How many rules do we NEED?

[Rated Aargh]

This morning, I read a review of a game, and in that review, there was this:

There is also the issue of a massive disconnect between what a character can do in combat and what a character can do outside of combat. The system also doesn't have rules for crafting, downtime, or things of that nature.

This made me think about what rules we need. First, I'm not saying that rules only apply during combat. Other things happen in games that require uncertainty; otherwise, you're just telling a story. But do you need rules for everything? Do non-events like downtime require a rules framework?

In some games like Blades in the Dark, downtime comes with rules, but that's because there's a mechanical effect to what characters do when they're not adventuring. Most games, though, don't have that focus. They're about doing things, not about not doing things.

I don't play D&D because it's become a morass of rules for everything you can imagine. It's indoctrinated a generation of gamers into the mindset that if there's no rule, there ought to be. I don't want or need rule-specific guidelines for every little thing. Something tells me I'm not the only one to think this way.

 

[sharps54]

I’m happy with rules as light as Risus or USR (Unbelievably Simple Roleplaying). As much as I love my older games I just don’t have time to absorb hundreds of pages of new rules anymore when you can resolve things with just a couple simple methods. USR does this with a contested roll and a non contested roll (against a target number), those two resolution mechanics and a little common sense let you resolve any situation you can think of.

 

[Lessa]

I agree. Rules should exist to realize the game's goals and focus, anything beyong that is cruft. We had phases in the hobby where rules creep was a thing even in games that didn't need it. Fortunately, I think it's well behind us now.

In some games like Blades in the Dark, downtime comes with rules, but that's because there's a mechanical effect to what characters do when they're not adventuring. Most games, though, don't have that focus. They're about doing things, not about not doing things.

Notice that in Blades the downtime has important consequences to the PCs situations and stories. So I wouldn't say it's "not doing things" as much as doing things through a different, zoomed-out lens. Failing a roll at downtime can be as grave as failing a roll in combat. I think this is true for most games with a downtime phase (eg: Pendragon).

 

[Rated Aargh]

Notice that in Blades the downtime has important consequences to the PCs situations and stories. So I wouldn't say it's "not doing things" as much as doing things through a different, zoomed-out lens.

This is true, and maybe "downtime" is the wrong word to use when describing what happens in that game, though I'll be damned if I can come up with a good alternative on the spot.

 

[StubbornMule]

 

[Fenris-77]

When I talk about 'need' and rules for RPGs i tend to talk about a game needing rules to support its main desired action(s), whatever that is. Combat games need more than coin-flip combat rules, for a politics game you need rules for influence, etc etc. The mechanical thrust of game should match the desired play experience.

 

[Nakana]

I’ve been thinking about this myself as I’ve been on a minimal rpg kick lately. As far as what I would consider actual rules, there should be about 3 (as close as possible anyway):

1. Core mechanic for standard rolls to determine success/failure
2. Mechanic for opposed rolls to determine winners/losers
3. Combat procedure

Everything else should really just be explanations of how those rules are applied: skill lists, equipment, proficiencies, etc.
Chargen isn’t so much rules as it is a set of instructions to play.

Reading above, this already it looks like a “haiku“ method of game design. Minimalist and restrictive yet creatively liberating. Countless ways to design a core mechanic for the feel of the game, yet keeping to the same structure.

 

[xanther]

This made me think about what rules we need. First, I'm not saying that rules only apply during combat. Other things happen in games that require uncertainty; otherwise, you're just telling a story. But do you need rules for everything? Do non-events like downtime require a rules framework?

In some games like Blades in the Dark, downtime comes with rules, but that's because there's a mechanical effect to what characters do when they're not adventuring. Most games, though, don't have that focus. They're about doing things, not about not doing things.

I don't play D&D because it's become a morass of rules for everything you can imagine. It's indoctrinated a generation of gamers into the mindset that if there's no rule, there ought to be. I don't want or need rule-specific guidelines for every little thing. Something tells me I'm not the only one to think this way.

I like a system that could let me come up with a rule for something if needed, by my view is you only need "rules" for the things that are at the core of the genre. Action adventure with intrigue, yes rules for combat, jumping, sneaking, climbing, bribery, espionage, etc. but crafting, running an estate, forest management, etc. not really.

Downtime, I don't think require a rules framework be given. I wouldn't even call such things organizational principles to help run the game, but they are not rules. You only need "rules" when you have unreasonable and greedy players who want to do 48 hours work in 8 hours.

