Is D&D "about" combat?

[havard]

And I agree with this (and I'm guessing Mark CMG does, too). But the fact that it became D&D when these "other" elements were added doesn't necessarily make those elements more important (or even equally important) to what D&D is about than the foundation that it was built upon. As I explained earlier, they weren't Flintstones Children's Vitamins until they were fruit-flavored, but that doesn't mean that Flintstones Children's Vitamins aren't fundamentally about nutrition. There is a higher bar of reason that needs to be established in order to show that.

Now, without a doubt, you are absolutely correct that these "other" aspects of the game are what separates tabletop RPGs from other sorts of games. You can simulate miniatures combat in any number of ways, including in video game form. You can't simulate the DM (adequately) or his custom-tailored story, or the participation of your friends and their characters, each of whom is hand-crafted in the vision of the player behind it. Clearly, these things are vital to determining what makes tabletop RPGs different from other forms of entertainment, but that's not the same as determining what D&D is about.

In the end, what D&D is about is going to be subjective, boilig down to individual groups and individual players. I guess your poll shows that most people who have voted so far feel that D&D is not fundamentally about combat.

I guess you could also do a deeper study of the rulebooks for the various editions and see what they dedicate pages to, but in the end, I am not sure that would give a better result.

Could it in fact be that Gary and Dave revealed what they intended the game to be about when they sat down and called it a roleplaying game, rather than a combat game?

-Havard

 

[Dannager]

In the end, what D&D is about is going to be subjective, boilig down to individual groups and individual players. I guess your poll shows that most people who have voted so far feel that D&D is not fundamentally about combat.

Not really my poll, but yes.

I guess you could also do a deeper study of the rulebooks for the various editions and see what they dedicate pages to, but in the end, I am not sure that would give a better result.

Could it in fact be that Gary and Dave revealed what they intended the game to be about when they sat down and called it a roleplaying game, rather than a combat game?

That's because it is a roleplaying game. This separates it from the sorts of games that existed before it which did not feature roleplaying. I don't know that this means you can infer that they meant it to be about roleplaying to a greater degree than they meant it to be about the combat game that it arose from.

 

[Wiseblood]

No.
It's about the smell. (If there is such a thing.)

The smell of the books. Or the dusty attic or damp basement. The smell of wood smoke and roast. The smell of metal and earth and leather. It smells like victory.

 

[howandwhy99]

For me D&D has 3 primary centers: Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics. Combat is a huge part of the game, but it's really the F-M part. Magic is another, clericalism is the third. Oh yeah, someone added Thieves later, so there is some of that too.

I guess the easy answer is Dungeons & Dragons is about both dungeons and dragons. Fighting, or as Sepulchrave said - overcoming, fearsome creatures and exploring fascinating environments. And the other way around too.

 

[Mark CMG]

While I agree with this description, I think it is equally fair to say that this game only became D&D when the "other" element was added.

And I agree with this (and I'm guessing Mark CMG does, too).

I guess I would have to say that D&D is a combat game first, and by design, and that it can be more based on additional design and dependent upon gameplay. I'm not familiar with any groups that completely ignore the combat elements but I have seen gamers play completely without any RPing, and I have seen this done with each of the editions at times over the years. I think the various editions promote and/or support RPing to varying degrees but all editions heavily support and encourage combat. There are other RPGs that focus primarily on RPing, some with little, if any, combat encouraged and/or supported, by design. I think I would like to see a D&D RPG that supports and encourages RPing primarily or at least equally as much as combat. However, I would not enjoy a D&D RPG that eliminated or discouraged combat.

 

[Dannager]

I guess I would have to say that D&D is a combat game first, and by design, and that it can be more based on additional design and dependent upon gameplay. I'm not familiar with any groups that completely ignore the combat elements but I have seen gamers play completely without any RPing, and I have seen this done with each of the editions at times over the years. I think the various editions promote and/or support RPing to varying degrees but all editions heavily support and encourage combat. There are other RPGs that focus primarily on RPing, some with little, if any, combat encouraged and/or supported, by design. I think I would like to see a D&D RPG that supports and encourages RPing primarily or at least equally as much as combat. However, I would not enjoy a D&D RPG that eliminated or discouraged combat.

