Quote from: Theory of Games on June 15, 2023, 09:40:22 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
So, another thread mentioned the use of skill or attribute "tests" in combat in lieu of attacking, and I wanted to discuss how more games are including these options (and why I find them generally unsatisfying).  Of course, the title of this thread frames the question as an absolute (primarily because there is a group of posters on here who just lose it every time someone posts an absolute... and it's amusing to watch the 'tards "Reeeee!"), but I'm interested in games that have created a viable non-attack option in combat... because I just haven't seen one yet.

To set the table, I want to make sure we're all on the same page as to my assumptions and assertions.  So I want to lay the following assumptions out before we look at the present iterations of skill tests:

• I am focusing on mechanical results, and not subjective or narrative results --- Sure, you can do a backflip to awe the enemy so that your partner might kill it, and the DM can rule that you impress the spectators enough that you boost your standing with the locals... but that's not a mechanical result and it's not doing anything to help with the actual combat
• I am focusing on the most efficient resolution of fights --- sure, there are any number of ways to use skills to prolong, delay, and change the nature of a fight.  But unless the tactic can result in an equal or less cost in resources, time, damage, etc., then it is considered "sub-optimal" for the purpose of this discussion (an additional note: "optimal" results don't mean some kind of nefarious min-maxing.  They actually make the most sense in character as well as in the game.  What character will prefer to lose half his hit points in a fight when the option was available to lose only one quarter?  No rational human is ever going to choose the tactic that costs the most of anything, except in rare enough circumstances that don't really address the main issue here)
• I am talking about situations where violence either has or will imminently break out and the only choice is to defeat the enemy, either by killing, wounding, capturing, or scaring off.
• I am assuming enemy combatants are equal or greater in number than the player characters --- this is a bit of a narrowing assumption, but just because it comes up very frequently in most of the RPGs I've played, and because a highly unbalanced action economy in the players' favor doesn't seem like it is a true test of utility.

OK, with that out of the way, my primary hypothesis is as follows: Any kind of non-attacking skill test or challenge will never be more effective than degrading the enemies' hit points via attacks, and will often be much less efficient.  So, how do I come to this conclusion?  Well, let's look at combat tests from probably two of the most popular game systems right now: D&D 5e and SWADE.  In 5e, a player may perform a "help" action, which gives the helped creature advantage on the next attack roll against the chosen creature.  In SWADE, a character may use the support action (resulting in a +1 or +2 bonus to a fighting roll for an ally) or perform a test, which results in either a distracted or vulnerable (-2 or +2 respectively to opponents' rolls or allies' rolls) with the possibility to make the target shaken on a raise.

Now, either of these options are almost always going to be worse than attacking the target.  I don't want to get too far in the weeds to figure out how much better your skill would have to be as opposed to your chance to hit in order to make the test viable (getting to do something, even if it's not really helping, as opposed to just missing every turn), so let's assume a relative parity in chances to hit and pass the test.

Now, I know that an argument against that is that tests allow a player to build a character that is not combat facing, but still useful in combat.  But, I think, based on the following points, that "useful" may not be accurate, and that this illusion helps to make unbalanced (and even min/maxed) parties more viable and likely because of the lip service paid to tests.

So, what ends a fight?  All enemies are one of the following: dead, incapacitated, or fled.  Just sticking to the mechanics related in the games, none of the skill tests create a chance of flight.  Sure, you can house rule it, but that's not really confirming the utility of the mechanics as they stand... since you're having to change it.  Incapacitation might be possible due to some kind of grappling, but you haven't removed the threat; you've just delayed having to remove it (and if there are more enemies than players, you still have active combatants that can kill you while you try to keep your target out of the fight).  But grappling is its own thing, so I'm not really talking about that in this case.  So that leaves killing/rendering unconscious due to damage as the primary goal.  And tests suck at this.

I'll note that a similar argument has been proffered previously by many folks when it comes to damage or healing.  Generally speaking, healing is less efficient than doing damage, as it spends resources without reducing the threat or capacities of the enemy.  The best healing is the healing that revives or keeps a character in the fight, as it preserves damage output and shortens the fight.

