| Paradigm Concepts https://paradigmconcepts.com/forums/ |
|
| Non-Combat Modules https://paradigmconcepts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=525 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Njal Val'Assante [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Non-Combat Modules |
One of the problems I face as a module writer is balancing a module so everyone enjoys themselves, and unfortunately there are many people for whom their primary (and in some cases, only) enjoyment comes from rolling dice to stab things where it hurts. While I'd like to believe this is a minority, experience does not bear this out. So, generally speaking, how would you (as a Hero or as a Chronicler) feel about modules where combat was not a pre-determined outcome? How would you feel if engaging in combat (win or lose) was actually the worst available option? |
|
| Author: | Nierite [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
I like the idea, but alas the present menu of non-combat options within the story leave things a lot more up to GM determination rather than the feeling of forging your own destiny as seen in combats where you are the one making the rolls. I'd really love to see a 'social combat' where your attack rolls are done using Persuasion and such, but I still haven't figured out a good way of making this work within the current rules without basically writing a whole chapter on the subject. |
|
| Author: | Southernskies [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
If you can find a copy of "Lace and Steel", its card combat system does this well. Same deck (and rules!) is used for physical combat and social combat. High attack: headshot in melee becomes a subtle innuendo Low attack: legshot in melee becomes a gutter comment in social. *** Quick and dirty social combat rules idea: Social Stamina = Passive Etiquette, Persuasion and Deceit plus Val Bloodrank. Social Wounds = Passive Ch. Etiquette vs passive Etiquette; Damage (Lo) Persuasion vs Discipline; Damage (Re) Deceit vs passive Empathy; Damage (In) All attacks are Speed 6 (if needed). You cannot use the same attack skill twice in a row. |
|
| Author: | val Holryn [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
The old Derrek Weaver mod set in the Blessed Lands was well received and had no combat. It also advertised in the blurb that it was a story module. I wrote a two round module in the Invisible Kings days called An Evening of Wealth and Taste that was also well received (essentially it was designed to simulate a larp in module form). All the combat encounters in AEoWT were avoidable with the right skills. Find a way to advertise what kind of mod it is in the blurb and most players seem to judge it on its merits rather than based on what kind of module they prefer to play. |
|
| Author: | SamhainIA [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
Eric, "Whispers in the dark" is the blessed lands mod your referring to. That was one of my favorite modules to introduce arcanis to people |
|
| Author: | frzntundra4 [ Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
To me, combats should have meaning. Meaning, in that they are included to further the story. Too often people create encounters for the sake of having a combat because it's what they or the players have come to expect. If the story is such that combat is not needed or can be avoided, then so be it, cool with me. But I enjoy role playing games because I like the combination of story, role-playing, and the tactics of a meaningful combat encounter. Thus I generally feel most events should have a combat (or 6). Lastly, I strongly prefer if events did not have blurbs like 'this is a no combat event' or some such thing. I think one of the best parts of any game is the unknown, the surprises, the uncertain. And a big part of that is not knowing if/when a conflict may occur. |
|
| Author: | Haakon_val'Ishi [ Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
I've played mods where the diplo-monkey got us through the mod with no combat at all, plus I played the story mods mentioned earlier. While I enjoy a good combat there are also times when I enjoy the story that much more. I would say as long as it's clear that a story mod is just that, the combat types can always steer clear if that suits them. And I would not mind seeing more of them. For example we recently played Once Upon a Time in Metra. While the combats were fun, the non-combat portions were even more enjoyable. |
|
| Author: | Golo [ Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
I generally agree with Rick on this issue. Fights should have meaning. They should be a storytelling tool and if they are not needed to tell the story then they should not be included. I think the world would be well served by having fewer obligatory thug encounters. Also it is nice when a module allows you to explore more in depth religious, ethical or personal issues that you may not have time for if you are fighting several fights and want to finish in 5 hours. So I'm completely a fan of the non-combat module. Combat as the price of failure is also a good consequence to our actions, particularly if it denies us the objective we were looking to accomplish. In the original Arcanis campaign there were several very meaningful choices people could make and failure lead to character death or the loss of an important ally or resource that is need in some later module. I think it is important to hold people responsible in character for their actions. The one thing I'm leery about non-combat modules is when they can be completed by one person with a high persuasion roll or deceit roll. Now Arcanis has a better system in place for this than other previous systems. However, it is nice when trying to win over someone's opinion or favor it is the least likely people who need do it because the diplomat of the party must be doing something else. Possibly it is a crafty senator that wants to talk to someone that can't really lie to him or her while the party diplomat is speaking to the Prince or acting as an Ambassador. |
|
| Author: | frzntundra4 [ Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
My issue with non combat modules, or really more so ones where combats can be avoided by diplo-monkeys, is that I think it is often too easy to 'run the numbers' and make just making a roll to avoid any risk too easy, thus eliminating any character risk. I also echo Golo's sentiments about one player/character dominating the game this way. I've also always enjoyed mods where the outcomes of non combat encounters come from the actual role playing, and not from a die roll to determine the results. This is where the real character development/revelations come from, which is the heart of the best memories, imo. At best I like when good/bad role playing gives a benefit or penalty. |
|
| Author: | val Holryn [ Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Non-Combat Modules |
Nierite wrote: I like the idea, but alas the present menu of non-combat options within the story leave things a lot more up to GM determination rather than the feeling of forging your own destiny as seen in combats where you are the one making the rolls. I'd really love to see a 'social combat' where your attack rolls are done using Persuasion and such, but I still haven't figured out a good way of making this work within the current rules without basically writing a whole chapter on the subject. There was a early 3rd edition D&D product called Dynasties and Demagogues that did just that. It is well worth looking up as a PDF if mod writers are interested in going this route for mechanically robust social encounters. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|