Is D&D "about" combat?

[delericho]

Yes.

It really shouldn't be, and I don't think it used to be, but yeah, the game really is about combat these days.

 

[billd91]

I'm trying to get an idea of how others handle some of the non-directly combat related things in their games. The topic being about D&D's perceived combat focus, I find it relevant to better understand how other things can be included in the game.

Have you had a problem with a character having more money than the level guidelines saying they should have being able to acquire items they shouldn't have at their level? An arbitrary example would be say a level 5 character being able to afford paragon level items via smart investment.

Likewise, have you had issues with a character not being able to afford items because of performing poorly with investments? Let's say a level 11 character being stuck with level 5 gear due to lack of funds.

I don't have a problem with either issue. If the rust monster destroys a PC's gear, I'm content to let the PCs figure out how to deal with it, even if it sets him (them) back quite a bit of wealth. Same for unusual windfalls or unusually expensive magic items they get that set them ahead. If I didn't think the PC should have the item, I would not let them get/find it.

 

[Jhaelen]

Combat is definitely a part of what D&D is about. It should even be obvious, considering its history. I have a hard time understanding why there are people who voted differently.

Imho, D&D without combat is like food without calories or beer without alcohol - pointless

If I was looking for an rpg that is not about combat, D&D is not something I'd look at.

 

[Dannager]

Are you saying D&D can't handle a horse race? Because it can. It's a refereed game which means it can handle anything that the referee can handle.

This says more about the referee than the game. If you were to use the game's actual rules to determine the winner of a horse race, it would be decided as soon as initiative is rolled - horses have equal speeds, everyone takes double run actions, therefore the person with the highest initiative is the first to cross the line.

Is this a good way to adjudicate a horse race? No.

Is it the way of adjudicating a horse race with the most rules support? Absolutely.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Combat is definitely a part of what D&D is about. It should even be obvious, considering its history. I have a hard time understanding why there are people who voted differently.

Imho, D&D without combat is like food without calories or beer without alcohol - pointless

If I was looking for an rpg that is not about combat, D&D is not something I'd look at.

I didn't interpret the question to be "is combat part of D&D?"

If that's the question, I agree with you. I still don't think that D&D is "about" combat, which is how the question is phrased. To me, D&D without role playing is a lot more empty than D&D without combat, but we probably have different tastes. And D&D is versatile enough to allow both of us to have fun, and that's pretty cool.

As always, play what you like

 

[Pentius]

I'm interested in posters' knee-jerk reaction to this question, the gut-instinct response, hence the fact that the poll asks for a simple "yes" or "no."

My knee jerk response was "No, because I don;t want to get crap for loving combat." I will explore this in the later parts of this post. My second thought was "kinda, yeah. D&D is about stories. Stories are about conflict. Conflict in D&D is primarily resolved via combat. SO kinda, yeah."

I've been prompted to ask this question by an odd happenstance. You see, I was browsing through my local library yesterday, and I stumbled across a copy of "Dungeon Mastering for Dummies" (the only D&D book on the shelves), written by Bill Slavicsek and published during the "v3.5" era. Curious, I picked up this book and started leafing through it, having never before read any of the "D&D for dummies" books. I wondered what kind of advice this book might give budding DMs. A lot of it was re-hashed from the 3rd edition DMGs. A lot more was pretty sound advice. But then, at one point, Bill came out and said, "D&D is a game about combat."

This disturbed me instantly. Mainly because it contrasted with everything I remember Zeb writing in the 2e DMG, where the text came right out and said things like, "D&D is not a combat game" and "more than just hack & slash." So for me, when I see a question like "Is D&D a game about combat?", my gut reaction is a weird, atavistic sort of "NO IT'S NOT!" that comes barreling out of my brain like that space-slug coming out of the asteroid in Empire.

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.

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*

In what may be my most confrontational statement on ENworld, I want that view to die. Let me explain.

I've been a fan of D&D since I could reach the third shelf and thus, my father's AD&D books(nearly two decades, now, That's since I was 3). I "played" it for many years on the playground, not playing anything recognizable as any edition of D&D, but still getting my friends together during recess to slay Tiamat with our sticks and magicky sound effects. So I don't consider myself a newbie. I've been playing things recognizable as D&D since I was able to get a group together, about 7 years ago, now(just hit my anniversary last month. Yes, I keep track). I've played 1e, 3.5, and 4e(I skipped 2e). I've also played a number of other systems. If there is one thing, throughout the entirety of my time in the hobby that has been a thorn in my side, it is the notion of "Good Roleplaying".

I'll clarify more. The notion itself may or may not be innocent. But I've moved oh, half a dozen times in the last few years(school, work, family, it's a moving-ish kind of era in my life), and every time, one of my first concerns, after having a roof over my head, is to find a gaming group. Several times now, I've met someone promising, and joined their group. I'll make a character, and come to the first session. "Let me see your sheet." the Dm says.

