Is D&D "about" combat?

[Hussar]

Just a further thought.

The longer I play RPG's, the less likely I am to decide that one system must fit all things. I've really embraced the whole "right tool for the right job" mentality. This might explain why I look at D&D as a "combat" tool. It certainly is combat shaped and has all the right bits and bobs to do that. I don't really look at it as a "explore theme" tool because, well, it doesn't have those bits and bobs.

I tried for years to run a decent naval campaign using the 3e ruleset. I couldn't make it work very well and I've come to realize why - the magic system REALLY gets in the way, the skill system isn't built for naval campaigns and the basic unit of play in D&D - the individual - doesn't work well when you need to control dozens, if not a couple of hundred individuals at the same time.

Try running a naval combat in 3e between two largish ships with a crew of 50 apiece and watch what happens. You think 4e combat is grindy. Heh, you ain't seen NOTHING.

So, if I were to try to run another fantasy naval campaign, it wouldn't be with d20. I'd likely move over to something like Corsair or there are a few other games that catch my interest. OTOH, if I wanted to run a game of fairy tale fantasy, where the characters act like fairy tale characters, again, D&D is the last system I'd choose. I'd use Seven Leagues, a fantasy roleplaying game of Faerie by Hieronymous which is a great game.

So, to me, system very much matters in whatever kind of game I want to run. If I wanted to do Arthurian fantasy, again, there are a horde of great systems out there that fit that model so much better than D&D does.

 

[pemerton]

Saying D&D is about Fantasy doesn't really say a whole lot to be honest. Any more than saying D&D is about conflict. It's too broad because, frankly, just about any group endevour is about conflict to some degree. And saying it's about Fantasy doesn't distinguish D&D from Diablo.

The Quiet American is about colonial and post-colonial political and military misadventure in Vietnam. So is Apocalypse Now. Of course they're not identical - but I'm not sure that it's trivial to tease out their differences just by reference to what it is that they're about.

I'm not sure that a lot follows from this, except to point out that you're putting a fairly heavy burden on "aboutness" in your post.

II'm beginning to see three groups. The tactical gamers (who said yes in this thread), the creative gamers (who said yes in that thread) and the casual gamers (who said no to both).

<snip>

if they had released an extremely narrativized D&D with stripped-down combat rules, I think the "art" people would be happy and the "combat" people less so.

I voted "yes" on art (allowing "art" to range widely over all sorts of pursuit of aesthetic value) and "no" on combat. But I don't want D&D with stripped-down combat rules. There are other games that do that. With 4e, I feel I've got reasonably narrativized D&D including crunchy combat rules. That's what I'm looking for in the game!

Could someone do a rough page count on the amount of clearly non-combat rules? Certainly skill challenges fall under that banner. And Rituals seem to be primarily non-combat, IIRC. What other aspects are clearly non-combat?

4e has skill rules that run for 40-odd pages in the Rules Compendium (300+ pages overall). Some of that pertains to combat. About half the warlock and wizard utility powers in the PHB are non-combat - I haven't looked at other classes, but would think they'd be a little less but not negligible on the non-combat front.

There's no doubt that 4e treats combat as a primary site of conflict resolution, and probably the primary site. Like I've said upthread, I don't think that this makes the game about combat. (Anymore than the large amount of fisticuffs in The X-Men makes that about fisticuffs.) It may be that I'm using a different notion of "aboutness".

Why you happen to be engaging in combat is pretty much irrelevant as far as the mechanics are concerned.

Well, this depends on a few things.

First, I thnk you're ignoring the significance, in 4e, of Quest XP, and also the DMG's discussion (and encouragement) of player-defined quests. These don't affect action resolution, but do affect XP awards.

Second, you seem to be assuming that encounter design/scene framing is not part of the mechanics. I think that that is up for grabs. It also seems to assume that a GM won't have regard to this in making decisions in the course of action resolution. I think that that is very much up for grabs. I think one major difference between combat in D&D and combat in a wargame or minis game is that reasons and motivation with a scope beyond the tactical matter D&D, but not in the war- or skirmish game.

