Why do D&D players put such an emphasis on rules and tactics?

[Yora]

Why the emphasis on rules and tactics?

Because the 3rd and 4th edition books very strongly encourage to make the game all about rules and tactics. That's how the books are written and the systems designed. Everything says that you're supposed to do it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Now this is not a bash. If you get a kick from the game in any way, for whatever reason, then good luck to you….but…

If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you.

Now, I may be old-fashioned here but I do take some solace from the ‘old school’ aspects in the new edition of the game, that attempts to simplify rules and re-emphasise narrative aspects of playing characters in interesting stories (and spectacularly imaginative worlds!). So maybe I’m not that old fashioned after all!

When I look at the character classes, what I look for is how well they’ll fit with a particular character I have in mind, or how cool they would be to play (in a narrative alter-ego way). The last thing I really care about is the best combo of abilities or what mechanical advantage they may or may not have over the other classes. I do recognise that combat and strategic play have their place in the game, but it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of how you can have fun with it.

I’m not claiming some sort of superiority in all this - I’m just a gamer like everyone else here - but what gives?

Not to nitpick but rules and tactics are very different things. It is good for players to think about tactics on a situational level because it shows investment in the game, and a desire to be victorious through smart play instead of just waltzing into every situation front and center expecting to win simply because they call themselves heroes.

Futzing over rules minutae is a different animal and has little to do with tactics.

 

[GMMichael]

Yes, the rules are the objective parts that can more easily be debated, but also...

I think most players emphasise rules and tactics because the game does. Not only does the D&D descend from a war game in the form of Chainmail but every edition has tons of monsters - whole manuals in fact - but not the same weight on social or exploration. So D&D campaigns without a combat focus are certainly possible but there is not the same grist (at least compared with other rpgs). The costs on having your PC sucking in social or exploration situations are less than sucking in combat - indeed sucking at social or exploration situations actually often leads to combat.

This. All of it. When 3e emphasized the battle grid, the game took a big turn towards the love of damage. But where are the splat books on ruling kingdoms, running the villain's gang, or conducting the social club that includes both nobles AND peasants? Well, the closest things that I saw were in 2e. Although I have to thank Misters Marmell and Burlew for great 3e books like Dungeonscape and Cityscape, which covered dungeon theme and guilds.

And with a "whole manual" on monsters, out to kill you (but, strangely, not out to save their own hides), the cost of sucking is tremendous.

5e has ostensibly placed greater emphasis on exploration and interaction. Let's see how the players react.

 

[SkidAce]

Part of it is that we're on a forum.

Rules are the most objective part we can discuss, so that's what we do.

Narrative is more of an art, and dissecting art is harder.

Nailed it with the first reply...

 

[steenan]

In each RPG, I focus quite a lot on the rules.

I may play a freeform game just fine without any rules. So if the game has rules, they should positively affect the experience. If I'm playing a game with rules, I'm not going to ignore them. If the rules don't work as they should, the game is not worth playing.

There may be different kinds of rules, depending on what the game is about. But whatever they are, they are important.



In D&D specifically, a lot of the rules are for combat. Players are given many mechanical tools for fighting, while there are none for, for example, building organizations, inventing new technologies or resolving emotional issues. So the focus on combat is not players' idea - it's in the game itself.

And it's not just combat. It's specifically tactical combat where one focuses on winning.
The rules don't care why are you fighting, what are you fighting for. What matters is what abilities you use and how.
The rules don't care how the combat expresses your character.There is no incentive to do something that fits the concept if it's a bad move tactically.
The rules do nothing to make defeat interesting. It's either win or die (where "die" is either meaningless because of resurrection, or removes you from the game).
So what is left is playing to win, using whatever advantage you can get. And that's what most people do.


In games that work differently, players put emphasis on other aspects. For an extreme example, check Chuubo's marvelous wish-granting engine by Jenna Moran. The game has many rules, but there are no "combat" rules at all and hardly any "conflict" rules. In most cases, tactics is meaningless; in some, it actively hurts character development (both on story level and mechanical level). It's not surprising that discussions about Chuubo's are much different than discussions about D&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because without it we're just a bunch of people making up stories in our heads. The rules are our shared language through which we tell and explore those stories.

 

[ephemeron]

I'd love to see more threads about worldbuilding/narrative/etc., and not just because I personally feel that I have more to contribute in those areas than in rules discussions.

Come to think of it, there are some things I've been chewing on lately that might be worth starting threads for...

 

[Oryan77]

I'd love to see more threads about worldbuilding/narrative/etc., and not just because I personally feel that I have more to contribute in those areas than in rules discussions.

The thing is, in all of the years I've been visiting ENworld, worldbuilding/narrative/character fluff threads barely get any responses. They pop up quite frequently, but they get maybe a couple replies and that's it. The only time the thread gets going is when it goes into discussions about rules, or debates on how the OP is screwing over his players or DM. Basically, people only respond when they get to be emotional about something.

I guess it just has to do with the fact that people find threads about fluff to be boring. Sometimes the original post is boring to read. Sometimes I can give some replies, but it's rare for me to read one of these threads and be inspired enough to give feedback. For me, it is kind of like hearing about a persons character. Sure, I'll nod my head out of respect as if I am interested. But we all know, none of us really care to hear about your character. So it's probably the same thing about hearing about your game. You've really gotta spice it up and have something truly interesting to say about it if you want to grab a readers attention and comment about it.

 

[Aribar]

If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you.
...
When I look at the character classes, what I look for is how well they’ll fit with a particular character I have in mind, or how cool they would be to play (in a narrative alter-ego way). The last thing I really care about is the best combo of abilities or what mechanical advantage they may or may not have over the other classes. I do recognise that combat and strategic play have their place in the game, but it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of how you can have fun with it.

I look at the mechanics because I'm potentially paying $150 for the rules to a game. I don't need a book to tell me how to roleplay, make up encounters, characters or a story, or anything like that. When I look at character classes, I want to know that the rules actually live up to the lore and the mechanics actually support the kind of character I want to make.

Plus the vast majority of the rules in D&D relate to combat. There's maybe two chapters per PHB on adventuring and using skills in non-combat situations. Compared to the combat stuff, there is relatively little role playing stuff.

 

[billd91]

I think most players emphasise rules and tactics because the game does. Not only does the D&D descend from a war game in the form of Chainmail but every edition has tons of monsters - whole manuals in fact - but not the same weight on social or exploration. So D&D campaigns without a combat focus are certainly possible but there is not the same grist (at least compared with other rpgs). The costs on having your PC sucking in social or exploration situations are less than sucking in combat - indeed sucking at social or exploration situations actually often leads to combat. So when I create a character, while the story comes first, such as story will not include incompetency in combat!

I think this is at least partly true. D&D has always had a certain amount of tactical richness - and so did most other RPGs back in the day. There has always been a certain appeal to using good tactical combat in the games and a lot of players, particularly those also into board games, respond positively (maybe even excessively) to them. So I want to emphasize that this element has been in the game longer than 3e has been.

Then I think the increased tactical focus brought on by Players Option: Combat and Tactics and how it eventually led to 3e doubled-down on the rules and tactical oriented part of the game. No doubt TSR and then WotC were responding to demand they identified in the gamer market, but it's a feedback loop. Demand generates rules generates more discussion about nitpicky rules and tactics generates demand for more or revised rules and so on.