PDA

View Full Version : Physical Conflict as Secondary



The Rose Dragon
2013-08-27, 07:28 AM
In my quest to find new RPGs that I haven't covered with something else already, I've been reading different systems for handling martial arts, when I've come upon something in World of Darkness: Mirrors that distracted me from my search.

Specifically, the Sway, Anticipation, Setup and Declaration rules.

As far as handling mental and social rolls better to bring them up to par with physical rolls, they aren't too bad. Unfortunately, the actual descriptions of play in the book make me want to run a game where physical conflict is only used to help the mental and social conflicts going on that actually drive the plot. A good example is con or crime flicks where gunfire and acrobatics rarely get more than a passing mention except to make sure the plan unfolds as it should, or to show something has gone very very wrong, and psychological horror and drama (Monster, Ocean's Eleven and The Usual Suspects come to mind). Yet the Storytelling system can only give so much weight to non-physical actions, and physical conflict still remains a big part of the game even with Sway etc.

What I'm looking for is a game where shooting and jumping is glossed over to favor elaborate planning, brilliant deductions and silver tongues. What I am not looking for is:

1) Something like FATE, where all conflict is (by default) equally important, instead of non-physical conflict clearly being the primary means of progressing the story.

2) Fiasco, where failure and SNAFUs are a given, instead of the PCs having a chance of having succeeded without a hitch (even if only retroactively).

Are there any such games anyone can think of, or am I wasting my time?

erikun
2013-08-27, 01:18 PM
Perhaps Dogs in the Vineyard?

Mind you, I haven't played the system itself so I can't say for 100% sure. However, everything I've heard indicates that conflicts start low-key (talking, socializing, perhaps trying to physically force something) and only turns into actual combat if the PCs or NPCs wish to escalate and risk the dangers of if.

Of course, DitV may be too narrowly focused of a system for your intentions as well.

Rezby
2013-08-27, 03:15 PM
Ironically, Warhammer 40k's Dark Heresy is perfect for a game where physical combat is a last measure resort for when everything has gone to ****. Because combat is so incredibly lethal that even a simple gun fight vs mooks can and often does leave party members dead or dying. A couple Characters into a campaign and players will get the message that you want to be sneaky or social or intelligent, not guns blazing kick in the door.

The Dark Fiddler
2013-08-27, 05:37 PM
Ironically, Warhammer 40k's Dark Heresy is perfect for a game where physical combat is a last measure resort for when everything has gone to ****. Because combat is so incredibly lethal that even a simple gun fight vs mooks can and often does leave party members dead or dying. A couple Characters into a campaign and players will get the message that you want to be sneaky or social or intelligent, not guns blazing kick in the door.

That may be, but outside of lethal combat (which, while notable, I've found to be overstated), it doesn't really have any mechanics that encourage non-physical encounters. You could get the same effect by pitting an average D&D 3.5 party up against nothing but encounters of ECL+10.

kyoryu
2013-08-27, 08:22 PM
Leverage, if you can still get it?

Apart from that, I see a few ways that could work:

1) Handling the game world in such a way that physical violence is counterproductive. If you're playing a game in a noble court in France, and you start just slicing everybody open, things will go very poorly for you.

2) A system where, mechanically, non-combat options generally outperform combat options. This has got to be symmetrical - if character A tries to fight character B, who tries to do things with non-combat options, character B should have a better chance of success. But the reverse must be true as well - if character B tries combat against character A who is doing noncombat, character A should have a better chance.

(I only mention the reverse thing, which probably sounds a bit pedantic, because otherwise this is trivial to implement in any system by just having Really Tough Opponents)

I think the Doctor Who game does this, but it's the only game I know of that really goes *that* far towards physical conflict being secondary.

3) Literally stripping combat options out of the game. This may be a bit much.

4) Increasing the risk of combat, for the same reward. Having the consequences of combat be more severe may be sufficient to get people to avoid combat when possible, especially if there aren't any additional rewards for doing so, or if the combat solution has additional world-based consequences. While deadly combat is generally a net zero (it's deadly for everyone), the fact that the risk is increased over the safer non-combat options.

5) If you want to do the planning/cleverness game, have any opposition faced sufficiently powerful that going in blind and without preparation is likely to be a death sentence.