If a GM plays all opponents in such a fashion that values, relationships, threats, promises, etc never make a difference, never influence the decisions that an NPC makes in battle - then, yes, I think the game has become about combat.

Third, I think that one feature of 4e is to build beliefs/goals/motivations into at least some class features. Divine casters, for example, have lots of radiant powers, and this is (in my view) not unrelated to their hostility to undead. Many paragon paths bring with them a certain thematic logic.

Of course, the game leaves it open to build a paladin of Ioun who enjoys consorting with liches because of their great knowledge, but I think that's a fairly marginal instance of PC building.

Overall - I don't agree that because a game lacks relationship/belief/goal mechancis of the HeroWars/Burning Wheel/TRoS kind, it becomes "about combat". (Which seemed to me to be what you're pushing towards.)

The longer I play RPG's, the less likely I am to decide that one system must fit all things.

Now this I agree with.

Unlike you, though, I don't feel that I have to push at all against 4e's rules to get it to do what I want. As I think I posted upthread, to get my game going all I had to do was to tell my players to build PCs (i) that are legal as per the PHB and the default setting therein, (ii) that have some sort of loyalty to someone/something, and (iii) that have a reason to be ready to fight goblins.

It hasn't got the mechanical bells and whistles of BW beliefs, but like I posted upthread I don't think those are essential to engaging players in the situation. And I think 4e has other features that are very good at doing this.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Unlike you, though, I don't feel that I have to push at all against 4e's rules to get it to do what I want.

That's exactly how I feel when I play D&D. I feel as if the rules support a fantasy genre story emerging, depending on the campaign, the choices the characters make, and the evolving nature of the setting. To that end, the rules support the fantasy genre, and I do not feel that I have to push against them one bit to get the fantasy genre feel. This is why I understand where Hussar is coming from, but I don't find his interpretation particularly compelling.

As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

Just a further thought.

The longer I play RPG's, the less likely I am to decide that one system must fit all things. I've really embraced the whole "right tool for the right job" mentality. This might explain why I look at D&D as a "combat" tool. It certainly is combat shaped and has all the right bits and bobs to do that. I don't really look at it as a "explore theme" tool because, well, it doesn't have those bits and bobs.

I tried for years to run a decent naval campaign using the 3e ruleset. I couldn't make it work very well and I've come to realize why - the magic system REALLY gets in the way, the skill system isn't built for naval campaigns and the basic unit of play in D&D - the individual - doesn't work well when you need to control dozens, if not a couple of hundred individuals at the same time.

Try running a naval combat in 3e between two largish ships with a crew of 50 apiece and watch what happens. You think 4e combat is grindy. Heh, you ain't seen NOTHING.

So, if I were to try to run another fantasy naval campaign, it wouldn't be with d20. I'd likely move over to something like Corsair or there are a few other games that catch my interest. OTOH, if I wanted to run a game of fairy tale fantasy, where the characters act like fairy tale characters, again, D&D is the last system I'd choose. I'd use Seven Leagues, a fantasy roleplaying game of Faerie by Hieronymous which is a great game.

So, to me, system very much matters in whatever kind of game I want to run. If I wanted to do Arthurian fantasy, again, there are a horde of great systems out there that fit that model so much better than D&D does.

I can understand that there are some games that do some things better than other games. System does matter.

However, I've also come to the conclusion as I've played over the years, that I can make many systems do most of what I want them to do to the point that I can use a system reasonably common and well known to my players. If I wanted to play a naval game in PF, I'm pretty sure I could do that without having to shift to a new RPG. I might seek one out and pillage it for ideas, but I don't think I'd have to get my players learning a new game to do it.

 

[Mark CMG]

4e has skill rules that run for 40-odd pages in the Rules Compendium (300+ pages overall). Some of that pertains to combat. About half the warlock and wizard utility powers in the PHB are non-combat - I haven't looked at other classes, but would think they'd be a little less but not negligible on the non-combat front.

Thanks.

