Is D&D "about" combat?

[Agamon]

Yeah, I just don't know how to even argue this. Doesn't make any sense as it has nothing to do with my original post.

I know. I was pretty much accepting of the whole thing if the word dungeon was removed. Makes it tough to argue.

Exploration does not equal "looking at objects of natural beauty".

But, seeing a dungeon as a "challenge" instead of a place to be explored, discovered, interacted with, filled with surprise, horror, magic and awe, well, I don't understand that one bit.

Fair enough. I just think that can be done in quite a number of ways without involving a location like a dungeon.

And, "maybe you're doing it wrong" isn't probably the answer you're looking for.

That's for sure.

Maybe check out Goodman Games or James Raggi's stuff.

I've seen some of GG's stuff, I'm just not big on published adventures.

 

[Agamon]

Dude you should check out Earthdawn... perfectly realistic (as in the setting explains why they exist... and it makes sense), gigantic dungeons. Okay, sidetrack over.

An exception to the rule, but a good one. I agree though, I didn't mean to threadjack.

 

[Jimlock]

I'm currently quite bored to read the thread from the moment I answered...

But I will repeat my self so as to end this debate...

D&D is about chainmail bikinis and hot Villains.

Example (Takhisis-Dragonlance Evil Goddess):

(Makes Paul Abdul look really weak in comparison)

 

[Hussar]

But I don't agree with this. Monopoly isn't about producing a narrative or artistic object that expresses a conflict and it's resolution. There is a real life confilct at the game table - in that everyone wants to win - but the game of Monopoly isn't itself about that conflict. It's not a comment on it, or an expression of it, or anything else. A game of Monopoly isn't a work of art, or a process of producing something that can be evaluated in aesthetic terms.

I think this, right here, nails where my disagreement comes. I'm not really sure that D&D is about producing anything that can be evaluated in aesthetic terms. Yes, that might roll out of play, but, that's a by product, not the purpose.

Depends kind of on your adventure. The Tomb of Horrors was not basically involved with fighting things. You might get in fights, but there were so many impossible traps and tricks that mostly it was about avoiding your enemies, rather than engaging them. The 2e Planescape module Faction War was not basically involved with fighting things. There are combats, but the central issue of the adventure is defining what your character believes in a changing landscape, as true villains and heroes emerge that may cast a new light on your old convictions. The 3e Indomitable Forest of Innenotdar had plenty of fights, but the adventure ultimately revolved around a question of whether you would kill to end suffering in the world, or change the world first. An adventure I'm currently writing for 4e is mostly about investigation, unveiling a mystery slowly.

And, sure, exceptions exist. But, I'd say that they are just that - exceptions. For every non-combat focused (The Silver Key is one of my fav's, the PC's are turned into Orcs and have to infiltrate an orcish city - behave too much like an orc and you will never be turned back, fun!) module, there's a boatload of the other kind.

 

[pemerton]

I think this, right here, nails where my disagreement comes. I'm not really sure that D&D is about producing anything that can be evaluated in aesthetic terms. Yes, that might roll out of play, but, that's a by product, not the purpose.

I think you're right that this is the point of disagreement.

I think that Gygax's AD&D was about producing something that could be evaluated in (something like) aesthetic terms - namely, "skillful play".

2nd ed AD&D seems to have envisaged that the GM would impose his/her aesthetic vision on the players by suspending the action resolution rules (sorry, "fudging in the intersests of the story") at key moment. I'm hesitant to express as to what 3E was for.

I play 4e to produce something that can be evaluated in aesthetic terms - thematically compelling play. (In Forge-ist terms, this is narrativism.) Whether or not this is what the designers intended me to do with 4e, it is (in my view) something that the game supports right out of the box. (There's a marked contrast here with AD&D and 3E.)

That's why I voted No. It's also why I get irritated by the characterisation of 4e as a tactical skirmish game (see the ongoing "theory of dissociated mechanics" thread).

So like I said, you need more narrativist D&D! (And, more seriously, I remember on another recent thread - Elf Witch's one, I think - you said that you wouldn't try and use D&D for a thematically driven game. Which I think reinforces your point that this is how our experiences of, and therefore characterisation of, D&D differ.)

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) something that the game supports right out of the box. (There's a marked contrast here with AD&D and 3E.)

I've seen enough of your* posts to know that if I ask you* to describe this support in one edition, and lack of it in other editions, that you* can manage it without being inflammatory or veering into edition wars territorry. So I ask, if you* will indulge me, to expound on these aspects, please.




*pemerton

 

[Pentius]

It's easier to prepare a fun combat that is to prepare a fun adventure, at least with modern versions of the game.

So they focus on combat because they can reach more people and it takes the DM less work. Get an xp budget, follow the guidelines and you have a nifty and violent scenario to be entertained for a couple of hours.

Compare that to sitting down for hours thinking of puzzles/solutions, adjusting to the verosimilitude of the game world and clever situation, a lot of work that can be bypassed in ten minutes by a group of smart players.

Basically, combat is the easy way out and it has become the norm in the later editions of D&D.

I could see that. One thing I've been noticing lately is that while making a good combat is roughly as difficult as making a good adventure/skill challenge/puzzle/whathaveyou, bad combats seem to have more leeway with respects to how they are received. That is to say, if you make a combat that is about a 6.5/10, the players might not have any complaints or criticisms, but any other element at a 6.5/10, they sure will. The flaws are easier to see, I suppose. Not sure why.

