Inspired by
this post, and a comment made by
Jeff Rients, I did a bit of thinking on RPG combat and its necessity in any given game.
Jeff made a note about the lethality of the Chainmail rules:
'No hit points, just one roll to see if you killed the monster and one roll to see if the monster killed you. You better believe any sane player would stay away from combat!'
What's really interesting here is how a very lethal combat mechanic can encourage players to avoid combat and thus combat becomes rarer in the game while still maintaining the danger of its possibility. Sounds a bit like...reality, doesn't it? It's an elegant solution that doesn't laden non-com characters with killing-machine motivations or goofy powers to keep up the pace.
I believe, though, that the heart of the original post is not to create some sort of hippie wonderland of peaceful dungeon-crawling with time for tea breaks, but rather to represent a pulp-style adventurer raiding tombs without the benefit of a +10 vorpal sword of throwing and returning. Should the idea of a non-com adventurer automatically exclude all forms of combat? Indiana Jones is a perfect example of a character who avoided combat like the plague and once a fight did break out, he relied on wits and cunning to win more than what was likely an 11 Str at the very most.
Let's consider a minor D&D gripe for a moment: strength enhanced melee attacks used against a dexterity enhanced dodge. At face level, it seems a bit backwards,
but it can be explained as muscle power complementing the attack in a way that makes the attack harder to dodge such as with a fuller wide swing or multiple powerful stabs which each must be avoided. Basically, it's a powerful attack which the defender is choosing to avoid through pure reflex and the basis of every fight Captain Kirk ever had with a monstrous powerhouse.
What happens if we inverse this logic and apply it to Indy up there though? He certainly wasn't powering his fist into Nazi faces with every attack. You see him moving about and relying on agility, he makes tactical, intelligent strikes to a kidney, spleen or nose, he uses subtle ruses to get a cheap shot in or just takes a beating until his opponent is winded. No feats or edges or daily-use paladin abilities; these are all just simple, strait-forward attacks relying on just about every ability
but strength to slog through a combat.
So...lets say we have a theif character with a high Charisma. If this theif is able to attack at a full base attack progression using bluffs and trickery and generlly whatever under-handed attack manuever that the player can imagine as charisma overcoming horsepower, what part of the game gets broken?
This isn't snooty rhetoric, or a dig on any system, I'm actually curious to hear any insight people may have about that sort of change.
