Is D&D "about" combat?

[JamesonCourage]

What's it about then?

Roleplaying (this one is for you, Dannager ). No, seriously, it's what I think.

So, I can answer pretty concretely how D&D rewards combat.

Oh, it definitely does. But the question wasn't, "does D&D reward combat?"

Can you do the same for whatever you believe D&D is about?

I can make a comparison.

Arthurian legend is not about combat. It is widely used as a means to resolve conflict. It's still an exciting part of the legend, but it's trumped by how real the characters are. Their faults, the story, the human experience.

That's what D&D is about. Combat is useful, and exciting. It is nowhere near what D&D is about, in my experience.

As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

Really?

I want to run a race in 3e D&D. Ten characters on horseback around a track.

What mechanics would I use to run this race?

I want to run a 10 way free for all fight between ten characters in an arena.

What mechanics would I use to run this fight?

Now how do those two conflicts compare?

Are you saying D&D can't handle a horse race? Because it can. It's a refereed game which means it can handle anything that the referee can handle. I think a reasonable way to handle it would be to have all of the riders make Ride checks. I'd take the difference between the check and the DC necessary to spur the mount to higher speed (15) and keep a running tally for each racer. First one over 100 or so would win. If more than one makes it over 100 in the same number of checks, highest total wins.

How do they compare? What do you mean by that? I think both could easily be quite exciting.

 

[billd91]

How do you handle it when a player wants to invest in non-combat related resources? Examples would be owning land or acquiring followers. Do you allow resources gained from being successful in these endeavors to be spent on combat utility?

That's one of the issues I've had -trying to allow freedom without that freedom short circuiting some of the assumptions the system makes. I've seen some people suggest keeping the two types of resources split (combat gains vs other gains.) I've also seen conversations in which it was suggested to write extra treasure into parcels to make up for resources spent/lost on out of combat ventures. Both of these seem somewhat dishonest to me; to some extent, it makes me feel like I'm offered fake choices to the players if I'm the DM or being given false choices as a player from the DM.

How do you handle it?

I allow PCs the freedom to pretty much do what they want, whether what they want involved combat or non-combat resources. I try looking at the character and treat them as a whole character, not as a collection of divided abilities. So characters spending resources on non-combat stuff while others spend their resources on combat stuff? I don't have a problem with that.

Is this relevant to the topic?

 

[billd91]

So, I can answer pretty concretely how D&D rewards combat.

Can you do the same for whatever you believe D&D is about?

I can answer pretty concretely that D&D also rewards overcoming encounters without actually resorting to combat. D&D also rewards completion of story goals and the recovery of wealth (depending on the edition). All of these are between the covers of the books too.

If I were to think of D&D being about playing characters who live adventurous lives, then I would say that D&D's rules do reward that in a number of ways. A few ways to gain XPs, plus any number of ways to recover items or wealth that can increase a character's capabilities. I might say that D&D has some subsystems that are particularly strong or well-developed, but I don't think the game itself is about any one of them, though one may be pursued to the exclusion of others by players so inclined.

 

[Gentlegamer]

What's it about then?

If the game is about exploration (say) then in what ways do the mechanics facilitate exploration?

The mechanics of a role-playing game is the interaction of the participants. This exists in the social/mental realm. The presence of a game master to adjudicate player actions on the game environment is the key part of this interaction. Written rules are guidelines that assist in this adjudication.

See, I can point to combat and pretty concretely answer those questions. The PC's are rewarded directly for every combat they engage in.

Character death isn't a particularly good reward, and is a likely event if every encounter is turned into a combat encounter.

Yes, the game you play at your table might reward all sorts of behavior in all sorts of ways. But, we're not talking about your game or my game. We're talking about what's between the covers of the books.

What's between the covers of the books isn't the actual mechanics of the game, since it is a role-playing game adjudicated by a game master. The interaction of the participants is, so what happens at the table is paramount.

So, I can answer pretty concretely how D&D rewards combat.

