Is D&D "about" combat?

[Ahnehnois]

where's the rules support for story structure? For plot? For determining narration rights? For characterization? For any element of a story?

That would be the skill system, the three mental ability scores, and the plethora of noncombat spells and magic items. At least for some of those questions. There are no rules for narrative rights or story structure, but then, most rpgs don't have those. For example, Call of Cthulhu d20 has no such rules, but it certainly isn't a combat focused game, and it's got great stry advice (like the D&D DMG). Narrative rules are not always necessary. Plenty of artists create interesting stories in all kinds of media without them.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
I mean "lots of rules for combat and few rules for roleplaying doesn't take away from the roleplaying, in fact, it's liberating" is something I've begun to believe for a certain style of gaming. Yet the exact opposite is being touted now, saying "3/4 of the rules are about combat, so the game is about combat."

WHAT?

The thing is, saying "D&D is about combat" isn't the whole story. Like has been mentioned before in the thread, would it still be D&D without the potential for violence?

My point is, things haven't significantly changed. The game has always focused very strongly on combat. Combat is the primary method for proceeding through the game. Or at least it has been for a couple of editions now. Even back in the day, we never did the "sneak past the monster" thing because that would be giving up xp. The term "Greyhawking a dungeon" isn't a new thing. You clear the entire dungeon and then you are finished.

When you say D&D to someone, most people are going to be thinking sword and sorcery, big awesome dudes slugging it out with a (possibly weird) baddie. By and large, I don't think to many people would automatically associate D&D with, say, building a pet store. Or building a barony.

This thread touches on something that has been bothering me for a while. The current trend in RPG design seems to be that each RPG should be designed around a concept.

What drew me to D&D and RPGs in the first place was instead that they could be about anything we felt like doing at the time.

-Havard

I think this has more to do with the evolution of game design. Early D&D was a mishmash of whatever people thought was fun. And it worked. For the most part. And, when it didn't work, the players were expected to pound it into the hole until it did work.

Note, again, as soon as you move away from D&D and it's various lookalikes, you start seeing more focused games almost immediately. Whether its something like GURPS, where you have a generic underlying ruleset that is then focused through genre books, or something smaller like Villains and Vigillantes which is an early superhero game, you see a much tighter focus in the games than early D&D.

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

The question I think that has to be asked is, why did the scope become more narrow. And I think the answer (and purely my own opinion) is that a lot of times, half assed mechanics were more of a problem than a solution. Running a barony, for example, in AD&D was pretty much entirely up to the DM to do. There's very, very little information on how a barony should work mechanically.

How much money do I get from taxes on a town of 1200 people for example?

This is a pretty basic question for running any sort of landholding, yet, AFAIK, (and I never did play the Companion rules, so maybe its in there) D&D hasn't answered that question.

Now, whether you think pushing DM's into the role of amateur game designer is a good thing or not is purely a personal taste thing. I totally get that. For me, I'd rather have a tighter ruleset that I don't have to fiddle with. But, I do understand that that's just me.

Sorry for the rather lengthy post here. Sigh.

One last thought. I think the problem with these discussions is that people have a really difficult time separating the game from their game. And it makes conversation problematic. I'm not talking about anyone's personal game. The horse racing example above sounds like fun and I would probably do something the same. But, my point is, the game doesn't really answer the question.

To me, it's like people saying that, because there are romantic scenes in Star Wars, Star Wars is a romance, love triangle move between Leia, Han and Luke. While there certainly is a romance story in there, no question about that, I would hardly call Star Wars a romantic movie. When people say D&D isn't about combat, I look at it exactly like that. So much of the mechanics are combat oriented, how can the game not be about combat?

Not that your game is necessarily about combat. D&D is complex enough that you don't have to play it that way. But, ignoring 3/4 of the rules doesn't make them go away.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

Can't XP, but I agree.

 

[Dannager]

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

It is bizarre to you that the focus of a game's rules might indicate the focus of the game?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It is bizarre to you that the focus of a game's rules might indicate the focus of the game?

Yeah, I really don't get the controversy here.

 

[Dannager]

Yeah, I really don't get the controversy here.

Then again, it's also bizarre to me that two-thirds of respondents don't think D&D is about combat.

So what do I know?

 

[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.

I agree that this is what the designers have been doing, but I dont think it was a good idea and I would like to see future editions depart from this direction.

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.

Obviously there are extremes on both sides. I am not proposing a game without adventuring. Nor am I suggesting that these non-adventuring activities need to be all that realisitically simulated. But I am suggesting a game which allows for other activities in addition to adventuring. I expect that these activities can easily be linked to the adventures themselves, providing new motivation for the actual adventures (why are we in this dungeon anyway?).

-Havard

 

[Dannager]

Obviously there are extremes on both sides. I am not proposing a game without adventuring. Nor am I suggesting that these non-adventuring activities need to be all that realisitically simulated. But I am suggesting a game which allows for other activities in addition to adventuring.

And I'd suggest that every extant version of D&D currently allows for other activities in addition to adventuring, so I think you probably mean to use a word stronger than "allows".

 

[havard]

The question I think that has to be asked is, why did the scope become more narrow. And I think the answer (and purely my own opinion) is that a lot of times, half assed mechanics were more of a problem than a solution. Running a barony, for example, in AD&D was pretty much entirely up to the DM to do. There's very, very little information on how a barony should work mechanically.

How much money do I get from taxes on a town of 1200 people for example?

This is a pretty basic question for running any sort of landholding, yet, AFAIK, (and I never did play the Companion rules, so maybe its in there) D&D hasn't answered that question.

The Companion Rules is indeed what you are looking for. They are a great example of how to PCs running a barony can be handled. However, I am sure there are even better methods for handling this that can be deviced if game designers are told to do so.

Some of the other things I mentioned were options in 3E that were removed from 4E. Perhaps the rules in 3E were too complex, but simplifying them would have been better than removing them altogether. IMO.

-Havard

 

[havard]

And I'd suggest that every extant version of D&D currently allows for other activities in addition to adventuring, so I think you probably mean to use a word stronger than "allows".

Yes. I am talking about having rules covering these activities. Perhaps they dont have to be too detailed, and not everything needs to be in the core rulebook. But I think that by giving the game too narrow a focus, the designers are ignoring many of the possibilities the hobby offers.

Now, I am not one of the people comparing 4E to a video game. However, I think that the wide scope approach that I am talking about would showcase the things that RPGs can do which video games cannot. This is IMO where the future of RPG design should be headed.

-Havard