Are tactical minigames needed?

[virgil]

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?

[Stubbazubba]

So long as combat is resolved quickly, sensibly, but with as much tension as combat should have, I'd say no, it's not necessary. The reason tactical combat minigames are a big deal is mostly because the genre evolved off of wargames, where there was nothing but the tactical minigame. However, it helps greatly to have that when describing a swords & sorcery story, so you know what you can do and how to describe what you are doing.

[Lokathor]

Shadowrun, World of Darkness, and After Sundown are all examples of "less tactical" games. They still consider sight lines for ranged combat and cover, but for melee it's just kinda "there's a melee going on, fight dudes".

[Username17]

The short answer is no.

If your game is about highschool girls having problems with unrequited love, combat rules aren't going to be super important. Frankly, having a D&Desque combat system in CoC is a major pain in the ass and the game would be improved by going to a system like Arkham Horror where you just rolled to see if you won a fight.

The more important your combats are, the more the combat minigame is going to want to have. Most Fantasy RPGs are basically mostly combat, and so they need a combat system that is much more involved than Shadowrun's, which in turn requires more of a combat minigame than Maid or Blue Rose.

-Username17

[hogarth]

The answer is it depends on how much of the game is going to be spent in combat (duh).

[tussock]

If combat is something that could end (or otherwise severely inconvenience) your character, players like it to involve rather a lot of rolling dice. That whole "save or die" thing not being terribly popular.

Once you're rolling a lot of dice, it's nice if they all mean something. Like, each one means something different. At that point you have tactics, and thus a mini-game.

For things which are not debilitating, players don't much care for rolling a lot of dice. That whole "skill challenge" thing not being terribly popular either.

So, uh, when it's worth having a mini-game, people want a mini-game, but not otherwise. Win/Loss conditions, that sort of thing.

[souran]

Your combat minigame has to be worth playing. If it isn't nobody will play your game.

People DO NOT play COC very much because even when your back is to the wall and you MUST face the lovecraftian horrors comming to eat your face and turn you into a fish person the system for defending yourself/fighting off the horrors sucks.

Similarly, people would have decided NWOD was an upgrade, even with all the "goth people don't like it" bullshit that frank talks about if the combat system had been any good. If you could have played a "brothers grimm superhero" and had a game that was enjoyable to play nobody would have really given a shit that there was "nothing to do" because if nothing else you could go beat something up. NWODs BIGGEST problem is that beating shit up isn't fun.

Hell, even for Frank's crapy schoolgirl example if that game has a good pillowfight/cat-fight minigame that is engaging then litterally dozens of other stupid, terrible, or useless design decisions will be forgiven.

So the answer is YES. Your game MUST have a good combat system. It doesn't need to be tactical and involve miniatures and hexes/squares.

It DOES have to be deep enough that you could run a whole session where you never did any roleplaying and just played that mnigame. You better have a combat minigame that keeps people at the table because half your freaking fanbase couldn't give two shits about ANY OTHER ASPECT OF ANY RPG.

Its so freaking important that we should add it to Frank's rules for design a game. Insert a step that is "develop/select combat minigame system and develop threats such that you have a whole sessions worth of combat activitys." If you can't do it, then you game needs to be reworked just as badly as if you need a player to be a specific race/class combo.

[OgreBattle]

What would D&D look like if it had a Shadowrun level of combat? AD&D?

[hogarth]

Your combat minigame has to be worth playing. If it isn't nobody will play your game.

People DO NOT play COC very much because even when your back is to the wall and you MUST face the lovecraftian horrors comming to eat your face and turn you into a fish person the system for defending yourself/fighting off the horrors sucks.

If you're saying that the most popular RPGs involve a lot of combat, you're right. But if you're claiming that the reason that Call of Cthulhu isn't is popular as D&D is because the combat system sucks, that's just stupid.

The most popular RPGs (just like the most popular comic books) are adolescent power fantasies. And adolescent power fantasies usually involve violence. Call of Cthulhu is about as far from an adolescent power fantasy as I can imagine.