There's no doubt that 4e treats combat as a primary site of conflict resolution, and probably the primary site. Like I've said upthread, I don't think that this makes the game about combat. (Anymore than the large amount of fisticuffs in The X-Men makes that about fisticuffs.) It may be that I'm using a different notion of "aboutness".

Coming at this the other way around . . . I think we can agree that X-Men is written, and shows itself clearly, to be "about" something other than combat. It is clear about that even during combat. It's a clunky example, and from a different medium (several), but its "aboutness" would never be questioned as possibly "about combat." The ways in which X-Men is not "about combat" do not translate for me to D&D (any edition). I'm keen to be convinced by something other than how any individual game is played (or I could already use my own as an example) but so far I am not seeing the light. And I want to see the light. Show me the light!

 

[pemerton]

I'm keen to be convinced by something other than how any individual game is played (or I could already use my own as an example) but so far I am not seeing the light. And I want to see the light. Show me the light!

For AD&D - the last few pages of Gygax's PHB, which talk about how to play as a "skilled player". Don't these show that the game (as written, or at least as intended by Gygax to be played) is about successful dungeon exploration and looting?

For 4e, it starts with the discussion in the DMG on quests - how a GM designs quests, the importance of player-initiated quests, etc. Here're some sample passages, from pages 102-3:

Quests are the fundamental story framework of an adventure - the reason the characters want to participate in it. They’re the reason an adventure exists, and they indicate what the characters need to do to solve the situation the adventure presents. . .

Quests should focus on the story reasons for adventuring, not on the underlying basic actions of the game - killing monsters and acquiring treasure. "Defeat ten encounters of your level" isn’t a quest. It's a recipe for advancing a level. Completing it is its own reward. "Make Harrows Pass safe for travelers" is a quest, even if the easiest way to accomplish it happens to be defeating ten encounters of the characters' level. This quest is a story-based goal, and one that has at least the possibility of solution by other means.​

I'll agree that that's not quite Burning Wheel, but I see 4e as a little "abashed" in its presentation of what the designers' seem to have had in mind.

This on page 103 of the DMG helps build up the picture, though:

You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​

And I think the intention is further suggested by this, from page 258 of the PHB:

Most adventures have a goal, something you have to do to complete the adventure successfully. The goal might be a personal one, a cause shared by you and your
allies, or a task you have been hired to perform. A goal in an adventure is called a quest.

Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . .

You can also, with your DM's approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character's background. . . Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign's unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.

When you complete quests, you earn rewards, including experience points, treasure, and possibly other kinds of rewards.​

The DMG, on page 122, suggests what these other kinds of rewards might be:

[Q]uests can also have less concrete rewards. Perhaps someone owes them a favor, they’ve earned the respect of an organization that might give them future quests, or they’ve established a contact who can provide them with important information or access.​

There is also this, on pages 18 and 24 of the PHB:

The Dungeons & Dragons game is, first and foremost, a roleplaying game, which means that it’s all about taking on the role of a character in the game. . .

Your character’s background often stays there - in the background. What’s most important about your character is what you do in the course of your adventures, not what happened to you in the past. Even so, thinking about your birthplace, family, and upbringing can help you decide how to play your character.​

How this stuff about character design is meant to fit into the stuff on quests isn't made entirely clear - again, we're not looking at Burning Wheel here - but the picture I get is that the designers envisage PCs who have a place in the fiction - of which backstory is an element but not the most important element - and that the players and GM work together to conceive of quests (ie adventures) that build on and develop this place in the fiction. (That is what the "other kinds of rewards" seem to be about.)

Combat is a means to this end - part of the "recipe for advancing a level" - but isn't what the game is presented as being about, at least in these passages.

Now, the many words that have been exchanged in relation to 4e over the past few years have left me with the sense that there are two main responses to this text in the 4e rulebooks. One response is mine - to take it at face value, to see it as an attempt to gesture at the sort of play that games like Burning Wheel spell out much more explicitly (and have extra bells and whistles to facilitate). This response requires, at a minimum, reading 4e as its own game, and not through the prism of past editions (which aimed at different approaches to play - this is particularly evident for Gygaxian AD&D).

