roll
2) Preparation choices
3) Trade-offs
4) Resolution rolls
5) Crisis rolls
Explanation:
1) Perception/Estimation roll
This is the opening sizing up of the situation (which may be
repeated later if the situation changes significantly). This includes
general estimating of the nature of the problem, the difficulty, and
possible complications and pitfalls. This could be _the_ vital step
(i.e. diagnosis of a patient's condition), or it could be only
supplementary (i.e. sizing up an opponent in boxing).
2) Preparation choices
This includes any `pre-task' steps which affect the outcome.
What equipment do you take with you; what safeguards and backups you
set up; what sorts of things you are expecting and prepared to
improvise.
3) Trade-offs
This includes choices of how one approaches the problem. Speed
vs. safety, offense vs. defense, specific vs. general, and so forth. In
general, this is the description/parameters of how you are approaching
the task - choice of strategy, maneuvers, style, and so forth.
Examples would be: taking a climb fast and light versus safe but
loaded down with gear; or hurrying diagnosis to get treatment fast, or
letting the body fight on its own for longer; searching with a specific
object in mind, or generally taking apart and collating.
4) Resolution rolls
The big question is: how many rolls should you make? Should there
be just one roll for resolution, or a series of rolls?
IMO, the main reason for making a new roll is for major change
of circumstance or strategy. If new decisions don't need to be made,
then there should not generally be a new roll. This is true even in
combat - for example, if a combat will take a large number of swung
blows but no real change of tactics (perhaps two heavily armored knights
beating on each other), then you should be able to resolve it without
endlessly rolling hit and damage.
OTOH, you really want to avoid inconsistancy in when players get
a new roll. A very common tendency is to allow one or more rerolls for
an identical attempt of the same task, often depending on how the players
beg and plead. I think this is silly. My general solution is to have one
roll, and to give bonuses for extra time. Extra time after the roll adds
to the result rather than giving a new roll.
5) Crisis rolls
A crisis point is a dramatic point which requires a different
sort of roll than the basic resolution. For example, in climbing, a
Strength roll might be needed to hold on from a gust of wind. For
negotiation, a roll might be needed to control your reaction when
someone goads you with an insult or accusation.
Crisis points are sometimes the result of borderline success
rolls - if you are really good, you can usually avoid them; if you are
not skilled enough, you won't get far enough for it to make a difference.
OTOH, some crises just cannot be avoided - and in some cases someone
who is in over their head cannot back out.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Comments, anyone?
Andy Skinner
Alright, I've finally gotten around to replying to some of the
ideas on this thread. This is mostly in reply to Andy Skinner. I still
think that in a published game, it would be very useful to most GM's to
have specific information and examples.
Maybe so, but we can't do much with that here unless you pick a genre and
some actions for it and give us an example for what you mean. I'm thinking
about FUDGE, the core of which shouldn't have too much specific information.
A game built on FUDGE definitely could have such. Do you want to put together
a paragraph on some action for us?
Now, then - several people have mentioned forming a general outline
of non-combat resolution. I don't think this obviates the need for
specifics on particular tasks - but anyhow, here's my take on things.
Me either, but if we can build a way to handle things first, and then build
ways to handle specific actions based on that, we'll end up with less of a
hodge-podge. Maybe.
This is intended as a possible outline for tasks of almost any sort -
suggestions of ideas rather than rules. The following are a set of general
steps, not all of which may be neccessary for a given task.
1) Perception/Estimation roll
2) Preparation choices
3) Trade-offs
4) Resolution rolls
5) Crisis rolls
OK.
4) Resolution rolls
The big question is: how many rolls should you make? Should there
be just one roll for resolution, or a series of rolls?
IMO, the main reason for making a new roll is for major change
of circumstance or strategy. If new decisions don't need to be made,
then there should not generally be a new roll. This is true even in
combat - for example, if a combat will take a large number of swung
blows but no real change of tactics (perhaps two heavily armored knights
beating on each other), then you should be able to resolve it without
endlessly rolling hit and damage.
If a game intends to handle combat as basically bunches of swings, then this
is probably a good way to handle it. If every swing is a potential change
of tactics, because combat is one of the things for which the genre requires
detail, then you'll want to handle it with more rolls. So I guess that is
an issue -- what level of tactics does an action require in the genre?
Conditional tactics, "I'm going to attack until I win, unless it definitely
looks like I'm gonna lose, 'cause I'd rather run away than get skewered"
either require you to control the outcome depending on the tactics (bad roll
means you run away with a minor wound, enemy scratched or unhurt, rather than
he wins and you're dead) or to use more resolution in your resolution. By
the way, I'm using combat as an example because it is an action that gets
various amounts of detail in various games. It shouldn't be different than
other actions, which also can be handled in more or less detail as required.
You have to keep in mind here that different numbers of rolls give different
probabilities of results, too. You need to be careful in lumping different
numbers of actions into one roll at different times.
OTOH, you really want to avoid inconsistancy in when players get
a new roll. A very common tendency is to allow one or more rerolls for
an identical attempt of the same task, often depending on how the players
beg and plead. I think this is silly. My general solution is to have one
roll, and to give bonuses for extra time. Extra time after the roll adds
to the result rather than giving a new roll.
You mean it improves the result of the resolution to spend more time on it?
"You can't quite do it; if you give it another minute, you're sure you'll
figure it out." OK, as long as you don't let people put a minimum of effort
into something and then decide whether it is worth continuing further. Or
increase the minimum or use the perception roll you mention to say how much
further they think they have to go.
Rick Cordes
>From a design point of view, what you want are fairly flexible mechanics that
>allow situations to be simulated in *appropriate* detail. When I GM, I use
>essentially the *same* game mechanics in combat as in all other situations.
>Yes, you tend to go more often into "high detail" mode when involved in combat
>(because of the risk to player characters as many people have noted) but I
>don't see how that's any different from shaking a tail, summoning a demon or
>climing a clift... you use the detail when it's appropriate -- either because
>it's a danger situation or a situation with important consequences to the
>characters.
>
I quite agree that dice rolling should be appropriately abbreviated
but I think "high detail mode" often disrupts the logical flow or feel of
the game when one descends into the world of idiosyncratic recipes.
I think the relation between mechanics and skills is key.
Skills may be used solo, collectively, cooperatively or in opposition.
Rather than define a unique regimen for each particular skill, it seems
that it would be more generally applicable to define dicing regimens that
would be defined in terms of the ways different skills may be employed and
the logical outcomes thereby entailed.
For example the dicing regimen which allows the player to exercise a certain
heirarchy of alternates used to climb a cliff might also be applied to simulate
the synthesis of LSD, while, on the other hand, a different kind of dicing
regimen used to write a book, might also be applied to the construction of a
castle. The adjustments to these dice rolls can then be made in general to the
regimen rather than specific to the skill, and this would of course be a
saving.
Once these various regimens are defined, the task would just be to
apply them appropriately as various situations arose.
Duocently, Rick
John Reiher
>
> RPG's generally _force_ detail in combat situations, and omit
> detail in non-combat resolution, in a number of ways:
>
> (1) They suggest simple one-roll resolution of non-combat situations.
> (2) They lump non-combat skills together, while splitting up combat skills
> in fine detail (i.e. distinguishing braodsword and katana skill, or
> katana skill from Fast-Draw: katana while there is only one skill for
> History or Stealth).
> (3) They list arbitrary and unreasonable modifiers for non-combat actions,
> and fail to mention important details (i.e. including rules for
> getting impaling weapons stuck in combat, but not mentioning the bends
> in scuba diving).
>
>
> My point is this - current RPG's do focus on combat. By removing
> detail from combat, and adding it to other activities, you can change some
> of this. You complained about `special case rules' - not neccessarily.
> There is a lot that can be done with fairly universal mechanics: just
> explain the steps, the skills involved, and the modifiers. What it cannot
> do is provide information and detail.
