Is D&D "about" combat?

[His Dudeness]

Well, I'll simply restate my point and leave it at that.

In any version of D&D, my 3rd level cleric meets an orc. He kills said orc, bashing in its brains with a mace. Again, in any version of D&D, from OD&D onwards, the DM can tell me my game mechanical reward for my actions in a very short period of time. I killed the orc, I get X xp. I might get some extra xp if the orc had change in its pockets, or I might not.

However, again in any version of D&D, if my 3rd level cleric meets an orc and, through brilliant oratory and skill, manages to convert that orc to the faith of my cleric, the rules are pretty much silent on what my reward is. Beyond some fairly handwavy rewards of "whatever your DM thinks is appropriate".

Now, I would think, if D&D wasn't about combat, that doing the most logical thing for a cleric to do - convert the heathen - would garner me mechanical rewards. But, instead, I'm rewarded for killing the orc only.

Never mind that there are a bajillion rules for me to kill that orc with and virtually none to convert that orc to my faith.

To me, saying D&D is about combat is akin to saying "rain is wet". It's so obvious on the face of it, that I find it staggering that it's even a point of contention. But, then again, I'm very much in the minority here, looking at the poll. Which, funnily enough, is almost the exact opposite of the poll Is D&D Art.

Funny old world.

Read the 2e DMG. The reward for converting someone to your faith is XP and of course a new orc lackey.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As long as I have been playing, D&D has been about whatever we wanted it to be at a given time. Even within a single campaign the focus of play may shift many times.

At the start the game could be about the struggle to survive and aquire fame and fortune. As things progress the focus could shift to heroic deeds which transform the PCs from merely famous heroes to legends. Later still, the focus of the game could become one of aquiring lands and titles, managing populations and learning how to survive politically.

At any of these major focus points, the actual play could involve lots of combat or very little depending on what the players want.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I think this is pretty much my point.

In any version of D&D, I could run a mindless dungeon crawl campaign, right out of the box. The party goes from the town, to the dungeon, kills stuff, takes its treasure, comes back to town to rest, gets xp, and then wash, rinse repeat.

Every version of D&D will do that. Heck, if you read the Moldvay Basic D&D book, that pretty much describes exactly how D&D is played. Granted, things do get expanded somewhat in the Companion rules, but the Expert rules don't actually go that much further beyond Basic.

However, to run a naval based campaign takes a great deal of work. There are all sorts of issues to deal with where I have to fold, spindle and maul the system to fit what I want it to do.

Granted, I can do that. Sure, but, since I have to change the system to fit X, and don't have to change the system to fit Y, doesn't that make the game much more about Y?

Read the 2e DMG. The reward for converting someone to your faith is XP and of course a new orc lackey.

For those of us who gave up our 2e books many years ago, could you do me a favour and type out the mechanics?

 

[billd91]

I think this is pretty much my point.

In any version of D&D, I could run a mindless dungeon crawl campaign, right out of the box. The party goes from the town, to the dungeon, kills stuff, takes its treasure, comes back to town to rest, gets xp, and then wash, rinse repeat.

<Snip>

However, to run a naval based campaign takes a great deal of work. There are all sorts of issues to deal with where I have to fold, spindle and maul the system to fit what I want it to do.

Granted, I can do that. Sure, but, since I have to change the system to fit X, and don't have to change the system to fit Y, doesn't that make the game much more about Y?

No, I'm pretty sure my point is that I don't actually feel I need to fold, spindle, or maul the system to get it to do most of what I want it to do. Maybe add a mini sub system or wing a little bit, but I don't sweat that too much. Gives me stuff to think about while mowing the lawn.

 

[pemerton]

In any version of D&D, I could run a mindless dungeon crawl campaign, right out of the box. The party goes from the town, to the dungeon, kills stuff, takes its treasure, comes back to town to rest, gets xp, and then wash, rinse repeat.

Every version of D&D will do that.

The only other RPG that I can think of that will do this like D&D is Tunnels and Trolls.

