Is D&D "about" combat?

[pemerton]

If the game was about exploration, shouldn't there be actual mechanics devoted to that? Where are my guidelines for creating interesting cultures for the players to interact with? Where are my guidelines for creating interesting ecosystems? Where are my guidelines for maintaining a traveling caravan? Which are all pretty reasonable things you might need in a game devoted to exploration.

I agree with this. AD&D was, in my view, intended to be about exploration, although of dungeons rather than cultures - it had the ecosystem guidelines (long lists of traps, tricks, hazard, random dungeon dressing etc, etc), the guidelines for maintaining a "caravan" (price lists with 10' poles, mules, mercenaries, torch-bearers, porters etc - and rules for the morale of the living items of equipment), lots of discussion about mapping (as per ThirdWizard's post upthread), etc.

One thing I enjoy about 4e is that it has dropped this focus on exploration.

I can see the point that perhaps I'm mistaking the medium for the message. I'm not entirely convinced, but, I can see the point.

I guess I look at it like this:

D&D is about exploration. Why? Well, we explore places. Ok, why do you explore? To find stuff. Ok, what happens when you find stuff. ... Well we kill it and takes its treasure.

Now if that describes your game, then I would agree that it probably is about combat (or, at least, combat + looting). But that doesn't describe any fantasy RPG I've played for more than 20 years.

There is nothing in the D&D rules - and, in particular, there is nothing in the 4e rules - that requires or even tends to require that the motivation for combat, and for interaction more generally, be the mercenary one of killing things to loot them.

It is true that AD&D, with its treasure types in conjunction with its assumption that treasure will be gained (both to make levelling possible, in 1st ed, and to make PCs mechanically viable, in higher levels of both editions), might encourage the mercenary style - because the rules don't suggest any other obvious way to dispense treasure.

3E starts to change this, though, because of its wealth-by-level guidelines (and 3E OA expressly sets out the idea of treasure gained through reward and patronage rather than through looting).

And 4e makes the treasure acquisition guidelines completely abstract - it makes no difference to the mechanical play of the game whether treasure is acquired as loot, as reward, or indeed is treated in a purely metagame fashion (every so often the PCs' enhancement bonuses go up 5 levels - although to do this you do have to break the parcels down into their underlying values - or use inherent bonuses).

My 4e game features a mixture of items gained as rewards, looted from enemies, recovered from tombs and ruins, or introduced in a purely metagame fashion as described above.

In my previous RM game, nearly all the items in the game were either inherited items, manufactured by the PC smith, or gifted by the gods.

The conflict in my games - including the combat - is not generally driven by considerations of looting. There have been exceptions - I remember a mid-level Rolemaster party whose members were skint and didn't want to be. They knew where a well-endowed tomb was, and went of to raid it. The same party also made a practice, for a little while, of walking around detecing magic on NPCs, and then robbing those who appeared to have valuable magic items. This lasted for perhaps 5 or 10 sessions of play - then, the PCs' failed attempt at looting a particular group of NPCs propelled them into a different situation where the conflicts were driven by politics rather than private greed.

So this was a game that was about looting for a little while - but then became about something else.

When I think of my game being about combat, I think of a session or two where the successor-in-title of the above-mentioned party, which still had two or three members in common, got into arena fighting for a little while - there was an elf moon mage (sort of a ranger-bard) who was trying his hand as a martial artist, and an ogre fighter who (due to quirks of the RM damage system interacting with quirks of the racial features mechanics) was ludicrously resistant to damage from unarmed and from many animal attacks.

Again, though, politics quickly reared its head and diverted the focus of play away from the arena.

(Or I think of light-hearted one-offs, like the odd hour or two of Tunnels and Trolls. These are about combat, but I don't think of them as my serious RPGing.)

At least for me, the bottom line is character + situation = conflict. This is what it's about. Combat is just the medium.

 

[Nagol]

For me, the easiest way to tell what something is about is to listen to the stories told about exceptional versions of the item. What those stories share in common is it what the thing is about.

I don't know about anyone else, but the stories I hear about past D&D campaigns and sessions are not focused on combat. They are focused on adventure, danger (of a variety of sorts), and the chance of success/survival hanging by the merest thread of hope (usually based on an off-the-wall last ditch Hail Mary effort) -- sometimes thick enough to pull through and sometimes snapping just before success.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I guess I'll take a shot.

What, then, is your view of RPGs in which combat is not rules-intensive. Or of RPGs - like HeroWars/Quest, and at least on one approach Burning Wheel - which use the same mechanics to resolve peaceful as violent conflicts?

I am unfamiliar with the specific rpgs you describe. That said, given the number of rpgs that do contain separate and relatively elaborate combat rules, I think this may be the exception that proves the rule. I think that physical combat lends itself more easily to a set of dice rolls describing the effects of concrete actions than does a heated argument or an investigation. That isn't to say the latter absolutely can't be well-represented within a ruleset designed to do so.

I can't say I've read the whole of Lovecraft's oeuvre, but I've read quite a few stories - At the Mountains of Madness, Call of Ctulhu, Dunwhich Horror, Shadow over Innsmouth, Colour out of Space, and probably some others I can't remember off hand.

I don't remember guns figuring very prominently in the stories. My main memory of the story CoC is that artists of various sorts figure prominently, as they are peculiarly sensitive to the chaotic thoughts radiated by Cthulhu. Boats and seafaring are also important. Why do the CoC rules, then, not focus on art and boats as tools for storytelling? In my view, because they needlessly inherit fanatasy RPGs' concern with combat as a focus of combat resolution.