What most skill tests seem designed to do is allow one character to give up a chance to do damage in order to make another character slightly more likely to do the same damage that he would have done without the test.  To be viable (i.e. to actually reduce the time in combat), a test would need to guarantee a least as much damage as both characters would inflict on average.  Now, this will only happen when one character has a huge disparity in accuracy or damage over the other (an extremely unbalanced party), or in a case where one party member's contribution is unneeded in the fight (and I know we all want to feel like that player!).  It makes one player into a sidekick in the combat realm, which I think most players aren't too keen on as a permanent role.

You could argue that a player who uses his character's action to worsen the chances of an opponent to hit might be worthwhile.  But, once again, the reduction in damage needs to be enough to make up for the increased time the fight goes because of the lost damage from the helping character.  I'm not going to crunch the numbers here, but I would suspect the damage reduced needs to be very large to pay off (or the helping character must be highly outclassed by his party-mate).

So, in the end, it comes down to the fact that the chance to do damage is always going to shorten the fight by an amount that doesn't make the usage of skill tests valid. If anyone knows of a mechanical approach that defies this analysis, I'd love to hear about it.  Because, otherwise, I feel like skill tests are directed towards players with a dramatically underpowered character (with respect to the rest of their group).  So a mechanic to address a Session Zero problem.  And, outside of a few rare cases (which you don't need to recount, because a few singular examples don't disprove the general trend), skill tests just seem to be meant to make the useless character in combat seem to have a purpose, even when they don't...

Intimidation is ONE of the solutions to your hypothesis and other posters have agreed. Now you're doing what everyone does by shifting the goalpost in a desperate attempt to be right. 

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu writes "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting". But, you're suggesting fighting is the optimal choice. No 

Greetings!

Very nice, Theory of Games! Your Sun Tzu quote reminded me of how in the West, the Roman Empire agreed. Officially, in the days of the late Republic, prior to Rome's conquest of Egypt and the Middle East, there were two kingdoms in the region, vying for power and dominance--The Ptolemy Kingdom of Egypt, and the Seleucid Empire of much of the Near East. Both of these realms were descended from generals of Alexander the Great, before. Now, they were engaged in war against each other. However, there was a new power on the rise. Rome had conquered Gaul, Spain, Greece, Illyria, and Carthage, which also included North Africa. Roman armies had already annihilated millions of people in Gaul, and had totally annihilated the Greek city of Corinth, and the city of Carthage, capital city of the great Empire of Carthage.

Tome had sent an ambassador to Alexandria, Egypt, in order to negotiate a peace treaty between the Seleucid Empire and the Kingdom of Egypt. Trade at sea in the Eastern Mediterranean had been disrupted by the war, causing economic loss and damage to Roman interests. In addition, smaller city states in the region, who had befriended Rome, had asked Rome to help them.

So, the Roman ambassador arrives in Egypt, and the Egyptian king meets with the Roman ambassador in the Royal Gardens at his palace. The Egyptian king delays and argues against peace, and ending the war, finally saying that he would think about the Roman proposal. The Roman ambassador gets up, and takes his stick and draw a circle in the garden sand around the Egyptian king, and says, "Fine. Take all the time you need to consider Rome's proposal. However, when you step beyond the circle, if you should chose not to cooperate and obey Rome--then the Legions of Rome are on the way."

When the Egyptian king stepped from the circle in the garden sand, he answered yes, he wanted peace, and would agree to Rome's peace treaty between Egypt and the Seleucid Empire.

Prior to the Roman ambassador setting sail on his peaceful diplomatic mission to Egypt, the Senate had ordered Roman armies to begin loading into the fleets, in preparation for war.

The Roman ambassador had successfully used his Intimidation Skill against the Egyptian King.

Of course, the subtext unspoken--but certainly very well known by the Egyptian King--was that once the Roman armies arrived, Egypt itself would be annihilated, and all of Egypt would be made into a Province of Rome, forever under Roman might. There would be no mercy, and no forgiveness.

