My three hour debate is a half minute roll-off, why isn't my five minute combat? (1 Viewer)

[lawstaff]

PDQ has ablative hitpoints in the form of stat damage. This is not one-roll resolution. Its combat definitely is not also one-roll.
FUDGE has no systematic real support for resolving combat in one roll, it's just 'GM makes shit up'.
Wushu has Threat/Chi acting as hitpoints, and separate enemies, not conducive for a one-roll combat resolution.
Amber... didn't it have a rule about 'fights not being over until GM decides players have expended enough resources'?

HeroQuest has simple and extended contests. A simple contest is one opposed roll contest. An extended contest is just that - a more dramatic extended contest - and is used for key contests where the Narrator and players want to have the big highstakes dramatic contest.

Jeff

 

[Alex_P]

Wow. Everyone piping in to say '<system> handles combat rolls with the same system as other skill rolls', that's not the point. Because most systems listed so far then go on to have you play with an ablative hitpoint total, whereas this is not what happens with, say, climbing or negotiations in those systems. Which means the combat is definitely not over in anything less than tens of minutes.

Of the systems mentioned already, at least the following involve the same kind of hit-point / status-track system for any kind of conflict:
The Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, Trollbabe, Wushu, Spirit of the Century

Most of them resolve scenes fairly quickly -- not necessarily one roll, three or four rolls is hardly bogging down a scene that actually matters.

-- Alex

 

[Max]

This is not one-roll resolution. Its combat definitely is not also one-roll.

The OP quite explicitly DID NOT ask for one-roll resolution, you know.

PS. PDQ - what the hell is "ablative" about stat damage? FUDGE - opposed rolls, winner wins; there you go. Wushu - the same goes for verbal arguments and every other kind of conflict as well. Amber - see Wushu. And they all treat combat with the exact same level of abstraction as they do social contests.

 

[Steve Dubya]

So, my master barrister-wizard with a CHA 18 and INT 18 will now have his major life's work, at which he is generally reckoned an expert, depend on MY skills? Me, who gets tongue-tied with girls, who loses his temper and forgets his talking points, who either thinks faster than he speaks and whips around on tangents, or speaks faster than he thinks, and makes poor arguments? If *I* argue poorly, Phoenix Wright, Ace Elven Attorney argues poorly?

But Lardass Jones who trips on stairs and gets winded walking to his car has mechanical support for playing his lesbian stripper ninja who can jump through flaming hoops while throwing daggers and can run a marathon without breaking a sweat? Old Crying Charlie who bursts into tears when a mosquito bites him and gets light-headed when cutting steak can play a steely-eyed barbarian who fights on while hundreds of arrows are in him? Why do THEY get to casually ignore their limitations when the role-play, but I'm penalized when *I* want to?

I say ban-worthy things to GMs who casually ignore their players' physical limitations by using game mechanics but ruthlessly enforce my social limitations by declaring social game mechanics as "roll playing, not role playing"

I agree with this, and just as vehemently.

 

[talysman]

Wow. Everyone piping in to say '<system> handles combat rolls with the same system as other skill rolls', that's not the point. Because most systems listed so far then go on to have you play with an ablative hitpoint total, whereas this is not what happens with, say, climbing or negotiations in those systems. Which means the combat is definitely not over in anything less than tens of minutes.

Original D&D still fits that bill. All weapons originally did 1d6 damage. Therefore, there's absolutely no reason not to have insults do 1d6 social damage, or the appearance of a Great Old One do 1d6 sanity damage. With other systems (AD&D, BRP, GURPS,) there's more variety in weapon damage, so it may feel a little strange having everyone do the same amount of damage, but you could still just suck it up and do social damage against hit points, or hack together a crude social weapon system. Maybe a base 1d6 for insults, 2d6 for those based on a target's minor phobias and mental disadvantages, 3d6 for major mental disadvantages.

