Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6465919" data-attributes="member: 15700">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.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.  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?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.</blockquote>

Verification