That was how effective and brilliant Rome was at diplomacy. One man, unarmed, and speaking with the voice and authority of SPQR.

I'm reminded of a Roman philosopher discussing the virtues and contributions of different nations at the time. He then said, "But what of Rome? What has Rome taught the world?

Rome has taught the nations of the world TO OBEY."

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 15, 2023, 09:40:22 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
So, another thread mentioned the use of skill or attribute "tests" in combat in lieu of attacking, and I wanted to discuss how more games are including these options (and why I find them generally unsatisfying)...

Intimidation is ONE of the solutions to your hypothesis and other posters have agreed. Now you're doing what everyone does by shifting the goalpost in a desperate attempt to be right. 

Best faith interpretation: I think Erikrautha was trying to make a distinction between skill tests integrated into the combat system, rather than using them as a means of bypassing it. The only game I can think of that has tried to systematize intimidation as a combat option is 2d20 Conan. That game lets you use your Persuasion skill to make mental attacks against what are essentially "morale hit points". In theory, the tradeoff is that a weapon attack is more likely to eliminate a single opponent, but a mental attack affects a whole group. In practice, they fell into the aforementioned trap of underpowering the mental option, to the point that it almost never gets used in play.

Any game with an intimidation skill could theoretically support a version of that mechanic, but I'm not aware of it being in the R-A-W of any other game, and I suspect most GMs would be reluctant to homebrew it. A lot of GMs seem to regard using a skill check to win a fight as being borderline to cheating. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 15, 2023, 05:43:32 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 15, 2023, 09:40:22 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
So, another thread mentioned the use of skill or attribute "tests" in combat in lieu of attacking, and I wanted to discuss how more games are including these options (and why I find them generally unsatisfying)...

Intimidation is ONE of the solutions to your hypothesis and other posters have agreed. Now you're doing what everyone does by shifting the goalpost in a desperate attempt to be right. 

Best faith interpretation: I think Erikrautha was trying to make a distinction between skill tests integrated into the combat system, rather than using them as a means of bypassing it. The only game I can think of that has tried to systematize intimidation as a combat option is 2d20 Conan. That game lets you use your Persuasion skill to make mental attacks against what are essentially "morale hit points". In theory, the tradeoff is that a weapon attack is more likely to eliminate a single opponent, but a mental attack affects a whole group. In practice, they fell into the aforementioned trap of underpowering the mental option, to the point that it almost never gets used in play.

Agreed that I think this is what Erikrautha was talking about. In most games, intimidate is effectively GM fiat. I'm not saying that GM fiat is necessarily terrible, but it can be awkward to mix objective tactical rules for physical action and GM-fiat for mental actions.

Especially, there can be intermixes of physical actions and mental ones. i.e. The PCs expend a bunch of their resources and stretch their tactical position to take out the ideological leader of the enemy. Then they try to intimidate. There, the physical strategy is part of a mental strategy to demoralize the enemy.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 15, 2023, 05:43:32 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 15, 2023, 09:40:22 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
So, another thread mentioned the use of skill or attribute "tests" in combat in lieu of attacking, and I wanted to discuss how more games are including these options (and why I find them generally unsatisfying)...

Intimidation is ONE of the solutions to your hypothesis and other posters have agreed. Now you're doing what everyone does by shifting the goalpost in a desperate attempt to be right. 

Best faith interpretation: I think Erikrautha was trying to make a distinction between skill tests integrated into the combat system, rather than using them as a means of bypassing it. The only game I can think of that has tried to systematize intimidation as a combat option is 2d20 Conan. That game lets you use your Persuasion skill to make mental attacks against what are essentially "morale hit points". In theory, the tradeoff is that a weapon attack is more likely to eliminate a single opponent, but a mental attack affects a whole group. In practice, they fell into the aforementioned trap of underpowering the mental option, to the point that it almost never gets used in play.

