D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

[the Jester]

I'll give you Lost City becuase that one is definitely an outlier in the list. If you actually go through most of your list though, at least, and this is conservative, at least 50% of the encounters are combat.

Depending on how they are approached, they certainly can be- but equally, they can usually be dealt with through stealth, deception, diplomacy or trickery.

Parlay is explicitly called out as an option for encounters in the 1e DMG and, IIRC (though I wouldn't swear to it), the early Basic sets. There are rules for reactions. Heck, one of the Basic Sets has an example of play where the pcs try to talk their way past some goblins.

I'm not saying combat isn't a huge part of the game. I'm saying that there are plenty of groups who emphasize the other pillars, and that pre-WotC D&D strongly encourages pcs to avoid combat when possible in favor of other methods of dealing with possible adversaries.

 

[Hussar]

How exactly are you judging what is and isn't a combat encounter? The mere presence of statistics?

In that case Burne, Rufus and Ostler Gundigoot are just there to kill I suppose.

As far as anyone talking to you is concerned, there are rules for that stuff. It's called a reaction roll. A poor reaction CAN start a fight, but a good one can be the beginning of a parley.

How about encounters in modules where the baddies attack on sight? That good enough for you.

Hey, quick question. What's the name of two farmers in Homlett? What's the name of the priest in the moathouse? All non-combat encounters?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Look, I'm not saying that the other two pillars don't exist. Of course they do. What I'm saying is that the presentation of D&D has always focused rather heavily on combat. I cannot believe that this is even considered a controvercial thing to say.

Because it's wrong. That's why.

Above is mentioned Keep on the Borderlands. READ the module. Virtually all the inhabitants attack on sight. Almost nothing will talk to you. And there are very few empty rooms. Sure, you might talk to stuff in the Keep, but, once the adventure starts? It's combat all the way.

Speaking of reading, I strongly suggest you read the DMG. Page 63 specifically. Because you are wrong. EVERY speaking creature can and may talk to you. And the reaction roll only results in outright combat in the minority of those situations. Again, with KotBL, you are completely ignoring the things in there like the goblin/ogre relationship. Last time we played that, we offered the ogre more, and he fought for us.

At this point, the more you post, the more I'm convinced you know nothing about D&D's first 25 years. I know that sounds harsh, and I apologize if it does. But people keep pointing out to you how and why you are mistaken, and you keep ignoring it and doubling down with this silly position you have. We've pointed to actual rules. We've cited A LOT of text. And we've provided page #s.

Speaking of, I'm really not sure why Ridley's Cohort keeps saying he's not seeing evidence. Not sure what else can be provided beyond actual text and page #s.

 

[Celtavian]

Because it's wrong. That's why.



Speaking of reading, I strongly suggest you read the DMG. Page 63 specifically. Because you are wrong. EVERY speaking creature can and may talk to you. And the reaction roll only results in outright combat in the minority of those situations. Again, with KotBL, you are completely ignoring the things in there like the goblin/ogre relationship. Last time we played that, we offered the ogre more, and he fought for us.

At this point, the more you post, the more I'm convinced you know nothing about D&D's first 25 years. I know that sounds harsh, and I apologize if it does. But people keep pointing out to you how and why you are mistaken, and you keep ignoring it and doubling down with this silly position you have. We've pointed to actual rules. We've cited A LOT of text. And we've provided page #s.

Speaking of, I'm really not sure why Ridley's Cohort keeps saying he's not seeing evidence. Not sure what else can be provided beyond actual text and page #s.

The more you post, the more it becomes apparent you don't know much about D&D's first 25 years.

Text from the DMG providing social interaction does not support your argument anymore than me posting text from the 3rd edition pages that give rules for changing attitudes or using bluff. Why you think that is the case is an example of someone not wanting to lose an argument that should have never even been made to begin with.

 

[Celtavian]

Depending on how they are approached, they certainly can be- but equally, they can usually be dealt with through stealth, deception, diplomacy or trickery.

Parlay is explicitly called out as an option for encounters in the 1e DMG and, IIRC (though I wouldn't swear to it), the early Basic sets. There are rules for reactions. Heck, one of the Basic Sets has an example of play where the pcs try to talk their way past some goblins.

I'm not saying combat isn't a huge part of the game. I'm saying that there are plenty of groups who emphasize the other pillars, and that pre-WotC D&D strongly encourages pcs to avoid combat when possible in favor of other methods of dealing with possible adversaries.

Because something can be done, does not mean it was the preferred or encouraged way of playing.

