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

[ExploderWizard]

There was a marked difference between the assumptions that went into D&D's design, and how groups received and played it. It was designed as an exploration-focused game where both combat and parlay were powerful ways to get treasure. As war gamers, Gygax and company figured that players would pick their battles, get advantages, do the intelligence work and fight when they could gain an advantage, and do so for some material reward. Random combats were intended as a punishment for taking too long. Rob Kuntz was regarded as Gary's best player, and he was able to do solo runs into Castle Greyhawk with minimal fighting.

Over time this got morphed into a kick down the door play style. Which is pretty disastrous given the OD&D rules, or B/X rules, but the tournament dungeons helped foster. It wasn't the intent of OD&D, which gave XP for treasure, but it was a common way for teenagers to play. That doesn't mean that the three pillars weren't present and well supported from the start.

Yep.

Kick in the door and fight everything IS a play style that was actually played, and I don't believe anyone has disputed that. The assumption that it was largely the only play style the rules supported is flat out false.

Loads of combat was an extremely popular play style. The entire changing development of the game was based on methods to facilitate the ability of the player to use their brain less and still have their characters die less often. The whole reason characters were viewed as needing to be more durable was so that players could just kick in doors with head firmly planted up their backsides and not have roll up a new character every session. The popularity of the play style is in fact what has caused some to believe that D&D has always been, and never was anything else.

So for todays D&D, yeah I would have to agree that it is by default combat focused. Groups can still challenge that assumption at individual tables though.

 

[Iosue]

Loads of combat was an extremely popular play style. The entire changing development of the game was based on methods to facilitate the ability of the player to use their brain less and still have their characters die less often. The whole reason characters were viewed as needing to be more durable was so that players could just kick in doors with head firmly planted up their backsides and not have roll up a new character every session.

Eh, rather than "use their brain less" I'd say "use their brain differently", and rather than "head up backside" I'd say "play a different genre". The nice thing about 5e is that a diverse range of playstyles is doable.

 

[Celtavian]

Yep.

Kick in the door and fight everything IS a play style that was actually played, and I don't believe anyone has disputed that. The assumption that it was largely the only play style the rules supported is flat out false.

Loads of combat was an extremely popular play style. The entire changing development of the game was based on methods to facilitate the ability of the player to use their brain less and still have their characters die less often. The whole reason characters were viewed as needing to be more durable was so that players could just kick in doors with head firmly planted up their backsides and not have roll up a new character every session. The popularity of the play style is in fact what has caused some to believe that D&D has always been, and never was anything else.

So for todays D&D, yeah I would have to agree that it is by default combat focused. Groups can still challenge that assumption at individual tables though.

Today's D&D? It has been that way all the years I've been playing at nearly every table I've played at. If combat wasn't intended, they would made it more of a story game as some have done with other games.

And no one said it was the only play-style supported. What was said was that of the three "pillars" currently talked about by the 5E designers, combat by design was the most prevalent element in every edition of D&D...as in the element most of the pages of the books were spent on as well as most of the pages of a published module (with rare exception). Whether it be magic items to support combat, spells to support combat, monster books and rules, experience gain, and the like.

These odd proofs that such an assessment is wrong ignore the hundreds of other pages in the various books, modules, and supplement dedicated to combat in every single edition of D&D. Page 63 of the DMG is some kind of proof. Differences in hit point as some proof. The fact that hit points exist period is proof that combat was intended. The focus on ThaCo. The various abilities every single class had dealing with combat, yet not every class had out of combat options.

If you read up on the design of the original game Chainmail, it was designed as small scale combat versus large scale combat offered by other games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons

Read on the history of the game. Gygax always intended for combat to be the largest part of D&D. Yet some that don't know the history of the game are claiming that it wasn't.

The history of the game itself completely any argument that the game wasn't designed with combat as the primary pillar. Wish more would acknowledge that history rather than making unsubstantiated arguments.

If you don't believe us, then believe the history of the game and the original designers. Look at what they wanted to do and why they created the rules in the first place.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Today's D&D? It has been that way all the years I've been playing at nearly every table I've played at.