I can't think of games that handle combat that fast. Something with a bell-curve would be good, as otherwise the results are too swingy.

Or perhaps even a table of results, scaled for desired theme! '16 on Gunfight In A restaurant table: waiters are dead, the place is all shot up, your side sustained minor injuries while letting the opposition get away, then the cops show up'

InSpectres and octaNe go the other way, no hit points at all, and scaled results: success can be partial, full, or extreme, and so can failure. The Dying Earth has scaled results, too, and also a simple tactical dueling system for combat, magic, and social interactions -- basically, a rochambeau-like ring of styles for each arena of competition.

Combat, either physical or social, can be as quick or as drawn out as you'd like. It's your own damned fault that you prefer games with crunchy combat that takes hours.

 

[Teataine]

I agree with this, and just as vehemently.

Me too. Also, roleplaying does not exclude rolling dice.

 

[WarmasterHorus]

So, my master barrister-wizard with a CHA 18 and INT 18 will now have his major life's work, at which he is generally reckoned an expert, depend on MY skills? Me, who gets tongue-tied with girls, who loses his temper and forgets his talking points, who either thinks faster than he speaks and whips around on tangents, or speaks faster than he thinks, and makes poor arguments? If *I* argue poorly, Phoenix Wright, Ace Elven Attorney argues poorly?

But Lardass Jones who trips on stairs and gets winded walking to his car has mechanical support for playing his lesbian stripper ninja who can jump through flaming hoops while throwing daggers and can run a marathon without breaking a sweat? Old Crying Charlie who bursts into tears when a mosquito bites him and gets light-headed when cutting steak can play a steely-eyed barbarian who fights on while hundreds of arrows are in him? Why do THEY get to casually ignore their limitations when the role-play, but I'm penalized when *I* want to?

I say ban-worthy things to GMs who casually ignore their players' physical limitations by using game mechanics but ruthlessly enforce my social limitations by declaring social game mechanics as "roll playing, not role playing"

Completely agree, but at the same time I can understand the demand that some players want to have an active role in the outcome of social encounters.
To address this problem, I rely on a hybrid method: roleplay the crap out of the social encounter and when it comes to determining the ultimate outcome, I let the dice and relevant skills decide with generous modifiers depending of how well the roleplaying turned out. To me, this takes the best of both worlds.

 

[Hjorimir]

So, my master barrister-wizard with a CHA 18 and INT 18 will now have his major life's work, at which he is generally reckoned an expert, depend on MY skills? Me, who gets tongue-tied with girls, who loses his temper and forgets his talking points, who either thinks faster than he speaks and whips around on tangents, or speaks faster than he thinks, and makes poor arguments? If *I* argue poorly, Phoenix Wright, Ace Elven Attorney argues poorly?

But Lardass Jones who trips on stairs and gets winded walking to his car has mechanical support for playing his lesbian stripper ninja who can jump through flaming hoops while throwing daggers and can run a marathon without breaking a sweat? Old Crying Charlie who bursts into tears when a mosquito bites him and gets light-headed when cutting steak can play a steely-eyed barbarian who fights on while hundreds of arrows are in him? Why do THEY get to casually ignore their limitations when the role-play, but I'm penalized when *I* want to?

I say ban-worthy things to GMs who casually ignore their players' physical limitations by using game mechanics but ruthlessly enforce my social limitations by declaring social game mechanics as "roll playing, not role playing"

I somewhat disagree with this. I'm not saying you're wrong in principal, but when I run my games I expect players to actually talk for their characters. The only time I'll accept a simple skill roll is when the social interaction is inconsequential and for the sake of expedience.

The reason being is that this is where I find the most enjoyment as both a player and a DM/GM, talking in character. Yes, sometimes you'll see somebody open mouth and insert foot, but not too often. Also, I'll ignore things that the character wouldn't say but were said solely because the player didn't totally understand things.