Why we're having an argument about whether D&D was originally combat focused is unbelievable. You're talking up stealth, deception, trickery, and the like, yet not many classes were equipped to handle things in this manner. Even the rogue at early levels had an extremely low percentage chance of accomplishing all of those things. The fighter had almost no chance. The wizard was extremely limited in spell choice and capability. You couldn't be a 1st level bard in the original game. The bard was a dual class option. Very few people focused on charisma or intelligence as a stat unless it was necessary to their class.

This attempt by you and a few others to paint D&D as other than a combat-focused game is an attempt at an incredulous argument for reasons I can't comprehend. Pulling pages from the DMG for handling social interactions could be easily be countered by all the combat rules, text and magical combat spells that exists in the game. No one is pulling those pages because they exist everywhere. On top of that there were entire books dedicated to nothing but monsters. The designers spent all that time on the Monster Manual's, so you could talk to monsters and avoid them. All those combat statistics for various monsters existing as merely a pointless exercise by game designers that knew that D&D parties would spend more time avoiding monsters than fighting them.

Then there are modules they wasted their time on like Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, and the like where they shouldn't have bothered with all those monster combat encounters rather spending all their time providing rules and methods for ending each encounter by either talking or stealthing, because of course the majority of parties were playing that way. All those combat encounters and defeating the evil threat was just window dressing for players that were supposed to spend the majority of their high stats on charisma and intelligence for resolving these encounters without combat.

"I'm a fighter? Let me put that 18 on charisma and intelligence. I'll rarely need my strength. We want to avoid combat."

"We found a +3 sword and gauntlets of ogre power? I don't really need those. Is there a book or something that lets me use my charisma or intelligence to win encounters? Fighting is not what we do. We're supposed to talk and sneak all time. I don't know why I'm wearing this plate mail."

These attempts to make D&D appear as game where everyone snuck around or talked to avoid combat are incredulous to say the least.

I'm done with this. I think I've more than made my point. I doubt any poll or study of the game would show anything other than a vast majority of players dating back across all editions spend over 50% of their time (probably well over) in combat. But since I do not intend to pursue that study as I am not one to doubt its truth, I will leave that to people like Sacrosanct and The Jester who played D&D very differently from all the people I played with over the years at gaming stores, conventions, and in my own groups. It was very rare to find a group that didn't spend the majority of their time on combat, though I will not say they did not exist as I met a few. It certainly wasn't anywhere near the majority. Those groups rarely ran the rules as they were designed. Almost everything in those groups was decided by DM whim. I didn't see a massive use of social die rolls until 3rd edition. My groups and the majority of groups I played with ignored morale and mostly allowed a role-playing situation to be resolved if the player did a good job role-playing (another reason I like 5E because it incorporates that type of social resolution). It wasn't fun to have creatures run and have to track them in any edition.

I chalk this up to another example of the pointlessness of arguing on the internet. You always find that handful of people that want to continue an argument that has no basis in fact to the bitter end.

 

[Hussar]

I really wish tapatalk let you posrep posts because Celtavian pretty much nails this one.

 

[Umbran]

Because it's wrong. That's why.

Dude, go look at early edition (say, 1e) player's rulebook. Count the pages of things that are largely about combat. Count the pages of things that are not.

The former number *will* be higher than the latter.

How, then can you say it is incorrect that the presentation of the game was heavily focused on combat. He didn't say "solely" focused. Just "heavily". If more than half the pages deal with combat, combat-relevant stats, spells, and gear, how do you get it *not* heavily focused on combat?

Read carefully. He's not saying that there aren't non-combat things do do. Just that the way the game was presented focused heavily on combat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Dude, go look at early edition (say, 1e) player's rulebook. Count the pages of things that are largely about combat. Count the pages of things that are not.

The former number *will* be higher than the latter.

How, then can you say it is incorrect that the presentation of the game was heavily focused on combat. He didn't say "solely" focused. Just "heavily". If more than half the pages deal with combat, combat-relevant stats, spells, and gear, how do you get it *not* heavily focused on combat?

Read carefully. He's not saying that there aren't non-combat things do do. Just that the way the game was presented focused heavily on combat.

By his logic, the vast majority of PC characters dealt with spells, since spells make up the vast majority of the page count.

using page count as a basis of argument is extremely flawed for reasons already given. And even if it were, the combat section in the DMG is only 20 pages long.

no matter how you look at it, that argument falls apart.

and now I am utterly convinced that he hasn't actually played or read AD&D by that post above. It shows clear ignorance of how important CHA was in 1e. Reactions, loyalty, and hirelings/henchmen were a huge part of 1e. He keeps posting things that are untrue, and can be easily proven as such.. And to say that a monster manual proves it was all about combat because lots of stats? That's a huge load of rubbish, and I hope you can see why without me needing to explain it.