"But of course." I reply, handing it over. As the Dm begins to read, I look to the other players, "I'm going to play a Monk." I'll say, by way of example, "He's an honorable man who's been exiled on account of-"

"Ugh." the Dm interrupts. "He has a 20 as his primary stat." the group looks at me, some with accusation in their eyes, some with pity. "Kyle, I was really hoping you'd be a roleplayer, not another damned power-gamer."

And that is when I go over my options. Are there other groups in town? If so, I can just leave. If not, I have to carefully explain to these people, with a very high chance of failure, that being able to create a mechanically competent, even mechanically brilliant character does not involve putting a spike through the part of my brain that creates a well-developed, well-roleplayed character.

I'd gladly take up a pair of scissors and a bonfire if I could cut out and burn every notion in the roleplaying community that knowing, understanding, and using the mechanics of the game does not automatically make a person a bad roleplayer.

 

[pemerton]

I think the easiest way to figure out what a game is about is to look at the amount of effort its creators put into each facet of the game. Look at page counts for different facets of the game. Look at time spent at the table in a given mode of play.

I voted yes.

I agree with the general thrust of this, but voted No. I'll try to explain below.

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.

I agree with the last sentence of this, but not with the first sentence.

I think a skirmish miniatures wargame is about combat. D&D, on the other hand, is a step away from that. Combat remains an important element in D&D, of course, and one that requires a good chunk of rules to support it, but D&D goes beyond being "about combat" and puts the main focus elsewhere: on exploration, or on adventure, or on roleplay, et cetera. I'd say that's exactly what distinguishes D&D from a campaign game of Chainmail or D&D Minis.

This is interesting, but I don't entirely agree - in part because I personally find that too much exploration (particularly exploration without context, a la Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain) can be tedious, but also because I think it's not about "It's not about combat, it's about these other things" but rather "It's not about combat, because combat is a means rather than an end in itself". I agree that the end in question is heroic fantasy adventure.

Is D&D "about" combat? I think "no" if combat is part of the journey, and "yes" if combat is the main journey for its own sake.

I agree with this (although I'm not sure the "journey" metaphor is quite how I'd put it).

I think that D&D (and especially post-classic D&D) is about heroic adventure, in which combat is a principal (perhaps the principal) means of resolving conflict. In that respect it resembles a lot of adventure fiction (Arthurian legends, REH, 70s and 80s Marvel comics, etc). But it is not about combat - or, at least, need not be.

At a certain point in the early-to-mid-90s the X-Men and their spinoffs changed, so that instead of the combat being a means of conveying conflict and its resolution, the fighting became the focus of the story - the thing that it was about. This creates a marked contrast with (for example) the Death of Phoenix, or episode 150 and the beginning of Magneto's redemption, or the "From the Ashes" fight between Scott and Ororo for leadership of the team. (I personally think that this change was a decline, but then I'm a sucker for the cheap sentimentalism of the classic Marvels).

I think that D&D, with the very same character build and action resolution mechanics, can be played in either sort of way - combat as means, or combat as end. The difference is determined not by mechanics, but by other aspects of play like scenario design, preferences and motivations of the participants, etc.

I wouldn't disagree with you that combat is a subset of the game. But, again, it makes up the most critical, the most widely-used, and the most consistently "meaty" subset of the game, and that makes D&D primarily about combat

This inference is unsound. Most of the activity of a hunter might involve searching, tracking, stalking etc. But hunting isn't "about" those things. It's about killing an animal (for food, at least in the paradigm case). Those things are means to an end.

Of course, over time, the means - if they loom very large relative to the end, and if they have a certain fascination of their own - can come to replace the original end as ends in themselves. Arguably, this is what happens in the decline of Marvel comics in the 90s. I'm sure there's an analogue to this in the case of hunting, also, although whether it would count as a decline would depend on other considerations (and political ones that might tend to violate the board rules, so I'll leave them alone).

There seems to me to be a lot of evidence that, from early in its history, D&D was vulnerable to changing into a game that is about combat. For those groups who are happy with this, no problem. For those who (like me) would experience this as a type of degeneration, prophylactic measures are called for to keep the means in check. I'm happy to talk about the measures that I use in running my game - they have to do primarily with scenario design and scene framing, but also to do with how I, as GM, adjudicate the action resolution mechanics.

(One might reasonably ask - Why not switch to a game where the means don't pose this danger, of swallowing up the end - say HeroWars/Quest? The answer, for me and my group, is that we enjoy D&D's fiddly bits.)

I also have to wonder if the thought process of those who answered "No" to the poll went something along the lines of "Is D&D about combat? No way! D&D is about a bunch of different things: roleplaying, combat, exploration, flumphs!" and then I wonder how many of those people would answer "Yes" to a poll that asked "Is D&D about roleplaying?"