The other response, which I have seen a lot on these boards, is to more-or-less discount this rules text, and to point instead to the rules for combat, the rules for maps and tokens/miniatures, etc, and also to the modules (which do not at all implement this advice on scenario and character design, any more than they generally implement the advice on tactical encounter design), as showing what the game is really about.

I think it is a reason in favour of my reading that it interprets and presents the game as a strong, functional, modern RPG, which is admittedly not well-suited to Gygaxian play, but is nevertheless pretty well suited to a widely-recognised and well-known approach to RPGing. Whereas the other reading presents the game as a tactical skirmish game passing itself off as an RPG. (And 4e, with its many non-simulationist mechanics, is particularly vulnerable to being presented and played this way, because its lack of simulationism makes it much easier to drift its action resolution in a direction where the fiction doesn't matter.)

I think that's the best I can do at showing anyone the light!

 

[Mark CMG]

I think it is a reason in favour of my reading that it interprets and presents the game as a strong, functional, modern RPG, which is admittedly not well-suited to Gygaxian play, but is nevertheless pretty well suited to a widely-recognised and well-known approach to RPGing. Whereas the other reading presents the game as a tactical skirmish game passing itself off as an RPG. (And 4e, with its many non-simulationist mechanics, is particularly vulnerable to being presented and played this way, because its lack of simulationism makes it much easier to drift its action resolution in a direction where the fiction doesn't matter.)

I think that's the best I can do at showing anyone the light!

It's a good effort and I thank you for the trouble it took to put together. I think you are right that both views seemed to be supported to some degree. I also think that an RPG, in this day and age when so many other tabletop game types are available, needs to put a lot of effort into making sure the game is delineated from other types of gaming. It needs to represent well its type of game, and as fully as it can, especially if it is going to share a lot of common ground with other game types.

I won't pass judgment but I do see at least a glimmer of the light you see and present in your examples. Thank you!

 

[pemerton]

both views seemed to be supported to some degree.

Agreed.

I also think that an RPG, in this day and age when so many other tabletop game types are available, needs to put a lot of effort into making sure the game is delineated from other types of gaming. It needs to represent well its type of game, and as fully as it can, especially if it is going to share a lot of common ground with other game types.

I agree very much with this. And I think this element of presentation is a huge weakness in 4e.

I think that if you come to 4e from prior editions of D&D, it doesn't do a very good job of explaining how it differs in its approach and expectations from those prior editions.

And I think that if you come to 4e fresh, it doesn't do a good enough job of explaining how it is to be played (having to cobble together a picture of that from pages X and Y in this book, and pages Z and Q in this other book, isn't good enough).

I find the contrast with rulebooks for other "modern" RPGs - like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling/Story Engine - is pretty marked. I think maybe it's because D&D still has this notion that it can be all things to all people. Which, at least in the case of 4e, I think is just not true. (And personally I don't think it's true for AD&D either - there's a reason people jumped ship for RQ, RM, C&S etc.)

 

[Mark CMG]

I find the contrast with rulebooks for other "modern" RPGs - like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling/Story Engine - is pretty marked. I think maybe it's because D&D still has this notion that it can be all things to all people. Which, at least in the case of 4e, I think is just not true. (And personally I don't think it's true for AD&D either - there's a reason people jumped ship for RQ, RM, C&S etc.)

I think you have a great handle on things. Perhaps Mike Mearls should hire you as a consultant. Thanks again for your patience and explanations. You really go the extra mile, and that mileage doesn't vary for the worse, only the better.

 

[Jhaelen]

I find the contrast with rulebooks for other "modern" RPGs - like Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling/Story Engine - is pretty marked. I think maybe it's because D&D still has this notion that it can be all things to all people. Which, at least in the case of 4e, I think is just not true. (And personally I don't think it's true for AD&D either - there's a reason people jumped ship for RQ, RM, C&S etc.)

Yup. D&D is not the 'swiss-army-knife' of rpgs and never was.