Do you play more for the story or the combat?

[jdrakeh]

I have to disagree, but our disagreement may be in what we understand under the term simulation or tropes. The tropes I like in D&D are the monsters, the spells, the races and similar things.

Yeah, a lot of those things, as portrayed by D&D, don't exist in too many places outside of D&D or D&D-derived media (frex, the only place outside of D&D that D&D-like magic appears is in Jack Vance's Dying Earth short fiction, etc). So, yes, some elements of D&D do exist outside of the game, but all of them never appear in any one place (and some of them don't exist outside of D&D at all).

D&D is notable because it borrows from many sources and inspirations — some literary, others not — while also throwing a lot of original innovation into the mix. As a result, it simulates no single body of work, folkloric tradition, literary style, or even litrary genre (aside from the broad classification of Fantasy). Rather, the fusion of different tropes from different sources with original ideas created a unique construct.

So, for me, D&D is not "simulationist" in the 'models a body of written work, narrow genre, literary style, or folkloric tradition' but arguably "Simulationist" in the Forge sense of 'models a certain, specifically defined, reality' through such constant 'laws' as the ability of high level PCs to fall ridiculous distances without dying (or nearly all dragons being modeled on Smaug).

I suppose that we'll just have to agree to disagree, though

 

[FireLance]

Incidentally, I thought the original premise of the discussion was:
"Story and combat are both essential parts of D&D, but which do you enjoy more?"

Some posters seem to be answering a slightly different question, namely:
"Which would you rather drop from D&D, story or combat?"

In my view, the premise of the second question is flawed, because dropping either combat or story from D&D would make it no longer D&D.

So, could we get back to discussing the first question, please?

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I voted Story as for me that is what drives the games. However sometimes a good monster bash is great if only they didn't take so long to resolve.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Imho, D&D is a game that is at it's best when you have stories that focus on combat. But combat for its own sake? Nah! Did I mention, I don't like extended dungeon crawls? Same reason.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I can't really vote for either one.

For me, I play primarily for exploration of and interaction with , a shared imaginary world. I see the adventures taking place as raw footage documentaries of the character's lives. There will be many stories that can be told from that footage but the actual play is about reacting to world events rather than attempting to decisively craft a story in the game.

Some of that interaction will be violent and dangerous. The life of an adventurer is filled with peril. Always thinking with a sword tends to make an adventurer's life brutally short in most cases. To me, combat feels more natural and the character's easier to identify with if it is engaged in as a last resort. Some adventures will be more combat focused than others. Being in an area infested with hostile creatures who attack on sight leaves little choice but to fight or flee.

 

[el-remmen]

False dichotomy.

I see no point in voting.

 

[Harr]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's some sort of disconnect between what goes on online and what actually happens in "real world" D&D... when I'm reading ENWorld I'm constantly bombarded with how much more awesome stories and roleplaying and getting into character are and how everybody does them and how you shouldn't focus on the combat so much.

Then I go to my local gaming store and it's the complete opposite. I don't know a single person who would ever admit to liking the playacting and the pretending part of D&D more than the combat, even though we have a pretty wide circle of gamers in our club and my group. For us the story and the characters are a thin sugar coating over the real reason for playing which is strategy, tactics and dungeon crawling combat.

I mean it's not like we run from it, sure, it's great to have a background and an actual reason to be in the adventure that everyone can get behind or crack jokes about, but anybody who takes it further than that is gong to have a bit of eye-rolling and smirking going on behind his back. Nothing mean-spirite or anything, but that's just how it is, it's seen as just a bit weird.

I guess maybe as said above people who actually get motivated to get online and go to forums are the same people who would take that kind of stuff seriously? I don't know, cause I am not one of those people and yet I'm here... so *shrug*

 

[Psion]

Say Psion where is that test (assuming you got those scores from a online quiz), be interesting to see if what I view as my gaming style matches with the numbers.

I think this is the one:
Law's Game Style | Quizfarm.com

 

[el-remmen]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's some sort of disconnect between what goes on online and what actually happens in "real world" D&D... when I'm reading ENWorld I'm constantly bombarded with how much more awesome stories and roleplaying and getting into character are and how everybody does them and how you shouldn't focus on the combat so much.

Then I go to my local gaming store and it's the complete opposite. I don't know a single person who would ever admit to liking the playacting and the pretending part of D&D more than the combat, even though we have a pretty wide circle of gamers in our club and my group. For us the story and the characters are a thin sugar coating over the real reason for playing which is strategy, tactics and dungeon crawling combat.

I mean it's not like we run from it, sure, it's great to have a background and an actual reason to be in the adventure that everyone can get behind or crack jokes about, but anybody who takes it further than that is gong to have a bit of eye-rolling and smirking going on behind his back. Nothing mean-spirite or anything, but that's just how it is, it's seen as just a bit weird.

I guess maybe as said above people who actually get motivated to get online and go to forums are the same people who would take that kind of stuff seriously? I don't know, cause I am not one of those people and yet I'm here... so *shrug*

Funny. . . I actually have the opposite impression.

I have the feeling that people on the boards are much more concerned with builds and combat effectiveness and magic items/treasure being appropriate to level, etc. . . While the gamers I hang with are more concerned about their character restoring honor to their once noble family, or getting revenge on the slavers who kidnapped her younger sister, evading the spurned lover/former master, or keeping the pro-democracy fifth column from undermining the monarchy!

 

[Harr]

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

Talking is not story. It's, at best, one form of exposition of the story. More often it's a soft, directionless period of floundering that takes away from the better means of conveying the story, that is, by action.

Ha, I would agree 100% with this, very well said. We fight combats and explore dungeons and adventures and then tell stories about what happened in those adventures... as opposed to talking out a story and putting it on hold every once in a while to have a combat about something inside of it. The stories are born from play, they do not engender play themselves.