Any game with an intimidation skill could theoretically support a version of that mechanic, but I'm not aware of it being in the R-A-W of any other game, and I suspect most GMs would be reluctant to homebrew it. A lot of GMs seem to regard using a skill check to win a fight as being borderline to cheating.

Its a shame too that was one of the cooler idead from conan 2d20

Quote from: jhkim on June 15, 2023, 06:07:30 PM
Agreed that I think this is what Erikrautha was talking about. In most games, intimidate is effectively GM fiat. I'm not saying that GM fiat is necessarily terrible, but it can be awkward to mix objective tactical rules for physical action and GM-fiat for mental actions.

Especially, there can be intermixes of physical actions and mental ones. i.e. The PCs expend a bunch of their resources and stretch their tactical position to take out the ideological leader of the enemy. Then they try to intimidate. There, the physical strategy is part of a mental strategy to demoralize the enemy.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 15, 2023, 05:43:32 PM
Best faith interpretation: I think Erikrautha was trying to make a distinction between skill tests integrated into the combat system, rather than using them as a means of bypassing it. The only game I can think of that has tried to systematize intimidation as a combat option is 2d20 Conan. That game lets you use your Persuasion skill to make mental attacks against what are essentially "morale hit points". In theory, the tradeoff is that a weapon attack is more likely to eliminate a single opponent, but a mental attack affects a whole group. In practice, they fell into the aforementioned trap of underpowering the mental option, to the point that it almost never gets used in play.

Any game with an intimidation skill could theoretically support a version of that mechanic, but I'm not aware of it being in the R-A-W of any other game, and I suspect most GMs would be reluctant to homebrew it. A lot of GMs seem to regard using a skill check to win a fight as being borderline to cheating.

Thank you both.  You are correct in my intent, and I appreciate you both helping with the phrasing and explaining.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 15, 2023, 05:43:32 PMAny game with an intimidation skill could theoretically support a version of that mechanic, but I'm not aware of it being in the R-A-W of any other game, and I suspect most GMs would be reluctant to homebrew it. A lot of GMs seem to regard using a skill check to win a fight as being borderline to cheating.

HERO System has Presence Attacks, where the top result is "Target is cowed. He may surrender, run away, or faint." On top of that, you can add a Presence Attack into any other action (e.g. Batman bursting in through the roof light etc.).

I think the OP is based on a limited premise. It assumes a HP attrition model where targets have many HP and their combat effectiveness is only reduced by losing the last HP. In systems like that, focus fire is a good strategy, but other models of damage exist.

Savage Worlds was mentioned and there an enemy might have a high parry or toughness but still only be able to take the one wound. In that scenario, a character with little or no chance of hitting / chance of wounding (maybe both...) could well be better off helping their ally to hit the enemy, and if they hit with a raise then the ally will get more damage to potentially wound as well. Or the primary combatant might do wild swings which make them vulnerable; an ally distracting the enemy would offset this.

Also, SWADE allows for people tricking or taunting enemies which can make them Shaken with a raise. That might rob the enemy of their action, and it also makes it easier for physical attacks to cause wounds.

Another thing to bear in mind is the opportunity cost of making a character focussed on dealing direct damage. In pretty much any system there is a trade off for that. Investing in the ability to deal damage restricts your ability to invest in other skills or traits that might be more key to your character's primary focus. If, instead, you can leverage your character's strong suit to contribute to combat without dealing direct damage that might result in a more capable character overall. There are some more recent games which are carefully designed to give a character an attack based on their class's prime requisite but that is far from universal.

Mutant Year Zero uses a system where you use all four stats as seperate pools of hit points for different types of attacks.  Having your willpower broken will put you out just as clearly as taking physical damage.  It's a core aspect of play to find out what stat the enemy is and go after that rather than just brute force your way through with violence.

/Broken Record Time...