Now it would be great to help a Referee at verisimilitude to a setting to give info on how long it took to craft a sword, etc. so if a PC orders a custom one can decide how ling it will take. Or you could just direct them to watch a few seasons of Forged in Fire On magic items, maybe, as there is no internet source for that or you can have those be things outside the purvey of the PCs...at least for the base game, but perhaps in a supplement.

 

[sharps54]

When I talk about 'need' and rules for RPGs i tend to talk about a game needing rules to support its main desired action(s), whatever that is. Combat games need more than coin-flip combat rules, for a politics game you need rules for influence, etc etc. The mechanical thrust of game should match the desired play experience.

I really enjoy rules that help reinforce genre BUT I think a good GM can do that without the mechanical support.

 

[David Johansen]

It depends on the nature of the game. A combat oriented game needs more combat rules. A survival oriented game needs rules for finding food and water and staying out of the hot hot sun. A sports oriented game needs rules for passing, catching, and blocking. A romance oriented game needs rules for relationships.

As any rpg has the potential to go off on any number of crazy tangents, I believe that a game that doesn't try to cover at least some of them is just insufficient.

 

[Fenris-77]

I really enjoy rules that help reinforce genre BUT I think a good GM can do that without the mechanical support.

Actually I wasn't specifically talking about genre, although my comments could apply there. Even at the level of stats and skills the mechanical chassis of a game drives player choice of how to approach situations and overcome obstacles. If you give players deep combat rules they are going to get into combat, for example, if you give them mechanical support for cooperating then they will do more of that, if you give them specific tasks that tie to advancement they will focus more on that, and so on. The flipside would be a game that provides a robust and detailed combat system despite combat not being a key idea in the game/setting/genre/whatever.

Older games tended not to provide mechanics past combat and bare stats checks, but newer games tend to have all manner of different mechanics, and so the old chestnut just roleplay it out isn't quite as useful as it sounds, despite the fact that perfectly good games can be run that way. In short, the players will want to use the mechanics they are given (generally speaking) so give them mechanics that support the design goals of the game.

 

[randall]

Currently, I'm happy with a minimal set of rules, a way to do combat and non-combat stuff, and probably some meat in magic system(s). Also something that supports improvisation, like ways of determine an enemy required stats with minimal effort, but that allows to present them as a risk or a considerable menace.

Ideally, as I'm in need of a family game in which I get to be forever GM, I like to have a framework so I can "railroad" daughter's wild imagination when she goes waaaaaaaay away of game focus. But not that thigh as DnD or Pathfinder, let's say.

 

[ffilz]

I absolutely agree that the necessary rules are what is necessary for the goal of the game. I am wrestling with this for Cold Iron Blackmarsh Adventures. Cold Iron as I was introduced to it was a set of combat rules, a set of magic rules (mostly about casting, but also including crafting, but not much outside of the spells, how to cast, and how to craft items, so no rituals or how you got new spell books etc.), some guidelines on creating monsters (with a few samples), attributes, combat skills, and advancement for fighter, cleric, and magic-user classes. The closest thing to a non-combat skill was riding skill. There was word of wisdom about "humor level" which was for social things, but no rules about it other than it followed the usual XP table (2k, 4k, 8k, etc. doubling each time) and that you could advance Charisma with it. There actually weren't even solid prices for magic items (I took the crafting rules, and set a value to a mage's time and magic points and from that, calculated magic item prices).

I quickly added non-combat skills and some procedures for adventuring. Later I added more procedures.

Now I am looking for what holes there might be, tightening up rules for travel and encounters, offering advice about creating adventures. I'm also revising non-combat skills, and providing at least some guidance for them. I'll also provide a pretty extensive bestiary (and following robertsconley 's lead, maybe a separate volume for NPCs).

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

+1 to depends what's the focus, but also the game loop

Eg if the game proposes dungeon crawl -> spend money -> dungeon crawl, things to spend money on is as important as rules for the dungeon crawl part

 

[sharps54]

+1 to depends what's the focus, but also the game loop

Eg if the game proposes dungeon crawl -> spend money -> dungeon crawl, things to spend money on is as important as rules for the dungeon crawl part

I disagree, in Barbarians of Lemuria you have to describe how you squander your loot to earn experience and while there is a small price list the players are expected to just make up extravagant ways to blow their gold and gems.

 

[Fenris-77]

I disagree, in Barbarians of Lemuria you have to describe how you squander your loot to earn experience and while there is a small price list the players are expected to just make up extravagant ways to blow their gold and gems.