Other classic fantasy RPGs, like RM or RQ, won't support this sort of play because (i) they don't provide enough monsters and loot out of the box, and (ii) their grittier combat and injury mechanics get in the way. (I don't have enough experience with Fantasy Hero, GURPS or C&S to comment on them, but suspect that they are closer to RM/RQ than D&D/T&T in this respect.)

If this is what you have in mind when you say that D&D is about combat, then it certainly makes it clearer to me where you're coming from. (Though I can see that those who are into classic D&D might want to say it's about exploration, rather than combat. But in light of your overall point - if I'm getting you right - I think that would merely be quibbling.)

 

[Hussar]

Pem - I think that's pretty much my point.

D&D, out of the box will support this style of play. No other game does. I'm not saying other games are about combat. I am saying that D&D is. And, this is the basic reason why I say it is - it will do it right out of the box.

Move away from D&D for a second. If I want to do a fairly hard SF exploration game, I'd use Traveller or GURPS Space. If I wanted to do more space opera, planet adventures, I'd use Star Frontiers or possibly one of the Star Wars RPG's.

That's not saying I can't do space opera in GURPS. I can. But, doing space opera in GURPS gives me something a lot closer to A. C. Clark's Rama novels or Stephen Baxter's novels than, say, Flash Gordon. If I want to do a high action Planet Story using GURPS Space, I've got my work cut out for me. It's possible, but not out of the box.

Which brings me around to D&D. Out of the box, D&D will do a tactical combat game. Which makes a lot of sense given its wargame roots. You control your unit (now just an individual) and make an assault on the target.

OTOH, going back to the naval example, despite Bill91's claims, it's not an easy thing. Particulary in 3e. For one, the 5 foot scale of combat and 6 second rounds don't work for ship to ship combat where you generally start combats out at a range of several hundred feet, your ships are generally 50-100 feet long and it can take quite literally hours to close within boarding distance. Never mind trying to use the 3e combat system to run combat between about 100 combatants, 50 to a side.

I hope you have a spare week.

Now, AD&D is a bit better in this regard because of the scales involved. But, again, running combat for 100 combatants really strains the D&D system. If I was going to do another naval campaign, I'd use Savage Worlds, since SW has a really nice combat system that scales up to this size of combat. Plus, I don't have to strip out the magic system which makes running a campaign like this so difficult.

It's easy enough to be blase about how much work it is to change the D&D system. If you can make it work for you that easily, then great. I certainly couldn't and I tried every d20 naval campaign rules out there plus my own.

 

[billd91]

OTOH, going back to the naval example, despite Bill91's claims, it's not an easy thing. Particulary in 3e. For one, the 5 foot scale of combat and 6 second rounds don't work for ship to ship combat where you generally start combats out at a range of several hundred feet, your ships are generally 50-100 feet long and it can take quite literally hours to close within boarding distance. Never mind trying to use the 3e combat system to run combat between about 100 combatants, 50 to a side.

I hope you have a spare week.

I suspect that your tendency to see D&D as a tactical combat game may be limiting your ability to use it in this context. You certainly can engage in combat at ranges of several hundred feet... If you have the weapons to do it. And you can pace the combat that comes up so that it doesn't take hours to play out.

 

[Hussar]

I suspect that your tendency to see D&D as a tactical combat game may be limiting your ability to use it in this context. You certainly can engage in combat at ranges of several hundred feet... If you have the weapons to do it. And you can pace the combat that comes up so that it doesn't take hours to play out.

Yes, thank you, I do realize that.

Look, ship to ship combat right? That means ballistae and catapults. Heck, even a heavy crossbow has a range of what 1500 feet? So, yes, you're engaging in combats at several hundred feet away.

Now, plot that on a battle map. Include sandbars and possibly more than one ship.

Now, each ship has two ballista and one catapult with crews for each. They also have a dozen or two dozen guys with bows. That's a couple of dozen attacks to resolve EVERY ROUND. Never minding spells and other effects.

3e combat is set for a FIVE FOOT scale. And a six second round. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done. I KNOW it can be done. I KNOW you can change the rules to get it done. I KNOW this because I spent a number of years actually DOING it and not just blowing wind on some message board claiming how easy it is.