Savage Worlds implicitly has Skill Tests as part of Combat. Not only are they viable in lieu of direct combat, but while in combat they have *huge* impact. Intimidation *during* combat can be a weapon flourish/"The Look"/battlecry or whatever the PC wants it to be, and if he can pull it off, can slap a penalty on his target that depending on the scale of success could literally cause an otherwise powerful enemy to be vulnerable.

This is not only with Intimidate - it can be literally any skill, that a PC can justify in the circumstances to the GM. There is within the core mechanic of using a Skill to Test an opponent using their Stat corresponding with that skill as the contested check. This allows a player who understands that Goblins aren't too bright, to fall for Int-based Skill tests, or they're craven (low Spirit)- which makes them very susceptible to Intimidate etc.

You even have an array of effects - you can make them potentially Distracts them (penalty for them to hit), or Vulnerable (bonus to be hit). Both conditions have further consequences of cascading issues. Further, if the check is particularly good, it slaps them with the Shaken! condition, which is bad.

These penalties are not trivial - by comparison numerically it would be in d20 with being slapped with a -8 penalty to hit, or +8 penalty to be hit... *at minimum*. You can build an entire character whose sole purpose in combat (or even out of combat) to use their skills to put these conditions on opponents for your team-mates (or yourself) to finish off.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 14, 2023, 09:47:13 PM

Quote from: BadApple on June 14, 2023, 05:35:42 PM
TBH, I don't know if it's a problem with 5e core, how it's presented, or if modern players are just missing something.  Fighting isn't necessarily how you handle every encounter.  If you don't have the debate periodically about whether to negotiate, sneak around, or fight when coming across a new creature, you're missing a large part of D&D dungeon crawling experience.  I think at least part of the problem is that PCs are so hard to kill that players develop the mentality of "shoot first, ask questions later."  It's sad to see gaming degenerated so badly.

In the old days, not everything you met in the dungeon was a mindless attack zombie.  Sure, it might be but it could be a greedy little SOB that will be happy to show you the secret door for a silver coin.  That dragon could be evil or he could be just a sweet good boy doggy with a really bad case of mange.

The vast majority of players these days never had experience with the original game. Most of us who have are dinosaurs now. They are used to all encounters being winnable just by kicking ass. The common D&D memes of kill, loot, profit are ingrained in the collective gamer consciousness. A big driver of this shift happened once acquiring treasure for xp was discarded. Encounter based xp encourages killing all that you can to rack up xp. That mentality is why when introducing players to an OSR style game, who have only played modern editions, they chew through characters complaining all the while that the game sucks because they try to bum rush everything that they encounter while simultaneously bitching that they don't have enough buttons to push on their character sheets. You can always spot an indoctrinated modern system gamer as a DM when you simply ask "what do you do?" and they gaze down at their character sheet as if they were perusing a menu in a restaurant. Hell I often do the same thing myself when playing newer systems because they condition you to choose menu options, because quite often these options are the only thing that has a chance of changing the situation. The system is so hung up on needing a die roll for everything that the DM will not be likely to know how to process an off menu option and will quickly equate it to one of the available options and call for a roll. That is the heart of the issue. The whole combat options dilemma stems from this. Combat encounters are designed to use up X amount of resources depending on difficulty. This is tied to the concept of the adventuring day. Clever solutions that neutralize the enemy or otherwise end the designed resource draining conflict that do not require these finite resources are eliminated. The rules enforce this. It is quite easy to prove. Show me a condition in 5E that prevents a target from attacking other than being knocked out (hit points ground to zero) or disable by a resource draining magical attack. Even being restrained doesn't prevent attacks, the target simply cannot move. This is due to the action economy structure that dictates that nothing short of the expenditure of limited magical resources can take a target out of action with the possible exception of intimidation if the target is subject to it. The whole concept of morale has been discarded from the core rules. Morale is a lifesaver in older versions of the game. Undead were super scary because they were terminators who would not stop unless successfully turned by a cleric. In the modern versions by the rules every creature is a terminator unless a specific effort is made to intimidate it. Joe the goblin along with his buddies Mack, Slim, Bob, and Jack roll up on some adventurers and decide that they are going to kick ass. In 5E if no specific action is taken to intimidate them, Mack, Slim, Bob, and Jack could be wiped out in round one and Joe would keep plugging away as if had a chance unless someone using their action intimidates him. At that point the party is winning handily so why bother. In an OSR game if three of them went down right away or if any of them were killed and failed to inflict any harm on the party they would need to check morale to carry on the fight. Getting their asses kicked was incentive enough to flee without deliberate PC initiation of an action. The whole kill everything protocol was also helped along by DMs who didn't award full xp for creatures that were not actually slain, meaning that running off opponents resulted in less xp thus the bloodthirsty habits.

