Is D&D "about" combat?

[pemerton]

IMO, when people talk about combat in the way they are in this thread they mean something along the lines of "using game mechanics to resolve outcomes of a physical confrontation". Roleplaying may or may not be a part of that. If a game is "about" combat, it's about those conflict resolution mechanics, implying that other forms of conflict resolution are de-emphasized.

Fair enough. As I posted a few times upthread, I read "aboutness" as going to "topic" or "subject matter". And I don't think that the subject matter of a combat-heavy game must be combat. The subject matter of the X-Men isn't fisticuffs (although its a fisticuff-heavy comic/movie). The subject matter of the X-Men is liberation politics.

GURPS can also quite easily do a fantasy setting, and the advancement mechanic isn't necessarily based on killing things and taking their stuff like D&D is.

XP in at least some versions of D&D isn't based on killing things and taking their stuff. In classic D&D, treasure can yield XP whether it comes from killing and looting or in some other way. In 4e, non-combat conflict, quests etc can all yield XP, and treasure need not come from looting. (3E Oriental Adventures also makes a similar point about treasure in that game.)

GURPS has all sorts of rules interfaces that promote roleplaying through its disadvantages.

AD&D had personality disadvantages for all PCs - namely, the alignment mechanics - and for some classes these are particularly onerous (paladins, rangers, monks, to a lesser extent clerics). Whether or not these promoted roleplaying I think depended a lot on the group.

WoD, both old and new, is all about roleplaying. I recall, during my group's experimentation with it, that in a published adventure it mentioned that you should punish your players heavily for attacking someone who is an "end boss" for the module, because "This is not The Legend of Zelda."

To me, this shows how differently various players and gaming groups think of roleplaying.

I'm not sure what sort of "punishment" the author(s) of that WoD adventure had in mind, but personally I regard strong GM force of the sort that White Wolf and 2nd ed AD&D tend to encourage as the enemy of the sort of roleplaying I enjoy, because it tends to block and discourage, rather than to cultivate and reward, players advocating for their PCs.

For similar reasons I'm personally not a big fan of "hard" personality disadvantages of the GURPS/alignment variety. But I know others like them.

Virtually any rules-lite system (or at least liter than D&D) is probably better geared for roleplaying because any time you spend messing with game system rules of any type could be spent roleplaying instead.

And I don't find that using the system is necessarily at odds with roleplaying. Like I posted upthread in my long reply to Hussar, I think it depends on whether using the system supports/expresses, or alternatively distracts from, a player's enagment with the situation via his/her PC.

Burning Wheel would be an obvious example of a very crunchy system that is intended to produce roleplaying by using the system. Part of the system is "Say yes or roll the dice". The flip side of that slogan is that, where the GM doesn't want just to "say yes", the dice have to be rolled - ie a challenge has to be framed in mechanical terms, and the action resolution mechancis then used to address it.

D&D, as written, doesn't really give a damn about roleplaying. You can do it or not as far as it's concerned, but there's not much of anything there in the way that the game is played that even encourages you towards it, even when it's not required. So to say it's about roleplaying seems pretty impossible to me. It's something you can do with it, but that's not the way it's written. GURPS has rules that come close to flat-out requiring roleplaying if you take certain disadvantages. WoD highly encourages it.

My view, as expressed in my reply to Hussar above, is that if the players don't want to play their PCs, no amount of mechanical bells and whistles will change that (given that playing a game is a fundamentally non-coercive activity). Conversely, if the players want to play their PCs, then bells and whistles aren't essential, provided that the action resolution mechanics of the game don't actively impede the players playing their PCs.

So whether or not there is anything in the way that D&D is played that encourages roleplaying in my view turns to a significant extent on how a particular group plays the game. (For my approach, see my reply to MarkCMG above, post #262.)

 

[VGmaster9]

The way I see it, combat is just simply an icing on the cake. D&D is about much more than that. If you want an RPG that's all about combat, play Diablo.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I'll simply restate my point and leave it at that.

In any version of D&D, my 3rd level cleric meets an orc. He kills said orc, bashing in its brains with a mace. Again, in any version of D&D, from OD&D onwards, the DM can tell me my game mechanical reward for my actions in a very short period of time. I killed the orc, I get X xp. I might get some extra xp if the orc had change in its pockets, or I might not.

