Have We Lost Our Way? Two masters on combat and alignment

[Vindicator]

Sometimes I feel like we have strayed too far from the original intentions of D&D/AD&D with the wargame/tactics/number crunching embodied in 3/3.5. Below are some passages by two past masters, Gary Gygax and David Cook, from the AD&D 1/2 Dungeon Masters Guides. Read and discuss:

ON COMBAT

Combat is divided into 1 minute period melee rounds, or simply rounds, in order to have reasonably manageable combat. “Manageable” applies both to the actions of the combatants and to the actual refereeing of such melees. It would be no great task to devise an elaborate set of rules for highly complex individual combats with rounds of but a few seconds length. It is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy. The reasons for this are manifold.

Gary Gygax, DUNGEON MASTER’S GUIDE (1979), p.61, “Combat”


The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she somehow escapes—or fails to escape—the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.

ibid., p.81, “Saving Throws”


Since this isn’t a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, “You can’t do that because it’s against the rules.” . . .

The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only “I hit. I miss. I hit again,” then something is missing. Combats should be more like, “One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!” This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and (perhaps most important of all) knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

David Cook, AD&D 2E DUNGEON MASTER GUIDE (1989), p.51, “Combat”



ON ALIGNMENT

Asking another character his alignment is futile, anyway—a lawful good character may feel compelled to tell the truth, but a chaotic evil character certainly wouldn’t. A chaotic evil character with any wit would reply “lawful good.”

Even if a character answers truthfully, there is no way for him to know if he is right, short of the loss of class abilities (as in the case of paladins). Player characters can only say what they think their alignment is. Once they have chosen their alignment, the DM is the only person in the game who knows where it currently stands. A chaotic good ranger may be on the verge of changing alignment—one more cold-blooded deed and over the edge he goes, but he doesn’t know that. He still thinks he is chaotic good through and through. . . .

Some characters—the paladin, in particular—possess a limited ability to detect alignments, particularly good and evil. Even this power has more limitations than the player is likely to consider. The ability to detect evil is really only useful to spot characters or creatures with evil intentions or those who are so thoroughly corrupted that they are evil to the core, not just the evil aspect of an alignment.

Just because a fighter is chaotic evil doesn’t mean he can be detected as a source of evil while he is having a drink at the tavern. He may have no particularly evil intentions at that moment. At the other end of the spectrum, a powerful, evil cleric may have committed so many foul and hideous deeds that the aura of evil hangs inescapably over him.

David Cook, AD&D 2E DUNGEON MASTER GUIDE (1989), p.27-28, “Alignment”


Discuss.

 

[barsoomcore]

People keep saying it, so it must be true.

 

[DM_Jeff]

Evoloution

The game's evolved. As opposed to 50,000 different groups managing such things as grappling, jumping, defensive maneuvers and spell creativity gone astray, we now simply have a codified system we can all relate to, instead of 'every group doing their own thing with rules' which made it hard for many to grasp.

And this topic does come up a bit, but underneath it all my games don't feel a heck of a lot different now than they did in 1984. I think it's how you run your game. Do the new rules get in the way? Only if you're in a group that's really hung up on them...or you let them.

-DM Jeff

 

[AIM-54]

Sometimes I feel like we have strayed too far from the original intentions of D&D/AD&D with the wargame/tactics/number crunching embodied in 3/3.5. Below are some passages by two past masters, Gary Gygax and David Cook, from the AD&D 1/2 Dungeon Masters Guides. Read and discuss:

I think it sort of depends on why one plays the game, but for me I agree with some of what is said.

On combat: I think the original 2nd Ed. rounds were a bit too long. While I understand the intention was to evoke images of parry and ripose that only by the end rendered a decision (a hit or miss), a minute is an awful lot of combat that simply isn't decided by a character's skill. One might argue that the 6-second round is too short and that taking 45 minutes to decide a combat of 20-25 seconds is also a bit harsh. I'm a more tactical, combat-oriented player, so I enjoy the wargame aspect of the miniature centered system, but that's a personal thing.

I think the combat-flavor addition rules would have been better subsumed within the general combat rules. Additional rules for bull-rushes, grappling, touch attacks etc, which no one (at least in my group) can remember for more than 45 seconds, tends to slow combat down and get frustrating because there are times when such things are desirable. IMO, it's better when that just becomes player description of their attack actions.