Ok dinosaur ramble over.

Meh, this is partly more OSR revisionism. The group I was introduced into TTRPGs with played Basic D&D and they focused on killing stuff and taking their things. A great deal of their game revolved around going into dungeons, going into every room, killing everything inside, then moving on to the next. Another group I played Basic with, who hated anything that wasn't Basic D&D (including AD&D), was the same way. This second group even ridiculed the idea of RP and joked that when I played video game RPGs I stayed in town clicking on the NPCs.

I was basically the one who introduced the idea of actual RP to my first group and doing things other than just killing stuff after I got my own books and started DMing. And I ran AD&D 2e, with its evil non-weapon proficiencies ruining TTRPGs for generations to come with added buttons for players to push on their character sheets, other than just the class abilities, the way Pundit's dice rolling god intended.

I also did away with XP for gold from my game—which was a thing for D&D till 3e, IIRC (yet people everywhere already focused on killing stuff in D&D way before that)—cuz I found the whole idea silly (whole other story I'm not going to get into about bad experiences I had with it, or how giving XP for treasure, which is already its own reward, makes no sense). And focused on XP for completed objectives and stuff like good RP or planning instead. Which is what most TTRPGs other than D&D focus on when dealing with XP/equivalent rewards.

Morale also rarely came up in any game I played in, other than the ones I ran. And even then players tended to slaughter everything, even if they fled. It's player problem, not a system problem. Players can't help but kill every faceless adversary in RPGs regardless of what the rules enforce. I used to bitch about it, but they did it anyways. Besides, those fleeing enemies (usually) have treasure. Even if you hand XP for gold (again, ridiculous idea), those are feeling belt pouches with extra XP on top of already being a reward by virtue of being money. Gotta catch them all, and 50gp (or whatever amount they have on them) are 50 less XP if you let them get away.

On the actual topic, I mostly agree with the OP (even the quip about people in these boards losing it every time someone frames something as an absolute—people on the other side of every argument I've been on here do it all the time, even if that framing exists only in their heads). But as some have pointed out it highly depends on the game and how it's run. And a lot of times it relies on GM fiat for non-attack rolls to have any real impact on the game. Even options like full round defense tend to suck, cuz they only give you a minor bump in AC in exchange for not attacking that round, which merely postpones the inevitable if that bump somehow saves you from being hit that round.

WAITAMINNIT!

Since when did going around killing monsters and bandits become a bad thing? It's the purpose of the game, otherwise why do the monsters have X.P. amounts? Sure you got (limited) X.P. for sneaking around 'em, but slaughtering them was far more noteworthy  When did talking to my X.P. become a thing?

Oh. I remember: White Wolf.

"C'mon Gary! Put your fkn dice down and tell us how your character FEEEELS! Okay everybody: ACTION!"

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 16, 2023, 01:17:48 PM
WAITAMINNIT!

Since when did going around killing monsters and bandits become a bad thing? It's the purpose of the game, otherwise why do the monsters have X.P. amounts? Sure you got (limited) X.P. for sneaking around 'em, but slaughtering them was far more noteworthy  When did talking to my X.P. become a thing?

Oh. I remember: White Wolf.

"C'mon Gary! Put your fkn dice down and tell us how your character FEEEELS! Okay everybody: ACTION!"

  The goal was to get gold (or credits, depending on the system and setting) and that was the direct or indirect way you developed your PC. The idea that you have to kill monsters to get your XP came from video games and is a pox on tables everywhere.