>
> Combat rules in general do *not* provide information, but rather
> just mechanics: i.e. here is how to resolve grabbing someone - this is
> something which everyone pretty much understands. In contrast, you might
> have a section on climbing which actually explains about different
> techniques and equipment. Scuba diving might cover the equipment,
> problems that can occur, and so forth.
>
One primary reason why RPGs don't have tons and tons of rules for, say haggling
is that the sheer size of the rule book would be enormous! It is not as easy
to "add detail to non-combat activities" since a lot of these activities are
not well know to science in general. (Most of the so-called "soft sciences"
fall under this catergory...They are hard to quantify and break down into small
pieces.)
I worked on creating a skill system that would adequately model real world skills,
but gave up after realizing it would take several hundred pages to detail and list
the various skills, subskills, general abilities, etc.
For most RPG groups, non-combat resolution is either ignored, or role played.
Picking a lock may be more of a dramatic event, at the whim of the GM, rather
than the player rolling dice deciding if he was successful.
John
John H Kim
Actually, this is not really anything new
John Reiher <a-j...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu wrote:
>> RPG's generally _force_ detail in combat situations, and omit
>> detail in non-combat resolution, in a number of ways: [...]
>
>One primary reason why RPGs don't have tons and tons of rules for, say
>haggling is that the sheer size of the rule book would be enormous! It is
>not as easy to "add detail to non-combat activities" since a lot of these
>activities are not well know to science in general. (Most of the so-called
>"soft sciences" fall under this catergory...They are hard to quantify and
>break down into small pieces.)
I agree that it is difficult. However, note that combat is also
very hard to quantify and break down into small pieces - especially the
intricacies of melee combat and wounding. RPG's often spend a lot of time
modeling and playtesting in order to quantify their combat systems - my
question is, why doesn't anyone make a similar effort at doing the same
for anything else?
Certainly if you detailed all possible skills in all possible
settings, the rulebook would be enormous. However, it is possible to
concentrate on what you wnat detailed. A mystery RPG could gloss over
combat, and put detail into perception and social interaction, for
example.
Obviously, just as it is work to create a good combat system,
it is work to create good non-combat systems. It is a question of
what you are interested in.
>
>For most RPG groups, non-combat resolution is either ignored, or role played.
>Picking a lock may be more of a dramatic event, at the whim of the GM, rather
>than the player rolling dice deciding if he was successful.
My thought was that role-playing and use of dice need not be
mutually exclusive. Certainly combats I am in are often loaded with
description: players explaining their moves, GM's describing the
results. To determine results, players roll dice at several points -
but they are still role-playing. The rules are structured to put in
lots of detail and player choices: each combat turn the player has a
choice of various maneuvers and options.
However, in non-combat activities, the rules most often say
"Roll against skill". The rules are designed to wipe away detail and
player choices. Rolling dice in this particular case is not dramatic -
not because of anything inherent, but because the structure of the
rolling doesn't allow for drama. Combat would be boring to if you
simply rolled once for "You won." or "You lost."
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
> to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com wrote:
>>Hmmm. Don't forget the people that gain their opinions by SCA combat.
>>Ouch! The most remarkable thing I have found about "real" combat (SCA
>>fighting and foil fencing) is how quickly it is over. You square off -
>>WHACK! WHACK! Somebody dies. Usually takes about 10 seconds. Foil
>>fencing is over even sooner.
>>
>>Then again, how many of us would really want this level of realism in a GAME?
>
>
> Uh, _realism_? Is there some RPG where you play SCA enthusiasts
> or foil fencers?
> I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
> unjustified.
You are wrong. Ever do any serious amount of SCA fighting? I have. Do some,
and I doubt you'll call it exersize. It is a very competitive sport using
essentially period equipment.
> SCA players are trying to _win_. Medieval combatants
> will probably be trying to _live_. Even if you kill your enemy, any
> wound you receive could easily kill you through infection.
Same as with any wound received, be it a kick from the ox, a gouge from a piece
of splintered wood, or any of thousands of things around the farm tract. I
doubt they fretted about it too much, but instead did the best with the cards
they were dealt. I don't worry about getting killed in my car, or my lawn
tractor rolling over on me, being hit by a train, falling in an elevator shaft,
etc... These dangerous things are all around me, and I take the proper
precautions before partaking. I don't sit in my basement in fear.
>
> I am not an expert on this sort of thing - I don't claim to
> know reality in this case. I just want to maintain a reality check
> on some claims.
And rightfully so. However, the mechanics of SCA combat (and foil/epee/sabre)
fencing are probably pretty realistic. SCA one-handed swords, which are by
far and away the most common weapon, weigh the same as real swords, the armor
weighs the same...etc... With some differences below taken into account, I
think that SCA combat is about as close to mediaval combat as you can get, and
it seems to be essentially the same as real combat. Arm SCA fighters with real
swords and they would easily maim and kill one another with no additional
training, no doubt in my mind. Hell, all fighters receive injuries now and
then anyway. My group received minor back injuries, concussions, contact
lenses knocked out, bruised fingers and knees, metal cuts from damaged armor,
etc...One of my friends got his neck broken from a mace shot (he was ok, but
they had to fuse some vertibrae...)
As I think about it, SCA combat is real similar to medieval training
exersizes. There they practiced against other humans with the intent to win,
not the intent to kill...The vikings practiced with wooden swords. Probably the
other Europeans, also.
-----
SCA combat limits valid target areas (no back shots, no below the knee, wrist,
or groin shots) Also, in the North, archery is not allowed. No cavalry. Its
true that SCA combat, while being very exciting, lacks the terror of potential
imminent (sp?) death or maiming by some revved-up kid swinging an axe.
John H Kim
of the realism of SCA combat. Note that I am not making claims that it
is unrealistic - which would mean I know what realism is - but rather I
am saying that claims of realism may be unjustified.
<to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu> writes:
>> I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
>> unjustified.
...
>> SCA players are trying to _win_. Medieval combatants
>> will probably be trying to _live_. Even if you kill your enemy, any
>> wound you receive could easily kill you through infection.
>
>I doubt they fretted about it too much, but instead did the best with the
>cards they were dealt. I don't worry about getting killed in my car, or
>my lawn tractor rolling over on me, being hit by a train, falling in an
>elevator shaft, etc... These dangerous things are all around me, and I
>take the proper precautions before partaking.
Perhas your behavior is different than others - but I think that
the fact that these activities are dangerous influences your behavior.
If driving were harmless, there are a lot of people I'd like to cut off
or sideswipe.
>
>However, the mechanics of SCA combat (and foil/epee/sabre) fencing are
>probably pretty realistic. SCA one-handed swords, which are by far and
>away the most common weapon, weigh the same as real swords, the armor
>weighs the same...etc... With some differences below taken into account,
>I think that SCA combat is about as close to mediaval combat as you can
>get, and it seems to be essentially the same as real combat.
As far as the weights and hefts of the equipment, then I agree
that it may be realistic. The question in my mind is the _behavior_ of
the participants. Paintball equipment might have ranges comparable to
some historical firearms - but I know that the engagements are *nothing*
like history.
I don't really question the mechanics, but I do question whether
it is "essentially the same as real combat".
>
>As I think about it, SCA combat is real similar to medieval training
>exersizes. There they practiced against other humans with the intent to
>win, not the intent to kill...The vikings practiced with wooden swords.
>Probably the other Europeans, also.
Note that you told me I was "wrong" for calling SCA combat
"exercises", but here you note their similarity to such. Perhaps they
are equivalent to medieval training exercises - but my thought was
that there may be a big difference between the training and the real
combat.
Taki Kogoma
rec.games.frp.advocacy:
>In article <2r72ej$n...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> Uh, _realism_? Is there some RPG where you play SCA enthusiasts
>> or foil fencers?
>> I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
>> unjustified.
>
>You are wrong. Ever do any serious amount of SCA fighting? I have. Do some,
>and I doubt you'll call it exersize. It is a very competitive sport using
>essentially period equipment.
Waitaminute? Did I just see the word 'sport' in there? This, to me,
indicates that you are fully aware that SCA simulations are not
equivalent to real, honest-to-blood, jeezus-that-guy's-trying-to-*kill*-me!
combat.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) kog...@unm.edu
I'll get a life when someone demonstrates it would be superior to
what I have now.