Finally, I remember playing with some of the critical hit tables from Combat & Tactics and boy did they increase lethality. I don't think they add anything to the game and can make it unnecessarily (and perhaps unfairly) brutal. No PC would last long with their limbs intact under those rules. Again, good description from GM's and players can achieve similar affects without requiring additional die rolls and tables.

On alignment: I think they're bang on here. If alignment were played more like this, I think I would be less annoyed by it. While there have been some interesting moral dilemma's (particularly for the paladin) based on the "everyone has an alignment and alignment magic reads that regardless of intention" in my current game, I think it generally takes away from role-playing and some great story possibilities. As it is, more people seem to be constrained by it and use it to dictate their actions, rather than using it as a guide and something they're allowed to stray from on occasion. It should indicate general tendencies, and not be a defining element of the character (save for perhaps paladins).

Just my $0.02

 

[RFisher]

Sometimes I feel like we have strayed too far from the original intentions of D&D/AD&D with the wargame/tactics/number crunching embodied in 3/3.5.

I find it ironic that D&D and AD&D used to be ridiculed as too wargamey, but that the modern D&D game really is a wargame in comparison.

I can enjoy a good wargame. I can enjoy a good wargamey combat system in a roleplaying game. GURPS advanced combat? That can be fun. d20 D&D by the book? That can be fun.

(Funny, but this is the 3rd place I've written much the same thing in the past couple of days...)

But ideally, to me, a roleplaying game should have a combat system that is dead simple & highly abstract. It should encourage the players to think & roleplay on a higher level than the combat system. It should not be about mastering a wargame. I find this particularly important because I've often played with people who don't want to play a wargame, and they tend to feel left out and/or bored a lot when playing full-blown GURPS or d20 D&D.

If I'm ever in a group where I know everyone enjoys wargaming, I'll gladly play a game like that again. Otherwise, I prefer not to.

As for alignment, how do you think 3.0/3.5 is off track there?

 

[Thanee]

“Manageable” applies both to the actions of the combatants and to the actual refereeing of such melees.

Well, I think the 3rd edition rules are quite manageable, really.

It would be no great task to devise an elaborate set of rules for highly complex individual combats with rounds of but a few seconds length.

Quite an understatement there, huh?

It is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy. The reasons for this are manifold.

Even 3rd edition doesn't go that far. But they go into higher detail, of course.

The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she somehow escapes—or fails to escape—the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.

Absolutely. But combat is also a part of adventuring life, and it better be fun, if you happen to end up in combat quite a bit. If combat is so abstract, that it is hardly feasible, then it's also no fun to many players.

Since this isn’t a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, “You can’t do that because it’s against the rules.” . . .

I fail to see how more detailed rules would do this... they just lower the region, where DM decision is the only solution, thus giving the DM more tools to base a decision on. Certainly not a completely bad thing.

The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only “I hit. I miss. I hit again,” then something is missing.

So more options are good, or not?

Combats should be more like, “One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!” This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and (perhaps most important of all) knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

Yeah, that's right! But more detailed combat rules do not make this any harder... actually they make it easier, since there is more difference!

Storytelling combat is great, but where's the fun for the player, if the only thing he or she has to do, is attack and wait for the DM's description. You could also read a book or watch a movie then.

more options ~ more fun

Some characters—the paladin, in particular—possess a limited ability to detect alignments, particularly good and evil. Even this power has more limitations than the player is likely to consider. The ability to detect evil is really only useful to spot characters or creatures with evil intentions or those who are so thoroughly corrupted that they are evil to the core, not just the evil aspect of an alignment.

Now, that's something I really like.

It's basically how I was seeing detect alignment myself, that it is only really useful on supernatural evil, but the part with intent really makes a lot of sense in the way this ability should work.

Bye
Thanee

 

[WayneLigon]

People keep talking about the wargaming/number-crunching of 3E. I saw far, far more number-crunching and 'attention to the rules' under Original D&D and 1E than I ever have with 3E mainly because there were still ways and means (as there are in any game I can recall) of min-maxing and squeezing that last little bit of advantage out of the 'system'.

Go and read several of the first few years worth of Knights of the Dinner Table. Now, imagine that Brian's rules-lawyering and Dave and Bob's power-gaming are done in deadly seriousness. That's what it was like in the early days of OD&D/1E.

