I think its just a matter of what aspect you would like to emphasize (if any). Combat is unanimously chosen because of the hobby wargaming roots, but nothing holds you from making it just another simple trait vs trait roll.

By the way, if your other thread is any indicative, you could have combat as a simple roll, but deepen it when a 1 on 1 duel happens.

 (I think Castle Falkenstein makes exactly that - simplify general combat, but deepen it with a more elaborate rules when its duel time)

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;635625IE: as well as combat, do i need rules for social combat (might be fun), arm wrestling, tea drinking, beer drinking contests, chess, vehcile chases (yes, actually)? How much do I need? I don't know whether some or all of these things will turn up.

IMHO:
Arm wrestling: just a str check
Social combat: optional (you can make it a simple stat/skill roll, or let PCs play it out). Unless there's a class/role that does it as their main thing.
Tea ceremony: maybe a skill roll, if that ?
Beer drinking: not really, no.
Chess: Int roll or hobby skill roll of some kind.
Vehicle chases: IMHO, combat movement/initiative should cover chases - separate chase systems are a patch on the combat system not working.

I guess build essential stuff first, then other stuff if you need it.

Quote from: silva;635630I think its just a matter of what aspect you would like to emphasize (if any). Combat is unanimously chosen because of the hobby wargaming roots, but nothing holds you from making it just another simple trait vs trait roll.

By the way, if your other thread is any indicative, you could have combat as a simple roll, but deepen it when a 1 on 1 duel happens.

 (I think Castle Falkenstein makes exactly that - simplify general combat, but deepen it with a more elaborate rules when its duel time)

As I recall CF had a very specific set of rules for a duel using playing cards (like the rest of its system); you had to incorporate rests at certain points as well. I never actually used the system, but it was intended as entirely separate and not part of combat: a system for proper formal duelling as a spectacle, not an aspect of combat. Though I'm sure you could have a duel take place surrounded by combat.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;635739Social combat: optional (you can make it a simple stat/skill roll, or let PCs play it out). Unless there's a class/role that does it as their main thing.

Not sure how I feel about social combat. It's become a popular gaming concept over the last decade though I'm not convinced it actually works. It sounds like something that could be useful: the virtue of mighty heroes as a literal weapon. But in practise it just sounds like a might pain in the ass.

Quote from: silva;635617If its half-sucess, GM improvises some hard choices and ask the player to pick: a) the shot missed but player keeps his own position hidden, or b) the shot hits, the car is out the road, but players position if revealed to the passengers that (oops) just survived the crash.

Quote from: silva;635617P.S: notice that Apocalypse World is not a storygame, but a (fairly) traditional rpg, really. No shared narrative or story rules at all.

The thing you consistently fail to grasp Silva is that the half-success decision above is narrative control.  The character can have absolutely no way of deciding whether his shot missed and he's hidden, or whether the shot hits and his position is revealed. None.  It's the player who makes that choice and the choice is made based on how he, the player, wants the game to go from there.

You still play the character, but every half success, there a chance to do a "time-out" and decide how things are going to branch.  There doesn't need to be, you could have half-successes simply be modifiers, or GM narrated complications, but to have the player decide things that the character has no control over is OOC metagame and a form of narrative control.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;635827Not sure how I feel about social combat. It's become a popular gaming concept over the last decade though I'm not convinced it actually works. It sounds like something that could be useful: the virtue of mighty heroes as a literal weapon. But in practise it just sounds like a might pain in the ass.

Oh, probably. I can't say I've ever played a system that uses a lot of 'social combat' rules but most systems do them badly since:
- results are usually unrealistic, since human behaviour is too complex to model.
- they can potentially take away player choices if NPCs can do it too
-they reduce roleplaying in favour of just rolling the dice and using the powers
- characters with sufficiently ridiculous social skills may stop normal combats too often.

The best social combat system I can think of is probably for Dogs In the Vineyard - I think its design mitigates at least some of the results above since it includes relationship values and the like in the dice results, since PCs or NPCs can always switch from talking to gunfighting (effectively just at a penalty instead of being automatically pacified by a high result), and since it uses trait rolls rather than skill rolls every character is on a vaguely even keel. I'm suspicious about whether it has roleplaying, though.

Quote from: CRKruegerThe thing you consistently fail to grasp Silva is that the half-success decision above is narrative control. The character can have absolutely no way of deciding whether his shot missed and he's hidden, or whether the shot hits and his position is revealed. None. It's the player who makes that choice and the choice is made based on how he, the player, wants the game to go from there.

You still play the character, but every half success, there a chance to do a "time-out" and decide how things are going to branch. There doesn't need to be, you could have half-successes simply be modifiers, or GM narrated complications, but to have the player decide things that the character has no control over is OOC metagame and a form of narrative control.

Krueger, I took some liberties in my example to illustrate the difference between task vs conflict resolution. The actual choices in AW moves are much more restricted and grounded in-character. (Its even possible that Justin enters here any minute and critique my example )

Further, its entirely possible to put the options in a way as to turn it into a more in-character decision. Ex (for that same half-success roll):"Daud, you dont feel safe to make the shot without exposing yourself. Do you make it anyway, even if it blows your cover?"

There, you have it.

But you have a point, nonetheless - even with more restricted choices, there are choices for the player to make. I just think its no more offensive to in-character/1st person positioning than other things we see in rpgs, like fate/luck/hero/karma points, or, to be more nitpicky, the kind of absolute situation assessment and tactical set-pieces all players are able to do while in combat situations, that his character should never be able to (thus also breaking the in-character/1st person premise).