---

EDIT: My personal favourite example of a good RPG with a lousy (and non-tactical) combat system is Toon. I found it very entertaining, but the combat was crappy and didn't really feel like cartoon violence at all. (In cartoons, a fight ends when it's funny, not when one character runs out of hit points.)

[Username17]

What would D&D look like if it had a Shadowrun level of combat? AD&D?

More like 2nd Edition AD&D. 1st edition AD&D was more like Warhammer. Table inches, flanking, casts of thousands. 2nd edition was more freeform and had your basic three positions (back rank, front rank, or in the enemy's back rank) with much smaller numbers of enemies. You could also do special stuff, but mostly you pretty much attacked available targets until one side was defeated. So yeah... a lot like Shadowrun's level of combat granularity.

You better have a combat minigame that keeps people at the table because half your freaking fanbase couldn't give two shits about ANY OTHER ASPECT OF ANY RPG.

One word: Eroge.

While you can indeed point to a lot of RPGs that revolve around face stabbing, the fact is that the majority of roleplayers don't do combat at all. They like roleplay naughty nurses and concerned customers and stuff. More roleplay involves sex or work than combat. Indeed, there are probably more cosplayers than D&D players.

Combat is a major component of many RPGs. It's the main component of the vast majority of fantasy RPGs. But it's not universal. There are lots of role players who have no interest in combat at all, and they are not wrong.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Combat is a major component of many RPGs. It's the main component of the vast majority of fantasy RPGs. But it's not universal. There are lots of role players who have no interest in combat at all, and they are not wrong.

I like how you start the paragraph talking about role-playing games and end the paragraph talking about role-playing as if there's no difference. Kudos!

[souran]

If you're saying that the most popular RPGs involve a lot of combat, you're right. But if you're claiming that the reason that Call of Cthulhu isn't is popular as D&D is because the combat system sucks, that's just stupid.

The most popular RPGs (just like the most popular comic books) are adolescent power fantasies. And adolescent power fantasies usually involve violence. Call of Cthulhu is about as far from an adolescent power fantasy as I can imagine.

I am not saying "if COC combat was better then it would be more popular than D&D" because that says things about a ton of other stuff such as the populartiy of overlapping but seperate genre's and styles of game.

What I am saying is that the COC community is small because its combat minigame is doesn't have any adherents and that its combat is SO bad that most people can't stand to use the system for more than a one-off game.


Your combat minigame is going to be your most used minigame unless you go the exalted route and make talking to people a form of verbal combat. So whatever your combat system does (let people play adventures fighting mythicl lmonsters, be vampires fighting werewolves, be hobos boxing for a sandwhich, or high school girls brawling over who will get to be the quaterbacks date to homecomming your combat minigame is going to be what you DO with your game.

A good combat minigame means that the rest of the game can be complete shit and it will still be played.

[souran]

One word: Eroge.

While you can indeed point to a lot of RPGs that revolve around face stabbing, the fact is that the majority of roleplayers don't do combat at all. They like roleplay naughty nurses and concerned customers and stuff. More roleplay involves sex or work than combat. Indeed, there are probably more cosplayers than D&D players.

Combat is a major component of many RPGs. It's the main component of the vast majority of fantasy RPGs. But it's not universal. There are lots of role players who have no interest in combat at all, and they are not wrong.

-Username17

Wow, what a bunch of bullshit. You are wrong and you know it.

First, lets just congradulate Hogarth for calling you on shifting the discussion to try and include hobbies that were not previoulsy being discussed.

Lumping cosplay in with roleplaying is like lumping beer-pong in with NCAA sports. Lots of people cosplay, hell people even cosplay ABOUT roleplaying settings and worlds. Similarly people will play beer-pong before, during, or after the college sporting event that they are watching/partying over. That does NOT make them the same freaking hobby or class of type of game.

I don't know what your FLGS is like but I have never seen one that sold both TTRPG or even LARP rpg rules/materials AND sold stuff for cosplay or "bedroom" roleplaying.