Jim Edwards-Hewitt
>>jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu wrote:
>>> RPG's generally _force_ detail in combat situations, and omit
>>> detail in non-combat resolution, in a number of ways: [...]
>>
>>One primary reason why RPGs don't have tons and tons of rules for, say
>>haggling is that the sheer size of the rule book would be enormous! It is
>>not as easy to "add detail to non-combat activities" since a lot of these
>>activities are not well know to science in general. (Most of the so-called
>>"soft sciences" fall under this catergory...They are hard to quantify and
>>break down into small pieces.)
>
> I agree that it is difficult. However, note that combat is also
>very hard to quantify and break down into small pieces - especially the
>intricacies of melee combat and wounding. RPG's often spend a lot of time
>modeling and playtesting in order to quantify their combat systems - my
>question is, why doesn't anyone make a similar effort at doing the same
>for anything else?
There's something I've been thinking as I've been lurking around this
thread, with various people suggesting that the reason other activities are
not as detailed is that GMs or game designers don't know as much about
those other activities. I think it can be best summarized thus:
The reason that combat in most games is more detailed than any other
activity is that more people *think* they understand how combat works.
(They're usually wrong. ;-)
As a corollary, perhaps, I would suggest that most combat systems resemble
each other a lot more than they resemble the real world. But maybe I'm
just jaded.
-- Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Edwards-Hewitt j...@visix.com Visix Software Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is a game where you play yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Charles Argall
: In article <2r72ej$n...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
: You are wrong. Ever do any serious amount of SCA fighting? I have. Do some,
: and I doubt you'll call it exersize. It is a very competitive sport using
: essentially period equipment.
: > SCA players are trying to _win_. Medieval combatants
: > will probably be trying to _live_. Even if you kill your enemy, any
: > wound you receive could easily kill you through infection.
: Same as with any wound received, be it a kick from the ox, a gouge from a piece
: of splintered wood, or any of thousands of things around the farm tract. I
: doubt they fretted about it too much, but instead did the best with the cards
: they were dealt. I don't worry about getting killed in my car, or my lawn
: tractor rolling over on me, being hit by a train, falling in an elevator shaft,
: etc... These dangerous things are all around me, and I take the proper
: precautions before partaking. I don't sit in my basement in fear.
Yeah, but actually having a piece of sharp steel coming at you (quite
possibly in front of a big screaming man) is even worse than driving in
rush hour. Methinks thy parralel is unjustified.
: >
: > I am not an expert on this sort of thing - I don't claim to
: > know reality in this case. I just want to maintain a reality check
: > on some claims.
: And rightfully so. However, the mechanics of SCA combat (and foil/epee/sabre)
: fencing are probably pretty realistic. SCA one-handed swords, which are by
: far and away the most common weapon, weigh the same as real swords, the armor
: weighs the same...etc... With some differences below taken into account, I
: think that SCA combat is about as close to mediaval combat as you can get, and
: it seems to be essentially the same as real combat. Arm SCA fighters with real
: swords and they would easily maim and kill one another with no additional
: training, no doubt in my mind. Hell, all fighters receive injuries now and
: then anyway. My group received minor back injuries, concussions, contact
: lenses knocked out, bruised fingers and knees, metal cuts from damaged armor,
: etc...One of my friends got his neck broken from a mace shot (he was ok, but
: they had to fuse some vertibrae...)
: As I think about it, SCA combat is real similar to medieval training
: exersizes. There they practiced against other humans with the intent to win,
: not the intent to kill...The vikings practiced with wooden swords. Probably the
: other Europeans, also.
But there can be no doubt that all but the most brave (foolish) would play
careful when their lives were on the line. The real situation is never the
same as training, even in sport.
Kid Kibbitz
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com writes:
>You are wrong. Ever do any serious amount of SCA fighting? I have. Do some,
>and I doubt you'll call it exersize. It is a very competitive sport using
>essentially period equipment.
Sorry to jump in here, but hey--it's a free net [so far].... :)
Perhaps some of you out there aren't familiar with the events that
instigated the recent (past 10 years or so) surge in women's self-defense
classes. As it happens, a female blackbelt in some form of karate, with
several tournament championships under her belt [ahem... excuse me] was
attacked and raped on the street, and was unable to defend herself. While
the rest of the story is largely irrelevant (her sensei was ashamed of her
and humiliated her, from what I've heard, but a fellow blackbelt recognized
that something odd must be going on, so started investigating self-defense
versus full-contact karate); what is relevant is the strong parallel to the
current debate.
Here is a person who was a full-contact karate champion who was totally
paralyzed when it came time for "real" life-and-death type combat. I have
no reason to believe that a SCA fighter would be any better prepared for
The Real Thing (TM) than she was; I have no reason to believe that a SCA
fighter would suffer any less paralysis than she did. Life-and-death
combat is simply NOT the same as sport, however full-contact it is.
But hey; I could be wrong.....
--Kid Kibbitz
Eric Pawtowski
Kid Kibbitz <kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>no reason to believe that a SCA fighter would be any better prepared for
>The Real Thing (TM) than she was; I have no reason to believe that a SCA
>fighter would suffer any less paralysis than she did. Life-and-death
>combat is simply NOT the same as sport, however full-contact it is.
>
frezze if faced with a real combat situation. But certainly not
all of them- there will be some who've learned to place themselves in
the proper frame of mind while training to deal with real combat.
Perhaps only 10%, but that's still a fair number of people.)
>But hey; I could be wrong.....
--
****epaw...@polaris.async.vt.edu or epaw...@vt.edu********************
see-to-ma-to-angst-to-rey - The Angst Hunter, Blacksburg 5
***************************************************************************
Kid Kibbitz
>In article <Cq3qs...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
>Kid Kibbitz <kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>I have
>>no reason to believe that a SCA fighter would be any better prepared for
>>The Real Thing (TM) than she was; I have no reason to believe that a SCA
>>fighter would suffer any less paralysis than she did. Life-and-death
>>combat is simply NOT the same as sport, however full-contact it is.
>>
>Certainly, some (perhaps even most) SCA fighters would panic and
>frezze if faced with a real combat situation. But certainly not
>all of them- there will be some who've learned to place themselves in
>the proper frame of mind while training to deal with real combat.
Even if I grant that 5-10% of SCA fighters might properly react to the real
thing, I think that's largely irrelevant. Tony posted, and I quote:
"Arm SCA fighters with real swords and they would easily maim and kill one
another with no additional training, no doubt in my mind." I simply don't
think this is a valid claim, based on anecdotal and statistical evidence.
Now, what is the relevance of this to GAMING? Probably not a whole lot.
Except that it may be instructive for GM's and players alike to consider
such things; just because one is an expert martial artist or boxer or
fencer or combat recreationist or target shooter or what-have-you, does not
mean that that person will perform optimally--or even adequately--in an
actual combat situation.
Just MHO,
--Kid Kibbitz
--Kid Kibbitz
John F. Kolb P.E.
<to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com> wrote:
>As I think about it, SCA combat is real similar to medieval training
>exersizes. There they practiced against other humans with the intent to win,
>not the intent to kill...The vikings practiced with wooden swords. Probably the
>other Europeans, also.
>
(his group) have several replica "pratice" swords and shields. Is seems
the roman drill weapons were wooden and weighted with lead to weigh MORE
than the actual shield/sword would.
ko...@ymv5.ymp.gov "When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have
catapults" from the book 'Latin for All Occasions'
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
> In article <2r72ej$n...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com wrote:
>>I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
>>unjustified. SCA players are trying to _win_. Medieval combatants
>>will probably be trying to _live_. Even if you kill your enemy, any
>>wound you receive could easily kill you through infection.
>>I am not an expert on this sort of thing - I don't claim to
>>know reality in this case. I just want to maintain a reality check
>>on some claims.