However, again in any version of D&D, if my 3rd level cleric meets an orc and, through brilliant oratory and skill, manages to convert that orc to the faith of my cleric, the rules are pretty much silent on what my reward is. Beyond some fairly handwavy rewards of "whatever your DM thinks is appropriate".

Now, I would think, if D&D wasn't about combat, that doing the most logical thing for a cleric to do - convert the heathen - would garner me mechanical rewards. But, instead, I'm rewarded for killing the orc only.

Never mind that there are a bajillion rules for me to kill that orc with and virtually none to convert that orc to my faith.

To me, saying D&D is about combat is akin to saying "rain is wet". It's so obvious on the face of it, that I find it staggering that it's even a point of contention. But, then again, I'm very much in the minority here, looking at the poll. Which, funnily enough, is almost the exact opposite of the poll Is D&D Art.

Funny old world.

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, while we have different views on the "about combat' point, I don't dissent at all from the overall thrust of your post. It's clear and to the point.

But this stood out for me:

However, again in any version of D&D, if my 3rd level cleric meets an orc and, through brilliant oratory and skill, manages to convert that orc to the faith of my cleric, the rules are pretty much silent on what my reward is. Beyond some fairly handwavy rewards of "whatever your DM thinks is appropriate".

The XP rules on this, for 4e, are perfectly clear. The conversion would be a skill challenge of complexity X (as deemed by the GM - not dissimilar from statting up the orc). The rules specify an XP award. They also specify a quest XP award (a minor quest, presumably, in this case, given that it seems to involve a single PC rather than a major party goal).

 

[Ahnehnois]

In any version of D&D, my 3rd level cleric meets an orc. He kills said orc, bashing in its brains with a mace. Again, in any version of D&D, from OD&D onwards, the DM can tell me my game mechanical reward for my actions in a very short period of time. I killed the orc, I get X xp. I might get some extra xp if the orc had change in its pockets, or I might not.

However, again in any version of D&D, if my 3rd level cleric meets an orc and, through brilliant oratory and skill, manages to convert that orc to the faith of my cleric, the rules are pretty much silent on what my reward is. Beyond some fairly handwavy rewards of "whatever your DM thinks is appropriate".

Now, I would think, if D&D wasn't about combat, that doing the most logical thing for a cleric to do - convert the heathen - would garner me mechanical rewards. But, instead, I'm rewarded for killing the orc only.

I think 3e rules are pretty clear that a noncombative resolution of a challenge earns XP. That being, said, I don't think the "rewards" system of D&D is really a barometer of what the game is about, since many people don't use those rules. (I swear this is my favorite poll-seems like I'm always bringing it up).

But, then again, I'm very much in the minority here, looking at the poll. Which, funnily enough, is almost the exact opposite of the poll Is D&D Art.

I'm beginning to see three groups. The tactical gamers (who said yes in this thread), the creative gamers (who said yes in that thread) and the casual gamers (who said no to both).

Similarly to the art thread, your opinion isn't invalid, it's just specific to your experience. I can buy that ~30% of people play a brand of D&D that's truly "about" combat. The OP's point of view is likely that it's a problem to see WotC brass stating a minority opinion as if it was gospel, and very probably ties in to the issues some people have with their decisions. Similarly, if they had released an extremely narrativized D&D with stripped-down combat rules, I think the "art" people would be happy and the "combat" people less so.

 

[Mark CMG]

Hussar, while we have different views on the "about combat' point, I don't dissent at all from the overall thrust of your post. It's clear and to the point.

But this stood out for me:
The XP rules on this, for 4e, are perfectly clear. The conversion would be a skill challenge of complexity X (as deemed by the GM - not dissimilar from statting up the orc). The rules specify an XP award. They also specify a quest XP award (a minor quest, presumably, in this case, given that it seems to involve a single PC rather than a major party goal).

