Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

[reapersaurus]

From the rogue/ sneak attack thread, it just slapped me in the face how combat is incredibly over-valued in the rulebooks. I firmly believe (and would like to see you're guys' experiences) that D&D is not played in the dungeons that much anymore - it's played with skills MUCH more than in combat.

1) The rogue getting a ridiculous # of skill points, AND numbers of skills available to him which noone else can hold a candle to.
Meanwhile, he HAS to get a viable sneak attack that comes close to the damage potential a fighter gets, otherwise, D&D is being too tough on the rogue.
Wah.
I don't see too much sympathy coming to all the other classes that can't even touch the rogue in the arena where (I'd wager) 90% of rolls and stuff goes on in today's game : SOCIAL INTERACTION.

2) The half-orc getting double penalized for his STR bump-up... and then getting slapped with almost no racial benefits compared to all other races (except perhaps half-elves)... and now after 3 years of people pointing out the problem, Wizards is trying to pawn off on all of us that it is a "very strong" class?
To do what? Smash their clubs against brutes? Yah, that's all that D&D is about nowadays : NOT!

I wish Wizards would get in step with what the 21st century is doing with roleplaying.... you know, ROLEPLAYING?!
It's not even close to "all about the combat" anymore.
Hell, most of the time I hear people bemoaning the fact that they had to spend an hour on a pivotal fight during the game session.

So what would YOU guys say is more important in your game : combat prowess, or social interaction/skill prowess?

I think I'll make this my first poll...
Please don't choose the "they're equal" option unless they are EXACTLY equal for you... seriously.
If there is even a slightest preference, please choose the one.

 

[hong]

In the last two sessions of my Britannia 3E game, my 6th-8th level group has slaughtered:

- 10 ankhegs
- 1 advanced ankheg (the queen)
- 3 wyverns
- 6 worgs
- approx. 60 generic orcs (1st-2nd level)
- 3 orc barbarians (3rd level)
- 2 orc shamans (4th and 6th level)
- 1 orc rogue
- 2 orc sorcerers (6th and 8th level)
- 1 orc fighter/barb (8th level)
- 1 human black knight (7th level) on a fiendish warhorse

That's not counting the mob of villagers they put to flight, or a bar brawl they were in.

They've ALSO made at least two dozen Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate skill checks in that time, conversed with dozens of NPCs, negotiated with the lord of a remote village, stared down the leader of said mob, and interrogated an ex-blood mage. But I think it's fairly clear that the game tends to focus on combat, and lots of it.


Hong "hack 'n slash DM" Ooi

 

[Capellan]

The current game I DM is quite combat-heavy. That's a function of a lot of factors (rotating player groups, novice players, pre-packaged adventures being used), and I expect to see non-combat situations become more common as time progresses, but combat will always be an important part of the game (unlike 2E, where I generally had no more than one significant combat per session, I and my players actually enjoy 3E combat).

In the games I'm a player for, one is heavily combat oriented, because it uses 'classic' modules; the other two are less combat focussed, but I would still say it was a big chunk of the game.

 

[trancejeremy]

Hrrrmph. The thread title gave me visions of Lidda with an afro and Krusk in a leisure suit.

What a let down!

 

[Gez]

I said they were absolutely, rigourously, scientifically, totally wholly equal, because you have no option for "I don't really care, and have never paid attention".

We do roll more for combat, though.

 

[pogre]

Hack, hack, hack!

Social interaction -
PC: Where can we hack?
NPC: Over there.
PC: thanks...

Hack, hack, hack!

ummm, there's a lot of combat in my game. Only recently I ran a scenario that was mostly roleplaying. My players enjoyed it, but made it clear it was a nice change of pace. Not something they wanted to see as the norm.

 

[Thresher]

The fact that the game is moving towards a more 'minature' oriented combat system I dislike greatly.
For me, minatures where always part of a tabletop wargame and dont get me wrong, I like minatures Ive got hundreds of the bastards but roleplaying games seem to be slightly more constrictive if youre using them and tend to dull the imaginative side of combat and interaction in general.
I would much rather be reliant on a good description of what people are doing, what they look like and what they are saying, then imagine in my own mind what it would be like.
Sticking a chunk of pewter, lead and plastic down on a map just isnt the same for me.

But I guess minatures are just another way of making a buck for someone at the end of the day.

 

[Samnell]

I firmly believe (and would like to see you're guys' experiences) that D&D is not played in the dungeons that much anymore - it's played with skills MUCH more than in combat.

Skills are combat. Combat is skills. The two are only trivially different.

 

[tleilaxu]

ehm... i'll say you're projecting, then i'll go away...

 

[reapersaurus]

Keep in mind, I'm 33, and mostly game with couples - men and *gasp* women.

So by 10 minutes into a combat, the ladies are getting restless, on the whole, and would rather go back to journeying and citytalk.