RPGnet Columns
10-19-2005, 03:22 AM
Post originally by Rob Carriere at 2005-10-19 02:22:35
Converted from Phorums BB System
Boy, did you set yourself up for some discussion! :-)
I think that there's several distinct arguments going on here and that it helps to mercilessly pull them apart.
The first argument is the whiff factor (Joe the accountant beats Conan because Conan). Well, if you consider that unacceptable, then most RPG combat systems are failures, because in most RPG combat systems this can happen. It may be so unlikely that we'll be talking about Conan's bad dice day for years to come, but it can happen. So, if you consider that to be a problem, then the issue is _not_ the number of rolls in the combat, or any such thing. It is the fundamental way of succeed/fail resolution. You need a system that will avoid "inappropriate failure" unconditionally. The usual recommendation is to switch from task resolution ("do I succeed?") to conflict resolution ("do I win?") because that lets you narrate your way out of embarrassing Conan ("Joe leaves victoriously after lightning strikes Conan"). At any rate this issue has _nothing_ to do with the number of die rolls.
The second argument is the probability of a whiff. (It's OK if Joe beats Conan, but it should be _very_ unlikely.) This, too, has nothing to do with the number of die rolls. If you give me a complex combat system, I can crunch numbers and come up with the probability that all the many die rolls of this system will work together to make Joe win. We can then replace the entire combat by a single roll vs that probability, and get the exact same statistics. (And that's true for any system, not just "kill the PCs quickly" case you cite in the article. You have to get your numbers straight, but that's a rules designer problem, not a player/GM problem.)
The third argument is the detail of resolution. You allude to this in the title of your column, but the winner need not take all--even in single roll combat. There are plenty of die mechanics out there that give you margin of victory and those can be used to determine the painful details of resolution to your heart's content. Again, with the right number crunching behind the rules design you can mimic the statistics of any complex combat system in this way.
The fourth argument, complexity, is much more interesting. (It's sometimes also advertised as "realism".) On the face of it, it looks like a non-starter, because any activity is complex if you look at it in detail--see your own example of a seduction roll. That's a situation at least as complex as a combat all resolved in a single roll.
But, the trick is that the people arguing "it is too complex for a single roll" usually actually mean "...and I'm interested in that complexity." and _that_ is a very legitimate argument.
...Which means we've come full circle to the start of your article.
Somebody who is interested in the details of combat or somebody who wants to employ combat tactics is never going to be happy with single roll combat because that sweeps all the details under the rug as well eliminating all possibility of being tactically clever.
Now the funny part about RPGs is that, traditionally, the only part of the rules that allows any sort of tactics at all is the combat system. So, if, like your friend, you are a tactician, then that is where you have to go, because that is where the action is.
Now, from what you say he's apparently not much of a combat fan, but it's still the one arena for tactics. That means that what you told him is sort of: "You know, that stuff that you may not like much but is your only venue for tactics? I'm going to rip that right out and leave you with _nothing_."
I think you'd have stood a much better chance with him if you'd offered him a replacement ("I'm going for single roll combat and for tactical options I'm inserting X.")
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that I mostly agree with your initial position that complex combat rules are interesting only if the players are interested in that stuff. (Yes, that smells like a tautology--it should.)
The only caveat is that you can be interested in complex combat rules for a number of reasons,
1. Because you like to see those details (many people who also war game are in this group)
2. Because you want to see details _somewhere_ and combat is the traditional place.
3. Because you want to use combat tactics.
4. Because you want to use tactics and combat is the traditional venue.
Game with people in group 1 or 3 and you need complex combat rules. Game with people in group 2 or 4 and you need complex _something_ rules, not necessarily combat.
Game with people outside those 4 groups and you can have uniformly simple rules.
SR
--
Converted from Phorums BB System
Boy, did you set yourself up for some discussion! :-)
I think that there's several distinct arguments going on here and that it helps to mercilessly pull them apart.
The first argument is the whiff factor (Joe the accountant beats Conan because Conan). Well, if you consider that unacceptable, then most RPG combat systems are failures, because in most RPG combat systems this can happen. It may be so unlikely that we'll be talking about Conan's bad dice day for years to come, but it can happen. So, if you consider that to be a problem, then the issue is _not_ the number of rolls in the combat, or any such thing. It is the fundamental way of succeed/fail resolution. You need a system that will avoid "inappropriate failure" unconditionally. The usual recommendation is to switch from task resolution ("do I succeed?") to conflict resolution ("do I win?") because that lets you narrate your way out of embarrassing Conan ("Joe leaves victoriously after lightning strikes Conan"). At any rate this issue has _nothing_ to do with the number of die rolls.
The second argument is the probability of a whiff. (It's OK if Joe beats Conan, but it should be _very_ unlikely.) This, too, has nothing to do with the number of die rolls. If you give me a complex combat system, I can crunch numbers and come up with the probability that all the many die rolls of this system will work together to make Joe win. We can then replace the entire combat by a single roll vs that probability, and get the exact same statistics. (And that's true for any system, not just "kill the PCs quickly" case you cite in the article. You have to get your numbers straight, but that's a rules designer problem, not a player/GM problem.)
The third argument is the detail of resolution. You allude to this in the title of your column, but the winner need not take all--even in single roll combat. There are plenty of die mechanics out there that give you margin of victory and those can be used to determine the painful details of resolution to your heart's content. Again, with the right number crunching behind the rules design you can mimic the statistics of any complex combat system in this way.
The fourth argument, complexity, is much more interesting. (It's sometimes also advertised as "realism".) On the face of it, it looks like a non-starter, because any activity is complex if you look at it in detail--see your own example of a seduction roll. That's a situation at least as complex as a combat all resolved in a single roll.
But, the trick is that the people arguing "it is too complex for a single roll" usually actually mean "...and I'm interested in that complexity." and _that_ is a very legitimate argument.
...Which means we've come full circle to the start of your article.
Somebody who is interested in the details of combat or somebody who wants to employ combat tactics is never going to be happy with single roll combat because that sweeps all the details under the rug as well eliminating all possibility of being tactically clever.
Now the funny part about RPGs is that, traditionally, the only part of the rules that allows any sort of tactics at all is the combat system. So, if, like your friend, you are a tactician, then that is where you have to go, because that is where the action is.
Now, from what you say he's apparently not much of a combat fan, but it's still the one arena for tactics. That means that what you told him is sort of: "You know, that stuff that you may not like much but is your only venue for tactics? I'm going to rip that right out and leave you with _nothing_."
I think you'd have stood a much better chance with him if you'd offered him a replacement ("I'm going for single roll combat and for tactical options I'm inserting X.")
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that I mostly agree with your initial position that complex combat rules are interesting only if the players are interested in that stuff. (Yes, that smells like a tautology--it should.)
The only caveat is that you can be interested in complex combat rules for a number of reasons,
1. Because you like to see those details (many people who also war game are in this group)
2. Because you want to see details _somewhere_ and combat is the traditional place.
3. Because you want to use combat tactics.
4. Because you want to use tactics and combat is the traditional venue.
Game with people in group 1 or 3 and you need complex combat rules. Game with people in group 2 or 4 and you need complex _something_ rules, not necessarily combat.
Game with people outside those 4 groups and you can have uniformly simple rules.
SR
--