Congratulations I guess? No one has said that no one every played like that. Obviously your table did. But please, stop with this insistance that the game was designed based on the way you played. It wasn't. We've already provided reams of information that counter that.

If combat wasn't intended,

Also, please stop with this wild hyperbole. No one has said combat wasn't intended. We've said repeatedly that it was a significant part. If you have to resort to wild hyperbolic straw men to try to make you're point rather than what people have actually said, it doesn't bode well for your position.

And no one said it was the only play-style supported. What was said was that of the three "pillars" currently talked about by the 5E designers, combat by design was the most prevalent element in every edition of D&D...as in the element most of the pages of the books were spent on as well as most of the pages of a published module (with rare exception). Whether it be magic items to support combat, spells to support combat, monster books and rules, experience gain, and the like.

What you *did* say are phrases like "vast majority" and heavily inferred that D&D was all about combat and little else. Was your usage of "vast majority" just more hyperbole, and you didn't really mean it? Secondly, we've already illustrated how using page count is a very flawed way of analyzing the rules. Thirdly, new magic items and spells were created to support all three pillars, not just combat. And fourthly, did you see my link I provided earlier that shows that more non-combat books were published than monster manuals?

If you read up on the design of the original game Chainmail, it was designed as small scale combat versus large scale combat offered by other games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons

Read on the history of the game. Gygax always intended for combat to be the largest part of D&D. Yet some that don't know the history of the game are claiming that it wasn't.

The history of the game itself completely any argument that the game wasn't designed with combat as the primary pillar. Wish more would acknowledge that history rather than making unsubstantiated arguments.

If you don't believe us, then believe the history of the game and the original designers. Look at what they wanted to do and why they created the rules in the first place.

We're not talking about Chainmail. We're talking about D&D. Which, as someone who is touting themselves as some sort of history expert here, I'm guessing you know that D&D was specifically created to get away from the strictly tactical combat of chainmail and make the game more personal by taking on the role of a single PC and exploring a fantastical world.

Also, unless you were there with Dave and Gary when they were designing the game, don't speculate what they intended. Go by what was actually published. In the rulebooks. Which clearly place emphasis on the other two pillars as much as combat, which numerous examples have been given in this thread that support that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

We're not talking about Chainmail. We're talking about D&D. Which, as someone who is touting themselves as some sort of history expert here, I'm guessing you know that D&D was specifically created to get away from the strictly tactical combat of chainmail and make the game more personal by taking on the role of a single PC and exploring a fantastical world.

Also, unless you were there with Dave and Gary when they were designing the game, don't speculate what they intended. Go by what was actually published. In the rulebooks. Which clearly place emphasis on the other two pillars as much as combat, which numerous examples have been given in this thread that support that.

D&D was influenced as much by Braunstein as it was Chainmail. Chainmail with the fantasy supplement was all you needed to just do fantasy small unit combat. So why make D&D? Oh yeah, so you could play a character that can do things OTHER than just fight.

 

[the Jester]

Being good is a burden - eg it prevents you parleying with orcs - but also a benefit, because it opens up help from friendly temples etc.

I just have to step in for a second and ask- why should being good prevent you from parlaying with orcs? In general, I think finding a nonviolent solution to a confrontation is (or at least can be) kind of a hallmark of good alignments.

 

[Cadriel]

And no one said it was the only play-style supported. What was said was that of the three "pillars" currently talked about by the 5E designers, combat by design was the most prevalent element in every edition of D&D...as in the element most of the pages of the books were spent on as well as most of the pages of a published module (with rare exception). Whether it be magic items to support combat, spells to support combat, monster books and rules, experience gain, and the like.

Experience gain in editions prior to 2e was primarily by gaining gold pieces of treasure, not by defeating monsters. That was a system that was not actually formally detailed in OD&D, although a description implied a fairly high 100 XP / hit die of monster defeated. Gygax gave NOTHING for defeating monsters.