What Gygax is probably talking about in '79 DMG were the systems that proliferated after D&D's initial success. There were cries of 'realistic damage system!' and 'no more silly hit points and one-sword-swing-a-minute combat!' (Yes, I know they missed the point entirely). You can't imagine the huge amounts of rules these things had. It would make a dedicated Rolemaster GM weep in his cornflakes. There were systems that did indeed track where on your body you got hit. Even the front and back had different damage rates. One system had it where specific organs took damage. It was insane. None of them prospered.

[Old Man Murchenson] Pah, you think you kids have rules now? Bah! We had real rules, men's rules, iron rules. DM's would come to your house and beat you with thorny rods if you didn't use weapon speed factors and house rules that broke things down by segment! [/Old Man Murchenson]

 

[Henry]

Sometimes I feel like we have strayed too far from the original intentions of D&D/AD&D with the wargame/tactics/number crunching embodied in 3/3.5. Below are some passages by two past masters, Gary Gygax and David Cook, from the AD&D 1/2 Dungeon Masters Guides. Read and discuss:

Nah.

I don't feel we've "lost our way" any more than a child has lost their way if they take a different, yet equally successful, path from their parent. The detractors of the original rules (and 1st nor 2nd edition are the "original" rules, so bear with me a moment) say that the game has advanced from that time - and I say it's true. While Original D&D was loose and unformed (the original rules merely say that "Combat is fast and furious. there are 10 rounds in one turn") there was a desire to codify what came before. Even when Gary codified it, many people did not like the answer that was given - ONE MINUTE for each combat division? Yet if one minute constitutes a "series of attacks" then why do the missile users only use one missile in that minute?

In alignment, the 1E DMG indiciates that it seems to be prescriptive instead of descriptive - even Gary has later said (check the archived Q&A threads on this site for details) that Alignment should not stop a player from doing an action. Yet the Passages from 1E and 2E indicate they would do just that! In fact, many gamers have abolished alignment entirely, because what was a "factional description" was not necessarily meant to become a "way of life" for a character.

In some ways, we could say we lost our way going from OD&D to 1st edition! (Something Diaglo I think has said before. ) But just as a child does things for himself in order to grow and make his way, so too did the game have to change. And one thing that DEFINITELY had to change was the strange re-headed concept of one minute combat rounds - most players just couldn't abide that.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Re: On Combat

Gary, you ignorant slut.

I disagree, most whole-heartedly. The overly abstract nature of (original) D&D combat made it less heroic, less flashy, and caused it to devolve into 'I swing and hit. The orc swings and misses.' Not to mention the fact that the absurd mechanics (Thac0) and chart-crunching of OD&D slowed the game down far more than short combat rounds ever will.

When anyone is perfectly within their right to say, 'Ok, this round, I drop through the trap door, skewer the orc, and tumble under the table to escape.' and succeed merely because they say so, there is no heroics, because there is no risk of failure.

On the other hand, in 3.x D&D, when a player succeeds at the tumble check, the attack, etc., he risks failure and possibly death. That, my friend, is heroic and exciting.

The mantra of 3rd Ed. has been 'Choices!'. I would submit that the flipside of 'Choices' is 'Decisions'. I and my friend finds 3rd Ed far more enjoyable because of the variety offered by the rules, and the fact that the selection of class, feat, spell and skill has a tangible effect, in combat and out.

 

[Hjorimir]

I think that a lot of this stems from the completeness of the rules we have today. Back in the glory days of 1st Edition, the DM simply had to give an ad hoc ruling. This system opened itself to creativity on the player's part and inspired thinking out of the box.

Today, with rules on everything from how much damage a falling object deals based on weight and distance to exactly how one goes about creating a magical staff with various spells, there is less need to be creative in your actions. You simply roll a die and apply the appropriate skill/feat and you can cleanly determine success or failure. Heck, even lying can be calculated with opposed Bluff and Sense Motive rolls (which I removed as a crutch from my own game).

So, while 3.X has done wonders for quantifying what is and is not possible (feasible), it has removed a lot of the influence the DM's judgment has and created, in my own opinion, uncreative players.

Yes, one could argue that you are still creative but within the confine of the rules and there is a certain truth to that. But, I postulate that is has probably harmed the actual role-playing environment by creating crutch rules. I am campaigning within my own group to relax a bit on black and white game rulings and let the story and logic prevail while using the rules as a foundation (if that makes sense…if not refer to Psion’s signature that talks about rules serving the game).