Is D&D "about" combat?

[DM Howard]

So where's the rules support for story structure? For plot? For determining narration rights? For characterization? For any element of a story? How can one person have the rights to the plot but other participants get to control the actions of the main characters and not have some person's input invalidated?

I think the earlier editions focus is best summed by in Everaux's signature on the Dragonsfoot forums.

"We don't explore characters. We explore dungeons."

Not that I overly disagree with you, but I've always felt that the story is much more important than combat, but it's combat that can be more easily put into mechanics in a uniform way while story belongs to each individual group in and how they handle it in their own way/ways.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's not true.

Combat doesn't require lots of rules. You can run combat with no rules.

Combat has lots of rules because the game's designers understood that people like for there to be lots of rules for combat.

We've been over this.

Well, that's kind of the question in this poll. There is such a thing as combat with little or no rules, but I don't agree that combat is not inherently rules-intensive, nor with the conclusion that rules for combat define D&D. Combat inherently lends itself to rules better than conversation and the D&D rules reflect that, but I find D&D characters spend more time talking than fighting. Many people do like for there to be lots of combat, but there are many non-combat elements to D&D that are equally defining.

As I posted upthread, I regard this as not true at all. And the assumption that it is true leads to bad RPG design. (As Christopher Kubasik noted, what contribution does it make to Vampire play to distinguish the damage of a shotgun from a machine gune? D20 Call of Cthulhu suffers from a similar problem.)

If combat is going to be an important site of action resolution, than it needs rules. If it is not, then it doesn't. Call of Cthulhu, for example, has no real need for combat rules at all, other than the simplest of conflict resolution mechanics (something like a coin toss plus a resource which can permit the players to re-toss if they want to - heads you lose, tails the cultists or whatever lose). Traveller, at least on the Free Trader approach to play, doesn't need combat rules - it needs rules that will determine with care the "objective and important outcomes" of buying, selling, negotiating, financing, refuelling, etc.

With respect to CoC, I'd say that combat serves the purpose of setting tone, not "action resolution". I happen to think CoC d20 is a beautifully written rpg whose main flaw is that it doesn't describe physical injuries the way it does mental ones (i.e. it needs more combat rules). I would put it forward as an example of rpg design done right.

More broadly, I think that the difference in damage between one gun and another is not a tactical issue of determining their relative power so the PCs can win combat (in CoC, they very often won't), but instead a description of reality that helps contribute to the sense of verisimilitude in an rpg. I'm looking at it less as being a set of rules for a game and more as being a convenient storytelling tool.


***


In both cases, I simply disagree. And in both cases, repeating points that I disagree with hasn't convinced me of their veracity. Obviously, people in this thread represent some very diverse philosophies behind gaming, and that's fine. No hard feelings.

I suppose that was the OP's intent: poking the community and observing the response. I can't think of anything else to add to the discussion that isn't redundant to the 12 pages of posts above, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I will say that I do not believe D&D is "about" combat - not in ANY edition. The rules do deal predominantly with conducting combat. There is good reason. Combat in a fantasy adventure game is typically going to be FREQUENT and therefore is the part of the game that is generally first and foremost to be supported by well-organized rules. The preponderance of combat rules however can lead to the MISTAKEN assumption that D&D is "about" combat - particularly when the rest of the written rules fails to exhort the participants to not make it about combat.

Even if you assume that more recent versions ARE about combat it is readily seen when you look at the events that CREATED D&D and the older versions of the game, that being "about" combat was not the initial intent of D&D and despite accumulation of more combat rules over time it is not what led to the game growing in popularity. If it were we'd all still be playing tabletop wargames not a Fantasy ROLEPLAYING Game. It is the introduction of the element of roleplaying that created the hobby. It isn't particularly relevant how much any individual player or group chooses to invest in the roleplaying side of it, say, or to position combat as superceding roleplaying - but it IS the reason why we have D&D and not just 35 years of more detailed rules for Gygax & Perren's Chainmail. It's NOT "about" the combat.

 

[pemerton]

I don't agree that combat is not inherently rules-intensive

What, then, is your view of RPGs in which combat is not rules-intensive. Or of RPGs - like HeroWars/Quest, and at least on one approach Burning Wheel - which use the same mechanics to resolve peaceful as violent conflicts?

I think that the difference in damage between one gun and another is not a tactical issue of determining their relative power so the PCs can win combat (in CoC, they very often won't), but instead a description of reality that helps contribute to the sense of verisimilitude in an rpg. I'm looking at it less as being a set of rules for a game and more as being a convenient storytelling tool.

I can't say I've read the whole of Lovecraft's oeuvre, but I've read quite a few stories - At the Mountains of Madness, Call of Ctulhu, Dunwhich Horror, Shadow over Innsmouth, Colour out of Space, and probably some others I can't remember off hand.