You still need to have loot to squander though and you are really spending it (on advancement). The two options really just shade things in two different direction, with BoL very much leaning into the Conan is always broke at the start trope.

 

[T. Foster]

As a GM, literally none. I can make it all up based on judgment calls. But as a player I want a fair amount of “solid ground” to inform my decisions in-game. Probably something on the order of 30 or so pages of player-facing rules telling me how characters are defined and created and how the most common tasks are resolved.

 

[sharps54]

You still need to have loot to squander though and you are really spending it (on advancement). The two options really just shade things in two different direction, with BoL very much leaning into the Conan is always broke at the start trope.

Sure but BoL doesn’t give you laundry lists of loot or things to buy with it, they expect the GM and players to be creative enough to handle that.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure but BoL doesn’t give you laundry lists of loot or things to buy with it, they expect the GM and players to be creative enough to handle that.

Mmm. Sure. I don't know how much that changes the purpose of loot in the game outside of advancement though. I've only played a couple of times mind you, so my opinions are based off rulebook read throughs for the most part. If there are rules for better armour than it probably doesn't matter if it's on a list or not, characters are going to want it.

 

[sharps54]

Mmm. Sure. I don't know how much that changes the purpose of loot in the game outside of advancement though. I've only played a couple of times mind you, so my opinions are based off rulebook read throughs for the most part. If there are rules for better armour than it probably doesn't matter if it's on a list or not, characters are going to want it.

No argument there.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

I disagree, in Barbarians of Lemuria you have to describe how you squander your loot to earn experience and while there is a small price list the players are expected to just make up extravagant ways to blow their gold and gems.

That counts for what I'm saying. A rule can just be "excess money is squandered to turn it into advancement". It doesn't need to be fancy or complicated, but it needs to work.

get loot -> replenish basic stuff - > rest is squandered -> char advancement -> get loot

is a complete loop. There's a clear path from A to B to C to A.

 

[ffilz]

RuneQuest has a nice loop: get loot, char advancement, replenish basic stuff, pay for training, rinse and repeat

Cold Iron has the loop: get loot, char advancement, replenish basic stuff, buy magic items (most of which are non-permanent), rinse and repeat

 

[pawsplay]

When I was 13, I ran a six month campaign using an RPG I wrote myself on a dozen pages of notebook paper.

 

[Nakana]

When I was 13, I ran a six month campaign using an RPG I wrote myself on a dozen pages of notebook paper.

Kinda curious, do you remember the core resolution mechanic?

 

[David Johansen]

When I was 13, I ran a six month campaign using an RPG I wrote myself on a dozen pages of notebook paper.

Even then I had trouble getting my friends to try the games I wrote.

 

[robertsconley]

This made me think about what rules we need. First, I'm not saying that rules only apply during combat. Other things happen in games that require uncertainty; otherwise, you're just telling a story. But do you need rules for everything? Do non-events like downtime require a rules framework?

What you need is what save you time and make your campaign more fun for you and your players. And the specifics of that depends on what your campaigns focus on.

The highest quality result from analysis of what was actually used during actual play. Create a basic design, run a campaign, and iterate. When you sufficient coverage then share or publish. Or it is just for yourself continue to iterate although after this point it will be more about adding coverage for novel circumstances, then tweaking with the fundamental.

However there is a downside to this approach. You need time and a variety of players who handle things in different ways for best results.

In some games like Blades in the Dark, downtime comes with rules, but that's because there's a mechanical effect to what characters do when they're not adventuring. Most games, though, don't have that focus. They're about doing things, not about not doing things.

Or the players for the most part refuse to deal with downtime insisting on playing out every moment of their character's lives. In theory there is downtime but it doesn't occur until the campaign ends as each session picks up right after the previous one.

The only campaign where downtime was a factor was Adventures in Middle Earth, and that was the result of the Shadow being a thing. And my players only accepted because of how I explained and more importantly roleplayed the fact it is a supernatural force of corruption created by Morgoth and taken advantage of by Sauron. (see Arda Marred in the ME Legendarium).

I don't play D&D because it's become a morass of rules for everything you can imagine. It's indoctrinated a generation of gamers into the mindset that if there's no rule, there ought to be. I don't want or need rule-specific guidelines for every little thing. Something tells me I'm not the only one to think this way.

Perhaps for the editions you played with but luckily there are other editions and other takes on the rules that far more straightforward to deal with like my Majestic Fantasy Rules. Yes I am tooting my own horn but there are other authors who have their own take on D&D that are equally good.

