pawsplay
Hero
You are of course entitled to define "RPG" however you wish, but most people use it for an entire genre of games, irrespective of someone's motivation for playing.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Do you play more for the story or the combat?
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
You are of course entitled to define "RPG" however you wish, but most people use it for an entire genre of games, irrespective of someone's motivation for playing.
Aeolius
Adventurer
And at least a troll or two, it seems.
I for one am strongly on the side of the story-tellers. My players are well aware of this. I could easily run a dozen game sessions without a lick of combat, and no one would think twice about it. As I run my game online, I don't even own miniatures, save for the box of 1e lead figurines down in the basement.
But then again, I am well aware that I play D&D "wrong". Even the 4e designers recognize this fact. "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34). I prefer the latter to the former, fairy rings and little people are more interesting than combat to me.
Again, I run undersea campaigns chock-full o' hags. And yet we both play D&D.
"Can't we all just get along?"
I'm betting that was a joke.
The Green Adam
First Post
Depends on the group and the mood they're in.
When I ran for my ex-wife we would periodically (once or twice a month roughly) have sessions that involved a diplomatic meeting, a political scandal or debat, exploration of a new land or some other story that had no combat. Conflict yes, but combat no. We also would run sessions that involved a wedding or other holiday or party occaision (enabling me to flesh out the cultures of the races and regions) or vacation time (literally having the character take a break from having to defeat evil and save the world all the time
). I've definitely gone two or more sessions with no combat, though rarely more then one with no conflict of some kind.AD
I should clarify: for the current game I run I don't think we've gone more than a session without combat; we're (mainly) in our 30's, we play after work, and the allure of vicariously hitting things is strong, even though it's not the focus of the campaign by a long shot.
I used to run a 2e campaign that essentially became an exercise in nation-building, with the focus on diplomatic negotiation, setting exploration and comic-book theological musings, so many sessions would go by without armed combat.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Interesting.
Are you referring to me, or to the OP who quoted me to kick off the whole thread?
Aeolius
Adventurer
In the spirit of healthy debate, I was referring to myself when I said "...or two". I simply find it both amusing and interesting when folks discuss the "right" way to play D&D.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Fair enough; but I want to point out that my comments were not about the "right" way to play D&D, but merely about what the core rules are designed to facilitate.
Spinning a good story out of D&D is as "wrong" as carving ice sculptures with a chainsaw.
ExploderWizard
Hero
There is a conflict. You (the protagonist) wanted to read some books, a meteor (the antagonist) came and smashed into them. You couldn't read your books.
What a tragedy.
The story without conflict is, "I went to the library to read some books, and I did." That's much less interesting than the one with conflict.
I don't think it breaks down so simply. Why is the meteor an antagonist? The meteor(ite) is hunk of dead matter that landed nearby. It has no will, and thus does not antagonize anything. If said meteor was hurled from the heavens from an angry god then we have an antagonist.
If no ill intentioned higher being was involved, the meteor is a force of nature and we have a man vs. nature conflict. Assuming nature is not being personified here as a vengeful or spiteful force, then we have no antagonist.
As far as the man vs. whatever, thats a very humanocentric way of viewing what a story is. If a tale were told of a mighty battle between the Greek gods and the titans, would it be a story? It doesn't involve man at all.
It can be considered as an antagonist because it's set in opposition of the protagonist and his/her goals.
Is there another relevant way to view what stories are? Seeing as fiction is a artifact of human culture and all.
Similar Threads
