Are tactical minigames needed?

[Blade]

if you have a shitty combat minigame you have at its core a shitty game.

I agree that a game with a bad combat minigame is worse than the same game with a good combat minigame.

I agree that even if combat is not important/not common, your game will be better if you have a good combat minigame.

But in that game where combat isn't important or is very uncommon (Dying Earth RPG played right, René, Raoul and other French RPG you've probably never heard of), I don't see why having a shitty combat minigame makes the whole game shitty.

I even think that if Dying Earth (which already doesn't have a very good combat system) had a shitty combat system, it would be even better, since combat would even more be something players try to avoid at all costs.

[hogarth]

I did indeed phrase it that way for a reason. I consider Munchhausen to be a good storytelling game (in theory, never played it or analyzed it much), a valid example to bring up for discussion, but I wouldn't classify it as a tabletop RPG.

If you honestly want me to go on at length about my sexual roleplaying and whether it needs good tactical rules, I'll have to charge you.

[souran]

As for Souran's question, I do mean the latter. How important is tactical depth in your minigame, presuming a cooperative storytelling game that includes a minigame of some kind? Last time I talked about tactical depth, I was looking into minis and being specific about tabletop. There's no specific motive here other than general brainstorming.

Look, if its worth including a system for combat in your system AT ALL you should develop a system with enough "depth" to be played stand alone.

If you are going to have a "combat system" then that system IS going to be the minigame you will use the rules for the most often unless you decide to make talking into a complex minigame.

And if you are going to have rules you use a lot then they need to have enough depth to be played, and played alot. If you are going to have to build that much material it had better be pretty good.

You really should make sure that your combat minigame is playable as a stand alone game. You should be able to keep things interesting even if there was just me vs. you.

combat should either be a gigantic hand wave or it should be a playable portion of the game.

[TheFlatline]

Ren Faire stuff at my FLGS usually not but in Kansas City ren Fair is now a corporate for profit entity that was purchased from the SCA. Speaking of which, SCA events basically exist to hold fake tournaments where people whack each other with wooden sticks while they wear armor. So SCA ren fair stuff is all about combat.

And guess what, "Barbarian Battles" is now the largest event at most US ren fairs. Thats right, the big draw to get people to buy tickets to one of these events is the opportunity to hit your nambers with rubber or foam weapons. Turns out that combat is what makes ren fair go so that even if we accept your propsition that these events belong in the same group as ttrpgs for this discussion you are STILL WRONG because its all bout the "combat minigame"

Amusingly enough, the original renaissance faire that started them all, *still* doesn't have shit like that. There's a joust (which I've worked before the current limp dicks with their balsa scored lances), there's a military "battle" that's mostly fat dudes in beards pushing up against each other while a couple other people shoot blackpowder, and they draw some crowds, but the soul of the renaissance faire is the street gigging, the acting, the roleplaying (finding decent craftwork was a big deal that's sadly dying). The REP/Bristol faire shit is just that... shit. Out of say a thousand participants, you *might* have 50 who are directly involved in combat. Maybe another 100 who are tangentially involved. The rest of us are blacksmiths, whores, weavers, nobles, businessmen, ratters, yeomen of the guard, privateers, camp girls, servants, and a litany of other stuff. The combat stuff may look good on the ads and bring in the crowds, but it's shit like the blacksmith pounding out nails or rolling hinges or the weaver working at the loom that sticks with them. It's meeting the queen or staring down a pirate or drinking with the irish mercenaries that stick with you and make you come back.

Also, I dunno about SCA back east, but out here, while the excuse to get together is tourney, there's a HUGE movement behind the tourney supporting everything. I learned bladesmithing from a gent who got his start at SCA.

Just putting two cents in.

[Murtak]

People who say that there games have "little to no combat" are LYING. Every single person who I have met who said this was completely full of shit.

Oh shit, then I must be delusional, because in my current campaign we played for about 20 sessions and had a grand total of one fight scene. And that one lasted less than 15 minutes. I do expect us to have another fight within the next three of four sessions though. Maybe even more than one!

[HalcyonUmbra]

I wouldn't classify [Munchausen] as a tabletop RPG.

Why?

As for Souran's question, I do mean the latter. How important is tactical depth in your minigame, presuming a cooperative storytelling game that includes a minigame of some kind? Last time I talked about tactical depth, I was looking into minis and being specific about tabletop. There's no specific motive here other than general brainstorming.