That would be the best of both worlds. I don't mind a D&D that makes non-combat encounters rewarding and enjoyable - in fact, I think it would be awesome, and I think 4e made an effort to shift in that direction. But I'm averse to any such change that would weaken its very excellent combat system. Design resources aren't unlimited, so anyone who tackles such a goal would need to walk something of a tightrope.

 

[Mark CMG]

We were doing so well. I've been careful to avoid edition-specific discussion but I will comment on these points . . .

That would be the best of both worlds. I don't mind a D&D that makes non-combat encounters rewarding and enjoyable - in fact, I think it would be awesome, and I think 4e made an effort to shift in that direction.

I think, and I am sure you have read this often, that a number of people disagree with the way in which some noncombat was mechanized and how it seemed to be done in an effort to steer play back toward combat encounters and that other noncombat was relegated to a backseat by design.

But I'm averse to any such change that would weaken its very excellent combat system. Design resources aren't unlimited, so anyone who tackles such a goal would need to walk something of a tightrope.

I think, and I am sure you have also read this often, that a number of people believe that way in which combat is represented in the most recently published editions is part of why the RPing is lessened.

Can we now agree that both sides have had their banners waved and move back to non-edition-specific discussion of D&D, please? (Except, perhaps, 5E speculation?)

 

[Dannager]

Can we now agree that both sides have had their banners waved and move back to non-edition-specific discussion of D&D, please? (Except, perhaps, 5E speculation?)

Sure.

 

[pemerton]

II've made every effort to support my statements with logical examples

But I don't think you've responded to the suggestion that I and a number of other "no" voters have put forward - namely, that combat is central to the expression and resolution of confict in D&D, but is not the subject matter of the game - which is to say, is not what the game is about.

As I said upthread, I'd be curious to hear you response to that.

And on an independent point, I wonder if the reason that [MENTION=114]Plane Sailing[/MENTION] and [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] have different recollections is because (as far as I know) the first was in Britain and the second in the US.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That would be the best of both worlds. I don't mind a D&D that makes non-combat encounters rewarding and enjoyable - in fact, I think it would be awesome, and I think 4e made an effort to shift in that direction. But I'm averse to any such change that would weaken its very excellent combat system. Design resources aren't unlimited, so anyone who tackles such a goal would need to walk something of a tightrope.

I think that's part of why Mearls has been advocating for "dials."

Not everyone is a fan of 4e combat. Personally, I think it's too detailed and fiddly for what I need combat to do in my games. It's a good system, it's just VERY CONCERNED with details that I don't care about, personally.

Not everyone is a fan of 4e noncombat. Personally, I think it's not detailed enough, and too abstract for what I need exploration and interaction to do in my games. It's not a bad system, it's just not at all concerned with details that I find vital, personally.

From WotC's viewpoint, there's gotta be a way for me and you to both be giving them money. Neither of us are likely to change our likes and dislikes -- I'm not suddenly going to accept rituals and skill challenges as super awesome ideas, and you're not suddenly going to be OK with a more abstract combat system. We both are willing to spend money on things that support our style of play, and unwilling to spend money on things that don't. So for WotC to get both of our moneys, it needs to give us both what we actually want. And that's incompatible in one rule system. It needs to give us modularity so that you can plug in 4e's combat system and I can plug in some awesome social skill system, and a third person could use both, and a fourth person could use neither. Providing all of that is the only way WotC will get both of our dollars.

Something I think has been learned well by WotC: You can't tell people what is fun for them. Saying "X is fun, Y is boring, here's rules for X!" is just going to piss off the people who have a LOT of fun with Y. It's the essence of badwrongfun, a judgement on someone else's delightful four hours of imaginary elf time. Your best bet is to say "X is fun, here's rules for X! Y is fun, here's rules for Y!"

That's also a tremendous undertaking, if you're going to provide rules for AAA-ZZZ.

D&D is about a lot of different things for a lot of different players, and the designers can't effectively dictate what the game is about to the groups (and hope to make a profit). The GROUPS dictate what their games are about to the DESIGNERS. If the designers don't provide that, they don't sell very much, because as Gygax famously said, we don't actually need any rules to do this thing. We WANT rules, oh yes we do, we loves them. But we don't need them. And if WotC won't give them to us, we'll go to retroclones, or to Pathfinders, or to other games, or just stop buying books altogether, maybe even retire, leave the hobby, and do something else with our time.