 

[robertsconley]

I’m happy with rules as light as Risus or USR (Unbelievably Simple Roleplaying). As much as I love my older games I just don’t have time to absorb hundreds of pages of new rules anymore when you can resolve things with just a couple simple methods. USR does this with a contested roll and a non contested roll (against a target number), those two resolution mechanics and a little common sense let you resolve any situation you can think of.

Except what will happen over time, you will take those mechanics and extrapolate a consistent ruling for a set of circumstances. Then do the same for another set of circumstance. Use that base system for long enough then you will find yourself the creator a somewhat detailed set of rules. It won't be as complex as GURPS or a later edition of D&D, because of how the base system works. But it be more detailed and nuanced then the original set of rules were.

To forestall the usual objection, most referees care about being fair and consistent. That why this happens. Given the same circumstances, referees are going to handle it in a similar way as they did before. If this didn't occur then the referee the campaign will no longer be fun as players will feel the result of anything they do will be random depending on how you rule.

Nor it will be a single ruling will cover something like fighting bandits. Instead it will be a family of rulings that will cover fighting bandits on the road, the swamp, in town, in the forest and so on. With a system like Risus or USR a referee is not going consider the Nth factor like GURPS. But there are broad changes in circumstance (the terrain where the bandit encounter takes place) combined with common factors (like fighting bandits) that will be reasonable to take into account for system with the complexity of Risus and USR.

What this means, be prepared to iterate and note how you rule even when using something as straight forward as Risus or USR.

 

[sharps54]

Except what will happen over time, you will take those mechanics and extrapolate a consistent ruling for a set of circumstances. Then do the same for another set of circumstance. Use that base system for long enough then you will find yourself the creator a somewhat detailed set of rules. It won't be as complex as GURPS or a later edition of D&D, because of how the base system works. But it be more detailed and nuanced then the original set of rules were.

To forestall the usual objection, most referees care about being fair and consistent. That why this happens. Given the same circumstances, referees are going to handle it in a similar way as they did before. If this didn't occur then the referee the campaign will no longer be fun as players will feel the result of anything they do will be random depending on how you rule.

Nor it will be a single ruling will cover something like fighting bandits. Instead it will be a family of rulings that will cover fighting bandits on the road, the swamp, in town, in the forest and so on. With a system like Risus or USR a referee is not going consider the Nth factor like GURPS. But there are broad changes in circumstance (the terrain where the bandit encounter takes place) combined with common factors (like fighting bandits) that will be reasonable to take into account for system with the complexity of Risus and USR.

What this means, be prepared to iterate and note how you rule even when using something as straight forward as Risus or USR.

If you were using them to run long running campaigns I would tend to agree but for one shots and short adventures between other games? I don’t know that it will really come up.

I do agree that the longer you play the more likely you are to need to add to the rules if they aren’t comprehensive in the first place.

 

[Fenris-77]

Short form gaming is a different beast, that's for sure. You can just lather on the structure and even few rails here and there and it'll be just dandy.

 

[robertsconley]

I agree. Rules should exist to realize the game's goals and focus, anything beyong that is cruft. We had phases in the hobby where rules creep was a thing even in games that didn't need it. Fortunately, I think it's well behind us now.

For a referee what I observed is that cruft are often rules they may have used in the past, but ceased to use in later campaigns even when using the same genre and setting.

For designer the above can crop up in the fact that later supplements often have a theme. Which is great for a campaign using that system and that theme. But lies mostly unused in later campaign they focus on a different theme. It becomes a problem that as more and more supplements are produce they can interact in unexpected ways creating monstrosities like Pun-Pun the Kobold.

And for both RPG designers and referees, cruft are also often stuff that can be described as "Sounded good at the time." But when it came to actual play well it wound up being not being used.

Notice that in Blades the downtime has important consequences to the PCs situations and stories. So I wouldn't say it's "not doing things" as much as doing things through a different, zoomed-out lens. Failing a roll at downtime can be as grave as failing a roll in combat. I think this is true for most games with a downtime phase (eg: Pendragon).

I am critical of Blades in the Dark approach to downtime because the system greatly gamified how the campaign is played out in order to make it easy to run it like a heist movie. Or whatever other cinematic genre the author focus on in the various Powered by the Dark RPGs.

But as it own subsystem the BitD downtime rules work fine and produce results that are fun and interesting.