>
> I must agree 100% with John, here. "Combat" without the risk of
> death lacks the single most important psychological element of real
> combat. Without the threat of death, this SCA or competition "combat"
> is not combat - it is a sport or a game. Sports and games have a very
> different psychology associated with them than does combat.
I have already agreed that SCA combat is a sport. The terror and brutality of
combat are not there. My argument is that SCA combat is a reasonable and
accurate tool to allow us to learn about combat. They are fundamentally the
same, from a "mechanics" point of view. The tactics, weapons, and armor are
essentially the same. Before you turn on the flames about that last sentence,
read the definition of "essential" in your dictionary...
> The fact
> that mocked-up weapons are being used in a direct physical contest
> between the participants does not mean SCA-styled "combat" is in any
> way realistic.
Wrong wrong wrong. Care to desscribe a fundamental difference, psychological
factors excluded? Being unable to kick an opponents shield, or trip him,
etc..., does not constitute a fundamental difference. In mediaval (sp?) Japan,
a samurai considered a blow beneath the waist as devoid of glory, class, and
taste. This does not make their combat less "real" in any way than the European
battlefield brawls.
Also, as far as mocked-up weapons are concerned, perhaps you are unfamiliar
with real weapons in general. An SCA "sword" is a 30" long piece of 1.5" dia.
rattan, a springy wood resistent to shattering. This is about the same as a jo
stick, I believe, a deadly weapon in the hands of a martial artist. So the SCA
sword _is_ a real weapon, not a toy as you imply. It just is not an edged
metal sword. Also, SCA swords weigh about the same as real swords. There is
no fundamental difference. Therefore, when evaluating speed factors or
encumberance (sp?) in a game, drawing on SCA knowledge is valid.
> There is a superficial resemblance between the contest
> and certain forms of combat, but all-in-all these combat games are
> better likened to football or hockey, not to real, life-or-death
> physical conflict.
How can you say it is superficial? On what grounds can you just brush it aside?
Reminds me of one of the great ancient Greek philosophers who said "Men are
superior to women since men have more teeth..." (no fooling) Too bad he didn't
bother to analyze the situation.
And furthermore, your argument would seem to imply that Mike
Tyson, a boxer (boxing is a game/sport/not-life-or-death (usually) remember)
would be useless in a street brawl. I suspect not. I'd feel pretty confident
being with him (and Charles Barkley :) in a scrape.
> Also important is that SCA-styled "combat", foil fencing etc. all
> have basic codes of conduct and safety rules that must be obeyed. This
> is because the objective is to "win" without anyone getting hurt. The
> objective of real-life combat is to survive while possibly *killing*
> the other guy.
I find your priorities amusing. I am of the opposite mind-set - the objective
of real-life combat is to kill the other guy, and possibly survive in the
process. Most soldiers would agree with me, although not many would care to
take it to an extreme.
> I see no similarity between the two.
How can you think that? SCA combat is pretty well documented to be quite
similar to mediaval (sp?) training exersizes. Apparently the guys whose lives
depended on combat thought it was reasonably similar. A seasoned SCA fighter
is probably much like of a trained mediaval fighter with no combat experience.
Combat is where you learn about the "terror" and "brutality" parts of winning.
Or losing.
> You generally can
> not fight "dirty",
Yeah, most of that stuff tends to hurt people.
> run away,
We ran all the time, especially when out-numbered.
>beg for mercy etc. in "combat" sports -
> while in real-life conflict, these options are often more useful than
> going for the kill.
> An amusing anecdote - in a "just for laughs" match with an SCA
> type, I shocked the fellow by tripping him with a low-line kick and
> then hitting him on the head with my shield . Oh - "no rules" was
> understood, but even with "no rules", he carried the rules around
> inside his head. Now imagine if I were really trying to kill him.
> Just a thought.
You got lucky. Had you had the same agreement with a guy you didn't know, who
understood you didn't know the rules, and that you weren't going to follow any,
you'd probably have lost quickly. Your friend's problem was simply that he
underestimated you - and you out-thought him. Against others, you'd do that
once, maybe even winning, and from then on you'd lose every time. The brawler
does not often defeat the trained fighter at his own game.
You have some interesting ideas, but I'd really like to see your reasoning
as to why
1) SCA combat does not demonstrate essential elements of combat mechanics, the
thing that applies to this newsgroup,
2) SCA combat is completely unlike real combat when it is nearly identical to
mediaval training and mediaval tournaments. Remember, they were not trying to
kill in tournaments, although accidents happened. People have dies in SCA
combat, too.
---
And your points make me wonder:
How can we get the terror of combat into our games?
Charles F. Fitzgerald
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com writes:
> ... Care to desscribe a fundamental difference, psychological
> factors excluded? Being unable to kick an opponents shield, or trip him,
> etc..., does not constitute a fundamental difference. In mediaval (sp?) Japan,
> a samurai considered a blow beneath the waist as devoid of glory, class, and
> taste. This does not make their combat less "real" in any way than the European
> battlefield brawls.
>
> Also, as far as mocked-up weapons are concerned, perhaps you are unfamiliar
> with real weapons in general. An SCA "sword" is a 30" long piece of 1.5" dia.
> rattan, a springy wood resistent to shattering. This is about the same as a jo
> stick, I believe, a deadly weapon in the hands of a martial artist. So the SCA
> sword _is_ a real weapon, not a toy as you imply. It just is not an edged
> metal sword. Also, SCA swords weigh about the same as real swords. There is
> no fundamental difference. Therefore, when evaluating speed factors or
> encumberance (sp?) in a game, drawing on SCA knowledge is valid.
The problem I have between SCA exercizes and medieval melee combat
is primarily the `psychological factors' that you are so ready to
ignore. I believe these are not insignificant factors but constitute
a real difference in style and usage of the admittedly similar
weapons. For example, in a sport, if your opponent tires you will
either allow him a chance to rest or he will forfeit so that he is
not overly exerted. In a real combat, the combattants will press
on even after extreme fatigue has set in to gain an advantage on the
opponent or to prevent getting killed. Thus, a `fatigue factor'
created from SCA style sport would be marginally applicable at best
to a real combat because the inner motivation would be different in
each case.
One `fundamental difference' between the SCA `sword' and a real sword
is the real sword has a sharp edge. And though, in certain hands, a
piece of wood is considered a `deadly weapon', in most people's hands,
it is not. A sword, in anyone's hands, is potentially lethal. Another
`fundamental difference'.
> 1) SCA combat does not demonstrate essential elements of combat mechanics, the
> thing that applies to this newsgroup,
see above.
> 2) SCA combat is completely unlike real combat when it is nearly identical to
> mediaval training and mediaval tournaments. Remember, they were not trying to
> kill in tournaments, although accidents happened. People have dies in SCA
> combat, too.
A person may be able to hit the bullseye with his rifle ninety-nine
times out of a hundred. This does not mean he will be able to hit an
enemy soldier ninety-nine times out of a hundred in the field. Does
this mean the Army should stop using rifle ranges to train soldiers
to use their weapons? Just because the Army uses rifle ranges to train
soldiers does it mean that they think it will somehow make their
recruits better able to handle the pressures of combat?
--
If the enemy is an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcomb,
is it meet, think you, should also look you be
an ass, and a fool, and a prating coxcomb?
Charles F. Fitzgerald | Iowa State University | cffi...@iastate.edu
John H Kim
<to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com> wrote:
>You have some interesting ideas, but I'd really like to see your reasoning
>as to why
>
>1) SCA combat does not demonstrate essential elements of combat mechanics,
>the thing that applies to this newsgroup,
>
>2) SCA combat is completely unlike real combat when it is nearly identical
>to mediaval training and mediaval tournaments. Remember, they were not
>trying to kill in tournaments, although accidents happened. People have
>dies in SCA combat, too.
If you exclude psychological elements from your simulation of
combat, then you will get severely unrealistic results. This may well
be what is desired - as the original poster said, who wants that much
realism.
The fact that people die in training and tournaments is not to
imply that it is somehow equivalent to real combat. People die in
hang-gliding, after all. Certainly there are strong similarities between
such sports and real combat. The more full-contact and the fewer
limiting rules there are, the closer the similarity gets, probably.