If it was as easy as you claim, then why are there more than half a dozen different d20 rulesets for doing it? You'd think something so basic and simple would be covered very easily and quickly.

Hey, like I said, if you can do this quickly and easily and parse the ruleset down to something that runs in less than four hours, let's see it. I tried for years and couldn't do it and apparently no one else could either.

Gimme a break here. It has nothing to do with seeing the game as a "tactical combat" game and everything with trying to do a particular kind of campaign justice. I mean, heck, even WOTC threw up their hands on this. Their answer to naval combat was to run it cinematically and hand wave the whole thing. There's a reason that there is a grand total of ONE ship to ship combat in 12 adventures of the Savage Tide AP.

The ruleset really, really doesn't support company level (100 ish combatants) combat.

 

[pemerton]

OTOH, going back to the naval example, despite Bill91's claims, it's not an easy thing.

The ruleset really, really doesn't support company level (100 ish combatants) combat.

Rolemaster is not very good for this either.

I have the 3E Heroes of Battle book, and at one stage had plans to use it in a Rolemaster scenario (feeding in elements of Rolemaster's War Law mass combat "system", which works by scaling up - there's a whole new suite of attack charts!), but the campaign took a different turn and it never came up.

In 4e I'd handle this as a skill challenge - meaning that, from the point of view of play, it wouldn't be a combat encounter at all. The idea of "scaling up" the combat mechanics would make even less sense for 4e than for 3E or Rolemaster.

I know of Savage Worlds but don't know it - it's interesting that it can scale up in this way easily. HeroWars/Quest does also.

Chris Perkins (from WotC) is currently running a 4e naval game, according to his column on the website. I wonder how he handles it.

 

[billd91]

Now, plot that on a battle map. Include sandbars and possibly more than one ship.

Now, each ship has two ballista and one catapult with crews for each. They also have a dozen or two dozen guys with bows. That's a couple of dozen attacks to resolve EVERY ROUND. Never minding spells and other effects.

3e combat is set for a FIVE FOOT scale. And a six second round. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done. I KNOW it can be done. I KNOW you can change the rules to get it done. I KNOW this because I spent a number of years actually DOING it and not just blowing wind on some message board claiming how easy it is.

The scale of the combat is probably the least difficult problem posted by ship to ship fighting. If you felt the need to plot it on a grid at all, a couple of different maps or bits of graph paper on different scales is all that's necessary.

If it was as easy as you claim, then why are there more than half a dozen different d20 rulesets for doing it? You'd think something so basic and simple would be covered very easily and quickly.

Hey, like I said, if you can do this quickly and easily and parse the ruleset down to something that runs in less than four hours, let's see it. I tried for years and couldn't do it and apparently no one else could either.

If there are at least half a dozen different d20 rulesets for doing, that rather tells me that not only is "no one else could either" is wrong, it's wrong at least by a factor of 6. Clearly, if it could be done in d20, it could be done in D&D.
As far as devising it quickly - that's why I read other games and borrow ideas from them. Doesn't mean I'm not still playing D&D, though. In fact, it strikes me as one of the great benefits and points to the OGL - the ability for 3rd party producers to generate more detailed subsystems for things that can be used for the main game.

Gimme a break here. It has nothing to do with seeing the game as a "tactical combat" game and everything with trying to do a particular kind of campaign justice. I mean, heck, even WOTC threw up their hands on this. Their answer to naval combat was to run it cinematically and hand wave the whole thing. There's a reason that there is a grand total of ONE ship to ship combat in 12 adventures of the Savage Tide AP.

And what's wrong with doing it cinematically if that's the way you choose to do it? How is that not doing a naval campaign justice? There are innumerable ways to do that, some of which, but not all, may require the addition of more and more rule subsystems. But like I said, you seem to be viewing the game as an issue of playing tactically on a gameboard and that's going to color your perceptions of the possible.

The problem here is you wanted a particular kind of structure to the naval rules and I agree that, for particular desires, different systems do different things with different results. It's one of the reasons I prefer BRP Call of Cthulhu to d20 Call of Cthulhu. But I certainly believe I can do justice to a naval-style campaign that would satisfy my players with D&D. I know my players and I know the D&D rules.