Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe answer has to be yes, even though it's incredibly rare. So long as there's conflicts for the PCs to overcome, it's an RPG.

Pseudo got it in one and is right.

There's only one caveat that comes to mind. Like many other forms of entertainment, the most common and connectable form of conflict involves physical violence - so some kind of combat system should be available.

Although a game session of courtroom drama or mystery investigation or con artististry are always nice. I also wonder about the practicality of running only non-combat games for your group (but that would depend on your group, would they enjoy this?).

Quote from: pspahnNo fighting in Paranoia or CoC?  I don't think we run in the same gaming circles. . .

I agree - while I've never played Paranoia, every CoC one-shot I've ever played has had combat in some form, and the CoC campaign I played in a year and a half ago had combat in at least every other session.

Quote from: BenoistRPGs need some sort of conflict to remain entertaining, but "conflict" can mean all sorts of things, and not only rolling for damage. It can be problematics, diplomacy, investigation, mysteries, conspiracies, and all sorts of non-automatically-violent oppositions and competitions between characters, groups, allegiances and so on, so forth.

So long as you have something to "solve", there's a dynamic for an RPG right there. Now whether you'd have a public for a game that specifically excludes violent altercations depends on how the game's designed. If you want it to be successful, you need to replace the concept of combat by something that is just as cool and fulfilling for the potential players of the game. Might be a sense of paranoia, mystery (à la Call of Cthulhu for instance - you could arguably give the rules - combat system to the PCs without any noticeable difference in the game play by just assuming that "PC fight Old One = Automatic Death" ) or something else. But MAINTAINING the interest after a few sessions of that game seems doubtful. Why? Because violence is just easy, directly fulfilling on many different levels for many different types of players.

I played in a short (five sessions) Unknown Armies game this past summer and fall that was like this.  Only one combat (in the last session), but lots of tension, paranoia, mystery, and danger throughout.

RPGs without combat are like pr0n without the money shot. They're still roleplaying games, but there's something important missing.

Quote from: Kyle AaronRPGs without combat are like pr0n without the money shot.

What a manly analogy.

Regards,
David R

Well it was intended as parody.

Of course it's still an rpg without combat. What a stupid question. In fact, the combat is the least "roleplaying" part of it, it's the time when rpgs go back to their roots as wargames.

I get it Kyle. If you had said - "RPGs without combat is like sex without foreplay" - I'd still go what a manly analogy....

I'm just in a cheecky mood

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditIs it really feasible on a practical level to have an RPG where combat doesn't happen?

Even in a game where the players play brains in a jar, there would probably be an opportunity for combat...



"100 quatloos on the newcomers."

Quote from: David R"RPGs without combat is like sex without foreplay"

Actually, that's my reaction to the whole "Story Now!" idea.  There is a reason why all fiction isn't told as short stories that cut straight to the climax.  But I digress...

I think it's possible to have an RPG without combat, or even combat rules.

I don't think it's possible for a GOOD rpg without combat, or combat rules.

There's just something to say about being able to get mad at somebody and being able to punch that somebody in the FACE!

I can't think of a single genre or medium-length-or-longer serial that doesn't include at least the risk of physical violence (except maybe Jeeves and Wooster?).  Soap operas have angry punches thrown, I'm sure even Merchant-Ivory productions have a slap or two, and as long as that happens you should be able to figure out if the young debutante you've just annoyed is able to slap you or if you can catch her hand before it connects.  So unless it's a setting where all inter-personal conflict is handled in other manners (Chess!  To the death!) there have to be rules to determine the outcome.

And then, if you have rules to determine the outcome of the conflict, even if it's not labelled as physical combat, there would still be a correlation (Knight takes Rook!  Hah!  That's like a kick to the groin, sucker!).

I'm not saying that every game has to be a cross between Senzar and Feng Shui, where every character is carrying and simultaneously using at least two machine-guns while fighting giant space sharks wielding flame-throwers, but to avoid all combat would be rather artificial.  If physical combat isn't a key point, cover it briefly and move on.  But you have to cover it, since if it isn't covered at all but is possible then the game isn't really 'complete.'

A lot of complaints I've heard about Scion, for example, deal with the lack of rules for throwing things.  Characters most likely aren't going to spend all their game time just hucking things, and it might not even crop up once in a campaign, but the possibility makes the lack of rules an issue.

Take Amber, for example.  (And my thoughts and best wishes are with Mr. Wujcik and his family, truly one of the field's true greats.)  I only played it, and didn't run it, and so I didn't get the chance to go through the rulebook as thoroughly as I'd have liked, but if I remember correctly combat wasn't a major issue that took up huge amounts of the book.  It was covered enough, so you could figure out who won (look at the base scores, then who does what), and then the book moved on to other things.

I've run and played in lots of sessions, in lots of campaigns using lots of systems and settings, that didn't have a single attack roll.  I've never run or played in a campaign that didn't have at least one fight, no matter what the game system or setting.

As Pundit asked precisely, he´ll get a precise answer.