However, I am not convinced that it shows the "essentials" of
real combat behavior and results. It is utterly different in terms of
psychology and in terms of damage - how much the remainder shows is
not clear, in my mind.
>>
>Kromm <CX6...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>> Also important is that SCA-styled "combat", foil fencing etc. all
>> have basic codes of conduct and safety rules that must be obeyed. This
>> is because the objective is to "win" without anyone getting hurt. The
>> objective of real-life combat is to survive while possibly *killing*
>> the other guy.
>
>I find your priorities amusing. I am of the opposite mind-set - the objective
>of real-life combat is to kill the other guy, and possibly survive in the
>process. Most soldiers would agree with me, although not many would care to
>take it to an extreme.
You have tried to kill in real-life combat? And you place a higher
priority on this than on your own life? That is psychotic - even an ideal
soldier should not have that mindset. An ideal soldier would place his
priorities on following orders, and few soldiers entirely live up to that
ideal - generally placing their own survival and the survival of their
comrades first. I have thankfully never met a soldier with a priority
on killing, and I find the idea of _most_ soldiers agreeing with you
difficult to believe.
And this is with an all-volunteer, professional army. In medieval
times, most of the soldiers did not have a choice. The degree of
training varied - but little of it was systematic.
George Harris
>> to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com wrote:
>>
>> Uh, _realism_? Is there some RPG where you play SCA enthusiasts
>> or foil fencers?
>> I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
>> unjustified.
>
>You are wrong. Ever do any serious amount of SCA fighting? I have. Do some,
>and I doubt you'll call it exersize. It is a very competitive sport using
>essentially period equipment.
Have you ever experienced real medieval combat? I dare say not, and
if not you have no basis from which to declare his assertion wrong; in fact,
since there are big differences between SCA combat and real medieval combat,
it would take a pretty strong argument to counter his statement. Saying
that it is a competitive sport actually supports his point; medieval combat
was *not* a competitive sport.
>** to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com | (502) 493-3401 | All opinions my own **
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George...@bbs.oit.unc.edu or, preferably gha...@jade.tufts.edu
Jose Garcia
simulation of medieval combat silly. Of course its just a sport. Not only does
real fighting involve fear, it involves maneuvers that the SCA doesn't allow
and it involves pain (and no the SCA rules governing not using your arm after
its been struck don't measure up).
Real medieval combat was an extremely hasrsh affair. The show Connections
did a pretty good demonstration of what swords did to people using a side of
beef, pretty disgusting stuff. I don't see things like that happening in SCA
combat.
I'm not saying that SCA folks know nothing just that they're recreations
don't count them as experts, no matter how much some of them would like to
believe.
--
Jose Garcia
R. Dan Henry
>From: to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
>Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 06:09:51 GMT
>> You generally can
>> not fight "dirty",
>Yeah, most of that stuff tends to hurt people.
Which is exactly why there's a lot of it in real combat. You've just
illustrated the importance of those psychological factors.
Ms A F Simpson
While at university I wa involved in Dark Age battle re-enactment (using
steel, not your sissy SCA rattan). Another woman at Wychwood (our society)
was also a hunt saboteur (of the non-violent variety) on her spare
weekends.
One weekend, whilst out chasing around the countryside, she was attacked
by a hunt follower wielding a piece of planking. Using her Wychwood training,
she successfully parried his blowswith her walking stick and ran off when he
stopped in surprise. You certainly couldn't argue that he was using only
legal blows etc.
So, there's one anecdote where someone freezes and one where they do not.
I'd be interested to see the statistcal evidence you mentioned though. On
the other hand, as the whole ethos of re-enactment is NOT to hurt people,
I'd be surprised if many re-enacters could pick up a sword and go kill
people, although they'd certainly have a head strart in the training if they
were magically picked up into a fantasy world.
love
Douglas Zimmerman
|> Perhaps some of you out there aren't familiar with the events that
|> instigated the recent (past 10 years or so) surge in women's self-defense
|> classes. As it happens, a female blackbelt in some form of karate, with
|> several tournament championships under her belt [ahem... excuse me] was
|> attacked and raped on the street, and was unable to defend herself. While
|> Here is a person who was a full-contact karate champion who was totally
|> paralyzed when it came time for "real" life-and-death type combat. I have
As I was told this story, the problem wasn't that she 'froze'; the problem
was that she was knocked down, and none of her training prepared her for this.
Basically, the attacker did not follow her 'rules' of combat. (Whereas guys
seem to have this thing about duking it out standing, rapists tend to use their
mass to simply throw women to the ground, I understand). Thus, the self-defense
courses for women now teach techniques for fighting prone.
I think this illustrates a major hole in most RPG combat systems,
the lack of a notion of different combat styles. There is always a possibility
that a new opponent may have some trick or two that will catch one by surprise;
it only works once or twice, but that first time it is deadly.
Perhaps combat systems should have 'moves' that are similar to 'spells' of
magic systems. At least one or two games have had a notion of card-based
combat that effectively does this, and even have random draws that simulate
opportunities (or the lack of them). If done right, this allows the player
more control of tactics, while minimizing die rolling. Given the popularity
of Magic: The Gathering, I hope it is only a matter of time before more RPG's
have something of the sort.
--
Douglas Zimmerman k...@template.com uunet!template!kdz 703-318-1218
Template Software 13100 Worldgate Dr, Ste 340 Herndon, VA 22070-4382
Kid Kibbitz
(Ms A F Simpson) writes:
> So, there's one anecdote where someone [accostomed to combat
>reenaction] freezes [when faced with a real threat] and one where they do
>not. I'd be interested to see the statistcal evidence you mentioned
>though.
Well, this wanders further and further from RPG, but...
As I mentioned IAPP concerning the origin of modern women's self-defense
classes, one of the attacked's dojo-mates became quite interested in the
subject after he found out about her experience. Unfortunately, I no
longer have the article; however, it is, as they say, now a matter of
public record, and I'm sure some light research could pull up the info.
--Kid Kibbitz
Travis Works
: In article <1994May21...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com> to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com writes:
: >From: to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
: >Subject: Is SCA combat an evaluation tool? (was Re: Combat: Why?...)
: >Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 06:09:51 GMT
Just a quick note:
Having had actual training in sword fighting (which is vastly different
than fencing and LRP combat) and having seen SCA combat, I can tell
you that SCA combat is _completely_ different from "real" combat.
Gotta go now.
Raymond Charles Parks
Charles F. Fitzgerald <cffi...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
>A person may be able to hit the bullseye with his rifle ninety-nine
>times out of a hundred. This does not mean he will be able to hit an
>enemy soldier ninety-nine times out of a hundred in the field.
Right. But experience with actual soldiers in combat has
shown that greater ability to hit the bullseye correlates to
greater ability to hit the enemy soldier. I refer you to
the writings of the Dupuys, father and son.
>Just because the Army uses rifle ranges to train soldiers
>does it mean that they think it will somehow make their
>recruits better able to handle the pressures of combat?
Yes. The winner in combat has been shown to be the one who
uses his/her skills better despite the psychological
stresses of potential imminent death. The literature
abounds with instances of combatants who act foolishly in
performing some act which had been needlessly included in
their training. Teaching the proper skills and actions to
be used in combat until such time that the individual
performs them without thinking is the key to winning.
Therefore, I think it is foolish to dismiss SCA, fencing,
archery, or any other martial art as a source of knowledge
about combat. Many of these "sports" derived from the
experience of combat veterans who used the same arts. On
the other hand, the artificialities introduced for safety
must be carefully analyzed, and their effects discarded.
The psychological aspect of combat can be ignored, except as
after-effects. Combat occurs and finishes so quickly that
the human mind has little chance of acting upon emotions.
The time in between combats and after all related combats
have occurred will be rife with psychological consequences.
This explains why units will fail to maintain morale and run
away. They do not do so during an actual combat - the
individuals are too busy acting in whatever way they have
been trained. But once the actual moments of combat are
over, and before it recommences, the individuals will have
the chance to feel their emotions. If fear of death and
injury overcomes fear of peer pressure and confidence in
their own ability, the individuals, and consequently the
unit, will run away.
