Do you play more for the story or the combat?

[LostSoul]

This seems to illustrate my point about the definition of conflict being expanded so a story can be shown to have conflict. A meteor falling through the roof is interesting, but it's hardly a conflict. I wasn't threatened by the meteor, and there wasn't any interaction between it and me. I just observed a rare event.

Conflict is [often] interesting, so that makes a story worth telling, but it seems to me like it's possible to tell an interesting story without conflict.

There is a conflict. You (the protagonist) wanted to read some books, a meteor (the antagonist) came and smashed into them. You couldn't read your books.

What a tragedy.

The story without conflict is, "I went to the library to read some books, and I did." That's much less interesting than the one with conflict.

 

[frankthedm]

I play to use my minis. I guess that makes my vote Combat.

 

[Hussar]

Actually a story is just the relating of events. If you need conflict in a story to enjoy it, that's a personal preference.

I believe you and fanboy2000 are conflating story with history. A timeline that relates the relevant events of World War Two is not a story. It's simply a recounting of events.

Stories require conflict. They require plot. With no plot, you have no story. Without a conflict, you cannot have a plot.

"I ate a bowl of cereal for breakfast today" is not a story. It's history. It's recounting facts. There's no plot there. Thus no story.

The idea that there is no story in RPG's before the PC's interact with the plot is arguable. However, there is a plot in just about every adventure to interact with. How the story unfolds is unknown until such time as you actually play, but, that doesn't mean that there is no story there. There's a fairly broad number of stories possible from playing "Keep on the Borderlands" but, the story "We went to the Caves, we kicked the collective asses of a large number of humanoids that were threatening the locals" is the most probable one that's going to come out.

Now, KotB has only the slightest glimmer of a plot, but, it does have one. Tissue thin and all that, but, it's still there. The conflict exists - on one side you have the Keep and on the other, the slavering hordes of humanoids just begging to be killed.

Hell, that's the basic plot for just about every zombie movie out there as well. (I'm a huge believer that all stories are better when you add zombies and chainsaws. )

But, the point is, the plot and story is still there before you sit down to play. Everyone knows that you are generally going to have Story X occur. Game play just nails down the details.

 

[Set]

I was torn looking for a 'both' option but decided to break it down.

All story would be like reading a novel or hanging out with friends.

All combat would be like playing a 'shooter' (or playing chess, or team sports, for that matter).

I do read novels. I don't play shooters.

So I guess it's story for me, if I had to pick just one.

But since it's a *game* and not a novel, I want some of both!

(Unless it's a White Wolf book. I have over a hundred of their supplements that I bought to read and have never played, like all of the Kindred of the East and Wraith: the Oblivion stuff.)

 

[justanobody]

Combat is like the dice. Just something to randomize the story and further it along so you aren't arguing what happens.

If you aren't playing for the story, then you aren't playing an RPG but a wargame.

Combat just shows points of physical conflict within the story.

 

[RFisher]

You know, it's weird I've always been told that a story needs conflict to be a story. I first remember this coming from Freshman english in high school. But now that I heard an alternative definition, a story is a retelling of past events, the conflict requirement doesn't stand-up to scrutiny. If I'm sitting in a library and a metor falls through the roof into a stack of books in front of me, that's a story. I'm going to tell people that story. But there is no conflict.

In fact, it seems like the definition of conflict is sometimes expanded so a good story can meet the requirement.

I think this why I approach D&D the way I do, I set-up and situation and let the players do what they want. The story comes after whatever problem or challenge they were faced with is resolved. So my players will often tells stories about the game like "hey remember that time when...." but it's doesn't feel like a story has it's happening. (At least not to me.)

I’m unsure whether a story requires conflict.

I’m sure playing an RPG includes (back)stories. I’m sure that stories can be told about playing an RPG. I’m pretty sure that playing an RPG is not a story; it is playing.

I suspect that playing an RPG requires conflict.

I’m sure that that conflict need not be combat.

 

[Bagpuss]

I'll be honest and say combat, while story is still important, it's less so in D&D than in the other RPGs I play. D&D for me is more about meeting up with friends to have a laugh and some fights. I don't find it as immersive as the other roleplaying games, partly due to the miniatures and tactical nature of the game being so stressed by the system.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This thread is chock full of sissies in need of a good ass-kicking.

Combat is story, or at the very least, makes some of the best stories, if you're doing it right.

You are not on the list.

This is really easy to answer for me:
Do I enjoy a story without combat? Sure!
Do I enjoy a combat without story? Not really.

That's fair. But I'll spin it like this:

It's true that a D&D campaign that lacks either combat or story is inevitably going to unravel.

But as a player, there is no question which game will hold my interest longer.

As a DM, my players would revolt if I ran two back-to-back sessions with no combat. They would notice immediately.

It would take them far longer to recognize and revolt over a campaign that lacked a story pretense to link endless combat.

Imho, D&D is a game that is at it's best when you have stories that focus on combat.

Precisely that.

 

[Mallus]

As a DM, my players would revolt if I ran two back-to-back sessions with no combat. They would notice immediately.

Heh... I can pull off one entertaining session without a fight. Two in row would be tough.

 

[pawsplay]

It would take them far longer to recognize and revolt over a campaign that lacked a story pretense to link endless combat.

Let's perform an experiment. Have them surrounded by nine ogres. Later, have them attacked by a gang of anthropomorphic camel paladins. Then have them fight the exact same camel paladins again, even though they are dead. Provide no explanation as to where they are or where their opponents came from. If they ask for details, explain, "They sky is mauve. You are on a 150' by 150' grid. What do you wish to do?"