Why don't many OSR games have mechanics for non-combat?

[Anders]

I’m not sure I would call GURPS Dungeon Fantasy an OSR game since it’s more using the (decidedly non-OSR) GURPS to implement a dungeon crawl setting than anything else. GURPS is pretty much the antithesis of “rulings, not rules”.

[garmr]

I think the idea of rules having a “magnetic” effect is accurate. I would like to believe the OSR rhetoric of “rules are to be avoided wherever possible”, and I’m sure it is true for some groups, but it doesn’t align with my experience in general. Most people seem to be actively interested in using the mechanics, or at least view them as signposts to what the game is about.
However I’d point out that if you trace the design trend in OSR from D&D4e -> Labyrinth Lord -> LotFP -> Into the Odd & Knave, then you will see that the combat rules are getting smaller and smaller over time. It’s interesting that some people in this thread talk about ItO having “interesting combat mechanics” - they’re not wrong, but it seems the most interesting thing about it is that it lets you get the combat over with as quick as possible.
The other thing is that adding mechanics to something that was previously handled by free conversation, can sometimes ruin it. A good example of this is D&D4e’s skill challenges - they tried to add more rules for non-combat situations, but the result was that they reduced every such situation to a series of tedious die rolls and box-checking.
All that said, I think there is a place for non-combat mechanics in OSR games, if it’s handled right. I am working on an OSR game inspired by stories like Spirited Away or Coraline, where the PCs are assumed to have no chance of fighting back against monsters. For that game I hope to develop subsystems for stealth, chases and negotiation. However it’s hard to strike a balance where the situation is mechanised in an interesting way, but there is still room for outside-the-box thinking.

[Evlyn_M]

In my experience it is because:

1. Engaging game mechanics is often risky, dangerous or deadly in OSR games.
2. Not having rules outside of combat (and some adventuring situations) create a space that players can use to avoid engaging the risky or deadly game mechanics. Most OSR players know that they can get very creative and have a lot of fun in that space.

Being able to avoid rolling the dice is kind of a boon or a reward in OSR games, this is often where things become interesting.

[Jesseabe]

Worth mentioning one of my favorite games, a spin on OSR that has 0 combat: @RichRogers Bat Hack. In place of combat is the “Diamond Crawl,” a set of tools to simulate a baseball game. Rich had the insight that story emerges from OSR play in a way similar to how it emerges from sports: Spontaneously from the interaction of rules, player actions and decisions and observers’ storytelling brains. I can tell a story about that time we delved into the Mines of Moria and barely escaped with our lives just like I can tell a story about the time that Dave Roberts stole second, David Ortiz hit a single and suddenly it was a ball game, and then a series. None of the game mechanics help with story, and yet there’s a story.

All of this is just to say that there’s nothing inherent in OSR play that requires it to have any rules for combat, and it can be used to model very different kinds of situations.

[technoskald]

In a game like B/X D&D (sorry I’m not as familiar with into the odd) there are pretty extensive rules for exploration which involve tracking light, encumbrance, and time. There’s an entire page in that doc above that is strictly dealing with doors (e.g. different types of doors, how likely your to hear something listening at a door etc).

I keep coming back to this and wondering if maybe I’m just reading different games than other folks. All those “exploration” rules are non-combat, as are the rules for hirelings, monster reactions, and treasure generation.

[Anders]

Maybe there’s a mix-up between “rules” and “resolution mechanisms”?

[technoskald]

Could you elaborate on the distinction?

[rredmond]

Welcome @Ben_M, @ebear and @rhysmakesthings - cool to see so many first time posters in a great thread. Just to add my two coppers to the others, on top of resource management (light, time, encumbrance, etc) there’s the role playing bit of the game. I enjoy the strategic roll playing involved in a great game, but if players can make it out of a dangerous situation with ingenuity and not having to roll a single die, well that’s fun too! There are morale and reaction tables, but if someone does all the right things to avoid the trap, or make off with the magical gem from the sleeping dragon’s horde, then they may not necessarily need a FaRT or Move Silently roll. That feel of the old school game makes it what it is; and of course there’s no wrong way to have fun, so to each their own!

[Anders]

For these purposes, my not particularly considered definitions would be that rules are all kinds of rules, while a resolution mechanism is a particular type of rule that determines the results of a particular action where there is some kind of uncertainty. So tracking torches or rations may be part of the rules but it’s usually not tied to a resolution mechanism.

Basically, I was using “resolution mechanism” as the fortune part of (my internalized version of) the drama/karma/fortune triad, whereas much of resource management is karma resolution and much of OSR type problem solving is drama resolution.

[funkaoshi]

The expectation is the GM will come up with a ruling for the “non-combat” action. Most games have some sort of general resolution mechanic, so this isn’t usually tricky. (You might roll under your charisma attribute if you are trying to negotiate with an NPC, perhaps.) I find in most OSR games I’ve played in people spend more time talking than rolling dice or leaning on mechanics to accomplish a task. It’s about clever solutions and problem solving.

Natalie wrote this post about why D&D has so many rules about combat which is an interesting read. An old post from 2012. Popular at the time.

[Gus.L]

The large variety of “general resolution” mechanics is a sign of this - you’ve got Stat based rolls, saving throws, D100 based skills, attack rolls and listening or search checks off the top of my head - and all of these can be used at when the GM makes the ad hoc decision that a roll is necessary to resolve the random aspect of a player action or setting response to player action. This is part of what I meant above discussing esoteric systems - there’s no general roll and hence no gaming the general roll. GM decision making power and as hoc resolution mechanics tends towards narrative (vs. mechanical) solutions - that is you want your scheme to sound plausible and effective rather then use the code words that relate directly to the mechanics.

[anna_galactic_shock]

I like that game but it’s also a solo experience, so if I sit there for 30 minutes noodling on a particular puzzle no one is going to get frustrated or bored. But if someone’s just sitting watching me think about a puzzle like that… well there just doesn’t seem to be enough at stake to make that interesting.

Something to note in the vein of this sort of game would be real life escape rooms. Bringing that to a TTRPG would probably need an order of magnitude more thinking to prepare an adventure.

[Deckard]

@rredmond, This is EXACTLY the concept behind Maze Rats. Rolls in this game with 4 pages of mechanics are reserved for only when an action is risky and the consequences make it dangerous. Sure, most of the mechanics listed are for combat but the understanding is that most dangerous and risky maneuvers will be during combat and the main mechanic is used for all risky situations.