Spells are all about combat? Hardly. In OD&D, there was literally no way for a magic-user to cause damage through a spell until they hit 5th level. The biggest combat spell at 1st level was Sleep, which is actually a spell for avoiding combat. Magic Missile wasn't added until Supplement I: Greyhawk. Likewise, Protection from Evil, Charm Person, and 2nd level's Invisibility are really about not getting into combat. It's not until the magic-user hits 5th level and gets Fireball and Lighting Bolt that spells actually deal damage.

Lots of magic items do damage or heal damage, but many are about recon or avoiding combat. Many, such as the various potions of control, can be used for either purpose. There are definitely magic items, but many are about detecting or moving quickly or invisibly / silently, or gaining influence over monsters or NPCs - almost as if there were three pillars.

Even the OD&D monster list is not all about combat. Sure, you're probably going to fight goblins, kobolds, ghouls, zombies, basilisks, manticoras, hydras, dragons, purple worms and balrogs. But it would take a bloodthirsty party to slaughter centaurs, pixies, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and pegasi. There are plenty of "monsters" that are not meant to be involved in straight-up fights. Not to mention encounters with human types, who could go either way.

These odd proofs that such an assessment is wrong ignore the hundreds of other pages in the various books, modules, and supplement dedicated to combat in every single edition of D&D. Page 63 of the DMG is some kind of proof. Differences in hit point as some proof. The fact that hit points exist period is proof that combat was intended. The focus on ThaCo. The various abilities every single class had dealing with combat, yet not every class had out of combat options.

If you read up on the design of the original game Chainmail, it was designed as small scale combat versus large scale combat offered by other games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons

Read on the history of the game. Gygax always intended for combat to be the largest part of D&D. Yet some that don't know the history of the game are claiming that it wasn't.

The history of the game itself completely any argument that the game wasn't designed with combat as the primary pillar. Wish more would acknowledge that history rather than making unsubstantiated arguments.

If you don't believe us, then believe the history of the game and the original designers. Look at what they wanted to do and why they created the rules in the first place.

This is a bizarre argument to be making in 2014, with Playing at the World available, with how much Mike Mornard has written on various RPG fora about what playing with Gary was actually like, with statements on various places from Dave and Gary while they were still alive, and with their players who have carried on their legacies. D&D was not a derivative of Chainmail, which was a miniatures wargame. You have to read Playing at the World and understand the role that other games, particularly Braunstein and Diplomacy, had on the development of D&D. It was a game where anything could happen - that was what changed everything.

Wargamers were the original target audience of D&D. Wargames in this period weren't like Warhammer 40K or other "modern" wargames. They were either played out on boards with hexes and chits, like old Avalon Hill games, or on sand tables with miniatures. Each chit or miniature represented some number of men. The actual fighting was handled very abstractly, with the intent of keeping the game focused on strategy, position and tactical decisions. D&D was the same: there was combat, but it was done with quickly. There was no question of individual heroics or glory in battle. Damage was undifferentiated until some of the players started abusing this system by only fighting with iron spikes. If anything, they were all about the actual, stated goal of the game: treasure.

Combat was not the primary element of OD&D, exploration was. There are rules aplenty for exploring a dungeon or wilderness in OD&D; spells, magic items, even racial abilities support exploring. And there's more about naval combat than there is about melee combat - eight pages of the 36-page book 3 are about fighting on the seas. Was this a "pillar" of the OD&D system? (No, but it was a hobbyhorse of Dave Arneson, who probably liked ship-to-ship combat better than man-to-man.) By contrast, there's literally one line about melee combat, and two paragraphs about surprise, in the same book. The "Alternate Combat System" is two charts with a note that says all attacks do 1d6 damage unless specified otherwise.

As I said before, this changed as people played the game. Combat became more central and got more detailed; characters were made more able to survive long combats. From OD&D to 1e AD&D, a first-level cleric goes from no spells at all to as many as 3 first-level spells; fighters go from a maximum of 8 HP to a maximum of 14; with maximum Strength and a 2-handed sword, a fighter's damage went from 1-6 to 7-16; every spell level gained some direct damage or other type of combat spell; damage proliferated and PC types changed. This is all clear evidence that detailed melee combat became prevalent, rather than having been that way from the beginning.