I don't remember guns figuring very prominently in the stories. My main memory of the story CoC is that artists of various sorts figure prominently, as they are peculiarly sensitive to the chaotic thoughts radiated by Cthulhu. Boats and seafaring are also important. Why do the CoC rules, then, not focus on art and boats as tools for storytelling? In my view, because they needlessly inherit fanatasy RPGs' concern with combat as a focus of combat resolution.

 

[Hussar]

I can see the point that perhaps I'm mistaking the medium for the message. I'm not entirely convinced, but, I can see the point.

I guess I look at it like this:

D&D is about exploration. Why? Well, we explore places. Ok, why do you explore? To find stuff. Ok, what happens when you find stuff. ... Well we kill it and takes its treasure.

So on and so forth. If the game was about exploration, shouldn't there be actual mechanics devoted to that? Where are my guidelines for creating interesting cultures for the players to interact with? Where are my guidelines for creating interesting ecosystems? Where are my guidelines for maintaining a traveling caravan? Which are all pretty reasonable things you might need in a game devoted to exploration.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Combat is in service of the greater goal.

This greater goal is "heroic adventure."

D&D is about heroic adventure. Which includes combat. And other things. Combat is one pillar among about 3 (give or take).

I honestly do not understand why people have convinced themselves that they need intricate combat rules. You want combat in Call of Cthulu? Well, if you get into a fight in Call of Cthulu, you die. It is like lava rules. No save.

Well, I guess you could escape, but then you just go insane later, so it's ultimately the same result.

Come to think of it, I guess that's the result of any character in any Call of Cthulu game, sooner or later. Might as well be, "You Mess With The Mythos, you die. Save to go insane instead."

D&D, being heroic and adventuresome, is a different beast, but even in D&D, combat need not be a test of your tactical calculus and +1-adding acumen. It can be a quick, narrative fight, where "do one thing, then have the enemy do one thing, and continue for about 5-15 minutes" can be in effect.

Indeed, your interaction with NPC's and exploration of your surroundings can all be subsumed into that basic model. Whenever there's a threat. You do one thing. Your opposition (person or otherwise) does one thing.

Grabbing more detailed combat is a choice, not a necessity (though you might see it as a necessity for your personal games, it isn't from a purely functional standpoint).

 

[billd91]

D&D is about exploration. Why? Well, we explore places. Ok, why do you explore? To find stuff. Ok, what happens when you find stuff. ... Well we kill it and takes its treasure.

So on and so forth. If the game was about exploration, shouldn't there be actual mechanics devoted to that? Where are my guidelines for creating interesting cultures for the players to interact with? Where are my guidelines for creating interesting ecosystems? Where are my guidelines for maintaining a traveling caravan? Which are all pretty reasonable things you might need in a game devoted to exploration.

There are rules about exploration or at least certain elements of exploration. From the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, the environment sections of the 3x DMGs, Planar books of a variety of stripes. But let's take a step back and figure out what the rules get you and what they do.

How many people, over the course of D&D's history, have found the rules for combat confining? There's a number of people who have said or intimated that the more defined maneuvers you have the less freedom you have to do something creative. This is, in part, because the definition of the maneuvers leaves you not really wanting to do it (outcome simply not as good as ablating hp) or requiring you to build to really use it (which probably precludes you from building for other maneuvers). How many people have been touting the value of page (what is it?) 42(?) in 4e because it's liberating in this regard? (Though I'm not really sure it keeps up with your typical powers and their funky positioning goodies or with a PC's main attack bonuses, at least it gives you a shot at still doing damage with an off the wall maneuver.)

Having well-defined rules can be both a positive and a negative. They give you structure, but confine your freedom. That's why some gamers prefer rules light systems. Fewer rules to get in the way of doing what it is you really want to do. What they want is general guidelines and broader resolution systems.

D&D already has plenty of guidelines for all sorts of activities. Profession skills for broad proficiency in areas exploration-friendly - porter, guide, sailor. Skills like animal handling and survival. Edition-appropriate task resolution systems that can take a character's talent and skill into account. Overland movement rates in various terrains. Environmental hazards and weather. Typical dungeon dressings and DCs for opening stuck dungeon doors, hardness of many dungeon dressings as well. Spells like Find the Path. Specific campaign-oriented modifications to these particular issues in resources like Dark Sun, Frostburn, Al-Qadim.

Given the tremendous variety of ways characters may go about exploring their environment, I think the approach of providing general guidelines to the DM is probably the best approach, rather than tighter, more detailed specific rules. It's a level of abstraction that works reasonably well.