Quote from: BadApple on June 16, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 16, 2023, 01:17:48 PM
WAITAMINNIT!

Since when did going around killing monsters and bandits become a bad thing? It's the purpose of the game, otherwise why do the monsters have X.P. amounts? Sure you got (limited) X.P. for sneaking around 'em, but slaughtering them was far more noteworthy  When did talking to my X.P. become a thing?

Oh. I remember: White Wolf.

"C'mon Gary! Put your fkn dice down and tell us how your character FEEEELS! Okay everybody: ACTION!"

  The goal was to get gold (or credits, depending on the system and setting) and that was the direct or indirect way you developed your PC. The idea that you have to kill monsters to get your XP came from video games and is a pox on tables everywhere.

This is more OSR revisionism. I don't know if the first printing OD&D books had them, but pretty much every old edition D&D I have seen, including Basic, had XP for killing monsters. And a lot of these are late 70s/early 80s books that came out years before video game RPGs became popular enough for TTRPGs to feel the pressure of copying them. And TTRPGs evolved out of wargaming to boot, which are pretty much games about faceless troops slaughtering other faceless troops. So the idea that wargamers would be adverse to slaughtering enemies as part of their win strategy or even as part of what they found fun in the game is absurd on the face of it.

Plus like I mentioned in my post above: Monsters ALSO have treasure. If you let them run you miss out on that loot XP. So you have to kill or incapacitate them (which in AFAIK is only possible in old D&D through certain spells, which allow a save, since the only other way to down an enemy is to get them to 0 HP, which in older editions means death) to get that XP award. And I've yet to hear any convincing case for why getting XP through Treasure, specifically, as opposed to ANY other means (like good planning, completing objectives, actual training, etc.) is somehow the most exalted method of advancement. And every other method is just a terribad affliction on the hobby. Cuz obviously being rich is the right way to "develop" your character.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 16, 2023, 05:58:37 PM

Quote from: BadApple on June 16, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 16, 2023, 01:17:48 PM
WAITAMINNIT!

Since when did going around killing monsters and bandits become a bad thing? It's the purpose of the game, otherwise why do the monsters have X.P. amounts? Sure you got (limited) X.P. for sneaking around 'em, but slaughtering them was far more noteworthy  When did talking to my X.P. become a thing?

Oh. I remember: White Wolf.

"C'mon Gary! Put your fkn dice down and tell us how your character FEEEELS! Okay everybody: ACTION!"

  The goal was to get gold (or credits, depending on the system and setting) and that was the direct or indirect way you developed your PC. The idea that you have to kill monsters to get your XP came from video games and is a pox on tables everywhere.

This is more OSR revisionism. I don't know if the first printing OD&D books had them, but pretty much every old edition D&D I have seen, including Basic, had XP for killing monsters. And a lot of these are late 70s/early 80s books that came out years before video game RPGs became popular enough for TTRPGs to feel the pressure of copying them. And TTRPGs evolved out of wargaming to boot, which are pretty much games about faceless troops slaughtering other faceless troops. So the idea that wargamers would be adverse to slaughtering enemies as part of their win strategy or even as part of what they found fun in the game is absurd on the face of it.

Plus like I mentioned in my post above: Monsters ALSO have treasure. If you let them run you miss out on that loot XP. So you have to kill or incapacitate them (which in AFAIK is only possible in old D&D through certain spells, which allow a save, since the only other way to down an enemy is to get them to 0 HP, which in older editions means death) to get that XP award. And I've yet to hear any convincing case for why getting XP through Treasure, specifically, as opposed to ANY other means (like good planning, completing objectives, actual training, etc.) is somehow the most exalted method of advancement. And every other method is just a terribad affliction on the hobby. Cuz obviously being rich is the right way to "develop" your character.