 

[Fenris-77]

For those of you following along at home when Rob says cruft just think about the Inspiration rules in 5E. Surplus to requirements bordering on the vestigial.

 

[KrakaJak]

What rules a game contains, and for what actions, and how they are implemented is 100% what leads to the flavor of a game.

I would say that Savage worlds and Fate Core are comparable in the amount of rules they contain, and they are similar in other aspects in that they are both "generic" rule sets that lean heavily toward pulp inspired play, they both have a meta currency heavily implemented into their gameplay structure.

But the rules they decided to use and how they implement them create a very different play experience. Another instances, I think the rules heavily influence the feeling of a connected setting, for example: Exalted. The over the top setting is made whole by the bombastic dice system, rolling 25 d10s when you're trying to dodge a literal building thrown at you wiill not feel the same no matter how accurately translated to a 3D6 skill check in GURPS.

But to answer how many rules a game needs to be considered a role-playing game? Just enough to adjudicate the results of character actions. The rule can be as simple as "whatever the GM says, goes." For a lot of long running forum role-playing games, that is the only rule. Every rule between that level and Rolemaster should be conciously considered by the designer.

 

[robertsconley]

If you were using them to run long running campaigns I would tend to agree but for one shots and short adventures between other games? I don’t know that it will really come up.

Long or short if players feel that their decisions are the equivalent of throwing a dart at dartboard in blackness they are going to be unhappy. A well designed set of rules and a good way of managing the session is best developed by the same principles I outlined earlier. Iterating through many sessions and different groups as you have the time for.

With one shots and short adventure the number of session are not going to be many. But the number of groups and the situations they are dealing with will variety.

Through playtesting my adventures, like Scourge of the Demon Wolf, and my Majestic Fantasy Rule. I find iterating through a variety of groups and a variety of circumstances (different adventures) to be more productive than campaign length.

Provided that I mix up the adventures I run. While I don't get to test character progression, I do get to test how things work out at different levels of power and/or competency.

I do agree that the longer you play the more likely you are to need to add to the rules if they aren’t comprehensive in the first place.

To be clear it not about detail even coverage it about consistency. For example a long journey in Risus, if you handle that in a consistent way. Even when only consider a few major factors, then with all else being equal then the players will be happy with that as they feel they can properly evaluate the risk of undertaking a long journey. They won't be able to predict what will happen, but they will have a sense of what the odds are.

 

[pawsplay]

Kinda curious, do you remember the core resolution mechanic?

I think 2d6+trait, roll-over. I based it on some old choose-your-own-adventure books, then built it out for what I needed. There were, I think, three classes.

 

[ffilz]

Except what will happen over time, you will take those mechanics and extrapolate a consistent ruling for a set of circumstances. Then do the same for another set of circumstance. Use that base system for long enough then you will find yourself the creator a somewhat detailed set of rules. It won't be as complex as GURPS or a later edition of D&D, because of how the base system works. But it be more detailed and nuanced then the original set of rules were.

My "manual" for Cold Iron (which is getting re-evaluated for Cold Iron Blackmarsh Adventures) arose from codifying how I was running Cold Iron in my grad school Blackmoor campaign. One nice thing about Cold Iron is read enough of the spells and the listed combat modifiers and it actually ends up easy to extrapolate things. Add a touch of remembering the math (one standard deviation is approximately +7 on the chart - actually 20/3) also helps (I'm using that in thinking about encounter distance).

 

[robertsconley]

Adding what I said about what rules are needed, the level of detail and how those details are represented are creative choices that impact what KrakaJak calls the flavor of the system. And are crucial to how fun the system is for a player, referee, or group.

You make a set of rules to cover fighting an opponent in melee combat.

• You could just ignore most naunces and just focus on resolving the fight.
• You could add some factor to account for fighting in inclement weather.
• You could decide to also that the terrain is important that there is a difference between fighting in mud, a slope, or both, a muddy slope.
• You could decide there is a difference between fighting during a snow storm or a rain storm.
• You could decide that the character's gear could be accounted for. That there is a difference between fighting in leather boots, versus a plate sabaton.
• You could decide that these factors are best handled by a simple advantage/disadvantage modifier.
• Or these factor are handled by a small standard set of modifiers like -20%, -10%, +10%, +20%
• Or you weigh the impact of each factor and give each it own unique modifier.

My observation what most hobbyist find fun is something I call "Just enough detail". It not the most minimalist systems or the most detailed systems that most find fun to use. But the systems that lie in the middle somewhere in terms of level of detail.

