Gotcha. It makes sense that you would find this message disappointing. Like you, I spend most of my game time out of combat. Like you, I'll be pretty disappointed if "optional = not important" is the tack they take.
Maybe I need to go back and re-read the article, but that's certainly not what I took away from it. What I took away was more like: "we will definitely not crap all over somebody's play style by putting 1e/3e/2e/4e-style exploration rules in core. Instead, we will put these rules in optional modules. Where they effing belonged in the first place." Which makes me happy because it tells me that they actually are listening and they understand that most of us just flat out have no interest in playing the game the same way.
IMO 2e had a lot of clumsy mechanics, but liberal application of the "optional" tag was one thing it got right.
Here's hoping you're right. If that's what they're going for, awesome. And it could well be what they're going for. Maybe we'll get another update clarifying this in another post from Mr. Mearls. As always, play what you like
I seriously can't see where "Outside of the basic mechanics for stuff like moving, combat, and casting spells, we're assuming that everything else is optional," means anything like "Focus on combat". Moving, combat, and casting spells are going to be part of everyone's D&D. Not everyone wants skills. Not everyone wants grungy dungeon exploration rules. Not everyone wants social interaction mechanics. They're not saying the game won't have those things! They're saying they'll be there only for the people who want them.
Well, it's more of "focus on Combat, Magic, and Movement" than "focus on Combat."
And you're right, not everyone wants skills. But I've played D&D games without magic, too. And, yeah, to me, it was still D&D. I've cut combat down to once every 10 or so hours of real time, and I don't use old school 10 minute turns or the like for movement (though I do use base speed, encumbrance, and some other stuff).
My point, basically, is, if things like skills can be considered optional, why can't combat? No trap-only dungeons? No court-only intrigue? No coin flip and move on? What about movement? Not everyone even tracks time. You can't have a DM just say "it takes you three days to get there" or "if you wanted to cross the room and run around the pond, it'll take your full turn"? You can't have No Magic campaigns?
If all of those are opt-out to one degree or another, why aren't skills? And if they are, why aren't they listed alongside of "Combat, Magic, and Movement"? That's what I'm getting at. I'm not sure why these three are separated from the rest when people can still certainly remove them from their game (like I did in my No Magic campaign). As always, play what you like
Yup. Exactly. Some people seem to think that if what is described isn't exactly how they play the game, then ipso facto no effort is going into making the game possibly be able to do it.
Well, I don't think that "no effort is going into making the game possibly be able to do it" in the other areas. But I do get the sinking feeling that they just showed their priorities in "Combat, Magic, and Movement." And, like I said, they didn't come out and say nothing else will be the default setting, either; for all I know, a basic skill system could be the default setting, and there's a dial to go
down rather than
up. Essentially, these things could be opt-out rather than opt-in; that'd make me feel better. Mind you, I'm okay with opt-out rules, but I sincerely hope that they present the default game as more than just "Combat, Magic, and Movement", for new players, if nothing else. As always, play what you like
Exploration has always been my favourite pillar of the game! And I definitely spend most of my time out of combat... but all the article is saying is that not everyone needs rules for that.
By the definition I'd use for "rules for exploration", this is true on some stuff, and not on others. I'll go into that below.
Just think about it: it is possible to run the whole exploration phase without rolling a dice, and base all the outcome simply on player's input. For example, instead of rolling dice to finding traps, you require the Rogue's player to tell the DM where is she looking for traps, how is she prodding the ground, what precautions is she taking while scouting... once a trap is found, you use descriptions to present the situation and you require descriptions from the player to decide if she handles the trap successfully. It is not easy (I wouldn't be able to do this entirely without rules) but it's not impossible either. Eventually, ability checks will still be there to help the DM.
Ability checks are rules that you're using (even if you're winging it). And you could run the game with "well, you were standing about two feet away from the edge when the pit trap opened... you fall in and hurt your leg, and are stuck at the bottom." I mean, it's possible. But by that token, couldn't you run combat that way, based on their description? I consider things like traps an area that need rules; maybe not to find, but almost certainly once they go off, or attempt to damage a creature.
It's more difficult than the interaction pillar for sure, which is also an area of the game that has been played by a lot of groups without rules and without dice.
This is the pillar that I understand is most commonly free form out of the three (not that it's necessarily more common than having rules, but more common than free form combat or exploration). I can see this to a certain extent, but I imagine most groups use
something when they use this pillar; if not skills, then reaction rolls or Charisma checks. Why not have a basic system you can opt-out of? Wouldn't that be easy? How is this different from Movement rules?
Combat... well I can't say for sure, maybe combat also is not impossible to run without rules, but certainly it would be the most difficult. Also, while there are (or have been in past editions) groups playing D&D without exploration rules or without interaction rules, there probably haven't been groups playing D&D without combat rules.
Unless you don't feature combat in your game, I basically agree with you (and that would be a very rare sight indeed).
Basically, I think that wherever they set their default settings at, it's saying "this is what we think is part of the basic game experience" to new players. That's why I'm hoping stuff like basic skills as a default setting, but I definitely support a clear, easy opt-out dial. But I want the default game to say "beyond Combat, Magic, and Movement, we value all these things as well, during gameplay." Do people get more where I'm coming from? As always, play what you like