6) Combat shouldn't have an inherent reward like XP.

I actually think that options 1 and 5 are the most bang-for-the-buck, and they're pretty neutral except for the system needing to treat non-combat as at least as important as combat. Really, the important thing to make this work is that the expected result from "fighting" needs to be worse than the expected result from "not fighting". Part of that can come from system, but a lot of it comes from how you portray the world.

At the minimum, you probably want a system that treats non-combat as at least an equal partner with combat.

I know you said no Fate, but I think even its balanced mechanical approach could give you the type of gameplay you want with just a few modifications to its "dials" and running the world appropriately.

Arbane
2013-08-28, 01:25 AM
That may be, but outside of lethal combat (which, while notable, I've found to be overstated), it doesn't really have any mechanics that encourage non-physical encounters. You could get the same effect by pitting an average D&D 3.5 party up against nothing but encounters of ECL+10.

The problem with that approach in D&D is that it means that lethal violence is always a good option for the other side.

The Rose Dragon
2013-08-28, 02:32 AM
1) Handling the game world in such a way that physical violence is counterproductive. If you're playing a game in a noble court in France, and you start just slicing everybody open, things will go very poorly for you.

Doesn't really change much if the system doesn't give me a robust method for handling non-violent conflicts that come naturally to the court.


2) A system where, mechanically, non-combat options generally outperform combat options. This has got to be symmetrical - if character A tries to fight character B, who tries to do things with non-combat options, character B should have a better chance of success. But the reverse must be true as well - if character B tries combat against character A who is doing noncombat, character A should have a better chance.

Can theoretically work for a system, but not what I'm looking for. The idea is that you can't really just shoot someone during the mental / social phase. You might rough them up a bit (or a lot) during the planning, but any actual violence happens in its own phase, and either gives a modifier to the actual conflict to come, or is the bloody resolution of a preceding one, with no more detail than social rolls have for most systems.


3) Literally stripping combat options out of the game. This may be a bit much.

Combat might be the wrong word to use. Violence is better, though it is not necessarily the only form of physical conflict (a chase scene, for example, is also physical conflict).


4) Increasing the risk of combat, for the same reward. Having the consequences of combat be more severe may be sufficient to get people to avoid combat when possible, especially if there aren't any additional rewards for doing so, or if the combat solution has additional world-based consequences. While deadly combat is generally a net zero (it's deadly for everyone), the fact that the risk is increased over the safer non-combat options.

This is pretty much the opposite of what I want, where if you handled your mental and social conflicts well, violence should have minimal to no risks (whereas if you planned poorly and went in guns blazing, you get mowed down ingloriously).


5) If you want to do the planning/cleverness game, have any opposition faced sufficiently powerful that going in blind and without preparation is likely to be a death sentence.

The reverse should also be true, where any opposition who screws up their own non-physical rolls will screw up any attempts to take down the PCs physically.


6) Combat shouldn't have an inherent reward like XP.

I am yet to play in a system where it does outside of video games.


Part of that can come from system, but a lot of it comes from how you portray the world.

Problem is, if my system is, say, D&D, no matter how I portray the world, either I ignore vast portions of the system (in which case why am I even playing the system?), or non-combat options are just color between one fight and the next, because that's how the system works, lacking rigor in handling anything else mechanically, without GM fiat.

kyoryu
2013-08-28, 03:26 AM
Yeah, most of that post was just me kind of thinking through and laying out the options. Not quite as much a statement of advocacy.


Doesn't really change much if the system doesn't give me a robust method for handling non-violent conflicts that come naturally to the court.

Granted. At a minimum, you need a system that handles out-of-combat with as much grace as combat.


Can theoretically work for a system, but not what I'm looking for. The idea is that you can't really just shoot someone during the mental / social phase. You might rough them up a bit (or a lot) during the planning, but any actual violence happens in its own phase, and either gives a modifier to the actual conflict to come, or is the bloody resolution of a preceding one, with no more detail than social rolls have for most systems.

You don't necessarily need to have combat be mechanically prohibited for that to work. Consequences of violence can often be sufficient deterrent.

Look at Ocean's 11. Why don't they engage in violence? Two reasons:

1) It's not really their style. That's easy enough to handle, just get your players to buy into the game type.
2) Engaging in shootouts would increase scrutiny of their actions, which would be Not Good.