D&D has always had combat, sure. But the game is not presented (at least 1e) as if that's what you'll be doing the vast majority of time. And it most certainly wasn't played that way by most players. Between xp for treasure, the NUMEROUS and repeated statements in the rules to avoid combat,extremely high fatality of combat even at high levels, plethora of information about world building, and you literally can't get any clearer that D&D hasn't always been about combat

the way 1e is written, it actually punishes you for combat if that's all you want to do. There is almost no reward for it, but a hell of a lot of pain and death.. All it takes is one failed save.

 

[Iosue]

Above is mentioned Keep on the Borderlands. READ the module. Virtually all the inhabitants attack on sight. Almost nothing will talk to you. And there are very few empty rooms. Sure, you might talk to stuff in the Keep, but, once the adventure starts? It's combat all the way.

Uh, no.

As a matter of fact, of the total 96 encounter areas in Keep on the Borderlands, monsters that attack on sight take up only 17 (the lizard men, the kobold ambush, the rats, the wandering goblins, the gray oozes, the owlbear, the stirges, the fire beetles, the minotaur, possibly the guard gnolls, 5 encounter areas with undead, the torturer, and the gelatinous cube). Everything else is subject to the reaction roll.

And of course, the 27 encounter areas in the Keep often get completely ignored, as you did here. The adventure doesn't "start" when you leave the keep and go to the caves. It literally starts with you approaching the keep, and the very name of the module is the Keep on the Borderlands. The keep is not just a place to buy equipment and come back for healing. And no, NPCs don't have names, but that's not because they aren't important or worth interacting with, that's so the DM can take the module and put it in his own world.

I mean, here's the thing. The guys who invented, playtested, and wrote D&D in the 70s and early 80s were wargamers. When they wanted to play combat, that's where they went. D&D was invented specifically for all the stuff that wargames didn't give them. Look at the example of play in OD&D. It literally dispenses with combat with a paranthetical comment (Here combat is resolved, etc.) The example of play in Moldvay does the same thing. Play through the solo adventure in Mentzer Basic -- fighting anything is likely to get you killed, but the best way to go through it is the one where you avoid fighting. People talk about combat taking up the most rules, but the non-combat rules far outweigh the combat rules in the 1e DMG, as well as in B/X.

Look, I'm not saying that the other two pillars don't exist. Of course they do.

Likewise, no one is saying that combat doesn't have a place in D&D. But the largest pillar? Not in OD&D. Not in B/X and BECMI. With all the dungeon and hex mapping? No. Maaaybe in late 1e and 2e, but not in early AD&D. And given 2e's emphasis on story and its detailed monster ecologies, I'm hesitant to say it's the largest pillar there, as well.

Not surprisingly, the Conan stories are a good comp here. There's a bit of combat in every Conan story. It would almost not be a Conan story without any. But are the combats the fattest pillar in Conan stories? Not at all. There's all sorts of sneaking around and exploration, negotiating and talking with people, and Conan succeeding by his smarts and daring as much as, if not more than, with his strength of arms.

I can't speak for others, but with the group I've been playing with since the 80s, combat is there not so much to be played as to be resolved. The main stuff of the game comes between the combats. If you're surprised this subject is deemed controversial, may I suggest that there are a lot more people out there playing like that than you may have previously suspected.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, read something like Slave Pits of the Undercity - every single encounter presumes combat. Every one. Heck, just like Keep on the Borderlands, the NPC's don't even have names in this module. Exactly how much evidence do people need?

In its defense, Slave Pits (and in fact the whole A-series) was initially written as a tournament module, the conceits of which are somewhat different from non-tournament play. Tournament modules by their very nature have to be a bit lead-'em-by-the-nose into a preprogrammed series of encounters so they can be fairly scored, some (or in some cases many) of which will be combat.

B-10 Night's Dark Terror - a module with which I freely admit to having all sorts of other beefs - is in all fairness an exploration module overall. Yes the exploration is probably going to lead you into various little combats, but the overarching themes are exploration of a fairly large chunk of land and what lives there, and investigation of what the merry hell is going on and then what is behind it all; and in the final segment you're best off trying to play the factions against each other as you'll be - or certainly should be - slaughtered if you just try to kill everything that moves. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] can tell you more, he loves this adventure!

Lan-"bree-yark!"-efan