Quote from: tzunder;852984Actually, Wordplay and FATE can do this, for combats which are a simple contest, as can HeroQuest. All 3 of these don't tend to detail conflict of any kind and leave it to the players/GM to narrate.

Since we narrate more trad rpgs in a similar way we have been known to montage and narrate combats even in D&D when we wanted to move the plot along rather than fighting every single blow.

This is my experience, too. If we have a 'speed bump' encounter the result might be determined by a single dice roll if success is certain and the only question is 'at what cost?'  

We also wrap things up when the outcome has become certain and the process of playing them out has stopped being fun, but that is a little different. Totally driven by pacing the game. And also applicable to trad games like D&D in my opinion.

It's interesting. It is a pretty strong truism that players will do what ever the game gives them lots of rules for, and since most games have the most rules for combat that gets a lot of game time at most tables. Conversely, few games have rules for romantic encounters.

This is a cool little game: Radiance (and free, to boot). Several of the characters have some kind of companionship ability (even just a kiss) which helps restore hits. It certainly makes you think differently about healing that sweaty and ugly fighter...

Quote from: Bren;852746So here is the part of the post that caught my interest.


Is that your game experience? Does your group go into a lot of detail regarding the violence in game?

Sometimes yes, we do "fade to red", depending on genre. That's the default in our Feng Shui 2 game, for example, though it provokes ironic commentaries about the genre.
More often than not, though there's no fading to red in our games.

Quote from: dbm;853290It is a pretty strong truism that players will do what ever the game gives them lots of rules for, and since most games have the most rules for combat that gets a lot of game time at most tables. Conversely, few games have rules for romantic encounters.

Which astounds a lot of wargamers, especially DIPLOMACY players.  The "diplomacy" part of the game is 90% of the game play, but only takes up something like 173 words.

"The diplomacy phase is at the beginning of each turn and lasts 10 minutes.  Players can say anything they want to each other, and do not have to keep promises."  That's the gist of the rules, but that comprises most of the game.

The rules are available online, go give 'em a read.

For that matter, there are NO rules for bluffing in Poker, but it's a major part of the strategy of the game.

What you cite is a truism, I grant you, but it's fallacious.

It's an interesting psychological phenomena. A good friend of mine runs a professional LARP company here in the UK and they have to design the rules with great care. If the rules allow a player to give themselves a crap game, they will do that.

For example, there was a rule that repairing your armour took an hour. So players would sit in their tents for hours at a time rather than getting out there and role playing with all the other people there. Needless to say, that rule was quickly removed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;853326Which astounds a lot of wargamers, especially DIPLOMACY players.  The "diplomacy" part of the game is 90% of the game play, but only takes up something like 173 words.

"The diplomacy phase is at the beginning of each turn and lasts 10 minutes.  Players can say anything they want to each other, and do not have to keep promises."  That's the gist of the rules, but that comprises most of the game.

The rules are available online, go give 'em a read.

For that matter, there are NO rules for bluffing in Poker, but it's a major part of the strategy of the game.

What you cite is a truism, I grant you, but it's fallacious.

My favorite example of this is Prince of the City board game. Nothing in the rules state anything about negotiating with other players, but the way we played it, at least 80% of the game happened outside on cigarette breaks. It was so evident that guys who didn't smoke joined us outside

Quote from: dbm;853290It's interesting. It is a pretty strong truism that players will do what ever the game gives them lots of rules for, and since most games have the most rules for combat that gets a lot of game time at most tables. Conversely, few games have rules for romantic encounters.

A "truism" that is contradicted by the actual play experiences of many of us.

I’ve played RPGs for over 40 years and even in the days of teenage males playing OD&D we spent more time exploring than we did in combat. For at least the last 35+ years we've spent far more time talking to NPCs and to other PCs than we spent in combat. So not true in general. Just true for certain people.

Quote from: dbm;853347It's an interesting psychological phenomena. A good friend of mine runs a professional LARP company here in the UK and they have to design the rules with great care. If the rules allow a player to give themselves a crap game, they will do that.

For example, there was a rule that repairing your armour took an hour. So players would sit in their tents for hours at a time rather than getting out there and role playing with all the other people there. Needless to say, that rule was quickly removed.

Or maybe they need to get players who are more interested in engaging in a LARP than in sitting by themselves in a tent?

Rules don’t and can’t fix players.

My point was that the players will play the system irrespective of whether that results in a fun experience. Remove the rubbish rule and your remove the inducement to carry out that activity.

Reduce the emphasis on combat in a game system and you will see less emphasis on combat at the table.

And my friend runs the biggest LARP in the UK, so he evidently has players who want to play...

Quote from: dbm;853423My point was that the players will play the system irrespective of whether that results in a fun experience. Remove the rubbish rule and your remove the inducement to carry out that activity.

Reduce the emphasis on combat in a game system and you will see less emphasis on combat at the table.

And my friend runs the biggest LARP in the UK, so he evidently has players who want to play...