 

[billd91]

I honestly do not understand why people have convinced themselves that they need intricate combat rules. You want combat in Call of Cthulu? Well, if you get into a fight in Call of Cthulu, you die. It is like lava rules. No save.

Well, I guess you could escape, but then you just go insane later, so it's ultimately the same result.

I would like to point out that, in CoC, investigators often get into fights of various sorts and, I think, the combat system is a little more detailed than people seem to be implying. That said, investigators who expect to win the day by fighting die, usually horribly. But even the best designed CoC campaigns like Masks of Nyarlathotep, have plenty of fighting. It's just you want to fight the cultists and on your terms, ideally when their patrons are not around, and you expect casualties.

 

[Dannager]

I will say that I do not believe D&D is "about" combat - not in ANY edition. The rules do deal predominantly with conducting combat. There is good reason. Combat in a fantasy adventure game is typically going to be FREQUENT and therefore is the part of the game that is generally first and foremost to be supported by well-organized rules. The preponderance of combat rules however can lead to the MISTAKEN assumption that D&D is "about" combat - particularly when the rest of the written rules fails to exhort the participants to not make it about combat.

Even if you assume that more recent versions ARE about combat it is readily seen when you look at the events that CREATED D&D and the older versions of the game, that being "about" combat was not the initial intent of D&D and despite accumulation of more combat rules over time it is not what led to the game growing in popularity. If it were we'd all still be playing tabletop wargames not a Fantasy ROLEPLAYING Game. It is the introduction of the element of roleplaying that created the hobby. It isn't particularly relevant how much any individual player or group chooses to invest in the roleplaying side of it, say, or to position combat as superceding roleplaying - but it IS the reason why we have D&D and not just 35 years of more detailed rules for Gygax & Perren's Chainmail. It's NOT "about" the combat.

Children's vitamins are not about being gummy, or sweet, or fruit-flavored. They're about providing children with nutritional supplements that health care professionals feel are beneficial to growing children. However, before children's vitamins that were gummy, sweet, or fruit-flavored existed, children did not take a daily multivitamin at nearly the rate they do today. They just weren't popular.

Adding a new feature to something to make it more palatable to a larger audience does not suddenly make something not about the thing that it's actually about. Adding the trappings of roleplaying to a fantasy war game that was about combat doesn't necessarily mean it's no longer about combat. It can still be about combat (and, in my opinion and those of many others, undeniably is).

Of all the things that the people who created D&D in the first place set out to do, I bet you that at no point did one of them say, "Man, we should make this game not about combat anymore."

 

[pemerton]

I would like to point out that, in CoC, investigators often get into fights of various sorts and, I think, the combat system is a little more detailed than people seem to be implying. That said, investigators who expect to win the day by fighting die, usually horribly. But even the best designed CoC campaigns like Masks of Nyarlathotep, have plenty of fighting. It's just you want to fight the cultists and on your terms, ideally when their patrons are not around, and you expect casualties.

I know that CoC has a detailed combat system (it's Runequest-lite). My point is that it doesn't need this system - that it has saddled itself with rules it doesn't need because its designers mistakenly supposed that combat per se needs intracate rules.

I honestly do not understand why people have convinced themselves that they need intricate combat rules. You want combat in Call of Cthulu? Well, if you get into a fight in Call of Cthulu, you die. It is like lava rules. No save.

Well, I guess you could escape, but then you just go insane later, so it's ultimately the same result.

Come to think of it, I guess that's the result of any character in any Call of Cthulu game, sooner or later. Might as well be, "You Mess With The Mythos, you die. Save to go insane instead."

Completely agreed. In the passage I cited upthread Kubasik refers to Vampire as a poster child for needlessly initricate combat rules, but a reference to CoC would do just as well.

even in D&D, combat need not be a test of your tactical calculus and +1-adding acumen. It can be a quick, narrative fight, where "do one thing, then have the enemy do one thing, and continue for about 5-15 minutes" can be in effect.

<snip>

Grabbing more detailed combat is a choice, not a necessity (though you might see it as a necessity for your personal games, it isn't from a purely functional standpoint).

Agreed. Like I said upthread, I and my group like the tactical calculus aspect, but that's a property of us as game players, not anything inherent to good combat rules.

And even my group doesn't resolve all physical violence using the full-fledge combat rules - the workaround I've come up with (given the absence of clear advice in 4e for merging combat into skill challenges) is to permit skill checks to "minionise" enemies, so a single hit then kills them - I use this when PCs are doing things like knocking out sentries while sneaking into places, or rubbing out lone NPCs with whom a fully-resolved fight would add nothing to the game, etc.

your interaction with NPC's and exploration of your surroundings can all be subsumed into that basic model. Whenever there's a threat. You do one thing. Your opposition (person or otherwise) does one thing.

This looks like a HeroWars/Quest simple contest.