 

[pemerton]

UA was largely a collection of stuff from Dragon magazine, not modules.

Many of the new spells and magic items were from modules.

When we played ADnD in the eighties we rolled characters with 4d6, drop lowest, in order.
To be a paladin in ADnD you had to roll STR12, INT9, WIS13, CON9, CHA17, and that didn't happen very often.
Characters like bard, monk, paladin, ranger was pretty rare in our game.

Of course you could use other methods to generate characters, like 5d6, drop two lowest. But then you would have left the gritty default world of ADnD, and entered a more heroic house ruled world.

Your system for stat generation is a house-ruled one - one could even say "a more gritty house rule world" than the default world of AD&D. None of the four methods for stat generation set out by Gygax in his DMG makes a paladin likely, but each makes it more likely than the stat-generation system you describe.l

**************************

negative reaction rolls don't mean combat; they mean negative reactions which may include combat. They may just as likely mean the monsters want a bigger bribe or similar negative reaction. The only automatic attack on the reaction table is snake-eyes, which is on 2d6 is a 2.78 percent.

In AD&D auto-attacks occur on 5 or less on the reaction table (ie 1 in 20). But a result of 6 to 25 (ie another 1 in 5) result in a hostile reaction precipitating immediate action. In many cases, that immediate action will also be an attack.

Furthermore, p 63 of the DMG tells us that "Reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma and applicable loyalty adjustment as ifthe creature were a henchman of the character speaking." Those adjustments (found on pp 36-37) include penaltis of -5 for racial antipathy and -20 for racial hatred (reduced to -15 if the hated character isn't doing the talking but is merely in the company of the negotiator). So a party with elves or dwarves in it may have trouble negotiating with orcs or goblins.

The alignment adjustments are also very severe: -35 for opposed alignments (eg CE to LG), and -15 for hotile alignments (eg LE to LG); although some of this may be ameliorated by the general alignment modifications (+15 for LG, +5 for neutral good - NPCs prefer to negotiate with those who might keep their promises). NPCs won't always be able to judge PC alignments, but often will (eg via a holy symbol for a cleric character).

I don't think the rules of AD&D make negotiation, and avoiding automatic hostilities, quite as easy as you are saying. And even if only 1 in 4 encounters resuts in combat, that means that a group of PCs has to be capable of engaging in combat successfully. Which makes planning for combat a significant part of the game even when the goal is to avoid combat. At least from my perspective, that is one part of what is meant by saying that the game leans towards combat as a principal mode of conflict resolution.

It was designed as an exploration-focused game where both combat and parlay were powerful ways to get treasure.

<snip>

Over time this got morphed into a kick down the door play style.

<snip>

It wasn't the intent of OD&D, which gave XP for treasure, but it was a common way for teenagers to play. That doesn't mean that the three pillars weren't present and well supported from the start.

There are rules aplenty for exploring a dungeon or wilderness in OD&D; spells, magic items, even racial abilities support exploring.

I repeat my assertion from upthread that the non-combat pillars are not as well-supported as the combat pillar.

With respect to exploration, only a very narrow and rather artificial sort of exploration is supported. There are very detailed rules for finding, listening at and opening doors. But there are no rules for hunting and foraging, for finding water, for charting coastlines, etc - all of which are real elements of exploration in the real world. There are no rules for trading (contrast, say, Traveller, which comes out aroud the same time as AD&D). The wilderness rules in OD&D book 3 include travel times, chances of getting lost, and chances of encountering castles and creatures - and the main significance of these encounters is the threat of combat (eg there are rules for surprise, and evasion, but no rules to determine the likelihood that encountered merchants try to enter into trade negotiations).

In the social pillar there are (i) no rules for dipomacy (you can't even use the reaction table - not even 5% of diplomatic interactions result in immediate attack), for the effects on loyalty of arranging marriages (a stock-in-trade of the mediaeveal era), etc, and (ii) no rules for finality of social interactions - if I bribe the orcs on the way through, do they stay bribed when I come back or do we have to check again? if my henchmen resists a bribe offer from an NPC today, can the GM force a new roll by having the NPC try again tomorrow?