I see what you are saying but from the outside it would appear that such guidelines are rather vague and only support a non-combat solution in the loosest of terms, despite there being a rough process to handle non-combat. Alternately, the manner in which process for combat soultions is delineated to such a great degree is suggestive of what the game is "about." *All* about? I don't think anyone is making that claim. "About combat" with some minimal nod to non-combat (if only to keep the RPG designation arguable), seems a fair point to make (obvious to me, not so much to others). Could someone do a rough page count on the amount of clearly non-combat rules? Certainly skill challenges fall under that banner. And Rituals seem to be primarily non-combat, IIRC. What other aspects are clearly non-combat?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I see what you are saying but from the outside it would appear that such guidelines are rather vague and only support a non-combat solution in the loosest of terms, despite there being a rough process to handle non-combat. Alternately, the manner in which process for combat soultions is delineated to such a great degree is suggestive of what the game is "about." *All* about? I don't think anyone is making that claim. "About combat" with some minimal nod to non-combat (if only to keep the RPG designation arguable), seems a fair point to make (obvious to me, not so much to others). Could someone do a rough page count on the amount of clearly non-combat rules? Certainly skill challenges fall under that banner. And Rituals seem to be primarily non-combat, IIRC. What other aspects are clearly non-combat?

As far as I can tell, the basic question isn't necessarily, "are D&D rules about combat?" While that's one legitimate interpretation (the original poster wanted knee-jerk reactions to the poll question) as rules undoubtedly inform the style of game, I don't feel my games have ever been defined by combat. So, my knee-jerk reaction to "is D&D about combat?" is no.

If the question instead became, "are the D&D rules about combat?" I might be close to saying "yes" but I'd still find it hard to say yes. The majority of the rules are about combat, yes. Are the rules as a whole about combat? No.

I think it just comes down to what you personally feel defines the game. If it's mainly the rules, your input makes sense to me. The rules don't define my game, and I doubt they ever will (no matter the system). So, the rules don't make the game "about" anything to me. The feel of D&D has always been something that transcends combat, to me. It's deeply ingrained in the fantasy genre, and fantasy genre loves combat. However, I would be hard-pressed to name books or series that are "about combat" within the fantasy genre. Sure, they use it extensively, but I don't think any story I've engaged in has been about combat, in my mind.

That's where I'm coming from, I guess. Arthurian legend wasn't about combat, but it features it extensively. The LotR trilogy isn't about combat, even though the movies play it up (it is visually appealing). For me, D&D successfully inserted itself into the fantasy genre, which, from my limited personal experience, has never been about combat.

Again, though, if the game is defined by the rules, and the rules mostly deal with combat, I do understand where you're coming from. I guess the fantasy genre feel of the game trumps the rules for me.

As always, though, play what you like

 

[Mark CMG]

As far as I can tell, the basic question isn't necessarily, "are D&D rules about combat?" While that's one legitimate interpretation (the original poster wanted knee-jerk reactions to the poll question) as rules undoubtedly inform the style of game, I don't feel my games have ever been defined by combat. So, my knee-jerk reaction to "is D&D about combat?" is no.

If the question instead became, "are the D&D rules about combat?" I might be close to saying "yes" but I'd still find it hard to say yes. The majority of the rules are about combat, yes. Are the rules as a whole about combat? No.

I think it just comes down to what you personally feel defines the game. If it's mainly the rules, your input makes sense to me. The rules don't define my game, and I doubt they ever will (no matter the system). So, the rules don't make the game "about" anything to me. The feel of D&D has always been something that transcends combat, to me. It's deeply ingrained in the fantasy genre, and fantasy genre loves combat. However, I would be hard-pressed to name books or series that are "about combat" within the fantasy genre. Sure, they use it extensively, but I don't think any story I've engaged in has been about combat, in my mind.

That's where I'm coming from, I guess. Arthurian legend wasn't about combat, but it features it extensively. The LotR trilogy isn't about combat, even though the movies play it up (it is visually appealing). For me, D&D successfully inserted itself into the fantasy genre, which, from my limited personal experience, has never been about combat.

Again, though, if the game is defined by the rules, and the rules mostly deal with combat, I do understand where you're coming from. I guess the fantasy genre feel of the game trumps the rules for me.

As always, though, play what you like

I'm with you. The RAW seem to be about combat but individual gameplay can be about anything, leaving aside that some editions more supportive than others of non-combat. My own games are certainly only as combat focused as the players at the table make them. I occaionally wind up running a game for those who are all about the stats and buffs, always with a eye toward the build to maximize their effectiveness in combat, but if I cannot introduce a healthy level of non-combat play, I don't run those games for long. I also play miniatures games and wargames that do combat so much better, IMO, if that is to be the primary focus of a game. I want my RPGs to be about the RP, and not only how it relates to a character's role in combat.

