Do you play more for the story or the combat?

Mouseferatu said:

Combat in D&D is, to me, just one of many sorts of scenes and tools at the DM's disposal; it's a means, not an end unto itself.

Click to expand...

What Ari said.

Combat is just (one of several) vehicles to advance and influence a campaign's story / plot.

Mouseferatu said:

Story (which includes, in addition to plot, role-playing, PC-to-PC and PC-to-NPC interaction, investigation, and figuring things out). I love a good fight in D&D, but I want it to advance the plot, not happen "just because."

Combat in D&D is, to me, just one of many sorts of scenes and tools at the DM's disposal; it's a means, not an end unto itself.

Click to expand...

that's about the best representation of my viewpoint i've seen, and i didn't even write it!

JRRNeiklot said:

I didn't vote because there was no option for neither. The main thing that draws me to D&D is the exploration of a world, it's wilderness areas, dungeons, towns, etc. What lies over the next hill, etc. There must be some combat, and story plays a role, but I want to get out there and explore, find new things, explore new venues.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100% and I should have mentioned this in my first post- D&D to ME has always been a game of exploration first and foremost, not combat (and from what I've read of Gary's & other "forefathers of D&D" original games, their games were the same). Combat is important, but it's not the focus.

I voted story, and in my mind, the exploration aspect is "story" more or less.

Theoretically, my answer should be story... But combat is the primary manifestation of the conflict in the story... So... Combat, but with an eye towards the story at all times?

xechnao said:

Like background staff hardcoded to PC abilities as in Runequest/Heroquest?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I do eat that stuff up.

Fallen Seraph said:

If stuff like Rituals either with same mechanics or simply same orientation in the game were prevalent throughout 4e that be more to your liking?

Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm a fan of Rituals (and I'm glad they were removed from basically being "wizard and cleric only). When I saw the monster-based dragon rituals in the Draconomicon I let out a little giddy laughter.

Cadfan said:

Can someone give me an example of something that would satisfy this: "I want rules for thwarting villains like 4e has rules for bashing goblins."

I assume its something other than a setting with pre existing conflicts. But beyond that I really don't get it.

Click to expand...

One of the ways 4e nods toward this that I like is by having "encounter groups" and by talking about how certain monsters interact with others. That helps me create a narrative of why these things would go together.

One of the ways 2e and 3e helped was by giving me rules for random encounter charts, and basically saying "anyone who spends the night in the Deserts of Red Sand might have an encounter with something that lives thre! It might not be hostile...but maybe it is!" That was a huge help in adding local interest and flavor to a region. 2e's "rarity" rating was great, and the charts in the 3e DMG for habitat, terrain, and dungeon level were one of my best campaign-building resources. And the rules for demographics helped me estimate what a "local guard" could handle. NPC XP and NPC Classes, too.

All those little "simulationist touches" helped me figure out the context from which an enemy might rise.

This information would mostly be wasted on a DM who already had a story and just wanted a platform to tell it on. But I'm at my best when I'm spontaneous and let my players' tangents carry me.

For FFZ, I'm designing a "character-first" kind of story structure system. Your players choose archcetypes for their character. These archetypes have built-in conflicts (sort of like picking a Paladin in earlier editions ). You should expect to get challenged on them. The DM then has a menu of conflicts that can be used to generate scenarios: different character conflicts you have will generate NPC's, encounters, monsters, and scenes relevant to your character. Even treasures and powers will be affected by it. It ties these most directly to experience: every time your characters get their ideals challenged, they also gain a level. The DM also designs the main villain of the game from this skeleton of archetypes and conflicts, making sure it represents everything your characters are opposed to.

For instance...
[sblock=FFZ Plot Generation Example]
You've got four characters. One of them is a dragonborn fighter with the "Retainer" archetype (interested in preserving ancient orders or traditions that are nearly lost to time; main conflict: tradition vs. change). One of them is an eladrin wizard with the "Power-seeker" archetype (interested in enhancing their own might; main conflict: power vs. futility). One of them is a dwarf cleric with the "Chosen One" archetye (interested in fulfilling their destiny; main conflict: salvation vs. dissolution). One of them is a human rogue with the "Treasure Hunter" archetype (interested in winning a big score; main conflict: security vs. insecurity).

