Is D&D "about" combat?

[Hussar]

Now, that's an interesting point. Can you define a game by other than its rules?

After all, Monopoly isn't a game about Dynastic China. No one, I think, would claim that it is. I'm not really sure you can define D&D, the game, as anything other than a collection of rules.

Granted, you can apply those rules in many, many ways and the end result might not be specifically focused on combat, but, looking at the game, separate from how it might actually be used, it's pretty strongly focused on combat. Again, granted, not to the exclusion of everything else, but, it's pretty clear, looking at the rules, that the game expects a great deal of combat. The mechanics focus on combat, the rewards focus on combat and even most of the adventure design focuses on combat.

Why you happen to be engaging in combat is pretty much irrelevant as far as the mechanics are concerned.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Now, that's an interesting point. Can you define a game by other than its rules?

I mentioned an answer to this in my first post on this page.

 

[Hussar]

I mentioned an answer to this in my first post on this page.

Fair enough I suppose. I just find it a very difficult position to understand. If something is outside the scope of a given ruleset, then it's fair to say that that game is not about that thing. Granted, you can repurpose the ruleset to cover that thing, but, then you've changed the game.

Is 4e a game about far future SF? Not generally no. But, you can repurpose 4e to cover that genre, or at least the Santiago adventure path that En World is flogging is claiming that it can.

But, at that point, once you've changed the ruleset to that point, haven't you created a new game? Or at the very least a strong variant? 3e D&D and d20 Star Wars, despite both being d20 games, are generally considered different games. And part of that difference is found in the mechanics.

After all, isn7t what the whole, "It's not D&D to me" criticism boils down to? That the mechanics have changed to the point where it's no longer D&D to that particular person? If a game is simply genre (although there is nothing simple about genre) considerations, then suddenly a whole lot of games become D&D...

Hrm...

I need to think about this a bit more.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Fair enough I suppose. I just find it a very difficult position to understand. If something is outside the scope of a given ruleset, then it's fair to say that that game is not about that thing. Granted, you can repurpose the ruleset to cover that thing, but, then you've changed the game.

I understand that view. However, I don't feel like I've changed the game. I feel like the rules of the game support my view, in fact.

Is 4e a game about far future SF? Not generally no. But, you can repurpose 4e to cover that genre, or at least the Santiago adventure path that En World is flogging is claiming that it can.

Right, that's true. The thing is, though, that D&D was designed with the fantasy genre in mind, and the rules support playing in a fantasy style game. You do not have to change the rules to play in that style of game.

But, at that point, once you've changed the ruleset to that point, haven't you created a new game? Or at the very least a strong variant? 3e D&D and d20 Star Wars, despite both being d20 games, are generally considered different games. And part of that difference is found in the mechanics.

And part of that is in the feel of the game (which is why you have people who say that certain editions don't "feel" like the series they're a part of, whether it's D&D, WoD, etc.). Again, I don't need to change a single D&D rule to feel like I'm playing a fantasy genre-based game, because the rules were designed with this in mind.

After all, isn7t what the whole, "It's not D&D to me" criticism boils down to? That the mechanics have changed to the point where it's no longer D&D to that particular person? If a game is simply genre (although there is nothing simple about genre) considerations, then suddenly a whole lot of games become D&D...

This depends on how you define D&D. As it's been pointed out, many people consider Pathfinder to be D&D (I've never played, so I can't comment). I imagine a few people would consider my game to be D&D, since it's based on the OGL and the assumed setting is fantasy (even if it's capable of supporting other genres, much to my irritation and my players' delight).

Hrm...

I need to think about this a bit more.

As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Oh, I'm certainly not denying that D&D is based in fantasy genre. Again, that's obvious on the face of it. But, then again, so is Diablo or Descent.

Now, there are obvious differences between D&D and those two games. But, the difference there isn't genre, it's mechanical.

Saying D&D is about combat does not, in any way, preclude it from being contained within the fantasy genre.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Oh, I'm certainly not denying that D&D is based in fantasy genre. Again, that's obvious on the face of it. But, then again, so is Diablo or Descent.

Now, there are obvious differences between D&D and those two games. But, the difference there isn't genre, it's mechanical.

Saying D&D is about combat does not, in any way, preclude it from being contained within the fantasy genre.

