Is D&D "about" combat?

[havard]

You can make D&D do anything you want it to, with enough work. That doesn't mean that D&D was designed to do everything equally well, or with equal ease of implementation.

Agreed, but I think that the scope has grown more narrow with later editions, at least from the design philosophy's point of view. I'd like D&D to get back to where non combat activities like making magical items, running a barony, forging your own sword, hunting for food, making your way as a merchant etc becomes just as viable options for an adventurer as hacking your way through a dungeon.

-Havard

 

[Dannager]

Agreed, but I think that the scope has grown more narrow with later editions, at least from the design philosophy's point of view. I'd like D&D to get back to where non combat activities like making magical items, running a barony, forging your own sword, hunting for food, making your way as a merchant etc becomes just as viable options for an adventurer as hacking your way through a dungeon.

-Havard

I think that the important thing to understand is that an adventurer goes on adventures. If you are setting up a blacksmith in town and selling the finest swords in the land to those of stout arm, sure, you might be doing something, but you'd be stretching the definition to call yourself an adventurer.

Later editions have really embraced the idea of the adventurer, in the sense that the designers have made the conscious decision to facilitate the practice of adventuring as readily as possible.

Many of the things that you mention (hunting for food, forging a sword, selling things at market) are quite mundane, and the guys at WotC clearly have an understanding (whether accurate or not) that people really want the focus to be on having fun, dramatic, epic adventures - to the point where people are okay with those other things sort of fading into the background or being very short diversions.

I don't play D&D as a medieval fantasy world simulator. I don't expect - nor do I desire - that it will go out of its way to facilitate my becoming a chicken farmer, or even a magic chicken farmer. I'd rather it do the whole adventuring thing really well.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think that the important thing to understand is that an adventurer goes on adventures. If you are setting up a blacksmith in town and selling the finest swords in the land to those of stout arm, sure, you might be doing something, but you'd be stretching the definition to call yourself an adventurer.

Later editions have really embraced the idea of the adventurer, in the sense that the designers have made the conscious decision to facilitate the practice of adventuring as readily as possible.

Many of the things that you mention (hunting for food, forging a sword, selling things at market) are quite mundane, and the guys at WotC clearly have an understanding (whether accurate or not) that people really want the focus to be on having fun, dramatic, epic adventures - to the point where people are okay with those other things sort of fading into the background or being very short diversions.

I don't play D&D as a medieval fantasy world simulator. I don't expect - nor do I desire - that it will go out of its way to facilitate my becoming a chicken farmer, or even a magic chicken farmer. I'd rather it do the whole adventuring thing really well.

Consider, for a moment, that the positions of "blacksmith," and "adventurer," are not exclusive of one another.

 

[Dannager]

Consider, for a moment, that the positions of "blacksmith," and "adventurer," are not exclusive of one another.

They're not, no. One can be a blacksmith, and one can be a blacksmith who goes on adventures. But in the course of epic adventure (or at least of the sort that D&D has historically simulated) featuring fantastical treasure, the idea of keeping up a mundane profession during the course of one's adventuring career is the sort of thing that either doesn't happen, or gets briefly touched upon or glossed over. It would be like a technology tycoon selling his startup for tens of millions of dollars and then going back to work in a cubicle for the local paper company.

I'm reading the Pathfinder novel Plague of Shadows right now. The main character is a former adventurer who helped her adventuring companion take over a barony and run it for a number of years. But that's not the story. The story is what happens when the barony is threatened and she must once again take up the mantle of adventurer to set things right.

Now, granted, the above example is written, non-interactive fiction, but I believe the point still stands. There may be some people out there who enjoy the idea (and probably a handful who would even enjoy the practice) of playing a blacksmith for any significant length of time, but I'm not sure that the size of this group of people justifies the dedication of significant design resources and page real estate to implementing a robust rules system that facilitates this sort of play.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Now, granted, the above example is written, non-interactive fiction, but I believe the point still stands. There may be some people out there who enjoy the idea (and probably a handful who would even enjoy the practice) of playing a blacksmith for any significant length of time, but I'm not sure that the size of this group of people justifies the dedication of significant design resources and page real estate to implementing a robust rules system that facilitates this sort of play.

Fair enough. I fall into that small last group (which I might agree with you is fairly small).

Our group had a (very low level) adventure where we saved the dogs of the community from some imps. The community was large enough that, after making all efforts to find the dogs homes, we opened a pet store/shelter of sorts.

Call it a macguffin if you like, but it involved all sorts of story potential, included some minor upkeeping, we dealt with the local mafia, who wanted to offer our store, and the animals inside "protection", we made lots of contacts with people, and it gave us a "front" (even though it was a legitimate business) and a basic income for food and housing when we were low level adventurers.

Maybe explaining how I've gamed helps to explain a bit of my perspective on how I approach D&D.

Some people (even some people in my group who I enjoy gaming with) are "get to the action" sort of people. Nothing wrong with that. I'm more of a "what's happening and why, and what can we make happen next" sort of guy, which might mean engaging in blacksmithing, store ownership, and other non-adventuring (but potentially dramatic and even conflictual) activities.

I see no reason why D&D can't appeal to both.

 

[Dannager]

Fair enough. I fall into that small last group (which I might agree with you is fairly small).

Our group had a (very low level) adventure where we saved the dogs of the community from some imps. The community was large enough that, after making all efforts to find the dogs homes, we opened a pet store/shelter of sorts.

Call it a macguffin if you like, but it involved all sorts of story potential, included some minor upkeeping, we dealt with the local mafia, who wanted to offer our store, and the animals inside "protection", we made lots of contacts with people, and it gave us a "front" (even though it was a legitimate business) and a basic income for food and housing when we were low level adventurers.

See, my question in response would be: Is it necessary to include another set of rules in the game (besides what already exists) in order to facilitate the sorts of adventures that sprung from you starting that shop?

Because, I mean, I doubt that the day-to-day operation of that shop was where your game was focused. I bet the focus was on dealing with the mob, getting to know the townsfolk, and allowing you to conduct other things behind the scenes, and that the actual process of running a store (including the buying and selling of goods/pets/whathaveyou) was probably glossed over in favor of interactions with a bit more drama and a bit more danger to them (dare I say, interactions with a bit more adventure to them).

 

[DM Howard]

I voted "No". D&D, any edition, has always been about the story. At least for me.

 

[nnms]

I voted "No". D&D, any edition, has always been about the story. At least for me.

So where's the rules support for story structure? For plot? For determining narration rights? For characterization? For any element of a story? How can one person have the rights to the plot but other participants get to control the actions of the main characters and not have some person's input invalidated?

I think the earlier editions focus is best summed by in Everaux's signature on the Dragonsfoot forums.

"We don't explore characters. We explore dungeons."

 

[Hussar]

It may be if you want to engage in a horse race rather than attack your fellow jockeys. What is your point?

My point is, if the game provides far more depth for attacking your fellow jockeys than racing your fellow jockeys, isn't it fair to say that the game is about attacking your fellow jockeys rather than racing them?

 

[billd91]

My point is, if the game provides far more depth for attacking your fellow jockeys than racing your fellow jockeys, isn't it fair to say that the game is about attacking your fellow jockeys rather than racing them?

No. That sounds to me more like a very bizarre inference to make.