I can only explain my own thought process (which, I must admit, was not kneejerk, as I spend way too much time on these boards pontificating about these very questions!). I thought, What is D&D about. And answered: heroic adventure, and the conflicts that drive such adventure. How does combat fit in? Its a principal mode of expressing and resolving conflict. Is the game about combat, then? No - no more than the X-Men, or Spiderman, or The Incredible Hulk, at least in the 70s and 80s, were about combat. No more than John Boorman's masterful Excalibur is about combat. (The X-Men is about liberation politics. Spiderman is about overcoming personal inadequacy. The Hulk is about the Freudian theory of the mind - Doc Samson is analyst first, fighter distant second, despite his muscles and green hair! Excalibur is about destiny, loyalty and the romance of divinely-ordained monarchy. Other critics may have different views, of course.)

OTOH, if you were to ask if D&D is about tracking niggly details, most people would probably say no, despite the fact that this plays a large part of any D&D experience.

Teriffic comment. One of many reasons why my partner has zero interest in roleplaying (or playing CCGs, for that matter) is the excessive need to track niggly details.

The PC's are rewarded directly for every combat they engage in. They grow in power every time they successfully defeat an opponent.

But this one I don't agree with, sorry, at least as far as 4e is concerned (I think it is true of AD&D). In 4e - assuming that the GM is following the encounter design guidelines - gaining levels doesn't make the PC more powerful in any mechanical sense, as the DCs and defences and hit points all scale (a real contrast with AD&D, where gaining levels, especially between 1st and 4th or so, makes a huge difference to survivability of a PC).

A PC might, of course, become more powerful in the fiction from gaining levels, but a GM could equally have that PC become more powerful in the fiction by doing non-combat stuff. 4e leaves all this in-the-fiction stuff pretty wide open (although some loose mechanical parameters are imposed by the notions of Paragon and Epic tier - but the XPs to achieve these can be earned via skill challenges, quests, or DMG2 "roleplay" XP, as much as by fighting).

 

[pemerton]

Why should there be so much time devoted to combat compared to, say, interpersonal interactions? Because the former requires more structure to be fair than the latter.

I don't agree with this at all. Consider a game of Traveller, for example, in which combat is extremely rare and interstellar travel and trade are the main focus of play: rules to support starship travel, buying and selling, negotiating, refuelling etc will have a much greater influence on the "fairness" of play. (And I think you kind-of notice this in your later reference to Traveller.)

From Christopher Kubasik, Interactive Tookit:

Flip open your rulebook. Any rulebook. See that big chapter on combat? And the equally large chapters on technology and magic, both of which are used primarily for combat? Stories don't need all that stuff.

White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade is a game about the brooding affairs of immortal vampires and their clan disputes. It's moody. It's horror. It's about personality and character. For some bizarro reason, there's space in the rules devoted to distinguishing between the damage done by shotguns and that of Uzis.

. . .

The narrative of most roleplaying games is tactical simulation fiction. This style of story revolves around weapons and split second decisions made during combat.

. . .

It's assumed that roleplaying games need these tactics, morale modifiers and tables of weapons. After all, that's the way it's always been.

But why?

. . .

Roleplaying games as we understand them originated 30 years ago - a decade before Dungeons & Dragons saw the light of day - when wargamers in Minneapolis each controlled one soldier instead of whole armies.

. . .

It's no surprise that Gary Gygax and others carried a lot of wargaming over into Dungeon & Dragons. What is surprising is how much of the wargaming hobby is still with us.

. . .

Here are some of the habits left over from wargames that many of us don't really need or want.

Emphasis on tactics . . .

Fake realism . . .

Random results . . .

The gamemaster as a superior participant to the storytelling session . . .​

I don't have the same preferences as Kubasik in roleplaying - unlike him, I enjoy mainstream fantasy RPGing in which mechanically heavy combat is central to conflict resolution - but I think his diagnosis of "We have combat rules because we need them" is dead on. If you don't want combat to be a big part of your play, then you don't need combat rules. (It can be a big part of play without being what play is about. Breathing is a big part of my life, but it's not what my life is about.)

Are you saying D&D can't handle a horse race? Because it can. It's a refereed game which means it can handle anything that the referee can handle.

<snip suggested adjudicaiton>

I think you've just shown that D&D doesn't have the same robustness of mechancis to adjudicate a horse race as it does to adjudicate combat. The comparison to a game like HeroWars/Quest is pretty stark, for example. (One problem is that D&D's movement mechanics start from the assumption that movement is a subsidiary consideration in a broader context - namely, combat - whereas in a race movement is the primary consideration.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is war about combat? A soldier probably spends only a small portion of his time engaged in battle. The commander is mostly concerned with supply lines; movement of troops; information - scouts, spys and deception; and so forth. Combat isn't the purpose of war either, its purpose is to achieve a political goal.

So war is to combat much as D&D is to combat. And yet it seems strange to me to say that war isn't about combat. It's the most important, most distinctive, most decisive element. It's the crux of the matter.

 

[Tuft]

If I wanted a game about combat, I would play Warmachine, Confrontation, Mordheim, Necromunda, even Bloodball, where the fight is more or less fair, not heavily stacked in your favor.

Edit: Yes, I meant Bloodbowl, sorry.