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

[reapersaurus]

It's nice to see people posit a theory, look for evidence, discover evidence that COMPLETELY DISPROVES their theory, and continue to insist their theory is true. It amuses me.

It amuses me that you believe that a flawed poll, dependant on the phrasing of the poll creator, influenced by the pollee's reading, and controlled by whimsical clicks can COMPLETELY DISPROVE any opinion.

It's quite simple, barsoom - I've listened to people for over 2 years here, and I don't believe that the majority of mature gamers consider combat to be the main reason why they play roleplaying games.

It's my opinion, and this poll was an afterthought - it doesn't even come close to typifying the true feelings of the ENBoard community, much less the vast thousands that don't even know or care that this place exists.

 

[blackshirt5]

then if you don't care about the responses to your poll, WHY did you post it?

 

[reapersaurus]

blackshirt5 - curiousity.

BTW - I see I've mistakenly phrased my area of concern to be "non-combat skills".

Actually, the rogue is dominant in many combat-related skills (and there are even skills that can be directly used in combat), so I'll rephrase my problem with D&D:

It overvalues BAB, STR bonuses, feats, and HD, while undervaluing the skills component they introduced in 3E.

 

[barsoomcore]

It's my opinion, and this poll was an afterthought.

Hey, I'm all about posting opinions. And I'm sure that if your afterthought of a poll had supported your thesis, you'd be just as dismissive.

Have you in fact got any evidence to suggest that most gamers nowadays favour social interaction over combat?

Sorry, you said "mature" gamers. I guess that will let you reduce the sample selection to "gamers who agree with me". Or does "mature" indicate something other than that? Cause from where I'm standing, what you're saying looks like "Gamers who don't prefer combat don't prefer combat." Which, while true, is hardly much of an addition to the sum of human knowledge.

Oh, sorry. You're also intimating (with terms like "mature") that gamers who don't prefer combat are better. "Mature" being opposed by, let us say, "juvenile", "immature" or "childish" -- none of which are whole-heartedly complimentary.

It seems to me that what you're really looking for is reassurance that your style of play is better. More mature. More sophisticated. More appealing to women. More rebellious (in that "not supported by the Man" kind of way). Better.

It is. It really is.

 

[Spatula]

1) I can't imagine how anyone with a straight face could stand by the statement, "Women prefer combat over roleplay."

Sorry. I'll never agree with that generalization.

But your gross generalization that women, as a group, prefer roleplaying over combat is fine?

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.

Your 90% is way off base for the vast majority of games, I think.

 

[Celebrim]

The 'social' skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate) are broad enough to cover all 'non-combat/roleplaying' situations.

Since the remaining stats/skills/systems are generally used for combat, I'd say that D&D is primarily a combat oriented game.

Well, I'll even disagree with that as a premise.

First, you missed several of the social skills: Animal Empathy (hey, it's limited but it's social and charisma based), Gather Information, Innuendo, Perform, and Speak Language. That brings the total number of primarily social skills to nine.

Of the remaining skills, none are directly combat skills and only a few have real use in combat. The ones that are directly combat skills are Balance, Bluff, Concentration, Escape Artist, Heal, Ride, Spellcraft, Tumble and (in some cases) Use Magic Device. That brings the total of skills likely to be rolled in a combat round to nine, and some of those (like balance, bluff, ride and use magic device) are very dual purpose.

The remaining skills are 'life skills': alchemy, appraise, climb, craft, decipher script, disable device, disguise, forgery, handle animal, hide, intuit direction, jump, knowledge, listen, move silently, open lock, pick pocket, profession, read lips, scry, search, spot, swim, use rope, and wilderness lore. None of those are what you would call combat skills, useful though they may be. Even if we count move silently, spot, listen, and hide as combat skills, we are still left with more non-combat skills than combat skills.

So just counting skills, D&D is not primarily a combat game. D&D becomes a combat game because that is what people expect and that is what both DM's and players prepare for; but, that doesn't mean that is all that people want or expect.

 

[Desdichado]

And props to JD for packing so much tedium into such a brief post! Cheers mate! Well done!

I was hoping someone would notice!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

isn't that how you play this game? pretend to be a character.

that's how i play. and i have fun doing it. i wouldn't play if i didn't.

So do I. Looks like we're in agreement.

EDIT: Hey, I never said there was anything wrong with playing "let's pretend." I'm a filmmaker, remember.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that there's been a mistake made here:

The half-orc's penalties and bonuses are balanced in the way they are because the RULES for non combat are less important than the RULES for combat.

(Actually, replace "combat" and "non combat" with "physical" and "non physical" - strength also affects jumping, lifting, swimming etc.)

That's not to say that the style of the game is weighted one way or the other, just that while, for instance, a trap can be negotiated in at least a dozen different ways (just avoiding it, disarming it, sending some bait in to trigger it, nullifying it in some other creative way which will be largely dice-free, etc etc), a man with a knife and a grudge is pretty much relegated to fight or flee. Furthermore, even if a non-stat based solution is arrived at (ie - a cunning plan), chances are that some element of it will STILL be physical - something will need to be moved, broken, jumped across etc.

Social interaction is one possible solution to SOME problems. Physical interaction is likely to be a possible solution to ALMOST ANY problem, unless we're talking about a highly contrived situation where the players have no real choice as to their method of resolution (ie - the 'real roleplayer' analogue of enemies that refuse to negotiate under any circumstances). Typically even this solution is backed up by some physical force (no, you can't kill or torture the king. He's got lots of guards. They're all strong and healthy).

So the half-orc's shortcomings can be avoided (sneaking about, beating the right people up and in general seeking physical solutions to problems), while his bonuses are likely to apply with minimal choice - ie they will usually apply in some way.

Whereas the race with a +2 bonus to charisma will ALWAYS find situations which he won't be able to turn to his advantage, on a regular basis. He can't negotiate with the sucking chest wound from that ambush. He can't always talk the door open. He can't always get the henchman to hand over the info, even if he does move his reaction up to helpful.

If he's got a strength penalty, then he'll find himself in many situations where that has an effect. He can't climb into the boudoir. He can't leap to safety. He can't kick in the door to make an impressive entrance. In fact the only situation where he IS going to avoid being disadvantaged is that exact same contrived situation that punishes those with anything other than social skills.

And a game which has those sorts of contrived situations on a regular basis is:
a) Severely lacking in verisimilitude.
b) Really boring for almost any player - I'd wager even pure RPers would get bored when the answer to every single problem is "go talk to someone".

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think that there's been a mistake made here:

The half-orc's penalties and bonuses are balanced in the way they are because the RULES for non combat are less important than the RULES for combat.

(Actually, replace "combat" and "non combat" with "physical" and "non physical" - strength also affects jumping, lifting, swimming etc.)

Yep, exactly. I mean, we can roleplay a lot of stuff on our own, right in the room we're playing, but we can't really physically duke it out for every game combat. What roleplaying rules there are help in specific situations, and help define how the character should be played - much as a script provides clues and notes asto what a movie character is like.

3e/d20 certainly isn't new in regards to having rp rules, of course; for my money, Pendragon had some of the coolest rp rules ever made for a game, going on 20 years or more now.