D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

[Nebulous]

I'd pitch in and say that I feel like all versions of D&D were weighted toward killing monsters and taking their stuff. Yes, the game can easily accommodate negotiation, roleplaying, political interaction and even, woo hoo! Romance, but at the end of the day i think the majority of players and DMs come to the table to kill stuff. The other things are fun stuff to do when you're not killing stuff. Because if it was only ONE pillar, Combat, it would be a darn boring game and just a miniatures skirmish.

Combat is vastly encouraged, including easy ways to heal, no long term damage, and no lingering penalties. It's so flagrantly abstract and unrealistic that this has always caused problems in discussions when people try to inject "Realism" into something that at its core is inherently impossible - you're likely not going to survive a bash to the head from a bugbear's mace, i don't care who you are. But in D&D, you can easily laugh it off. And it's fun to do that.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say that anyone's way of playing D&D is wrong. I know there are some groups that use it almost exclusively for roleplaying where combat is avoided when possible. It grew away from that trend in 3e and 4e, maybe in 5e it will move back that direction. I actually hope it does, now that encounters are not expected to be 100% balanced and fair. That 1st level party MIGHT meet a dragon in the cave, and it won't be pretty.

 

[Hussar]

Once again you assume that just because combat takes up a larger page count then it is somehow the primary objective to the game. Since combat requires most of the rules then I would expect there to be modules. The other pillars don't require the number crunching that combat rules do but it doesn't make them less important or less used.

No, I assume that when the vast majority of modules present adventures where the vast majority of encounters are expected to be resolved through combat, that the game is pretty combat focused.

Saying D&D is focused on combat is a lot like saying rain is wet. It's pretty obvious even when you look at the basic layout of the character sheet. What are the first three stats on the sheet? Is Charisma on top? Nope, it's Strength. The three physical stats come first and then the three non-physical stats and there's a very good reason for that. In a game where "Fighter" is an actual choice for character class, it shouldn't be a shock to think that lots of people view D&D as combat focused. In a game where you figure out your stats, race, class and equipment (where weapons are armour are the first choices that you are expected to make) before you begin to figure out things like background and personality, is it really a shock that some people think that D&D is focused on combat? In a game where two thirds of the magic system is directly related to combat (and that's a low estimate) I don't really think it should be a surprise that I think D&D is focused on combat. In a game where you have several hundred pages of monster stats, mostly focused on combat with a handful of throw away lines related to out of combat, is it a shock that some might think that D&D is combat focused?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Played all editions of D&D dating back to the red box. There has never been a difference. You want to advance in the game, you do combat the majority of the time...unless you can steal lots of gold. But the majority of xp from gold came from killing and taking it.

So no sure what your point is.

Math does not support your hypothesis of combat combat combat.

An OD&D fighter has 1d6+1 HP. A basic monster will have 1d6 HP. Weapons and most monster attacks do 1d6 HP. A 1st level cleric doesn't get any spells.

If combat was the only way to advance, there wouldn't be a need for any levels of play beyond 1st because 2nd would never be reached. The odds are that engaging in lots of combat results in numerous 1st level deaths and little else. So aside from fudging to ensure survival, I'm sure players came up with alternate plans in the interest of surviving the first adventure.

That's how it went for us in B/X anyhow. We were all eager to fight, so we fought, and died. Eventually the desire to see 2nd level overcame our desire to kill. We found more success gaining XP when combat was the plan of last resort.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'd pitch in and say that I feel like all versions of D&D were weighted toward killing monsters and taking their stuff. Yes, the game can easily accommodate negotiation, roleplaying, political interaction and even, woo hoo! Romance, but at the end of the day i think the majority of players and DMs come to the table to kill stuff. The other things are fun stuff to do when you're not killing stuff. Because if it was only ONE pillar, Combat, it would be a darn boring game and just a miniatures skirmish.

Combat is vastly encouraged, including easy ways to heal, no long term damage, and no lingering penalties. It's so flagrantly abstract and unrealistic that this has always caused problems in discussions when people try to inject "Realism" into something that at its core is inherently impossible - you're likely not going to survive a bash to the head from a bugbear's mace, i don't care who you are. But in D&D, you can easily laugh it off. And it's fun to do that.

This is actually not true. For the first what? 25 years of D&D, the only way you healed was through magic. Nothing like healing surges or hit dice. And for the first 15 years, clerics didn't even get their first healing spell until they progressed in levels. It certainly wasn't easy. Look at how many people are upset about 5e's default rate of healing. Can you imagine them playing OD&D or AD&D1e?

Also, and this was mentioned above by not just me, when you have a rule like XP for treasure but hardly any XP for actually killing, that sends a clear message that combat is not "vastly encouraged." Getting the treasure was, preferably avoiding combat. This implication is solidified by the high fatality of O/AD&D. Not just low hp, but saving throws anyone?

No, I assume that when the vast majority of modules present adventures where the vast majority of encounters are expected to be resolved through combat, that the game is pretty combat focused.

This is also untrue. It's a playstyle preference, not necessarily an expectation.

Saying D&D is focused on combat is a lot like saying rain is wet. It's pretty obvious even when you look at the basic layout of the character sheet. What are the first three stats on the sheet? Is Charisma on top? Nope, it's Strength.

You do realize that for decades the second ability listed was Intelligence, right? And after that Wisdom? So by your logic, using your smarts takes up 2 of the top 3 abilities in order, so that means you were meant to use your smarts before most of combat (dex and con)? Of course, this ignores the fact that that particular argument is silly to begin with.


I swear, these conversations could easily be avoided if people realized that D&D existed long before 3e came along.