These sorts of questions are answered for combat (via rules for zero hit points, hit point recovery etc) but the social rules are silent on them. The DMG gives no advice in respect of them. It has no example of play involving negotiation or social interaction. The claim that AD&D's social pillar is as well-supported as the combat pillar (which has far more detail rules, plus a worked example of play) is not sustainabe when one actually looks at the rules provided.

If your definition of exploration is exploring dungeons and your definition of social interaction is bribing your way past potentially hostile dungeon denizens then there is a degree of support. But someone who wanted to run a scenario involving complex social interactions among multiple NPCs (say, like the Penumbra d20 moudle Maiden Voyage, which I have been running recently) would have to do most of the mechanical legwork him-/herself.

Kick in the door and fight everything IS a play style that was actually played, and I don't believe anyone has disputed that. The assumption that it was largely the only play style the rules supported is flat out false.

How many d% rolls, modified by CHA, are required to negotiate an alliance with a dwarven chieftain? The rules don't answer this question (unless you use magic, like a Charm spell or a Rod of Rulership), although they certainly will tell us how many d20 rolls, modified by STR, are required to beat that chieftain in melee.

This is why I say the rules do not support social interaction as a mode of conflict resolution to the same degree that they support combat.

*************************

I just have to step in for a second and ask- why should being good prevent you from parlaying with orcs? In general, I think finding a nonviolent solution to a confrontation is (or at least can be) kind of a hallmark of good alignments.

It depends on the nature of the agreement. If you extract a promise from the orcs to agree to a truce for the next 10 years, that would be good. But (i) the rules don't really support this sort of diplomatic negotitation, and (ii) the general trope of orcs is of being the sort who don't keep their promises (at all, if CE, or breaching them on technicalities if LE).

But the sort of parleying being discussed in this thread isn't primarily diplomatic negotiations. It's doing deals to be allowed deeper into the dungeon. In these circumstances, paying money to the orcs so they'll let you get by and rescue the princess is just a way of enhancing the resources of an evil, hostile force. Even in the real world that sort of behaviour is regarded as closer to real politik than to moral purity, and a heroic fantasy morality just increases that contrast, I think.

It would be pretty odd, for instance, for the Fellowship to bribe its way through Moria.

Negotiating with elves, pixies, treants etc is a different thing, of course. I don't think that raises the same alignment issues at all.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How many d% rolls, modified by CHA, are required to negotiate an alliance with a dwarven chieftain? The rules don't answer this question (unless you use magic, like a Charm spell or a Rod of Rulership), although they certainly will tell us how many d20 rolls, modified by STR, are required to beat that chieftain in melee.

This is why I say the rules do not support social interaction as a mode of conflict resolution to the same degree that they support combat.

In B/X its a simple 2d6 reaction roll modified by CHA and circumstances. After the initial reaction roll it is up to the player to role play the negotiation. Being a role playing game I'm not sure how many rules are needed to spell this out. If you're looking for a mechanized system to play your character for you then no, there is no such system.

The rules are there to assist the referee in running the game smoothly, and are not the point of the game.

 

[pemerton]

In B/X its a simple 2d6 reaction roll modified by CHA and circumstances. After the initial reaction roll it is up to the player to role play the negotiation. Being a role playing game I'm not sure how many rules are needed to spell this out. If you're looking for a mechanized system to play your character for you then no, there is no such system.

The rules are there to assist the referee in running the game smoothly, and are not the point of the game.

Putting to one side the needlessly snide tone - "looking for a mechanised system to play your character for you" - you seem to be agreeing with me that there are no rules to support the "social interaction" pillar. In particular, the player can "role play" the negotiation as much as s/he likes, but there is no mechanism for holding the GM to outcomes. The analogue in a combat system would be one in which, whatever attack the player delcares and however high in level and well armed and armoured, the GM is free to decide whether or not the NPC is injured, and to what extent.

The absence of finality of resolution in AD&D social mechanics is one obvious reason why players who want finality incline towards combat.