Assuming Wikipedia's definition of chess tactics, I'd say that tactics aren't necessary at all. The ability for the choices you make to impact the choices the opponent makes isn't at all a requirement for the overall game being enjoyable.

I'd say that the only vital component of a conflict resolution minigame is that every participant have at least some chance of winning. Not that every participant have a chance of winning every conflict, mind you; I mean that a system like "Bob wins every conflict, no matter what" is always going to lead to a shitty game.

[Whipstitch]

The combat stuff may look good on the ads and bring in the crowds, but it's shit like the blacksmith pounding out nails or rolling hinges or the weaver working at the loom that sticks with them. It's meeting the queen or staring down a pirate or drinking with the irish mercenaries that stick with you and make you come back.

That's been my experience with most midwest ren faires. There isn't any barbarian battle bullshit, just a joust a couple times a day and for the most part people get drunk, eat food and watch glassblowers and metal workers do their thing between stage shows.

[shadzar]

The title says it all. Assume an enjoyable, well-designed, cooperative storytelling game. Obviously conflict will occur, but does the conflict resolution system (likely combat) require it to be tactically engaging?

depends on the game. an unengaging combat system would not be enjoyed by those looking for SOME combat. likewise a miniature wargame wouldnt work for those wishing to tell a story.

you need the right mix. without the mix you lose part of the RPG and either have a miniature wargame or storytime.

i dont want a fake RPG, i have miniature wargames, and i can make up stories without some set of rules from a company.

[Stubbazubba]

No, not every system needs a combat system, that's ridiculous. If you were playing an RPG based off of political drama, you would have tactically complex politicking systems, with a completely tactically limp system to determine whether or not your CIA coup in a Latin American country works or not, because that is completely ancillary to the focus of the game, the politicking that get that movement done, and the results the success or failure has on your political power. If your character ever came to blows with someone else, it would be ridiculous, and having an awesome combat system for this would be wasted pages in the rulebook.

[Orion]

And if I was somehow wrong about the fact that this board was for discussing table top rpgs that involved rulebooks and dice then I really want to know how the HELL Lago's winds of fate system can be applied to S&M roleplaying!!!

Like this:

[Chamomile]

No, not every system needs a combat system, that's ridiculous. If you were playing an RPG based off of political drama, you would have tactically complex politicking systems, with a completely tactically limp system to determine whether or not your CIA coup in a Latin American country works or not, because that is completely ancillary to the focus of the game, the politicking that get that movement done, and the results the success or failure has on your political power. If your character ever came to blows with someone else, it would be ridiculous, and having an awesome combat system for this would be wasted pages in the rulebook.

My first thought was "knowing most RPG groups, people would probably go to blows all the time anyway." But then it occurred to me that the reason most TTRPGs are so violent might be because only combat is a fully fleshed out conflict in most of them.

[shadzar]

No, not every system needs a combat system, that's ridiculous. If you were playing an RPG based off of political drama,

Anakin: You call this a diplomatic solution?
Padme: No, I call it aggressive negotiations.

[Stubbazubba]

Yes, and that turned out like any other political drama plot arc that is shoe-horned into a combat-focused, combat-driven game. That is what happens when you do diplomacy in D&D, but this should not be a desired outcome for your parliament game. I suppose you could fault the system they were playing with for having a crappy combat system that made them look as ridiculous as indignant Asians in suits can be, but personally I'm fine with that.

[shadzar]

here is the thing.. remember Gary stated along the lines of "dont tell them they dont have to buy the game from us, because they can just make it up themselves."

people have been telling stories LONG before there were games to play to help tell them.

when it comes to war-based games, the combat is not something so easily agreed upon, so a set of standard rules needs to be had.

int he case of diplomacy, the best thing is to roleplay it, not have some strange rule system. the majority of people that want to play this sort of intrigue dont need a set of mechanics to do it, they already have interest enough that THEY want to be the one making the choices and doing the negotiations.

this was the social portion of D&D prior to it becoming a beer & pretzel hack'and'slash.

you had to talk to the NPCs for as much or little as they would tell, either leaving riddles to figure out, or just giving the answers.

now you COULD drop D&D combat out to DDM and let it resolve that way to simplify it but people want a bit more complexity that the skirmish game offers for combat.

WHAT do people need for the diplomatic drama from the system itself?