No, not on a practical level.

Quote from: SettembriniAs Pundit asked precisely, he´ll get a precise answer.

No, not on a practical level.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out a way to bring that up without sounding like an ass.  Of course an RPG with no combat can be done--roleplaying games are all about "making them your own," but I don't think it could ever be done on a practical level.  

Pete

Quote from: Nick BowerI can't think of a single genre or medium-length-or-longer serial that doesn't include at least the risk of physical violence (except maybe Jeeves and Wooster?).  Soap operas have angry punches thrown, I'm sure even Merchant-Ivory productions have a slap or two, and as long as that happens you should be able to figure out if the young debutante you've just annoyed is able to slap you or if you can catch her hand before it connects.

Quote from: Nick BowerIf physical combat isn't a key point, cover it briefly and move on.  But you have to cover it, since if it isn't covered at all but is possible then the game isn't really 'complete.'

A lot of complaints I've heard about Scion, for example, deal with the lack of rules for throwing things.

But is Scion not a role-playing game, then, because its rules aren't complete?  What about rules for catching thrown objects, or tying knots?  Those happen pretty commonly -- do all RPGs need those?  

Furthermore, is completeness of rules really any use?  i.e. Is using official hit and damage stats really going to make the debutante slap superior in play?  Seriously, even if I did have a game with a full-fledged combat system, I doubt I would break it out for a slap in the face.  Would you really roll initiative and calculate damage for such a thing, and would it improve the game if you did?  

Quote from: Nick BowerI've run and played in lots of sessions, in lots of campaigns using lots of systems and settings, that didn't have a single attack roll.  I've never run or played in a campaign that didn't have at least one fight, no matter what the game system or setting.

This also seems like a bit of a stretch.  How long does a game have to go for for it to be considered a role-playing game?  i.e. If I played something for just three sessions, is it not a role-playing game?  Are single-session convention game right out?  

Given that you're stretching to call a slap by a debutante "combat", I'd have to say that all my extended campaigns had combat as well.  However, it seems pedantic to say this.  The only on-screen violence in my Water Uphill World game was one time when some bullies shoved a PC and another PC shoved back.  That was the least violent by a fair margin, but I can't see the point of saying that it wasn't real role-playing -- but if they had actually thrown a punch or something then it would be.

All good points, jhkim; I typed without thinking things clearly.  I'll try again.

It is a stretch to call a slap 'combat.'  But I'm using as a definition of 'combat' any conflict between two or more entities (not counting nature) that is physical, no matter how minimal, from a slap up to a fight to the death.  (By physical conflict, I'm including things like magical or psychic/psionic conflict, which isn't really physical but shares the same goal - to inflict injury on the opponent and/or avoid injury (physical, mental, spiritual, what have you) to yourself.)

There are a lot of such conflicts where it wouldn't be worth the trouble to break out the books and roll, just as there are a lot of other conflicts (such as thief vs. lock) where you might not roll, either because the difficulty is so low or this is something that absolutely needs to happen.

There are situations where it might hypothetically matter whether Lady Derbyshire's slap connects with Lord Fancybottom's cheek, or whether he catches it in time.  If the slap connects, Lord Fancybottom rubs his cheek and watches while Lady Derbyshire marches away.  If he catches her hand in his, Lord Fancybottom pulls Lady Derbyshire in for a kiss.  It's a physical conflict, so it's 'combat.'  Even if it's just the most basic resolution - each character rolls a die and adds a skill/stat modifier - it's still a combat system.

Completeness of rules isn't really all that relevant, I see.  In any event there isn't any bright line for completeness, where an RPG 'must' have rules for A, B, and C.  The old Indiana Jones game didn't have rules for character creation, after all, and it was still an RPG.

I guess my thinking is that an RPG does have to have some kind of rules, however basic, for conflict resolution to be an RPG.  Even as basic as just flipping a coin when a player and the GM can't agree on exactly what happens.  Otherwise it's not really a game (IMO) but improv theatre - also a fine exercise, but different.  For it to be an RPG (again IMO) it isn't necessary to refer to the rules every session, or at all, or for the rules to be followed slavishly, only that there are rules available if there's need to refer to them.

If there are rules for conflict resolution, those rules can be extended to resolve physical conflicts - 'combats.'  If there aren't rules for conflict resolution, then my position is that it's not an RPG - it's just not complete enough.  I don't know where the fuzzy line between RPG and not-RPG is, but that would be far enough to one side to be to me not an RPG.

By game I mean the rules.  Any game that can be used for one session is an RPG, and some (like Toon, TFOS or Feng Shui) are perhaps more suitable as one-shot games.  I'm certainly not suggesting that a game (session or campaign) that doesn't involve combat isn't role-playing, and I apologise if it sounded like I did.  Certainly having every, or even most, encounters that the PCs run into turn into a dice-heavy slugfest would be less entertaining than playing with more varied interaction between the characters and the world around them.

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense.  In any event, I'm no authority, I've been known to be wrong about things before (many times, actually), and most important it's really really late here.