Is D&D "about" combat?
- Thread starter Jack Daniel
- Start date
There's a difference between what THE game is about, and what MY game is about.
Look at the PHB (any edition) - the lion's share is about how to damage things, or how to resist or recover from or prevent damage. The stats, class abilities, spells, weapons and armor - it is largely about fighting. So, the game is about combat.
My game, however, can be different. How much effort my players and I spend on combat is different than how much effort the game as written spends on combat.
Folks reject the idea that the game is about combat as if it were some kind of indictment. It isn't. Most RPGs are largely about the fights. There are reasons for that, and there's nothing in that fact that's wrong, or that needs to be fended off or defended against.
Look at the PHB (any edition) - the lion's share is about how to damage things, or how to resist or recover from or prevent damage. The stats, class abilities, spells, weapons and armor - it is largely about fighting. So, the game is about combat.
My game, however, can be different. How much effort my players and I spend on combat is different than how much effort the game as written spends on combat.
Folks reject the idea that the game is about combat as if it were some kind of indictment. It isn't. Most RPGs are largely about the fights. There are reasons for that, and there's nothing in that fact that's wrong, or that needs to be fended off or defended against.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I answered No.
I think that when D&D first appeared, it brought two things to a gaming table which had never been there before
1) Roleplaying
2) Adventure
I would say that more than anything else, D&D is "About" roleplaying. It is easy to lose sight of that because it is so embedded in the warp and weft of gaming life, but that is the fundamental thing which made it different.
I then add on to that 'Adventure', which was why the roleplaying was immersive and fun.
D&D without combat is perfectly possible. D&D without roleplaying wouldn't be D&D, it would be a miniatures game (which is pretty much what I was playing in the early 70's before D&D was invented!)
Cheers
I think that when D&D first appeared, it brought two things to a gaming table which had never been there before
1) Roleplaying
2) Adventure
I would say that more than anything else, D&D is "About" roleplaying. It is easy to lose sight of that because it is so embedded in the warp and weft of gaming life, but that is the fundamental thing which made it different.
I then add on to that 'Adventure', which was why the roleplaying was immersive and fun.
D&D without combat is perfectly possible. D&D without roleplaying wouldn't be D&D, it would be a miniatures game (which is pretty much what I was playing in the early 70's before D&D was invented!)
Cheers
Neonchameleon
Legend
I can think of only two more combat-centric RPGs than D&D; Feng Shui and Wushu. In 1e there was a class named for being good at fighting and with all its abilities dedicated to this (the Fighter), a second named after how it fights (assassin) and a third dedicated to unarmed combat (monk). Classes needed to literally fight to advance to high levels (monk, druid). And 2e was more combat-centric than 1e - in 1e you gained XP for gold, but not in 2e.
"About combat" is pushing it. But I'd have no problems at all calling D&D very combat heavy by RPG standards.
"About combat" is pushing it. But I'd have no problems at all calling D&D very combat heavy by RPG standards.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I think both you and Umbran are applying faulty logic. The amount of time spent in development or the amount of page space in the rules, I think, can be taken to indicate the parts of the game that are the most rules-intensive. Assuming anything beyond that, like what the game is fundamentally about, is overreaching.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
D&D is about a lot of things...a lot of different things on a lot of different tables.
Just because the majority of the codified rules are about combat, doesn't mean the game is only about combat. Not only have I played games of D&D that weren't mostly combat, I've played games of D&D that had no combat. And yes, it was D&D (well...actually AD&D
).
Personally, I think Bill Slaviscek was wrong when making that statement, but there was an element of truth.
More accurately he should have said: "D&D is a game about Conflict..." - and he would have been spot on.
Just because the majority of the codified rules are about combat, doesn't mean the game is only about combat. Not only have I played games of D&D that weren't mostly combat, I've played games of D&D that had no combat. And yes, it was D&D (well...actually AD&D
).Personally, I think Bill Slaviscek was wrong when making that statement, but there was an element of truth.
More accurately he should have said: "D&D is a game about Conflict..." - and he would have been spot on.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
There's an awful lot of combat-related stuff in the game (tables of weapons, books of monsters, gobs of combat spells), but its not a primarily combat game.
Look at the eqiupment lists - what does 1E's chickens that you can buy have to do with combat? Who thinks flumphs were included in the fiend folio solely to combat? And I doubt spells like comprehend languages and create water had combat in mind when they were put into game.
I'll alway believe that D&D is "more than hack-n-slash".
Look at the eqiupment lists - what does 1E's chickens that you can buy have to do with combat? Who thinks flumphs were included in the fiend folio solely to combat? And I doubt spells like comprehend languages and create water had combat in mind when they were put into game.
I'll alway believe that D&D is "more than hack-n-slash".
Similar Threads