 

[Hussar]

I think you're right that this is the point of disagreement.

I think that Gygax's AD&D was about producing something that could be evaluated in (something like) aesthetic terms - namely, "skillful play".

2nd ed AD&D seems to have envisaged that the GM would impose his/her aesthetic vision on the players by suspending the action resolution rules (sorry, "fudging in the intersests of the story") at key moment. I'm hesitant to express as to what 3E was for.

I play 4e to produce something that can be evaluated in aesthetic terms - thematically compelling play. (In Forge-ist terms, this is narrativism.) Whether or not this is what the designers intended me to do with 4e, it is (in my view) something that the game supports right out of the box. (There's a marked contrast here with AD&D and 3E.)

That's why I voted No. It's also why I get irritated by the characterisation of 4e as a tactical skirmish game (see the ongoing "theory of dissociated mechanics" thread).

So like I said, you need more narrativist D&D! (And, more seriously, I remember on another recent thread - Elf Witch's one, I think - you said that you wouldn't try and use D&D for a thematically driven game. Which I think reinforces your point that this is how our experiences of, and therefore characterisation of, D&D differ.)

Yeah, I'd buy that. I play D&D to play D&D. If that makes sense. If I want a more narrative game I'd go for one that doesn't have so bloody many fiddly combat bits. D&D, to me, is about D&D. Maybe it's because I grew up on the Basic/Expert books which are pretty unabashed about being a game.

The whole, "Let's build a story" thing is not what D&D is about for me. I have lots of other games that work better, again for me, for that.

 

[Hussar]

I could see that. One thing I've been noticing lately is that while making a good combat is roughly as difficult as making a good adventure/skill challenge/puzzle/whathaveyou, bad combats seem to have more leeway with respects to how they are received. That is to say, if you make a combat that is about a 6.5/10, the players might not have any complaints or criticisms, but any other element at a 6.5/10, they sure will. The flaws are easier to see, I suppose. Not sure why.

I'm sorry, but how is any of this "lately"?

The idea that we had this golden age in the past where it was all about the "world" and "verisimilitude" is something I just don't get. I mean, once upon a time, the very idea of "dungeon ecology" was a foreign concept. The town was where you went to rest and heal before going back into the dungeon.

I mean, how many years of D&D development did it take before the game awarded you for any other action besides killing stuff and taking its loot?

I find this view of the history of the game to be just so bizarre to be honest. A module full of combat... gee, pick up any given Dungeon magazine all the way back to issue #1 and you'll find that. Non-combat modules are notable for exactly that reason - they aren't dungeon crawls.

Heck, go all the way back to In Search of the Unknown or Caves of Chaos. A big bag of combat. Go into the dungeon, kill everything you can and then retreat to rest up. Wash, rinse, repeat as needed.

Did it have to be played this way? Nope, of course not. Was it played this way? You bet your behind it was.

 

[pemerton]

If I want a more narrative game I'd go for one that doesn't have so bloody many fiddly combat bits.

Fair enough. So I guess you're not up for narrativist Rolemaster either?

I'm not sure where I get my tolerance for fiddly bits. In part its habit. In part its the vibe of my long-running group. (I'm not a wargamer, but many of the others have been. I'm not much of a CCGer, but at one stage my group had two players both of whom had been Australasian M:TG champions.)

D&D, to me, is about D&D. Maybe it's because I grew up on the Basic/Expert books which are pretty unabashed about being a game.

This is giving me an impression of a fairly light-hearted (even whimsical?) approach to the game. Maybe a bit like the tone of Tunnels and Trolls. Is that right? The only time I GMed 3E I was converting Castle Amber on the fly - and that's about the only time I've run a game in that really light-hearted sort of manner. (When one PC got caught in a web spell cast by another PC, the first player complained. The second player - who was a bit of a Rolemaster snob - replied "Calm down, it's only D&D!")

When I run my 4e game, or my RM game, it's VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Actually, there is one continuing semi-comedic element in my current game - the dwarf PC went adventuring because, as a young dwarf, he had spent 10 years serving in the military but never encountered a goblin. And the rules of his clan (as specified by the player in his PC's backstory) are that you don't graduate out of the military into adulthood until you successfuly deal with a goblin. Not that there was any shortage of goblin attacks in that 10 years, but every time they attacked Derrik was at the other end of the stronghold, or running an errand for an officer, or asleep back in barracks, or cleaning the latrines, or . . . Anyway, now that Derrik is a Warpriest of Moradin, through a convoluted chain of circumstance he's managed to recruit some of his old tormentors - the ones who were younger than him but graduated out of the army while he was still stuck there - as offsiders. Needing some names for dwarven NPCs in a hurry, I drew upon my memories of the AD&D DMG - so Derrik's herald is Gutboy Barrelhouse, and his porter/groom/all-round-factotum is Aggro the Axe (who I think was actually a human in the original).

And there's the odd bit of spontaneous comedy - like the Acrobatics checks to avoid stepping on the frog when the paladin was hit with Baleful Polymorph.

But the occasional hint of (low grade) comedy only makes the SERIOUS BUSINESS all the more serious!