Combat might be the wrong word to use. Violence is better, though it is not necessarily the only form of physical conflict (a chase scene, for example, is also physical conflict).

So you really want to emphasize the prep aspect, then, and not even non-combat but other physical types of interactions?


This is pretty much the opposite of what I want, where if you handled your mental and social conflicts well, violence should have minimal to no risks (whereas if you planned poorly and went in guns blazing, you get mowed down ingloriously).

Sure. But my suggestion here is that by making combat inherently risky, you'll want to do what you can to remove that risk.


The reverse should also be true, where any opposition who screws up their own non-physical rolls will screw up any attempts to take down the PCs physically.

Makes sense.


I am yet to play in a system where it does outside of video games.

Like D&D granting exp for combat?


Problem is, if my system is, say, D&D, no matter how I portray the world, either I ignore vast portions of the system (in which case why am I even playing the system?), or non-combat options are just color between one fight and the next, because that's how the system works, lacking rigor in handling anything else mechanically, without GM fiat.

Yeah, D&D isn't an awesome fit for that type of game, just because of its focus. Interestingly, you could argue that older versions actually encouraged non-combat behavior more than newer versions, between high mortality, and the whole 'xp for gold' thing. But that's neither here nor there.

I think Fate actually would work well - it would *well* support the idea of doing research and using that as an advantage with mechanical benefit. And upping the lethality of combat (to introduce that scary random aspect) would be a cinch. You could easily not use Conflicts to determine the results of physical confrontation if you wanted, and just boil it down to a single roll - Conflicts are more pacing than anything, so that should work fine.

And doing something like researching your opponent, finding out his habits, and then using that as a weakness to exploit is *trivial* to run in Fate.

A Cortex+ game may work as well - it seems like Leverage would be awesome.

Burning Wheel *may* work if you ignore the Fight! subsystem and just focus on the other aspects, but that still may be a bit combat focused.

GURPS/HERO may work, but there's still a pretty clear emphasis on combat and physical conflict, and not a lot of focus on non-combat, non-physical stuff.

So you'll need a system that's at least *compatible* with what you're trying to do, there's no arguing that. But I still think you'll get the most mileage out of how you run the world, and how it responds to things. Shooting up a bank with assault rifles doesn't just get you investigated. It gets SWAT teams called on you. That kind of overwhelming response in cases where you cross the line isn't something that's system dependent. People respond very differently to an organized armed assault than they do to a robbery.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-28, 08:21 AM
Burning Wheel could certainly work. Given how bad combat can mess you up, it is certainly not always a preferred option.

Lorsa
2013-08-28, 08:41 AM
Apart from what kyoryu has already mentioned, it is my understanding that games like Shadowrun have extremely deadly combat unless you are prepared. I haven't played it much and it's a bit of a specific setting too so I can't really say much myself.

I am a bit confused though as to what exactly you are looking for. You mention both wanting games that focus on non-combat solutions yet mention you want there to be combat with strategic elements/planning. Which of these two is most important to you?

Burning Wheel has a fairly detailed social conflct resolution system and unless you have very expensive armor you should usually avoid fighting.

The large problem with social resolution systems is that some players prefer to talk themselves in social situations rather than simply let a die roll decide the outcome. Especially betweem themselves. Unfortunately not all players manage to play their characters (usually as bad) as their stats say.

The Rose Dragon
2013-08-28, 09:33 AM
I am a bit confused though as to what exactly you are looking for. You mention both wanting games that focus on non-combat solutions yet mention you want there to be combat with strategic elements/planning. Which of these two is most important to you?

I specifically don't want combat to have strategic elements. I want combat, or indeed most physical conflict, to be over in one turn, with all the planning, talking, angsting and whatnot taking most of the rolls. If you planned for it, if you have the right people on your side, and the right motive, you should not fear dying to a random gunshot. If you didn't do those things, you are probably not gonna last long. The moment the guns (or swords, as the case might be) are drawn, you should already know who is gonna win (at least unless one side rolls really badly, and the other side rolls really well), because of all the mental and social rolls that came beforehand.