I don't think this is true at all. Game systems emphasize rules for combat because it is harder to resolve than a lot of other things without such rules. I can adjudicate players baking cakes, talking to NPCs or engaging in trade pretty easily with no rules whatsoever. It is a lot harder to deal with players shooting bows at opponents without combat rules.

What Brendan said.

Quote from: dbm;853423And my friend runs the biggest LARP in the UK, so he evidently has players who want to play...

But you said he had a large enough group of players who wanted to just sit in their tents that he felt like he needed to changer the rules just to get them to play in the LARP that they signed up to play in. To me that sounds like a problem with those particular players, not a problem with the rules in the exact same way that I see players who want to do something other than engage in combat do that. And they do that despite having few if any rules for the things they want their PCs to do. Examples include:

• Garden
• Practice skills and learn new skills
• Cook food
• Try new foods (and figure out if their PC likes the new food)
• Try new drinks (ditto)
• Holiday in exciting locations
• Invite people to social events and play out the socializing
• Meet new NPCs
• Talk to other characters to learn about them
• Engage in diplomatic negotiations
• Troll for information
• Flirt
• Go on dates
• Engage in seduction
• Talk about their family, fears, wants, and desires
• Buy or make and give presents
• Shop for new and upgraded equipment
• Shop for souvenirs
• Window shop just to see what is in the bazaar or market
• Get engaged
• Get married
• Have children
• Befriend animals

These are just off the top of my head. I'm certain I've missed some other things people like to do for which the games we play have few if any rules.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;853425I don't think this is true at all. Game systems emphasize rules for combat because it is harder to resolve than a lot of other things without such rules. I can adjudicate players baking cakes, talking to NPCs or engaging in trade pretty easily with no rules whatsoever. It is a lot harder to deal with players shooting bows at opponents without combat rules.

You've probably never seen the Great British Bake Off, but baking is very complex and a technical endeavour. There are lots of nuances and ways of getting it wrong. It can have drama. If you want to make it the centre of attention (like this very popular TV programme does) there is a lot to work with.

So, you can choose to emphasise the technical aspects of any arena if you feel it is worth it. Most games put that effort into combat, encouraging people to think that is what the game is about (when all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails). Some other games, for example Fate, have a more even mechanical representation. Personally I find that beneficial when wanting to make a wider range of challenges for my players to interact with.

Quote from: Bren;853430But you said he had a large enough group of players who wanted to just sit in their tents that he felt like he needed to changer the rules just to get them to play in the LARP that they signed up to play in. To me that sounds like a problem with those particular players, not a problem with the rules.

When you want to grow your business, engineering a situation that is more fun for more people more of the time make good business sense.

I've always run bloody games with lots of gore.

But I love horror movies. If anything, my OD&D is fantasy/horror and my best Traveller campaigns have been sci-fi/horror.

Quote from: dbm;853434You've probably never seen the Great British Bake Off, but baking is very complex and a technical endeavour. There are lots of nuances and ways of getting it wrong. It can have drama. If you want to make it the centre of attention (like this very popular TV programme does) there is a lot to work with.

So, you can choose to emphasise the technical aspects of any arena if you feel it is worth it. Most games put that effort into combat, encouraging people to think that is what the game is about (when all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails). Some other games, for example Fate, have a more even mechanical representation. Personally I find that beneficial when wanting to make a wider range of challenges for my players to interact with.

I have seen the Bake Off. My wife found it interesting. She bakes. I don't. I've also seen more chef shows than any human should have to watch. And I cook. Have done so for about 35 years. I think we are aware that there are nuances to baking or cooking beyond a binary success or fail. But you don't need all those nuances to include baking or cooking in an RPG.

Maybe if you wanted to play an RPG that was all about being a baker or chef you might want very detailed rules, but I really doubt the three of us want to play that game. I sure don't. It is way too narrow in focus to hold my interest for years of play and I like running and playing games for years.

You keep saying that the rules need to be changed, as if that were an axiom. And yet, those of us who have been replying have been playing RPGs for a really, really long time without needing to change the rules in the ways you suggest to get the effect you want. The effect that you claim needs different rules to get. That should tell you something about your premise that the rules determine how the players behave.

Hint: They don't.

Quote from: dbm;853436When you want to grow your business, engineering a situation that is more fun for more people more of the time make good business sense.

My mistake. I was talking about a hobby. Business is something I do for a living. For my leisure time hobby, not including people in it who aren't interested in the game we play has worked really, really well for me. But providing incentives to get unmotivated people to plunk down more of their money is not particularly relevant to what motivates people who are already having fun to have more fun.

Quote from: dbm;853423My point was that the players will play the system irrespective of whether that results in a fun experience. Remove the rubbish rule and your remove the inducement to carry out that activity.

And I have 42 years of gaming and work for GHQ, Adventure Games, and FASA that says otherwise.

My meaningless anecdote nullifies your meaningless anecdote.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;853494My meaningless anecdote nullifies your meaningless anecdote.

So that leaves at +2 anecdota.