It's called "math."  The modules (which many folks used as metrics, even if they didn't run them for players) had a much higher amount of gold than monster xp (especially if you use the gp value of items found, which is isuggested n the DMG).  So in AD&D at least, you'd go up much faster by treasure than by killing monsters, and burgling monster lairs, etc. is far less dangerous that killing them straight up (and lair treasure is much better than the pocket change on the monster).  Sure, we killed stuff, but a 1000 gp haul did more than a half-dozen monsters at low level.  So this was not "revisionism."  It's the way almost all of the groups I was a part of in the early eighties played.  If you weren't there, you don't know...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 16, 2023, 07:00:32 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 16, 2023, 05:58:37 PM

Quote from: BadApple on June 16, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 16, 2023, 01:17:48 PM
WAITAMINNIT!

Since when did going around killing monsters and bandits become a bad thing? It's the purpose of the game, otherwise why do the monsters have X.P. amounts? Sure you got (limited) X.P. for sneaking around 'em, but slaughtering them was far more noteworthy  When did talking to my X.P. become a thing?

Oh. I remember: White Wolf.

"C'mon Gary! Put your fkn dice down and tell us how your character FEEEELS! Okay everybody: ACTION!"

  The goal was to get gold (or credits, depending on the system and setting) and that was the direct or indirect way you developed your PC. The idea that you have to kill monsters to get your XP came from video games and is a pox on tables everywhere.

This is more OSR revisionism. I don't know if the first printing OD&D books had them, but pretty much every old edition D&D I have seen, including Basic, had XP for killing monsters. And a lot of these are late 70s/early 80s books that came out years before video game RPGs became popular enough for TTRPGs to feel the pressure of copying them. And TTRPGs evolved out of wargaming to boot, which are pretty much games about faceless troops slaughtering other faceless troops. So the idea that wargamers would be adverse to slaughtering enemies as part of their win strategy or even as part of what they found fun in the game is absurd on the face of it.

Plus like I mentioned in my post above: Monsters ALSO have treasure. If you let them run you miss out on that loot XP. So you have to kill or incapacitate them (which in AFAIK is only possible in old D&D through certain spells, which allow a save, since the only other way to down an enemy is to get them to 0 HP, which in older editions means death) to get that XP award. And I've yet to hear any convincing case for why getting XP through Treasure, specifically, as opposed to ANY other means (like good planning, completing objectives, actual training, etc.) is somehow the most exalted method of advancement. And every other method is just a terribad affliction on the hobby. Cuz obviously being rich is the right way to "develop" your character.

It's called "math."  The modules (which many folks used as metrics, even if they didn't run them for players) had a much higher amount of gold than monster xp (especially if you use the gp value of items found, which is isuggested n the DMG).  So in AD&D at least, you'd go up much faster by treasure than by killing monsters, and burgling monster lairs, etc. is far less dangerous that killing them straight up (and lair treasure is much better than the pocket change on the monster).  Sure, we killed stuff, but a 1000 gp haul did more than a half-dozen monsters at low level.  So this was not "revisionism."  It's the way almost all of the groups I was a part of in the early eighties played.  If you weren't there, you don't know...

This is the way I remember it.  Killing monsters was incidental to getting their loot.  Hell, I remember bargaining with some monsters. That was 40 years ago so some memories blur but we didn't kill monsters unless there was no other way or it seems we were so much stronger than they were that we would just kill them quickly as to not have to deal with them further.

The OP seems to come from a pretty narrow premise of wargames/skirmish-derived combat. One where the rules only give weight to direct physical attacks and everything else is either undervaluated or reliant on GM fiat (or both), which is true for games like D&D3/4/5, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, etc.

But there are LOTS of games that don't follow that mold, and actually favor non-direct physical attacks, or at least make them on par with other kinds of interactions. Like those that turn atributes into "mental hit points", or use abstract damage currencies like "stress", and allow verbal or psychological interactions to be as effective as physical ones (like Cortex, FATE, Mutant Y0, etc). Also, games that have clear cut/non-fiat based social rules like Exalted, Blades in the Dark and PbtA, Burning Wheel, Pendragon, etc.