 

[Celtavian]

Math does not support your hypothesis of combat combat combat.

An OD&D fighter has 1d6+1 HP. A basic monster will have 1d6 HP. Weapons and most monster attacks do 1d6 HP. A 1st level cleric doesn't get any spells.

If combat was the only way to advance, there wouldn't be a need for any levels of play beyond 1st because 2nd would never be reached. The odds are that engaging in lots of combat results in numerous 1st level deaths and little else. So aside from fudging to ensure survival, I'm sure players came up with alternate plans in the interest of surviving the first adventure.

That's how it went for us in B/X anyhow. We were all eager to fight, so we fought, and died. Eventually the desire to see 2nd level overcame our desire to kill. We found more success gaining XP when combat was the plan of last resort.

What I stated was not a hypothesis. It is a fact. The math you should study is the math used for advancement as in how you gain the most experience the fastest. Check that math out, then get back to me.

The math you used has been part of every edition, yet most parties make it past 1st level. Our party always eventually advanced.

Yes. The older game was far more lethal than recent editions. Then again, making characters was easy and fun back in the day. The ones that survived were highly memorable.

I do not see why anyone continues to argue something that has never been in dispute. Not even a game designer would dispute my statement form any edition. D&D by design has always been a combat focused game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What I stated was not a hypothesis. It is a fact. The math you should study is the math used for advancement as in how you gain the most experience the fastest. Check that math out, then get back to me.

Done and done. OD&D , B/X, and AD&D advancement is most quickly achieved by gaining treasure. To that end, engaging in the most combat possible does not equal the greatest treasure gain possible. Fighting everything then hoping there is treasure will more likely kill you than produce XP.

Finding out where the treasure is via exploration, then figuring out how to get it while expending the least amount of resources possible while avoiding conflict with broke monsters is the smartest path to the most XP.

In 3E onward "the encounter" became the basis for XP so more killing DID become the fastest way to gain levels. This was a major game changer and quite a few people noticed the shift in playstyle that resulted from this.

So saying EVERY edition was combat driven is simply incorrect.

 

[Celtavian]

This is actually not true. For the first what? 25 years of D&D, the only way you healed was through magic. Nothing like healing surges or hit dice. And for the first 15 years, clerics didn't even get their first healing spell until they progressed in levels. It certainly wasn't easy. Look at how many people are upset about 5e's default rate of healing. Can you imagine them playing OD&D or AD&D1e?

Also, and this was mentioned above by not just me, when you have a rule like XP for treasure but hardly any XP for actually killing, that sends a clear message that combat is not "vastly encouraged." Getting the treasure was, preferably avoiding combat. This implication is solidified by the high fatality of O/AD&D. Not just low hp, but saving throws anyone?



This is also untrue. It's a playstyle preference, not necessarily an expectation.

You do realize that for decades the second ability listed was Intelligence, right? And after that Wisdom? So by your logic, using your smarts takes up 2 of the top 3 abilities in order, so that means you were meant to use your smarts before most of combat (dex and con)? Of course, this ignores the fact that that particular argument is silly to begin with.


I swear, these conversations could easily be avoided if people realized that D&D existed long before 3e came along.

So what you're saying with your ridiculous...unbelievably ridiculous argument...that strength was the most important stat for the entire game. You were supposed hit things with your big, strong strength score...then go to intelligence after you couldn't beat it. Did you seriously just make the argument that the order statistics were listed in the older game was somehow a determiner of their importance? Did you just seriously make that argument?

You did not get treasure by avoiding combat. Please produce the old school adventures where this was encouraged besides possibly Tomb of Horrors. It is unbelievable to see this pretense by people that want D&D to be something it was not.

High fatality in no way deters combat.

I swear, these conversations could easily be avoided if people that played the game even back in the day realized it was always built to focus on combat. Why anyone would pretend 3rd edition changed the basic way D&D was played is beyond me.

I can't even continue to debate you. You went to a level of debate that you should have been able stop yourself from posting because of the level incredulity present in the post. If you don't have the means to see the weakness of your argument, it would be unfair of anyone to engage you any further in a debate.

 

[Umbran]

Done and done. OD&D , B/X, and AD&D advancement is most quickly achieved by gaining treasure. To that end, engaging in the most combat possible does not equal the greatest treasure gain possible. Fighting everything then hoping there is treasure will more likely kill you than produce XP.

Finding out where the treasure is via exploration, then figuring out how to get it while expending the least amount of resources possible while avoiding conflict with broke monsters is the smartest path to the most XP.

And, what makes you think that folks generally engage(d) in optimal play strategies?

Earning XP is certainly the basic reward in the game rules, but what makes you think that's the major reward players were actually pursuing? You figure folks weren't getting a thrill out of kicking butts, such that this reward can be discounted?

What makes you think GMs of the era fairly enabled non-combat approaches to getting that treasure, when the rules were mostly about combat?

 

[the Jester]

What I stated was not a hypothesis. It is a fact. The math you should study is the math used for advancement as in how you gain the most experience the fastest. Check that math out, then get back to me.

A typical humanoid was worth between 6 and 28 xp. To exceed that in xp for treasure, you needed to get... 7 to 29 gp.

Picking pockets, slipping past the monster and stealing the treasure, getting paid for accomplishing an objective- all of these are likely to give you more in short order at a relatively lower risk.

 

[seebs]

I remember GMs consistently allowing and rewarding clever strategies that did not involve killing things, and awarding XP for treasure. And since treasure XP was frequently quite a lot bigger than monster XP, that made such strategies effective.