And if we are going to count "naughty nurses or concerned customers" in the "these people roleplay in a way thats relevant to the discussion" then we have to count the milliions of children who play cops and robbers/cowboys/soldiers/relgious heroes/ people playing paintball and all the other activites we use derisevely when we want to talk about a set of rules being to magical tea partyish.

When we include that we end up with people "imaganing/roleplaying" violence at least as much as people imagine/roleplay sex. Its no wonder that the combat rules to a ttrpg/crpg have to be good because the SEX minigame in these games is either non existant or creep as hell!

However, assuming we don't let Frank take this thread on another one of his patented "I am a doctor and therefore smarter than everybody else. So I will just smack my dick on the keyboard and people will suck it up!" thread redirections we can get back to talking about what the OP was acutally discussing

Combat as a mandatory part of table top (or LARP) roleplaying.

[Username17]

First, lets just congradulate Hogarth for calling you on shifting the discussion to try and include hobbies that were not previoulsy being discussed.

It's the same hobby! I pretend to be an elf who kills dragons with magic powers, other people pretend to be stewardesses who need sexual punishment. It's roleplaying for fantasy wish fulfillment either way. I know a whole lot of people who do both. The S&M people even call their stuff "playing". Because it's a Roleplaying Game. That they play.

Lumping cosplay in with roleplaying is like lumping beer-pong in with NCAA sports. Lots of people cosplay, hell people even cosplay ABOUT roleplaying settings and worlds. Similarly people will play beer-pong before, during, or after the college sporting event that they are watching/partying over. That does NOT make them the same freaking hobby or class of type of game.

Uh... what? Beer Pong is a sport. The only real distinction you have there is that NCAA is an organization that doesn't happen to have Beer Pong as one of the sports it sponsors (yet).

I don't know what your FLGS is like but I have never seen one that sold both TTRPG or even LARP rpg rules/materials AND sold stuff for cosplay or "bedroom" roleplaying.

Really? Because my FLGS does Ren Fair shit all the time.

Ren Fair is roleplaying. So is S&M scene design. Those two are the same more often than I am entirely comfortable with.

-Username17

[hogarth]

souran: "Driving games nowadays need a lot of computer power."

Frank: "That's not true! I drove my '77 Chevy Nova to work just the other day, and it doesn't have any computer power!!!"

[Whipstitch]

I find it tough to believe there's people who didn't respond to Hogarth's post with an eyeroll or a pull from a flask. Have you ever had a session that ended without a combat? If so, would you say that session magically became something other than playing a roleplaying game?

I mean, I guess you could answer yes to that last question, but only if you really like being a disingenuous fuck.

[souran]

[
It's the same hobby! I pretend to be an elf who kills dragons with magic powers, other people pretend to be stewardesses who need sexual punishment. It's roleplaying for fantasy wish fulfillment either way. I know a whole lot of people who do both. The S&M people even call their stuff "playing". Because it's a Roleplaying Game. That they play.

Careful not to step in the bullshit. Roleplaying as a table or group hobby can only be put in the same group as S&M or Cosplay when you are trying to be outlandish. Its a terrible argument because it says that generalities are more important than specificas, that similarties in langauge are more important than similarities of practice or fact.

The fact that you "know people who do both" doesn't mean a freaking thing Frank. You could also know a bunch of game designers who are swingers. That doesn't mean that the two hobbies have jack shit to do wth each other.

Lets go the other way. Arguing that there is no GAME element to RPGs would be apriori stupid. RPGS are games. They get classified and sold as games. Games include things like monopoly, risk, stratego, etc. Now, the link between TTRPGS and even Larping and these games is a matter of factual history. However, any sane person would not say that the "games" Frank is trying to also lump into this group fit at all.

Uh... what? Beer Pong is a sport. The only real distinction you have there is that NCAA is an organization that doesn't happen to have Beer Pong as one of the sports it sponsors (yet).

It is not a sport, it can generously be called a game (making it freaking closer to playing RPG than an evening of S&M). You realize your argument here is terrible? Your refutation is effectively "One day Beer pong WILL be an NCAA sport." So freaking what. So is Golf. That doesn't mean it has a damn thing to do with basketball except adminstration. Let me ask you this: Does the RPGA run the S&M parlors in your area? Did they sponsor the last furpile you went to?

