Is D&D "about" combat?

[Sadrik]

Am I the only one that believes that answers like the above don't come anywhere near actually answering the question posed?

I appreciate your sensitivity to the matter however I will have to disagree with you.

 

[Dannager]

To the question you meant to ask, my knee-jerk reaction would be "Yes", and I'd go on to say that the combat elements of D&D are a subset of the total game. Just like the skills resolution, and the magic mechanics, and the RP guidance, and so on.

I wouldn't disagree with you that combat is a subset of the game. But, again, it makes up the most critical, the most widely-used, and the most consistently "meaty" subset of the game, and that makes D&D primarily about combat (but totally about some other stuff too, to a lesser extent).

Combat, in other words, is one (fairly significant) aspect, of this particular rpg. That I've played numerous entire sessions with no combat tells me the game is not "about" combat. Likewise, the fact that I've played entire sessions focused entirely on combat that didn't actually advance the story tell me again that the game is not "about" combat.

And this is why I suggested above that using an individual's own experiences to discuss this topic is a much worse way of going about it than discussing where the designers were coming from.

Because, see I've done just as you have, and had sessions with no combat. And, just like you, I've had sessions that were completely focused on combat. And, here's the kicker: I was more satisfied with my D&D experience in the all-combat sessions than I was with the no-combat sessions.

It's all butting heads until you start looking at how the game was actually put together instead of what a given person is doing in their own home.

 

[WheresMyD20]

In fact, if we look at another instance of rules - let's say, the National Parliamentary Debate Association rules - we find plenty of rules for interpersonal interactions and (gasp!) none for combat.

This is a missed opportunity. Think of how entertaining CSPAN would be.

 

[Hussar]

Except that nowhere near 3/4 of the page count is devoted to how to kill stuff.

The problem I see people having is inferring one thing from a few pieces of data when other conclusions can be supported as well. Why should there be so much time devoted to combat compared to, say, interpersonal interactions? Because the former requires more structure to be fair than the latter. Devoting more time and effort to one set of rules could mean that it takes more effort to structure it and communicate that structure rather than be the core of what the game is about. Page count does not equal primacy in the purpose of the game.

Really? The classes are virtually nothing but combat abilities, in any class (how many non-combat abilities did a 1e fighter get after all?). The spells are easily 2/3 direct combat related spells. You've got a several hundred page book of pretty much nothing but stuff to kill.

Why does interpersonal relationships require less mechanics? Because way back when, they just made crap up to sort out whether or not you talked to something.

Look at games where you actually HAVE social mechanics like Dogs in the Vineyard. Would you say DITV is about combat? Or perhaps FATE, another game where the combat mechanics take a DEEP back seat to other mechanics. Or any number of other games that don't focus so clearly on combat.

Is D&D ALL about combat? No of course not. No one would claim that it is. But, let's be honest here, combat gets the lions share of the focus. And it always has.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

My knee-jerk reaction is yes.

On further reflection, I think that D&D is more about overcoming - enemies, the dungeon, the environment, the puzzle, the social milieu devised by the DM. Whatever.

Characters overcome themselves - their own limitations - through leveling up. Maybe players overcome their social inhibitions by creating artificial scenarios where they can assert their alter-egos.

Combat in D&D is a bite-sized, easily digestible species of overcoming. It's also fun.

 

[Dannager]

Am I the only person on this board getting a little tired of your "Us" and "Them", "Me" and "They" waffle?

Pardon?

I mean seriously, if you need someone to interpret Sadrik's response:
Thread Poll: Is D&D "About" Combat? Yes/No?
Sadrik: NO! I don't think D&D is about combat.
Herremann: Hmmm, interesting. So that kind of makes me wonder: what do you think D&D is about then?
Sadrik: I think D&D is about getting together with friends and creating a story around characters... and have combat too.
Herremann: Hey that's cool. Thanks for the extra insight into what you are thinking; now I understand where you are coming from.

Was it that bad a response that it was worth calling out?

In the sense that Sadrik answered the question "Is D&D only about combat?" when the actual question was "Is D&D about combat?"

Do you see the difference between these two questions?

Is Harry Potter a franchise about wizards? Yes.

Is Harry Potter a franchise only about wizards? No.

As if you are the "Is D&D about Combat?"-thread-police. As if to respond to this thread, you have to negotiate the Dannager filter machine as to why your opinion is wrong? Seriously not cool!

My word! You may want to tone that back, a touch. I've been quite civil in this thread until now, despite it being yet another example of "Kids these days just don't know how to roleplay hurumph!"

And, really, people need to get over the "How dare you tell me my opinion is wrong!" outrage. If you come share your opinion in a public manner, you probably shouldn't be alarmed when the public has things to say about your opinion.

Because, frankly, you just did little more than tell me that my opinion about someone else's opinion was wrong.

 

[Dannager]

This is a missed opportunity. Think of how entertaining CSPAN would be.

For an example of exactly what that would be like, tune into British parliament sometime.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

It's all butting heads until you start looking at how the game was actually put together instead of what a given person is doing in their own home.

EXACTLY!!!!!! (sort of)

Which is why, I believe, the initial question was about knee-jerk reactions. And why these sorts of arguments inevitably degrade into meaninglessness.

 

[Dannager]

EXACTLY!!!!!! (sort of)

Which is why, I believe, the initial question was about knee-jerk reactions. And why these sorts of arguments inevitably degrade into meaninglessness.

I think we could save this discussion from meaninglessness in part by turning it into a discussion of how the game was designed. I honestly think that one does not have a proper understanding of what the game is about until they are familiar with the (even rough) purpose behind its design.

 

[billd91]

The belief that combat requires all these rules is totally false. The reality is that combat in D&D was designed to be rules-heavy because people like combat in D&D to be nuanced and flexible, because it represents the most consistently "meaty" part of the game for your average group.

Wanting a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem is still a far cry from having that be what the game is about. Advanced Squad Leader has a very robust and nuanced subsystem for off board artillery (including supplementary products just to make it easier to adjudicate). It's larger for its use than most other sections of the rules, though I'd be considered a loon if I were to say that's what the game is about.

Wanting a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem of any stripe is why that subsystem requires a substantial amount of rules and structure. Other games may dispense with it for combat, like the parliamentary debate competitions, because they explicitly don't care to have a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem of that type. Traveller has a nuanced and flexible subsystem for interstellar trade but I wouldn't say that's what the game is about any more than I'd say combat is what D&D is about. One table may make it their focus, but another will not and the game itself supports both groups.

The main problem with saying D&D is about some thing is you also define what it's not, and that starts to define deviation from what the game is about. And that's badwrongfun territory. If D&D isn't about traipsing through faerie rings, what does that mean if you play D&D that way? If it's about combat, what does it mean if you only have combat 1 in 4 or 5 sessions? Does it mean you're not playing it right?