You now have four qualities for your villain: your villain represents Change, Futility, Dissolution, and Insecurity. These four words are pretty descriptive on their own: you can imagine the main villain as sort of a primordial force of destructive chaos, only kept barely at bay, always gnawing at the fringes of the characters' lives, threatening to break down what little they have and reduce them all to nothingness. His goal is to un-make everything, to dissolve tradition, to make all other powers powerless, to thwart all attempts at salvation, and to blast apart any semblance of security.

At the same time, you have four motives that lead directly into plots for a game session by using their opposites as conflicts: One wants to preserve the past (so obviously the past needs to be threatened -- perhaps his family is found out to be not really part of that old clan), one wants to be powerful (so obviously they need to be made to feel weak -- perhaps they fight an early battle with the villain that is un-winnable, and all they can do is flee his might), one wants to fulfill a destiny (so obviously that destiny needs to be questioned -- perhaps it comes at the price of the characters' eternal soul), one interested in the biggest source of gold they can find (so obviously that gold needs to lead to more problems than solutions -- perhaps raiding the dungeon is how they unleash the force of entropy in the first place).

The archetypes link up to gaining levels, so that when Jimmy's character (that dragonborn) faces one of his challenges (he finds out the family isn't part of the old clan, and he makes a choice about whether his character cares about that or not), a level is gained (for everyone)

The conflicts link up to encounters and "Big Choices," which are how PC's impact the ongoing plot. Encounters somehow sap their resources and risk killing them, the "Big Choices" help them shape the game as they go forward. So when Jimmy's character is facing that challenge, he's fighting (maybe he's fighting members of the true clan who have come to exterminate this false clan!), he's using skills (maybe they set up a test that he needs to pass), he's exploring (maybe their clan headquarters is in a distant land that the party must travel to), and he's making large decisions (do I talk to the High Lord of this new clan or do I just beat him up? do I liberate the slaves they keep, or do I play it diplomatic? do I care that these creatures are 'legitimate' or is it more important that I'm keeping true to the spirit of the bloodline and they're not?) that impact the game going forward, and, ultimately, discovering a connection to the villain (aha! the Villain was the one who dug these guys up and put them onto my family!).

That's all in one session.

That just came from his character creation giving the DM interesting things to do with his character.
[/sblock]

Both isn't even quite the right answer for me.

It depends is better I think.

Some days I might just want to kick ass and take names, character be damned. Others a deep engaging story. Some times a mix of the two.

So nice to know I am not the only one.

I look at D&D as a storytelling tool, regardless of edition. Sort of like living a novel where nobody, even the DM, has no idea about the outcome. I have used many editions of D&D, Neverwinter Nights, Boot Hill, Villains and Vigilanties, and a few other game systems to run my stories... but it's always been about the story with me.

Neither.
I enjoy a good combat every now and again, but I really can't stand it when a DM is trying to have me follow their story.

I play for the role playing by which I mean working hard to succeed and having that work be legitimate.

Kamikaze Midget said:

One of the ways 2e and 3e helped was by giving me rules for random encounter charts, and basically saying "anyone who spends the night in the Deserts of Red Sand might have an encounter with something that lives thre! It might not be hostile...but maybe it is!" That was a huge help in adding local interest and flavor to a region. 2e's "rarity" rating was great, and the charts in the 3e DMG for habitat, terrain, and dungeon level were one of my best campaign-building resources. And the rules for demographics helped me estimate what a "local guard" could handle. NPC XP and NPC Classes, too.

Click to expand...

Hmm. That's the sort of information I personally prefer to keep, at least primarily, inside of setting books.

For FFZ, I'm designing a "character-first" kind of story structure system. Your players choose archcetypes for their character.

snip

Click to expand...

Ironically, I'm working on a similar system, simplified, for a board game. Its sort of an adventure style game, where the pre existing archetypes for each character lead them into conflict with the other players. Its essentially a secret goal kind of game device with a heavy plot element.

Having played with DM's who thought that having 1 character have a dream during a session was "really developing the story" that was otherwise a string of random encounters and also with DM's that had sessions without any combat rolls whatsoever, I must say that the first one was less ejoyable. Fun for about half a session maybe, but after that I wanted something more.

Story gives context, a framework, a reason for the violence being done and I find that I need that to enjoy the game eventually.
That being said I do play D&D because I know at the end of the day we will still kick some badguy ass...