 

[TristramEvans]

I don't play D&D because it's become a morass of rules for everything you can imagine. It's indoctrinated a generation of gamers into the mindset that if there's no rule, there ought to be.

You've got that one backwards actually. Fans demanded more rules from D&D until D&D got more and more complex to satisfy the demand.

 

[sharps54]

Long or short if players feel that their decisions are the equivalent of throwing a dart at dartboard in blackness they are going to be unhappy. A well designed set of rules and a good way of managing the session is best developed by the same principles I outlined earlier. Iterating through many sessions and different groups as you have the time for.

With one shots and short adventure the number of session are not going to be many. But the number of groups and the situations they are dealing with will variety.

Through playtesting my adventures, like Scourge of the Demon Wolf, and my Majestic Fantasy Rule. I find iterating through a variety of groups and a variety of circumstances (different adventures) to be more productive than campaign length.

Provided that I mix up the adventures I run. While I don't get to test character progression, I do get to test how things work out at different levels of power and/or competency.



To be clear it not about detail even coverage it about consistency. For example a long journey in Risus, if you handle that in a consistent way. Even when only consider a few major factors, then with all else being equal then the players will be happy with that as they feel they can properly evaluate the risk of undertaking a long journey. They won't be able to predict what will happen, but they will have a sense of what the odds are.

It could also be the difference that most of the games I run are more of the beer n pretzels variety. We are there to laugh and have fun together so while consistency in the world is important it is probably less so for us than a more ‘serious’ group.

 

[T. Foster]

Adding what I said about what rules are needed, the level of detail and how those details are represented are creative choices that impact what KrakaJak calls the flavor of the system. And are crucial to how fun the system is for a player, referee, or group.

You make a set of rules to cover fighting an opponent in melee combat.

• You could just ignore most naunces and just focus on resolving the fight.
• You could add some factor to account for fighting in inclement weather.
• You could decide to also that the terrain is important that there is a difference between fighting in mud, a slope, or both, a muddy slope.
• You could decide there is a difference between fighting during a snow storm or a rain storm.
• You could decide that the character's gear could be accounted for. That there is a difference between fighting in leather boots, versus a plate sabaton.
• You could decide that these factors are best handled by a simple advantage/disadvantage modifier.
• Or these factor are handled by a small standard set of modifiers like -20%, -10%, +10%, +20%
• Or you weigh the impact of each factor and give each it own unique modifier.

My observation what most hobbyist find fun is something I call "Just enough detail". It not the most minimalist systems or the most detailed systems that most find fun to use. But the systems that lie in the middle somewhere in terms of level of detail.

Absolutely, with the corollary that where that sweet spot lies will vary widely not only from person to person but even from time to time within the same person depending on any number of factors (genre, who they’re playing with, one-shot vs campaign, online vs in-person, their mood at any given moment, etc).

 

[Mankcam]

I really like Fate Core's approach of having three ways to resolve situations:

• Challenges (simple roll)
• Contests (opposed rolls, sometimes several required)
• Conflicts (opposed rolls with outcome rolls that deal Consequences).

The GM can determine which process to use in any situation depending upon how the focus is. As per default, combat situations would be resolved with Conflicts (the Outcome Rolls are Damage Rolls, which incur physical Consequences).
However, if the GM just wants a bar room brawl that isn't aimed at depleting any character momentum in the story (eg: no Hit Point loss), then the combat scene can be run as a Contest instead.

Likewise an intense courtroom drama can be run as a Contest, or even a Conflict which inflicts social Consequences as outcomes.

There is no need to be consistent which process to run, it is entirely up to how the GM wants to present the scene, according to plot pacing and relevance.

Although my BRP gaming origins gave me a different outlook to those who started with D&D, it was Fate Core which really opened up the way I run games, and I tend to try and replicate the Fate Core model in my other games now.
To an extent, it's quite easy to do with Mythras, as Magic Points can stand in for Mental Hit Points, and the Mythras Companion has options for Social Combat mechanics if the GM wants to shift the focus in that direction.

I find flipping between these three ways to resolve actions is pretty much all I need as a GM, just adapting to the momentum of the game and how I want to focus the action.

Of course Fate Core didn't invent this. Many GMs have been using similar approaches for years, dialing the tension how they want.

I think the Storyteller system was the first set of mechanics that I read that gave suggestions like this.

However Fate Core was the first system that I read that presented the approaches with such clarity and transparency in the fact that knowing these approaches was all the GM needed to adapt and run any scene.