Quote from: silva;635963I just think its no more offensive to in-character/1st person positioning than other things we see in rpgs, like fate/luck/hero/karma points

Fate, luck, karma or what have you still keep the player firmly in the driving seat of their character, and only their character. Stepping out of that seat and making decisions from another perspective entirely doesn't just wreck immersion, it serves to deliberately dissociate the player from their character.

Roleplaying first emerged as a phenomenon because as the number of "characters" approached one, players began to care more about them, eventually ending up with a much more visceral experience than their predecessors, wargames. It hurts when a character dies because there is an attachment.

The further from that unique position you get, the further away from the heart of roleplaying you get. I don't really care if it seems weird or "brain damaged" that people can form attachments to imaginary constructs, it's how it seems to work, and it's a lot of fun.

Take a look at th link in my sig thre for more information about the reality behind shared narrative games. It's no surprise that ghost whistler and many others are finding it hard to swallow that particular dish.

Quote from: The TravellerFate, luck, karma or what have you still keep the player firmly in the driving seat of their character, and only their character.

Disagreed. These mechanics give the player power over the situation/story/scene beyond any capabilities the character itself could plausibly have.

Idem for the total situation assessment and tactical set pieces cited before - in a real circunstance, no character could have such clear and complete capacity for analysis as we have in the table, their reason clouded by emotion, motivation, fatigue, pain, etc. If we players ignore these, then its also out-of-character decision. Its you THE PLAYER taking the decision, not the character. In other words, its a higher, oniscient and onipresent, entity who is taking the decisions for the character. (granted, some games do include these factors through psychological atributes - Pendragon virtues, Unknown Armies sanity metters, Riddle of Steel drives, etc - but theyre the exception, not the norm )

So, next time youre at your comfy D&D/Vampire/Shadowrun table, and the GM explains the situation in detail while giving you a minute to assess it and calmly decide what to do ("hmmm.. If we do this, that happens... If we do that, this may happen.. what about we..."), sorry but youre already out-of-character/immersion broken. The "driving seat" is not in character anymore, its your comfy sofa in your warm and safe living room.

Quote from: silva;636032Disagreed. These mechanics give the player power over the situation/story/scene beyond any capabilities the character itself could plausibly have.

So the idea of someone flinging fireballs from their fingers doesn't bother you but the concept of a character having "luck" or being "touched by fate" is completely out of character and meta? If a player decides to modify an attack roll by using a certain skill, that's no more of a challenge to suspension of disbelief or immersion than if the same player uses luck to do similar.

The key thing here of course is that the player is acting through the character.

Of course a game which claims hardball realism should have neither magic nor luck, but in most games it's an accepted part of the genre.

Quote from: silva;636032Its you THE PLAYER taking the decision, not the character. In other words, its a higher, oniscient and onipresent, entity who is taking the decisions for the character.

Is this the part where you start buzzing and bellowing "DOES NOT COMPUTE!!" before your head explodes?

Trav, dont sidestep my argument.

I will repeat:

Why do you think altering the fiction with "hero points" ("bad roll pal, you die... or you could use those hero points to alter this outcome.." ), or having absolute oniscience in a situation the character could never have ("ok, my character is badly hurt, fatigued, and emotionally stressed, but Im still able to perceive all this info you just told me, and I have 1 minute to calmly decide what to do next ?"), is not considered out-of-character / out-of-immersion / third-person acting ?

Answer that first, please. Dont sidestep.

Quote from: silva;636032Disagreed. These mechanics give the player power over the situation/story/scene beyond any capabilities the character itself could plausibly have.

In some cases, perhaps. But most luck point systems boost the stat in question: either extra dice to roll, or a greater postitive modifier. They don't, certainly not all, alter the environment or allow for an auto win.

I will like some clarity on "Luck Points":

In just about every traditional RPG I've seen this is represented by a task re-roll, bonus, etc., to have that task then interpreted by the GM. At most I've seen it exchanged for direct GM-interpreted salvation.

In Storygames I've seen this where the player takes narrative control of the conflict, anywhere from a whole scene to a 'full round' of tasks. The shift in interpretive power is pretty obvious between them.

However, there are many games I have yet to play.

So which "Luck Points" are we talking about here?

Quote from: silva;636032So, next time youre at your comfy D&D/Vampire/Shadowrun table, and the GM explains the situation in detail while giving you a minute to assess it and calmly decide what to do ("hmmm.. If we do this, that happens... If we do that, this may happen.. what about we..."), sorry but youre already out-of-character/immersion broken. The "driving seat" is not in character anymore, its your comfy sofa in your warm and safe living room.

Ideally that is not allowed by the rules from older RPGs. That whole "...a meaningful RPG cannot be had without proper time keeping!!" comment by Gygax fits here. It's why gameplay examples had declared actions first, and those who hemmed and hawed in the example were skipped.

Granted though times have changed and WotC D&D and the like have migrated more towards turn-based tactics. Many play tables nowadays assume this play style where long periods of table collusion can occur regardless of game-related time and space. Makes a lot of the older spells which bought players additional out-of-game thinking time, like D&D's Withdraw priest spell or In Nomine's Ethereal song of Tongues (actual telepathy), redundant -- but that's a by-product of the play style, not the system.

QuoteSo which "Luck Points" are we talking about here?

Anyone that allows you to re-roll a failure and/or retcon a just occurred scene/situation and/or add in sudden events. Example: Shadowrun karma, Ars Magicka Whimsy cards.

QuoteGranted though times have changed and WotC D&D and the like have migrated more towards turn-based tactics. Many play tables nowadays assume this play style where long periods of table collusion can occur regardless of game-related time and space... but that's a by-product of the play style, not the system.

Sorry, if the system doesnt have anything to say about it - and it doesnt in all games Ive seen so far - then the fault is on the system, not playstyles.