 

[Hussar]

As far as I can tell, the basic question isn't necessarily, "are D&D rules about combat?" While that's one legitimate interpretation (the original poster wanted knee-jerk reactions to the poll question) as rules undoubtedly inform the style of game, I don't feel my games have ever been defined by combat. So, my knee-jerk reaction to "is D&D about combat?" is no.

If the question instead became, "are the D&D rules about combat?" I might be close to saying "yes" but I'd still find it hard to say yes. The majority of the rules are about combat, yes. Are the rules as a whole about combat? No.

I think it just comes down to what you personally feel defines the game. If it's mainly the rules, your input makes sense to me. The rules don't define my game, and I doubt they ever will (no matter the system). So, the rules don't make the game "about" anything to me. The feel of D&D has always been something that transcends combat, to me. It's deeply ingrained in the fantasy genre, and fantasy genre loves combat. However, I would be hard-pressed to name books or series that are "about combat" within the fantasy genre. Sure, they use it extensively, but I don't think any story I've engaged in has been about combat, in my mind.

That's where I'm coming from, I guess. Arthurian legend wasn't about combat, but it features it extensively. The LotR trilogy isn't about combat, even though the movies play it up (it is visually appealing). For me, D&D successfully inserted itself into the fantasy genre, which, from my limited personal experience, has never been about combat.

Again, though, if the game is defined by the rules, and the rules mostly deal with combat, I do understand where you're coming from. I guess the fantasy genre feel of the game trumps the rules for me.

As always, though, play what you like

I guess this is probably where the difference lies. I have no problems separating out D&D from what I play at my table. Like MarkCMG, my table might feature lots of combat, but, frequently doesn't and I like to encourage the non-combat side of things. But, to me, that's not what the question asked. It's not, "Is your game about combat" but "Is D&D about combat". To me, the latter question refers to D&D the game, which, again to me, is pretty clearly about combat in the same way that an action movie is about action.

The problem I have with genre novel comparisons is that D&D is not a novel. While they might share elements, there's too many differences to make the comparison very valid. Novels aren't about combat because novels are an art form where the writer is telling a story with a larger meaning beyond the plot. This is rarely the point of playing D&D. D&D generally is not a morality tale, which a large amount of fantasy fiction is.

Be that as it may, I'm probably not alone in reading something like Conan for the fight scenes.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I guess this is probably where the difference lies. I have no problems separating out D&D from what I play at my table. Like MarkCMG, my table might feature lots of combat, but, frequently doesn't and I like to encourage the non-combat side of things. But, to me, that's not what the question asked. It's not, "Is your game about combat" but "Is D&D about combat". To me, the latter question refers to D&D the game, which, again to me, is pretty clearly about combat in the same way that an action movie is about action.

I think this is still interpreting the question to mean something along the lines of "are D&D rules about combat?" While that's a valid enough interpretation, it's not the question asked, and I don't think it's fair to say it's the only interpretation. The question asked was about the game, and I don't happen to define the game (any edition) by the rules of that game.

The problem I have with genre novel comparisons is that D&D is not a novel. While they might share elements, there's too many differences to make the comparison very valid. Novels aren't about combat because novels are an art form where the writer is telling a story with a larger meaning beyond the plot.

My sessions of D&D are much closer to a novel than they are to actual combat.

This is rarely the point of playing D&D. D&D generally is not a morality tale, which a large amount of fantasy fiction is.

The point of D&D is rarely combat, from my experience (and from the input of a lot of people within this thread, as well as outside of it). It's an important feature, but I don't think the majority of groups have combat as the actual point of play. Independent players, sure. That's where people's "knee-jerk reactions" come in (as the original poster asked for).

Be that as it may, I'm probably not alone in reading something like Conan for the fight scenes.

Fight scenes are cool, and you're definitely not alone (even if I don't share that trait with you). That doesn't mean that Conan is about combat. It doesn't mean that D&D is about combat.

Again, if you define D&D by the rules rather than by the genre that inspired it, I see where you're coming from. It doesn't make others wrong when they don't define it by the rules. As always, play what you like