Emphatically, the lethality of the combat system doesn't matter, just its deprioritization. Legend of the Five Rings, for example, has a highly lethal combat system, and you are unlikely to enter a battle to the death unless you are sure you can win, or your honor is at stake, but its primary conflict resolution system is still physical.

Thinker
2013-08-28, 11:05 AM
I specifically don't want combat to have strategic elements. I want combat, or indeed most physical conflict, to be over in one turn, with all the planning, talking, angsting and whatnot taking most of the rolls. If you planned for it, if you have the right people on your side, and the right motive, you should not fear dying to a random gunshot. If you didn't do those things, you are probably not gonna last long. The moment the guns (or swords, as the case might be) are drawn, you should already know who is gonna win (at least unless one side rolls really badly, and the other side rolls really well), because of all the mental and social rolls that came beforehand.

Emphatically, the lethality of the combat system doesn't matter, just its deprioritization. Legend of the Five Rings, for example, has a highly lethal combat system, and you are unlikely to enter a battle to the death unless you are sure you can win, or your honor is at stake, but its primary conflict resolution system is still physical.

To put it into d20 terms you want combat to be something like this?

Regnar the Great attacks Silva the Bold. Regnar rolls d20+6 and rolls a 12; Silva rolls d20+8 and rolls a 16. Regnar and his host are defeated, Silva chooses to execute Regnar and release the rest of his host, except his children, who are banished.

The leadup to this would involve Regnar finding allies through diplomacy, blackmail, and common interests against Silva. Instead of having abilities like Sneak Attack to help with combat, he would have skills like Dig Up Dirt, which gives him a bonus to damaging his opponent's Resolve (something similar to hit points). The final roll would simply be his Combat Leadership Skill + Intelligence + 2 for each ally + d20.

kyoryu
2013-08-28, 11:43 AM
I specifically don't want combat to have strategic elements. I want combat, or indeed most physical conflict, to be over in one turn, with all the planning, talking, angsting and whatnot taking most of the rolls. If you planned for it, if you have the right people on your side, and the right motive, you should not fear dying to a random gunshot. If you didn't do those things, you are probably not gonna last long. The moment the guns (or swords, as the case might be) are drawn, you should already know who is gonna win (at least unless one side rolls really badly, and the other side rolls really well), because of all the mental and social rolls that came beforehand.

Fate can certainly do this well. Essentially all of the pre-prep creates Advantages, which can then be used for a +2 or a reroll. If you have a bunch more of those to spend than your opponent does, you'll basically win.

Then just treat combat as a single Overcome roll, and you're golden.


Emphatically, the lethality of the combat system doesn't matter, just its deprioritization. Legend of the Five Rings, for example, has a highly lethal combat system, and you are unlikely to enter a battle to the death unless you are sure you can win, or your honor is at stake, but its primary conflict resolution system is still physical.

I think lethality can go a long way towards de-emphasizing combat. But it's certainly not the only factor.

Lorsa
2013-08-28, 04:58 PM
I specifically don't want combat to have strategic elements. I want combat, or indeed most physical conflict, to be over in one turn, with all the planning, talking, angsting and whatnot taking most of the rolls.

Planning, talking and angsting was part of what I considered as strategic elements. You do your pre-combat stuff, and then that decides the outcome. Sounds like strategic violent conflict resolution to me.

Unfortunately I don't think I know a system that does exactly this. It should be possible to device though.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-29, 09:03 AM
To put it into d20 terms you want combat to be something like this?

Regnar the Great attacks Silva the Bold. Regnar rolls d20+6 and rolls a 12; Silva rolls d20+8 and rolls a 16. Regnar and his host are defeated, Silva chooses to execute Regnar and release the rest of his host, except his children, who are banished.

The leadup to this would involve Regnar finding allies through diplomacy, blackmail, and common interests against Silva. Instead of having abilities like Sneak Attack to help with combat, he would have skills like Dig Up Dirt, which gives him a bonus to damaging his opponent's Resolve (something similar to hit points). The final roll would simply be his Combat Leadership Skill + Intelligence + 2 for each ally + d20.
That's...actually very doable in the Leverage RPG. Doubly seconded there. The session ends with each player making a roll to contribute dice to the Mastermind, who gets to grab them all and make a final roll to Take Down the mark.