Is D&D "about" combat?

[Theo R Cwithin]

I think we could save this discussion from meaninglessness in part by turning it into a discussion of how the game was designed. I honestly think that one does not have a proper understanding of what the game is about until they are familiar with the (even rough) purpose behind its design.

No, I don't think we can. And that's because our disagreement isn't about mechanics or setting-apprpriateness or combat-to-noncombat rules ratios or anything like that.

Our difference is solely in the definition of the word "about". You appear to be saying that it's the designers' job to determine what the game is "about", whereas I'm claiming that it's up to the gamers to decide that. I've stated my piece: the game is about the story the people at the table build. And you've stated the game is "about" combat by design. We're likely both right, because we're answering different questions.

The problem is that I have no interest in the question you're answering, while you have no interest in the one I'm answering. And that is why, in the absence of lots of up-front framing of the issue, such a discussion is doomed to fail, like all the otheres. Which is fine, because that well-framed debate doesn't seem to be the intent of the OP, though I may be mistaken.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In the sense that Sadrik answered the question "Is D&D only about combat?" when the actual question was "Is D&D about combat?"

I thought the meaning of the response could not have been clearer and did not need to be highlighted and finger-pointed to as incorrect. I don't think anyone on this thread has assumed that the question was referring "only" about combat but instead most have interpreted the question as "primarily about combat". Perhaps you could give posters the benefit of the doubt rather than telling them that they're answering someone else's question wrong?

Because, frankly, you just did little more than tell me that my opinion about your opinion was wrong.

For what it's worth, I clicked on "yes" and so I agree with you in regards to the thread topic . In terms of your opinion though, you treat people as if "they are wrong and you are right and this is why"... This is divisive (not technically "wrong"). Discussion on the other hand would seem to promote a more positive outcome.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

I find some of the statements in this thread to be quite amusing.

D&D isn't about combat, in my opinion. It's not even primarily about combat, in my opinion.

What's it about then?

If the game is about exploration (say) then in what ways do the mechanics facilitate exploration? In what ways are players rewarded for exploring the setting? In what ways are the characters rewarded for exploring the setting? Or, conversely, are they punished for not exploring the setting?

See, I can point to combat and pretty concretely answer those questions. The PC's are rewarded directly for every combat they engage in. They grow in power every time they successfully defeat an opponent. Not only that, but in some systems, the ONLY method to mechanically advance your character was to kill stuff and take its loot.

Yes, the game you play at your table might reward all sorts of behavior in all sorts of ways. But, we're not talking about your game or my game. We're talking about what's between the covers of the books.

So, I can answer pretty concretely how D&D rewards combat.

Can you do the same for whatever you believe D&D is about?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What's it about then?

...Yes, the game you play at your table might reward all sorts of behavior in all sorts of ways. But, we're not talking about your game or my game. We're talking about what's between the covers of the books.

About this I'm not quite as sure. If all D&D was, was what players took out of the book and only what they took out of the book, then perhaps you could look at it that way. However, D&D has so much baggage that its players and designers bring to the table that what it is, simply cannot be so strictly defined.

For example in regards to a curriculum in a school. The document states quite clearly what is to be taught, in what order and with what degree of attention. The writers of this curriculum likewise have their ideas about the curriculum they wrote and like what Umbran intimates, sometimes the two do not match as clearly as those writer's would like. And then... you take that curriculum to the teachers and what happens in the wide spectrum of individual classrooms, and the experiences of students and teachers with that curriculum within those classrooms is guaranteed to be diffuse.

Likewise with D&D. In this regard, a thread like this is interesting to see what eventually becomes of the "Rules". Ultimately, these rules act like a guide that some groups will follow to the letter while the majority will houserule or change in some way or use in ways far different to what the original designers expected. What the designers were thinking is interesting but like curriculum writers, it is like giving birth to a baby and then waiting to see what will become of her when she grows up. It becomes enlightening when even with all these different experiences with now multiple rulesets of D&D that some incredibly intelligent posters can find words and ideas that elegantly and eloquently link these ideas and experiences so neatly together.

* Adventuring.
* Conflict.
* Overcoming.

