Can we build the math from the ground up? (And does Vancian help or hurt that?)

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I may need to consider is the difference between contributing in combat and contributing out of combat.

I suppose I had intended "the 'math' for 'out of combat' challenges" to be, "what portion of these level-appropriate scenarios can you contribute to?", as well as "how much did you contribute?".

Of course, this runs into the same problem of, "how much does BFC contribute?"; that is, measuring the relative value of different vectors beyond "the direct approach" and "numbers".


Suppose a noble wants to embarrass the PCs in court. The Bard could use their silver tongue to do damage control. The Fighter could get insulted, and challenge the noble to a duel. The Barbarian could use his grapple bonus and "strange customs" class feature to give the noble a big hug whenever he opens his mouth. The precog could see this coming, and tell the Assassin, who, you know, solves the problem. The Cleric of Tzeentch could make the noble throw up in his mouth, making his words carry less weight. The Wizard could… probably do something.

So, several things.

There's not necessarily a hard line between combat and noncombat abilities. There certainly isn't a hard line between combat and noncombat challenges.

I had little trickle coming up with an answer for almost any conceptual "class". However, as rather bad news for the purposes of this thread, those answers were almost exclusively ways to solo the challenge. Giving characters these tools doesn't let them *participate* in all challenges.

Getting from point A to point B

Spoiler: Seven Deadly Sins

Show

In the anime "Seven Deadly Sins", the Wizard Merlin could just teleport the party from place to place. But she usually doesn't.

Usually, Meliodus provides transportation via his mobile tavern. It's slower, but it has its advantages: they can bring stuff, they can sleep indoors in comfy beds, Merlin doesn't waste mana, they can travel to warded areas, rumors come to them, they earn money while making Gather Information checks. But, most relevant of all, everyone can contribute to the tavern. Ban can cook. Elizabeth (and Gowler and once even Merlin) can wait tables. Diane can act as a billboard / advertise to try to get customers to come. Merlin can shrink Diane so that she fits inside & doesn't have to walk. I'm not sure how King or Escanor contribute.

Point of that rambling SPOILER is, there are ways to solve noncombat problems that provide the opportunity for other PCs to contribute. Seven Deadly Sins manages to highlight this fairly well, IMO, providing both "everyone contributes" and "one character can solo" the challenge of "getting from point A to point B".

So, I suppose my question is, to what extent does that matter in an RPG? If it does matter, in what ways should the system facilitate that? Or is noncombat "contribute vs solo" something that should/does exist solely at the "role-playing" layer, not the mechanics layer?

It's usually very one-sided in most RPGs, as the ratio of Violence-to-Nonviolence features aren't usually equal, and Nonviolence features can often have their own value in regards to combat, whether it means pacifying a threat, preventing a fight from ever being necessary, or even providing its own means of contribution.

Consider how often an Illusion is usable out of combat. Then consider how it might assist or prevent combat. Then consider the same for Grappling. How can those be used in an even number of scenarios?

Then do the same for something like Detect Thoughts vs. Super Strength.

Part of it is because of the fact that most "physical" features requires a reason to be used, while things like "move this with your mind" or "force this person to say what you want" are a lot less circumstantial in when they can be used, even if they are effectively equal in the "how".

If there's only going to be one fight every 3 sessions, you're going to feel really stupid picking the class that's 90% violence and 10% nonviolence. Unless you can ensure the character that is the inverse of the Violence character has only a 10% violence capacity, there's not going to be a level playing field.

Consider that the Wizards of DnD have always had some capacity for killing things, and also have equal capacity for manipulating the world (using strictly Wizard features), and that the same has not been true for something like the Fighter. Generally, if the Fighter is successful in this area, it's for reasons despite the class, not because of them. Effectively, Violent characters are often handicapped in noncombat situations, and the opposite hasn't had much history of being true.

Even if both halves had an equal amount of "uselessness", that still doesn't mean that it'd be fun for when those players were useless.