The mechanical differences help make it D&D. As do beholders and mind flayers, even without mechanics. However, taking mechanics strongly into account (even though different editions have had very different mechanics), I don't see how that makes the game "about" combat. D&D includes combat within a fantasy genre. The rules of the game support this.

I do understand where you're coming from, I just don't understand why the rules need to define the game. They don't, to me. D&D is a little famous for its kitchen sink approach to the fantasy genre, and that defines it even without mechanics. As I said, psionics, beholders, chromatic dragons, mind flayers, dragon-like kobolds, paladins, clerics in armor, wizards with spellbooks, monks, large amounts of magical items for everyone, dungeon delves, etc. (as in, a whole heap more), all help characterize the feel of D&D. You don't need the mechanics for them, as it varies from edition to edition. That's what makes D&D stand out from other fantasy genre games.

All of the things I listed can be used with combat, but I could easily use any of them without combat. And, even with a huge portion of the rules focusing on combat, I don't see how that defines D&D more than the fantasy genre. It doesn't, to me. And because it doesn't, I don't think that D&D is about combat. I do understand why people interpret the question that way, and I see that as a fair interpretation. It by no means trumps mine, as the rules definitely support my interpretation much more than hurt it.

As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

Now, that's an interesting point. Can you define a game by other than its rules?

After all, Monopoly isn't a game about Dynastic China. No one, I think, would claim that it is. I'm not really sure you can define D&D, the game, as anything other than a collection of rules.

Yes, I'd say you can define a game by other than its rules.

The most prominent mechanism of the Monopoly game is the act of moving around the board and the rule spend a fair amount of time dealing with that and some of the specifics of the places you land, but that's not what the game is about. It's also not merely about the buying and selling of land, but doing so with a purpose. According to the introduction to the rules, "The object of the game is to become the wealthiest player through buying, renting and selling property."

Granted, the introduction really is part of the rules, but it's distinct from the mechanical rules. It's like finding the theme of a novel, the main thrust of what a novel is about, although usually more explicit. You wouldn't say a novel is just about the words that comprise it, you'd also be interested in its themes and deeper meanings. I think the same is true about games, though as I've said, they are thankfully usually more explicit than novels.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Look at it this way, how would run a campaign based off the TV series "Two and a half Men" using only the D&D rules?

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I'd say you can define a game by other than its rules.

The most prominent mechanism of the Monopoly game is the act of moving around the board and the rule spend a fair amount of time dealing with that and some of the specifics of the places you land, but that's not what the game is about. It's also not merely about the buying and selling of land, but doing so with a purpose. According to the introduction to the rules, "The object of the game is to become the wealthiest player through buying, renting and selling property."

Granted, the introduction really is part of the rules, but it's distinct from the mechanical rules. It's like finding the theme of a novel, the main thrust of what a novel is about, although usually more explicit. You wouldn't say a novel is just about the words that comprise it, you'd also be interested in its themes and deeper meanings. I think the same is true about games, though as I've said, they are thankfully usually more explicit than novels.

Fair enough. But, again, everything that moves you towards the goal of "become the wealthiest player" is contained within the rules. As I said, Monopoly is not a game about Dynastic China. I'm sure you could adapt it somehow to be about Dynastic China but, at that point, is it still Monopoly?

And, in this case, genre really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're playing Star Wars Monopoly or traditional Monopoly, it's still the identical game, just with different pictures. You still traverse the board using the same rules and the same strategy and behavior is rewarded by the system.

Saying D&D is about Fantasy doesn't really say a whole lot to be honest. Any more than saying D&D is about conflict. It's too broad because, frankly, just about any group endevour is about conflict to some degree. And saying it's about Fantasy doesn't distinguish D&D from Diablo.

Now, I would distinguish Diablo from D&D because Diablo is only about combat. That't the entirety of the game. But, again, saying D&D is about combat doesn't mean it's about combat exclusively, any more than saying an Action movie is only about things blowing up. It's perfectly okay to have an action movie actually have things like plot and whatnot.

Otherwise, the Transformers movies would be the greatest action movies ever made. Which, I think we'll all agree, they aren't.

Sure, you need all that other stuff in D&D to make it fun. You need character, you need story, you need exploration of some sort. I don't deny that at all. But, the base upon which all this is placed, revolves around the basic concept of going out and killing stuff.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Look at it this way, how would run a campaign based off the TV series "Two and a half Men" using only the D&D rules?

You'd need Deities and Demigods to stat up some goddesses...