Is D&D "about" combat?

[Dannager]

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.

I think that the sort of gaming where the ability of a player to engage in a poor example of method acting is important has suffered. I don't think that gaming on the whole has suffered for it. You think it suffered because you liked the Old Ways.

 

[Kinneus]

The best answer I can give:
If I joined a new group to sit down and play some D&D, I'd be disappointed if the game consisted solely of slamming through one combat encounter after the other.

However, I'd be even more disappointed to learn that there was not to be any combat in the entire campaign.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No. You can run a great D&D game with little to no combat. Many D&D games focus on combat, but the game as a whole is quite diverse.

...
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*

Well, I'm 25, and have mainly been a 3rd edition player. I run sessions with a lot of plot, a some character development, and little combat. The longer I DM the more I move in that direction. I was very impressed when 3e came out with this wonderfully detailed feat and skill system that vastly improved 2e's "non-weapon proficiencies" (and equally disgusted with 4e for taking a massive step away from that system).

I hope it's not a generational thing.

 

[rogueattorney]

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.

Under the letter of the OD&D rules, in order for a first level fighter in a party of six to go from first level to second level, his party would have to "defeat" (not kill) 120 orcs or 12 red dragons. Anyone who knows anything about combat in early D&D knows that it would be completely impossible for a first level party to all survive that amount of combat.

The way to get to the next level in OD&D was to get gold pieces. Monsters defeated supplemented the treasure acquisition, but the assumption was that approximately 3/4 of the character's xp came from treasure.

As of the Greyhawk Supplement and the subsequent 1e and B/X D&D rules, players got even less xp for defeating monsters. That party of six has to "defeat" 1,200 orcs to get the fighter up to 2nd level in B/X D&D. From the Greyhawk Supp to 2e, killing monsters for their xp was a suicide mission at low levels and ineffectual at higher levels.

2e changed all that and turned beating monsters into the primary method of getting xp.

 

[Stoat]

I started playing in 1988 or so, and I cut my teeth on 2E. I'm well versed in the "not just hack-&-slash" mantra.

But, IMO, D&D is a game about combat. Combat isn't the be all and end all. D&D isn't a game about just combat. (That's WHFB and 40K) But a fundamental assumption of the game is that combat is a possibility.

As some lost soul put it in a letter to Dragon lo these years ago, "If D&D isn't supposed to be about combat, why does the PHB list 20 different types of polearms and only 2 types of wine?"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

I think that's Miami.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As some lost soul put it in a letter to Dragon lo these years ago, "If D&D isn't supposed to be about combat, why does the PHB list 20 different types of polearms and only 2 types of wine?"

To be fair, that's just because someone at TSR had some sort of strange polearm fetish. (Remember, kids, always use the hand sanitizer before and after handling a strange polearm!)

 

[Croesus]

The way to get to the next level in OD&D was to get gold pieces. Monsters defeated supplemented the treasure acquisition, but the assumption was that approximately 3/4 of the character's xp came from treasure.

True enough. And how was most of that treasure obtained? By killing things.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the only way to play D&D or for players to feel successful in D&D, is via combat.

But is combat a core assumption of D&D? Absolutely.

 

[KidSnide]

I don't think D&D (in any edition) has been intrinsically about combat, although any given table could be running a game that was.

That having been said, D&D (in most editions) is a game that dedicates a majority of its rules and materials towards supporting combat. That's because a detailed (for varying definitions of "detailed") combat system with a wide variety of foes and possible PCs requires a lot of mechanics. It's up to the group to decide whether to use those mechanics to support a game that's principally about something else, or to run a game that's principally an excuse to use those mechanics. YMMV -- there is no badfunwrong here.

However, speaking only for myself, I've come to enjoy the non-combat parts of the game more as I've gotten older. As such, I think the 2nd ed exhortations to more story and role-playing (and less mechanical optimization) improved my gaming experience significantly. I think it's a shame that WotC has moved away from that.

-KS

 

[Spatula]

Is D&D about combat? Sometimes. The rules tend to point to combat being one of the main focuses of the game, as that's where they tend to spend the most effort. Is D&D exclusively about combat? Not for me.

It's the same reaction I have whenever I see someone say, "You shouldn't use the phrase 'roll-playing.' That's judgmental and derogatory, like calling someone a munchkin or a min/maxer." But I can't help it: it's a major aspect of my "upbringing" into D&D, an irremovable portion of my "gamer constitution." I was brought into the game when roll-playing was bad, min-maxing was bad, rules-lawyering was bad, the Monty Haul campaign was bad, the killer DM was bad, etc., etc. Objectively bad: these were game-killers. They made things less fun for everybody.

I think these days we can appreciate that different people enjoy different aspects of the game; and that even if we don't share their tastes, we can allow them to have their fun without telling them they're doing it wrong.

(looks back over 20 years of reading D&D flame wars online)

Then again, maybe we can't...