Damn it if I dare say that there is D&D in a wonderful nutshell.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

But Herreman, if the teacher deviates greatly from the curriculum, does that mean that the curriculum is about something else? For most classes, if you follow the curriculum, you are going to get fairly similar results. If you want to teach geography, then saying that the class is about the physical characteristics of the world isn't all that far off.

Looking at your three examples, in what way does the GAME encourage or reward any of that? Not, how do you or I encourage that, because, I agree, that's what makes the game fun for me, but, I don't play your game and you don't play mine. The only way we can speak the same language is if we ignore our own specific idiosyncratic tables and look at what the game actually says.

Or, put it another way. If the game is about overcoming conflict, in what way does the mechanics of D&D allow me to run a courtroom drama? Or a manhunt? Or even a race? All of these are conflicts to be overcome and are quite possible in the context of a D&D game (ok, courtroom drama might be a stretch, but, think Middle Ages Court), but, how does the actual game encourage this?

If I use D&D to run a space opera campaign, does that make D&D about space opera?

 

[billd91]

If you're playing D&D and only having 1 combat in 5 sessions, I'd say that you might not be playing it wrong, but, you're certainly into territory that the rules don't really cover.

What isn't being covered by the rules? I can still have encounters and resolve them peacefully or with stealth. I can still explore ruins, deal with traps, enthrall the crowd with a bard's song, scry on rivals, engage in palace intrigues with bluff and diplomacy. The rules adequately cover far more than combat.

 

[Hussar]

What isn't being covered by the rules? I can still have encounters and resolve them peacefully or with stealth. I can still explore ruins, deal with traps, enthrall the crowd with a bard's song, scry on rivals, engage in palace intrigues with bluff and diplomacy. The rules adequately cover far more than combat.

Really?

I want to run a race in 3e D&D. Ten characters on horseback around a track.

What mechanics would I use to run this race?

I want to run a 10 way free for all fight between ten characters in an arena.

What mechanics would I use to run this fight?

Now how do those two conflicts compare?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But Herreman, if the teacher deviates greatly from the curriculum, does that mean that the curriculum is about something else?

Actually it normally means the teacher is doing their job.
Teacher's deviate from the curriculum to suit the needs of their students (and occasionally themselves). I can teach the same mathematics curriculum to two students of the same age and can guarantee that they will have different experiences, even if inside the same classroom. If as a teacher, I rigidly follow the curriculum, my students in the main are going to miss out. Because the students bring so many different and varying experiences of mathematics to that self-same classroom, how they interact with the mathematics I present will be different and personal to them. Some students are more visual learners while others thrive on routine and regularity. Smart curricula assume this and even encourage it - that whole rule zero thing if you think about it.

What some ivory-tower designer is thinking means two farts of a sparrow if I know that some kid in my class who hasn't had any breakfast, can barely perform mental arithmetic and who has no understanding of algebraic processes is going to struggle with the material that the curriculum says I should be teaching him. So while what the designers are thinking is relevant, important and interesting, it is not the be all and end all, and it is certainly not what defines mathematics or D&D for each individual, even though for some it will definitely play a part.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

There's more to D&D than combat, but yeah, combat is one of the biggies.

How do I plan combats as a DM? How do I prep for combat as a player? What stuff am I going to buy to better combat my foes? What happens if combat goes badly? Maybe we should avoid this combat. Yay, I just leveled up so now I can combat tougher foes!

 

[Argyle King]

What isn't being covered by the rules? I can still have encounters and resolve them peacefully or with stealth. I can still explore ruins, deal with traps, enthrall the crowd with a bard's song, scry on rivals, engage in palace intrigues with bluff and diplomacy. The rules adequately cover far more than combat.

How do you handle it when a player wants to invest in non-combat related resources? Examples would be owning land or acquiring followers. Do you allow resources gained from being successful in these endeavors to be spent on combat utility?

That's one of the issues I've had -trying to allow freedom without that freedom short circuiting some of the assumptions the system makes. I've seen some people suggest keeping the two types of resources split (combat gains vs other gains.) I've also seen conversations in which it was suggested to write extra treasure into parcels to make up for resources spent/lost on out of combat ventures. Both of these seem somewhat dishonest to me; to some extent, it makes me feel like I'm offered fake choices to the players if I'm the DM or being given false choices as a player from the DM.

How do you handle it?