This phenomenon of combat is widely reported and discussed
among military theorists (many of whom speak from practical
experience).
--
Raymond C. Parks, CCP
Disclaimer: I speak for no-one - not even myself, some of the time.
christopher charles bickford
>In article <Cq3qs...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kid Kibbitz) writes:
>|> Perhaps some of you out there aren't familiar with the events that
>|> instigated the recent (past 10 years or so) surge in women's self-defense
>|> classes. As it happens, a female blackbelt in some form of karate, with
>|> several tournament championships under her belt [ahem... excuse me] was
>|> attacked and raped on the street, and was unable to defend herself. While
>|> ...
>|> Here is a person who was a full-contact karate champion who was totally
>|> paralyzed when it came time for "real" life-and-death type combat. I have
The story as I've heard it is not that she was paralyzed, but
the techniques that tournament fighting teach do not work especially
well on an opponent who does not play by the rules. That is a weakness
of martial arts practice in general, but then again the alternative is
to do actual techniques, which would make practice partners scarce
quickly.
>As I was told this story, the problem wasn't that she 'froze'; the problem
>was that she was knocked down, and none of her training prepared her for this.
>Basically, the attacker did not follow her 'rules' of combat. (Whereas guys
>seem to have this thing about duking it out standing, rapists tend to use their
>mass to simply throw women to the ground, I understand). Thus, the self-defense
>courses for women now teach techniques for fighting prone.
If this is the story Steven Thompsen tells, it goes
something like this:
Black belt is assaulted and fights back. Rapist shrugs off
blows and rapes her.
It may or may not be true about the ground fighting part
(although it is generally true, I just don't know how it relates to the
story).
Basically the problem with rapists (fighting them that is), is
that they are able to get themselves into a state where they cannot feel
pain. Certain styles of jujitsu also teach the students how to do this
also, and they are scary to work with. Hit them as hard as you like,
and they will fall from being offbalanced, or leverage, but they do not
feel a thing.
Thompsen also tells a story where he is interviewing a prisoner
who has killed several people via strangulation. The prisoner in
question is a smaller person, and Thompsen wants to know how he does it.
The guy didn't want to show him, and Thompsen goaded him. Next thing
Thompsen remembers is the guards pulling the prisoner off of him.
People are capable of some astonishing things in stress situations. I
don't think many RPGs capture _that_.
>I think this illustrates a major hole in most RPG combat systems,
>the lack of a notion of different combat styles. There is always a possibility
>that a new opponent may have some trick or two that will catch one by surprise;
>it only works once or twice, but that first time it is deadly.
GURPS Martial arts does have rules for facing an unfamiliar
style (along with rules for fighting prone). Of course, this is a
fairly detailed system, and I can't think of any others that have these
sorts of rules.
While the rules are interesting, it is more detail then I would
ever want to have in my game. I think that the hole you refer to is not
unintentional. Of course this ties into a realism versus playability
arguement, and a emphasis on combat flamefest which I hope I don't
retrigger.
>Perhaps combat systems should have 'moves' that are similar to 'spells' of
>magic systems. At least one or two games have had a notion of card-based
>combat that effectively does this, and even have random draws that simulate
>opportunities (or the lack of them). If done right, this allows the player
>more control of tactics, while minimizing die rolling. Given the popularity
>of Magic: The Gathering, I hope it is only a matter of time before more RPG's
>have something of the sort.
I imagine there is a market for it. Top secret has exactly that
sort of thing. An old Dragon (late 20's/early 30's) has a combat system
for monks fighting hand to hand, which gives modifiers to hit and damage
based on attack versus defense. And of course there are those Lost
Worlds 'books'. Same thing as ace of aces, but with combat. Kind of
cool, but IMO it would bring much too much attention, detail and time to
combat.
>--
>Douglas Zimmerman k...@template.com uunet!template!kdz 703-318-1218
>Template Software 13100 Worldgate Dr, Ste 340 Herndon, VA 22070-4382
--
Chris Bickford | Ghiloni's Axiom:
Cbic...@ucs.indiana.edu | People are stupid and annoying.
Doug Bonar
>
> Just a quick note:
> Having had actual training in sword fighting (which is vastly different
> than fencing and LRP combat) and having seen SCA combat, I can tell
> you that SCA combat is _completely_ different from "real" combat.
>
> Gotta go now.
>
> -wil...@photobooks.gatech.edu
I hope you have time to get back to us on this Travis.
What is you 'actual training in sword fighting' (ie what was it trying
to teach you and why)?
How is 'real combat' different from SCA combat?
I think you're probably correct, but you won't convince anyone who
thinks SCA combat is realistic that it isn't just by saying so. You
have to at least give some reasoning or observations.
For myself, I think the idea that your training imposes on you
(anyone) a set of 'rules' of combat that guide your combat actions.
If you meet someone who follows a similar set of rules, then
your style of combat works fine. If you meet someone who follows
a very different set of rules (different objective, different ideas
of what is a weapon, different set of targets, etc.) you will both
be at a disadvantage defending vs the other's attacks.
Doug
Jim Walters
>
> Just a quick note:
> Having had actual training in sword fighting (which is vastly different
> than fencing and LRP combat) and having seen SCA combat, I can tell
> you that SCA combat is _completely_ different from "real" combat.
>
Let's see, you have "actual training in sword fighting", which is
different from fencing (which presumably includes Asian sword martial
arts like kendo), LRP combat, and SCA combat. You also are qualified to
pass judgement on what "real" sword combat is like. What the hell
do you do with your weekends, attack people in the mall with a
broadsword?
Jim Walters
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
(much snippage)
> If you exclude psychological elements from your simulation of
> combat, then you will get severely unrealistic results. This may well
> be what is desired - as the original poster said, who wants that much
> realism.
Its even more than that - our games can not simulate everything. So we do the
best we can. Weapon speeds, likely damages, etc... we can guestimate easily
enough. Psych factors, who the hell knows??! I would hate to damn every combat
system known to man because they do not cover realistic psych factors.
>
> The fact that people die in training and tournaments is not to
> imply that it is somehow equivalent to real combat.
Uh, if I said equivalent, I meant analogous. But my point was to show a high
level of similarity between mediaval training and SCA combat. Not that an SCA
fighter would be considered trained my the 1300's crowd...
> People die in
> hang-gliding, after all. Certainly there are strong similarities between
> such sports and real combat. The more full-contact and the fewer
> limiting rules there are, the closer the similarity gets, probably.
And remove the humanity, add regionaly rivalry, a code of honor (to help allow
irrational actions) and, of course, throw in the almightly $$$...
>
> However, I am not convinced that it shows the "essentials" of
> real combat behavior and results. It is utterly different in terms of
> psychology and in terms of damage - how much the remainder shows is
> not clear, in my mind.
I never said the psych factors were at all alike. Only that the lessons learned
in SCA combat are valid enough to be applied when deciding game mechaics.
>
>>>
>>Kromm <CX6...@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>>> Also important is that SCA-styled "combat", foil fencing etc. all
>>> have basic codes of conduct and safety rules that must be obeyed. This
>>> is because the objective is to "win" without anyone getting hurt. The
>>> objective of real-life combat is to survive while possibly *killing*
>>> the other guy.
>>
>>I find your priorities amusing. I am of the opposite mind-set - the objective
>>of real-life combat is to kill the other guy, and possibly survive in the
>>process. Most soldiers would agree with me, although not many would care to
>>take it to an extreme.
>
> You have tried to kill in real-life combat? And you place a higher
> priority on this than on your own life? That is psychotic - even an ideal
> soldier should not have that mindset.
Depends on the situation and there are shades of gray. I refuse the believe
that our soldiers will choose to run instead of fighting. As my uncle
emphatically told me, many years ago - "War is Kill or be Killed". I don't
expect that many soldiers will fight to the death (although the US Marines and
the japanese soldiers in the Pacific had an impicit mutual no-surrender credo),
nor should they. But I beleive they will hold land when told to, instead of
thinking, "Oh my, he might hurt me, I'm leaving."