Really? Because my FLGS does Ren Fair shit all the time.

Ren Fair is roleplaying. So is S&M scene design. Those two are the same more often than I am entirely comfortable with.

-Username17

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"

However, lets be real: Your FLGS doesn't stock year round materials for ren fairs. It lets Brian and Eddie (or whatever their czech equivlants are) put up a booth for 3 weeks a year and handout paperwork and pamphlets. They might even sell the tickets but they are not stocking shit for everyday sale for those events.


EDIT----

But look, I fell for it, now we are discussing Frank's stupid ass comments that have nothing to do with the question of can the rpgs of the sort that we discuss here EVER FREAKING DAY on the den (i.e. NOT S&M or cosplay or any other bullshit distraction that could casually be lumped into roleplaying) be good without having good combat minigames.


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!!!

[hogarth]

For fuck's sake.

The context was talking about tabletop* RPGs.

Pretending to not understand context does not make you an awesome debater.

* By "tabletop RPGs", I do not mean bending a naughty nurse over a tabletop and fucking her.

[Username17]

For fuck's sake.

The context was talking about tabletop* RPGs.

Pretending to not understand context does not make you an awesome debater.

* By "tabletop RPGs", I do not mean bending a naughty nurse over a tabletop and fucking her.

Assume an enjoyable, well-designed, cooperative storytelling game.

Hogarth is the reading master!

-Username17

[souran]

I find it tough to believe there's people who didn't respond to Hogarth's post with an eyeroll or a pull from a flask. Have you ever had a session that ended without a combat? If so, would you say that session magically became something other than playing a roleplaying game?

I mean, I guess you could answer yes to that last question, but only if you really like being a disingenuous fuck.

Did IQs on the Den drop sharply over night?

Nobody said that you can't have an RPG without combat, what I was sayaing is that if you want to make a GOOD rpg then you need a GOOD combat system.

We call people on bullshit in game design all the freaking time. Why do people still cling to this clearly false elemnt of rpgs.

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.

Yes you have to have a good combat minigame. Not having one instantly turns your game into a crappier game. AS we all know, that doesn't mean it won't be fun. Playing games with your friends and a good DM can be fun even with a totally shitty system.

But that doesn't change the fact that if you have a shitty combat minigame you have at its core a shitty game.

[virgil]

However, assuming we don't let Frank take this thread on another one of his patented "I am a doctor and therefore smarter than everybody else. So I will just smack my dick on the keyboard and people will suck it up!" thread redirections we can get back to talking about what the OP was acutally discussing

Combat as a mandatory part of table top (or LARP) roleplaying.

Actually, my discussion was whether the minigame, combat or not, needed to be tactical.

[Whipstitch]

I'm glad your personal experiences are so vast as to be accepted empirically. That'll make things much easier for the Den all around. Nay, for the world.

[souran]

Actually, my discussion was whether the minigame, combat or not, needed to be tactical.

Sure, fine I apologize for nudging the thread towards a slightly different question.

However, you need to elaborate what you mean when you say tactical.

Do you mean "requires minis and true posiitoning"

Do you mean "has strategic/tactical depth?"

Thats two distinc things. And pretty much you will find no an answer of no the the dead reconingg question and a nasty debate about the second.

[hogarth]

However, you need to elaborate what you mean when you say tactical.

Do you mean "requires minis and true posiitoning"

Do you mean "has strategic/tactical depth?"

Thats two distinc things. And pretty much you will find no an answer of no the the dead reconingg question and a nasty debate about the second.

The same question came up the last time that virgil asked about "tactical" combat. I don't know what was eventually concluded (if anything).

As noted above, the game "Toon" doesn't have anything that could be considered "tactical" by either of those definitions (at least not the way we played), and yet I thought it was an entertaining game.

[virgil]

Assume an enjoyable, well-designed, cooperative storytelling game.

Hogarth is the reading master!

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.

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.