If after the character-to-character talk is out of the way and it isn't clear to me (the DM/GM) how to move forward (depending on what the player was trying to achieve), I will then call for a skill roll (Diplomacy, Intimidate, whatever) to tip the balance one way or the other.

I can't afford the medical bills for having the players slug it out (and I think the seven of them would be able whoop up on me), but I can afford to make them role-play their characters. We all have fun doing it, so it works for us.

I'm not saying that anybody who plays differently is having badwrongfun, but I'm not really going to listen to anybody who insists that we are having badwrongfun either. This is how we've played for 25 years and I don't see us changing any time soon.

 

[Anivair]

Have a look again at that movie where Tom Cruise battles Jack Nicholson. A Few Good Men - great courtroom drama.

Not all combat is significant or interesting, BTW. Certainly not in fiction (which is what RPGs are); without blinking I could point you to half a dozen instances of uninteresting combat in fiction.

I'm not sure I get it, though. If you're playing a courtroom drama scene, no ST in their right mind is going to let you off with one roll. You roll a few times, do some RP back and forth ... that's the idea. if that's the scene.

likewise, if you're in a combat that doesn't matter (a bar brawl or you beating on someone who is obviously weaker (or being beaten on by someone who is obviously weaker) why would any ST worh a damn use rolls? Just describe it and be done.

Dice (as I say in my MUTT write up) do one thing and one thing only: they give you a random element. So that you can see how things work out when chance is involved. If chance isn't involved, then why roll? You're just doing yourself a disservice

 

[Anivair]

So, my master barrister-wizard with a CHA 18 and INT 18 will now have his major life's work, at which he is generally reckoned an expert, depend on MY skills? Me, who gets tongue-tied with girls, who loses his temper and forgets his talking points, who either thinks faster than he speaks and whips around on tangents, or speaks faster than he thinks, and makes poor arguments? If *I* argue poorly, Phoenix Wright, Ace Elven Attorney argues poorly?

But Lardass Jones who trips on stairs and gets winded walking to his car has mechanical support for playing his lesbian stripper ninja who can jump through flaming hoops while throwing daggers and can run a marathon without breaking a sweat? Old Crying Charlie who bursts into tears when a mosquito bites him and gets light-headed when cutting steak can play a steely-eyed barbarian who fights on while hundreds of arrows are in him? Why do THEY get to casually ignore their limitations when the role-play, but I'm penalized when *I* want to?

I say ban-worthy things to GMs who casually ignore their players' physical limitations by using game mechanics but ruthlessly enforce my social limitations by declaring social game mechanics as "roll playing, not role playing"

Well, at my table, that is certainly close to the case and I'll stick with it. But that is not to say that your character is limited by your skills.

a) I am neither a jury nor an attorney. if you're giving a speech, you don't have to impress the UN. Just me. Another lame geek.

b) I don't ignore your character's skill. I take it into account. If your character is alarmingly clever and charismatic, then by all means, make the roll. And if you roll well, I will certainly consider that whatever you are about to say is as convincing and appropriate as it can be.

c) but that doesn't exempt you from roleplaying either. Because it is a roleplaying game. it's not a sport, so your ninja stripper can do whaetver she wants you your fat douchebag friend doesn't need a lick of skill. Nor does your friend's fake barbarien need to be a warrior, because it's not okay for him to swing a blow up axe around my living room. You, however, are playing a character who's primary skill is talking and it just so happens that talking in character is the reason for the game. it gets special treatment because it's the focus of the game.

the focus of nascar is driving, so it gets special focus. I don't care if a nascar driver can also paint, because all he needs to do today is drive. And all any player in my game needs to do to be doing things right is behave in character.

At my table, your stats and dice rolls matter (and if your character is very smart, I'll give you a lot of information before you start talking) but if you get up in front of a jury and give them the chewbacca defense, then no force on earth can give you stats high enough to get beyond that. That doesn't mean that you can't play that concept, but it does mean that you need to be at least of average intelligence to do it well.