I can answer how D&D punishes combat. So much so, that the latest edition had to alter its "mechanics" as you say to allow each character to spontaneously heal himself and gain per encounter powers to allow more combat with less penalty

Can you do the same for whatever you believe D&D is about?

I think the advice chapter for successful adventures from the AD&D Player's Handbook does a pretty good job.

 

[prosfilaes]

Are you saying D&D can't handle a horse race? Because it can. It's a refereed game which means it can handle anything that the referee can handle.

And yet, still, they felt the need to print a PHB, when they could have just said ask your DM. Certainly the DM can make up rules for anything, but when we're talking about D&D is about, surely we should look at what's in the rules, not what someone could hack on the side.

 

[billd91]

And yet, still, they felt the need to print a PHB, when they could have just said ask your DM. Certainly the DM can make up rules for anything, but when we're talking about D&D is about, surely we should look at what's in the rules, not what someone could hack on the side.

And, in fact, I am using rules from the PH. I'm using the Ride skill and the DC from the rules. I'm using basic principles from the d20 system and adapting them to a new situation like all DMs are called upon to do from time to time, assuming their PCs do things that aren't exactly according to the rules.

 

[rounser]

"Setting aside mechanics, I think you can boil D&D down to three basic activities: exploration, roleplay, and combat."

Oversimplifications like this are IMO counterproductive. Quests, puzzles, tricks and traps all fall under "exploration", then? Picking pockets has disappeared from the game because it falls into none of the above? I think the same design direction that led to 4E's narrow focus is still very much in play if this quote is any guide.

And that's not even getting started with what players consider the game is about, because if you use these core activities as a guide it's easy to forget these things. For some, worldbuilding; some others, collecting magic items and spells, or leveling; others, in-campaign world power and fame; others, completing an epic campaign arc, full of drama and pathos. Restricting D&D's scope to several basic activities seems as likely a way to forget details and get emphasis all wrong as saying that real life is about eating, sleeping and working, or that opera is actors singing, talking and dying.

There is no "essence of D&D" to find, like you were solving a mathematical equation.

 

[Melan]

I approach D&D as being primarily about exploration: delving into the mysterious depths of the underworld, mapping and taming the wilderness, seeking lost cities and fabulous wealth. While I don't think this is the only way to approach the game, I think it's an approach with an exceptionally fine fit. That is, a lot of the rules and traditions of D&D work well with this approach (or are flat-out designed for it). Obviously combat and adventure follow directly from a theme of exploration.

The first adventure I ever ran was the module In Search of the Unknown. That title is a pretty good summary of what I see D&D being about.

Right. I wanted to post this. D&D, to me, is first of all about exploring and interacting with an imagined environment (which could be a dungeon, a broader campaign setting, or a set of social relationships if you like that). Combat is a great part of that interaction process, but it is not the whole. I could imagine enjoying a game where no or very little combat took place, but I could not imagine enjoying one without meaningful environmental interaction.

Simplifications like "D&D is about combat", or "oh, it is killing things and taking their stuff", or "it is about having fun" are dangerous because they are true, but they obscure the whole truth by offering reductionist, easy talking points.

 

[Argyle King]

I allow PCs the freedom to pretty much do what they want, whether what they want involved combat or non-combat resources. I try looking at the character and treat them as a whole character, not as a collection of divided abilities. So characters spending resources on non-combat stuff while others spend their resources on combat stuff? I don't have a problem with that.

Is this relevant to the topic?

I'm trying to get an idea of how others handle some of the non-directly combat related things in their games. The topic being about D&D's perceived combat focus, I find it relevant to better understand how other things can be included in the game.

Have you had a problem with a character having more money than the level guidelines saying they should have being able to acquire items they shouldn't have at their level? An arbitrary example would be say a level 5 character being able to afford paragon level items via smart investment.

Likewise, have you had issues with a character not being able to afford items because of performing poorly with investments? Let's say a level 11 character being stuck with level 5 gear due to lack of funds.