> An ideal soldier would place his
> priorities on following orders, and few soldiers entirely live up to that
> ideal - generally placing their own survival and the survival of their
> comrades first.
Sure, but US troops are not often ordered into suicide missions, either. The
best way to serve the country is usually to hit hard, hit hard again, etc...
until you can't and fall back. No one recommends dying uselessly.
> I have thankfully never met a soldier with a priority
> on killing, and I find the idea of _most_ soldiers agreeing with you
> difficult to believe.
Put a rifle in his hands, and a man charging with a bayonet, and see what
happens. I am not saying that soldiers are suicidal killing machines, only
that they are trained to do a job, and they do it well. And their first job is
usually to hold an area and kill anyone who tries to enter it. Talk to a WWII,
Korea, or Vietnam vet and see.
>
> And this is with an all-volunteer, professional army. In medieval
> times, most of the soldiers did not have a choice. The degree of
> training varied - but little of it was systematic.
I wonder what the "motivation" mechanism for a 1300s conscipt was...
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
> In article <Cq3qs...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
> Kid Kibbitz <kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>no reason to believe that a SCA fighter would be any better prepared for
>>The Real Thing (TM) than she was; I have no reason to believe that a SCA
>>fighter would suffer any less paralysis than she did. Life-and-death
>>combat is simply NOT the same as sport, however full-contact it is.
>>
> Certainly, some (perhaps even most) SCA fighters would panic and
> frezze if faced with a real combat situation.
And foul our undies!
> But certainly not
> all of them- there will be some who've learned to place themselves in
> the proper frame of mind while training to deal with real combat.
> Perhaps only 10%, but that's still a fair number of people.)
>
>>But hey; I could be wrong.....
As an average (maybe) SCA fighter, I can assure you we'd be mowed down if we
were pittled against real troops. The more athletic ones might live a while
longer...
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
> This is a reply to tony regarding my skepticism regarding claims
> of the realism of SCA combat. Note that I am not making claims that it
> is unrealistic - which would mean I know what realism is - but rather I
> am saying that claims of realism may be unjustified.
Ok, but I'd like to see some type of support for your arguments other than your
above statement which says, to me, "since we don't know that SCA combat is
realistic, is is therefore not realistic. But we can't say how." Now I have
never been in a real mediaval-style scrape, but that does not mean I can't
conjecture after having collected some data. Given your argument, we could not
deduce (induce?) anything of which we have no first-hand experience. For
example, since I have never woven a rug, I can't anything about weaving.
>
> <to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com> wrote:
>>John H Kim <jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu> writes:
>>> I think the leap from SCA exercises to real medieval combat is
>>> unjustified.
> ...
>>> SCA players are trying to _win_. Medieval combatants
>>> will probably be trying to _live_. Even if you kill your enemy, any
>>> wound you receive could easily kill you through infection.
>>
>>I doubt they fretted about it too much, but instead did the best with the
>>cards they were dealt.
As an example let me refer to the French knights at Agincourt. If
memory serves, the English longbowmen cut down 10,000 knights that day, in
several waves. These French dudes, no matter how silly, were _not_ afraid to
fight and die if it came to that. [ Will the historically astute please check
and correct my figures? Thanx...]
> Perhas your behavior is different than others - but I think that
> the fact that these activities are dangerous influences your behavior.
> If driving were harmless, there are a lot of people I'd like to cut off
> or sideswipe.
Sure, but I don't understand your point, unless you are agreeing with me. I
said I takes risks, but prepare for them. You said you limit your activities
based on the chance of unfavorable outcome. Same thing.
>
>>
>>However, the mechanics of SCA combat (and foil/epee/sabre) fencing are
>>probably pretty realistic. SCA one-handed swords, which are by far and
>>away the most common weapon, weigh the same as real swords, the armor
>>weighs the same...etc... With some differences below taken into account,
>>I think that SCA combat is about as close to mediaval combat as you can
>>get, and it seems to be essentially the same as real combat.
>
> As far as the weights and hefts of the equipment, then I agree
> that it may be realistic.
Which makes it reasonable to apply SCA experience to game mechanics, my whole
point.
> The question in my mind is the _behavior_ of
> the participants.
An interesting question, but off the topic as far as I am concerned. I'd love
to see a good system for taking some psych stuff into account.
> Paintball equipment might have ranges comparable to
> some historical firearms - but I know that the engagements are *nothing*
> like history.
But I bet you could draw conclusions about the difficulty of leading a running
target, or hitting someone whose pops out from behind a tree every now and
then, right? So there, you _can_ derive information from a combat-derived
sport. QED.
>
> I don't really question the mechanics, but I do question whether
> it is "essentially the same as real combat".
Please give an example of an essential difference instead of reinterating an
old point.
>>
>>As I think about it, SCA combat is real similar to medieval training
>>exersizes. There they practiced against other humans with the intent to
>>win, not the intent to kill...The vikings practiced with wooden swords.
>>Probably the other Europeans, also.
>
> Note that you told me I was "wrong" for calling SCA combat
> "exercises", but here you note their similarity to such. Perhaps they
> are equivalent to medieval training exercises - but my thought was
> that there may be a big difference between the training and the real
> combat.
Hmmm. Ok, let's be clear - SCA combat is not real combat. It is a sport, a
game. I read more into your paragraph, though, than that. I thought you said
that SCA combat was an exercise that was completely unlike real combat. Mea
Culpa.
Training is designed to be like the real situation. The more realistic, the
better the training. Unless you have no survivors on graduation day. Since I
know of no fundamental difference between SCA combat and mediaval training, or
actual combat for that matter (psych matter excepted), I stand by my opinion
that SCA combat is a reasonable tool to gain experience about mediaval combat
that can be applied to game mechanics.
There are some psych things in SCA combat BTW - a _huge_ adreneline rush
most of all, a little panic as you try to hold your formation or your
shield wall crumbles... Mostly "Oh damn!", though, not "I am going to die..."
But if you are a French knight, perhaps, "Oh goody! more opponents are
coming!" There is also a "cha-CHING!" feeling when you score a nice kill on an
opponent of quality, like a knight...
----
Ok, gang, so how do we get some psychology stuff (terror, self preservation,
despair) into our games?
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
(snip)
>
> : Same as with any wound received, be it a kick from the ox, a gouge from a piece
> : of splintered wood, or any of thousands of things around the farm tract. I
> : doubt they fretted about it too much, but instead did the best with the cards
> : they were dealt. I don't worry about getting killed in my car, or my lawn
> : tractor rolling over on me, being hit by a train, falling in an elevator shaft,
> : etc... These dangerous things are all around me, and I take the proper
> : precautions before partaking. I don't sit in my basement in fear.
>
> Yeah, but actually having a piece of sharp steel coming at you (quite
> possibly in front of a big screaming man) is even worse than driving in
> rush hour. Methinks thy parralel is unjustified.
Maybe by 1994 standards. Not by 1300 standards, perhaps. Too many men were
killed in mediaval conflicts to think they were scared kittens. And I am not
sure a trained warrior, like a marine, would be as intimidated by said
pointily-armed-guys as you or me.
(snip)
> But there can be no doubt that all but the most brave (foolish) would play
> careful when their lives were on the line. The real situation is never the
> same as training, even in sport.
No argument. You learn by doing. But why did the French die at Agincourt so?
We are missing something, and I hope it is more than "The French knights
were stubborn..."
But remember my point, which is not that SCA combat is real combat, but that
SCA combat is similar enough to allow us to draw valid conclusions and apply
them to game mechanics.
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
> I find hte whole notion of claims that SCA combat is a realistic
> simulation of medieval combat silly. Of course its just a sport. Not only does
> real fighting involve fear, it involves maneuvers that the SCA doesn't allow
> and it involves pain (and no the SCA rules governing not using your arm after
> its been struck don't measure up).
