Is D&D "about" combat?

[Philotomy Jurament]

I approach D&D as being primarily about exploration: delving into the mysterious depths of the underworld, mapping and taming the wilderness, seeking lost cities and fabulous wealth. While I don't think this is the only way to approach the game, I think it's an approach with an exceptionally fine fit. That is, a lot of the rules and traditions of D&D work well with this approach (or are flat-out designed for it). Obviously combat and adventure follow directly from a theme of exploration.

The first adventure I ever ran was the module In Search of the Unknown. That title is a pretty good summary of what I see D&D being about.

 

[rogueattorney]

The original D&D rules were presented as add-on rules for a miniatures combat game and have very little to say about the combat system. D&D, then, was originally about what happens before and after combat, with the combat portion being handled by the miniatures rules.

The OD&D rules had more to say about the effect of a pc's Charisma on npcs than on combat.

Originally, the magic-user didn't have access to a direct damage-causing spell until he reached 5th level. Non-evil clerics didn't have access to any damage-causing spells.

The 1e PHB combat section consisted of 2 pages out of 128. The 1e DMG's was 26 out of 239 (including 3 pages on aerial combat).

The 1981 Basic rules had 4 1/2 pages out of 64 devoted to its combat section, with one of those pages being completely devoted to an example. The 64 page Expert rules from 1981 had a combat section 3 more pages long, but a good chunk of that was repeated information from the Basic book. The two books devoted almost as much space (about 6 pages) to movement and exploration.

 

[billd91]

D&D is a game about many different things depending on the way the local table plays it. If someone were observing my group back when we were in high school, they'd say that the game was about going on quests to save the world. We had combat, sure, but that was always a back seat to the other things going on.

It always rubs me the wrong way for anybody to say that D&D is about combat. That's what the D&D miniature game was about, for the most part, and the two should not be confused any more than I should confuse, say, DC HeroClix with Green Ronin's DC Adventures.

 

[LostSoul]

The mantra I remember, back in my day (when we had to climb uphill both ways in the snow just to roll some d20s, don't you know), was "good role-playing." This is a phrase sprinkled liberally throughout the 2nd edition books in particular. Preachy? You bet. Bad for the game? Not necessarily. As near as I can tell, "good role-playing" according to the 2e definition meant "resisting the temptation to play the numbers," e.g. forsaking min/maxing, monty-hauling, munchkining, etc. in favor of a more immersive experience. It didn't always turn out that way, of course, but at least the admonition was there in the books. The notion was current in gamer culture in the late 80s and throughout the 90s.

And that's changed. I don't think that we see exhortations in favor of "good role-playing" in rulebooks anymore. And I think that gaming has suffered for it. Certainly, in my locality, it's exceedingly difficult to find any player who would rather play a character than a character-sheet. Can it be that attitudes have changed so much in the span of a mere decade? I hope not.

*grumble grodnardy grumble*

Eh. You can have a "more immersive experience" and "play the numbers"; the two don't have to be at odds with each other.

It's only when you make a game that's supposed to create a "more immersive experience" and "play[ing] the numbers" doesn't do that - that is, your game design has utterly failed - that you have to tell people not to play the game that you've made.

 

[amerigoV]

Kill things and take their stuff.

So, its really about murder and theft. Plus a bit of bad acting in between.

And that's why its so popular!

 

[rogueattorney]

Kill things and take their stuff.

So, its really about murder and theft. Plus a bit of bad acting in between.

And that's why its so popular!

Prior to 2e, the game as written was really a lot more about taking the stuff. The killing was fairly incidental to the stuff taking.

 

[Argyle King]

D&D is all about combat the same way that pretty much every single RPG out there is about combat (tabletop *and* computer).

The largest section of character generation and rules explanation is for what happens when combat or fighting breaks out. D&D, Fable, Shadowrun, World of Warcraft, HERO, Mass Effect, Legend of the 5 Rings, City of Heroes, Star Wars RPG, The Witcher, Ghostbusters, James Bond, Fallout, Paranoia etc. etc. All of them use combat scenarios as their 'scene break' and the way for creating conflict and risk to a character during a game.

Sure... other forms of conflict resolution exist in certain games, but it is the rare game whose rules for social combat are larger and more complex that the rules for the physical.

I wouldn't say 'rare.' There are many games which focus on task resolution rather than conflict resolution. Likewise, the other main game I play has rather robust rules and option rules available for hiring followers, loyalty, and etc. Likewise, there are robust rules for inventing, building, social stigmas, and various other things.

Also, while the original Fallout games did involve a fair share of combat, it was surprising how much of the game you could get through with other skills. That was one of the reasons I loved those games - there were multiple ways to solve problems.


Personally, I would say that D&D currently focuses on a style of play which focuses on combat encounters being the main method for conflict resolution. That's not to say that individual groups can't play differently, but it is my belief that the current rendition of D&D has a more specific style of play that it is designed around, and that style tends to push combat encounters to the main stage.

 

[Croesus]

The original D&D rules were presented as add-on rules for a miniatures combat game and have very little to say about the combat system. D&D, then, was originally about what happens before and after combat, with the combat portion being handled by the miniatures rules.

The OD&D rules had more to say about the effect of a pc's Charisma on npcs than on combat.

Originally, the magic-user didn't have access to a direct damage-causing spell until he reached 5th level. Non-evil clerics didn't have access to any damage-causing spells.

The 1e PHB combat section consisted of 2 pages out of 128. The 1e DMG's was 26 out of 239 (including 3 pages on aerial combat).

The 1981 Basic rules had 4 1/2 pages out of 64 devoted to its combat section, with one of those pages being completely devoted to an example. The 64 page Expert rules from 1981 had a combat section 3 more pages long, but a good chunk of that was repeated information from the Basic book. The two books devoted almost as much space (about 6 pages) to movement and exploration.

Then again, one could always note that per EGG, the only way to gain XP from monsters was if you killed them. Not if you tricked, charmed, snuck past, or otherwise defeated them - killing them. Heck, you didn't even get XP for "defeating" a trap - traps and puzzles were just ways of whittling down the characters' resources (Tomb of Horrors notwithstanding).

I would argue that originally D&D was conceived as a combat-focused game with elements of roleplaying, exploration, and the other things people have mentioned. In effect, all those other rules were mostly to help you get...into combat. There's a reason why many people equate D&D with "killing things and taking their stuff".

Is that all D&D can be? Of course not. Is it all D&D is to most players today? I doubt it. Is there any other single element that is more common in D&D games? I doubt it.

While it's, of course, not all about combat, if I was forced to diffuse D&D down to one word, I'd be hard pressed to find something more apt.

I'd be inclined to go with "challenge", but given how many challenges are combats, I can't argue with your logic.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, its really about murder and theft. Plus a bit of bad acting in between.

So it's about Hollywood?

 

[Yesway Jose]

So, its really about murder and theft. Plus a bit of bad acting in between

So it's about Hollywood?

No, Hollywood is a campaign setting for Botox & Cocaine.