While what you say is true, you list no essential differences. It may be you
don't feel the pain of a broken arm, but since you don't get to use it, you
tend to die quickly anyway. So yes, I'd say it is pretty realistic.
> Real medieval combat was an extremely hasrsh affair. The show Connections
> did a pretty good demonstration of what swords did to people using a side of
> beef, pretty disgusting stuff. I don't see things like that happening in SCA
> combat.
Well duh. Gee, let's go out these weekend, armor up, and maim some people.
>
> I'm not saying that SCA folks know nothing just that they're recreations
> don't count them as experts, no matter how much some of them would like to
> believe.
Well, SCA combat is not real combat, as I've typed quite a few times tonight.
But I spent (mis-spent ;) three years in realistic armor, wielding realistic
weapons, and using realistic tactics (we read their books, after all). So I
think I have a reasonable basis on which to make game mechanics decisions. How
have you aquired your experiance? Reading books? Repeating what others have
told you?
Let me re-iterate. All I am saying is that SCA combat is an effective tool that
allws me to make reasonable game mechanics decisions. I know it is not real
combat. I know there is a boatload of psychological things it does not have.
But I am talking mechanics, not life.
Some of the things I have learned include how fast individual combat is. By
watching the movies, you'd think it takes awhile. Wrong. 90% of all battles I
say were decided within 10 seconds, probably less. The better fighters would
take the lesser fighters in one pass, perhaps 4 seconds total. I seem to recall
a killing machine named Moonwolf who dealt me at least 4 fatal blows in about 5
seconds after we locked up. Even equally matched fighters of lesser skill kill
each other quickly. The longest battles involved the better fighters, say the
top 10%. I guess they learned how to defend and attack more carefully...
I could translate this to any RPG, but that would be no fun. A tabletop gamer,
though, could make good use of this.
I am blown away that every responder to my original statement says my
experiences are 100% invalid and inconsequential...I'd like somebody to post
an essential difference with respect to game mechanics...
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
>
(snip)
> The problem I have between SCA exercizes and medieval melee combat
> is primarily the `psychological factors' that you are so ready to
> ignore.
Be fair. I have not overlooked them, or even really ignored them. I don't know
how to apply them to an RPG beyond the obvious - "You are out numbered three to
one, roll a d20 to see if you run away in fear..."
> I believe these are not insignificant factors but constitute
> a real difference in style and usage of the admittedly similar
> weapons. For example, in a sport, if your opponent tires you will
> either allow him a chance to rest or he will forfeit so that he is
> not overly exerted.
Bullshit, buddy! I never saw ANYBODY show any real mercy. And we all fought to
the end. Winning was great, and we didn't throw opportunities away. Before
making any such statement, you should gain some SCA knowledge. For instance,
most SCA tourneys are single elimination. So you don't save anything for "next
time."
The act of mercy that _was_ common was called a "Point of Honor". This is where
an aspiring knight would injure an opponent, then injure _himself_ on purpose,
to make the battle fair again. These "points" were tallied and meant something
down the line... Perhaps aspiring knights had to have a certain amount be
become a knight. Snore. My group did not believe in them. We called them
"Points of Stupidity". Even so, this did not change the essential aspect of
the combat, just restarted it at an equal, if reduced, level.
> In a real combat, the combattants will press
> on even after extreme fatigue has set in to gain an advantage on the
> opponent or to prevent getting killed.
Same as in SCA combat.
> Thus, a `fatigue factor'
> created from SCA style sport would be marginally applicable at best
> to a real combat because the inner motivation would be different in
> each case.
I don't understand what this means, really. But you imply that because SCA
combat is not real combat, it is wholy unlike real combat???
>
> One `fundamental difference' between the SCA `sword' and a real sword
> is the real sword has a sharp edge. And though, in certain hands, a
> piece of wood is considered a `deadly weapon', in most people's hands,
> it is not. A sword, in anyone's hands, is potentially lethal. Another
> `fundamental difference'.
There is no difference. A stout blow with a sword will kill. A stout blow
with an SCA sword is treated as a kill. You have to swing hard and get a clean
shot to get the kill in the SCA. Seems real similar to me.
And let us not forget that the great Japanese swordsman Mushashi (?) found
almost exclusively with wooden swords, not metal. Wooden swords don't break as
easy...And he is documented to have killed a man with modified boat oars.
Perhaps off topic, but interesting :)
>
>> 1) SCA combat does not demonstrate essential elements of combat mechanics,
>> the
>> thing that applies to this newsgroup,
>
> see above.
I did, and your argument is weak.
>> 2) SCA combat is completely unlike real combat when it is nearly identical to
>> mediaval training and mediaval tournaments. Remember, they were not trying to
>> kill in tournaments, although accidents happened. People have dies in SCA
>> combat, too.
>
The next section confused me...
> A person may be able to hit the bullseye with his rifle ninety-nine
> times out of a hundred. This does not mean he will be able to hit an
> enemy soldier ninety-nine times out of a hundred in the field.
Excellence in training implies excellence in the field. That is why the US
gov't spends so much on training. In wartime, most
soldiers are able to bury their humanity deeply enough to use their weapons
quite well. That is one thing they train soldiers to do.
> Does
> this mean the Army should stop using rifle ranges to train soldiers
> to use their weapons?
What?
> Just because the Army uses rifle ranges to train
> soldiers does it mean that they think it will somehow make their
> recruits better able to handle the pressures of combat?
Well, there is more to being a soldier than shooting a rifle. But skill with a
weapon builds confidence, which could help. Besides, if you pop the bad guy at
200 yards, he won't get into bayonet range, which sounds very stressful to me.
Your last paragraph had nothing to do with this thread, did it??
---
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
> to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com writes:
>
>>You are wrong. Ever do any serious amount of SCA fighting? I have. Do some,
>>and I doubt you'll call it exersize. It is a very competitive sport using
>>essentially period equipment.
>
> Sorry to jump in here, but hey--it's a free net [so far].... :)
Go for it.
(sad story deleted)
>
> Here is a person who was a full-contact karate champion who was totally
> paralyzed when it came time for "real" life-and-death type combat. I have
> no reason to believe that a SCA fighter would be any better prepared for
> The Real Thing (TM) than she was; I have no reason to believe that a SCA
> fighter would suffer any less paralysis than she did. Life-and-death
> combat is simply NOT the same as sport, however full-contact it is.
>
> But hey; I could be wrong.....
>
No, I would say SCA combat would
be like bad training for the real training for the real thing. But that is not
the argument. The argument is, "Is SCA combat sufficiently realistic to allow
us to draw game mechanics decisions from the lessons learned?".
--
Ray Trent
>Some of the things I have learned include how fast individual combat is. By
>watching the movies, you'd think it takes awhile. Wrong. 90% of all battles I
>say were decided within 10 seconds, probably less. The better fighters would
Wasn't this originally the whole point of this conversation?
Yes, SCA fighting is likely to provide insight into many things about
combat. However, I'd be so bold as to suggest that one of the *few*
areas into which it (and other combat training) is unlikely to provide
much insight is the psychology of actual lethal combat.
The pace of battle, it seems to me, is likely to be determined almost
entirely by the psychology of the opponents. How aggressive you are in
battle seems like it has to relate pretty strongly to how much you
stand to gain and lose. And yes, real combatants usually have more to
gain...but they also have a hell of a lot more to lose.
Maybe real melee combats are as fast a training combats. Presumably
out there in the net somewhere there are people who have extensive
street fighting experience. I would tend to trust their opinions
regarding the speed of combat much more than those of SCA
participants. Even so...they are likely to have used knives as primary
weapons rather than swords...and knives may (seem likely to, in fact)
have entirely different tactics, in training and in real life.
I also wouldn't be surprised if most real melee combats are as fast.
It seems likely to me that green combatants (presumably the majority)
are the ones more likely to use their training tactics (and possibly
get killed because of it). You relate a similar experience in the SCA,
in fact: that the longer battles tend to be fought by the best/most
experienced combatants.
Which end of this spectrum do you think would more accurately reflect
the tactics and abilities of most PCs in fantasy games?
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..