Several of the stores you described have lines of characters shooting ineffectively at the enemies. In an rpg, players would expect to roll attacks and damage, even if in a book this is unnecesasry. In other cases, The Whisperer in Darkness and At the Mountains of Madness contain substantial battle scenes which occur "offscreen" (but which the participants in an rpg, as opposed to a book, would expect to see handled using detailed rules if their characters were involved). I would say the *ineffective* use of guns is not uncommon in his work. In a game, objectifying the ineffectiveness of weapons is specifically frightening to players who are used to other rpgs (and I think CoC in any form is designed for people who play multiple rpgs and are aware of certain conventions like killing things and taking their stuff).

I also find it important to have rules for combat, even when I don't use them. In my last CoC session, there was a constant threat of violence, but most of the actual violent acts occurred when the PCs weren't present. Without rules for combat, however, I don't think the players would feel that potential enemies represented the same threat. The same could be said for a variety of other rpgs. Battlestar Galactica as a TV show could easily go several episides without a battle occurring, but its rpg focuses on combat because the threat of Cylons needs to be objectified for an rpg.

Just like a movie, a book, or a song, an rpg session is an artistic medium. The rpg format, unlike the others, uses rules, and the expectations of players and the nature of combat suggest that those rules should focus somewhat on fighting. I describe that as a limitation of the medium-that it requires combat to be serviced (in the same way a book requires the author to explain things that would be obvious onscreen or a movie requires characters to voice their thoughts if the creators want the audience to be aware of them). So my conclusion is that modern D&D is not about combat much more about combat than the average of the many rpgs that have come about since its initial development, many of which are not battle-focused at all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I would like to point out that, in CoC, investigators often get into fights of various sorts and, I think, the combat system is a little more detailed than people seem to be implying. That said, investigators who expect to win the day by fighting die, usually horribly. But even the best designed CoC campaigns like Masks of Nyarlathotep, have plenty of fighting. It's just you want to fight the cultists and on your terms, ideally when their patrons are not around, and you expect casualties.

Yeah, that's true.

I still can't grok why a CoC game would have intricately detailed combat rules. A fast, simple, smooth kind of resolution system, with high risk, serves nicely.

Having detailed combat rules in CoC is like having intricate cake-baking rules in D&D. It doesn't serve much of a purpose.

That's not to say firefights and shoot-outs don't happen, just that you don't need more than a few paragraphs of rules for when they do (and those rules could easily be part of some other general task resolution subsystem).

On the other hand, IMO, you'd dang well better have pretty detailed investigation rules in CoC. Uncovering hidden knowledge, and resisting its effects long enough to do some temporary good, seem very core to the game, and spending your precious little play time on this sort of discovery is key. Loosing sanity is in many ways the XP of CoC.

In an rpg, players would expect to roll attacks and damage, even if in a book this is unnecesasry.

Its unnecessary in an RPG, too. If there's risk, you can use whatever resolution system accurately reflects the genre (above, I recommended something fast and risky...this could be as simple as "Flip a coin. Heads, you kill a cultist. Tails, you are shot and will die without medical attention....though I probably wouldn't recommend something quite so fast-and-loose in actuality, I also wouldn't recommend HP and AC and damage dice and facing and action economy rules). If there's no risk, you don't need to roll anything.

I also find it important to have rules for combat, even when I don't use them

There's gotta be some way to resolve conflict in most any RPG, but it doesn't need to be the intricate rules-crunch turn-based two-dice-per-turn action-spending detail of D&D combat, nor does it need to be an important pillar of the game. In fact, the resolution of combat can be simply, "You get into combat, you die."

That's not always (or even usually) the best rule. But it is a very simple rule, and it serves its purpose of resolving combat quickly and easily.

(BSG space combat, specifically, I'd imagine as being very wargame-esque: you are less concerned with individual units, which die rather often, and are more concerned with the overall success of the battle, and perhaps the fate of your main characters. There's a lot of strategy involved, and only a bit of luck. Person-scale combat I'd imagine would be a lot more quick-n-deadly -- not a lot of use for HP's in a genre where bullets do kill and where no one is much of a hero).

The rpg format, unlike the others, uses rules, and the expectations of players and the nature of combat suggest that those rules should focus somewhat on fighting.

Y'ever play Amber Diceless? What about Dogs In The Vineyard?

Point being: combat doesn't need any more rules than a general "roll a die, see what happens" if combat is not the game's focus. There doesn't need to even be a "combat system." When combat is not important, you can de-emphasize it to the point where it's a one-sentence description of how quickly you die is all you need.

So when you have intricate combat rules, it is a choice to have them.

It's not necessary to have detailed combat rules. It's a choice you make when designing a game. The effect of the rules being to guide play, when you have detailed combat rules, the game certainly values combat and expects you to do a lot of it. The things you have details for are what the game expects you to do a lot of.

D&D, FWIW, has usually had nods towards things that are not combat. Even back in the day, only one class (the Fighting Man) was about combat. Magic-Users and Clerics (and later Thieves) were more about exploration and error-recovery (implying that you probably will make mistakes and need someone to remedy them), given their spells. Levels gave you followers, strongholds, and subjects, and though the rules weren't intricately detailed, they were certainly there. The combat rules that existed were pretty arcane, but not nearly as complex as 3e and 4e's combat systems. 4e has skill challenges and rituals, though there are problems with each. Personally, I'd like to see D&D have some solid, robust, interesting rules for conflicts with NPCs and the environment, too.

 

[chaochou]

I think it's important to try to differentiate between what something can do and what it is designed to do. I can bang a nail into the wall with a spirit level - doesn't mean that's what it's designed for.

I happened to vote yes, although the question is so vague that I could have gone either way. But in my experience 4e is geared to tactical collaborative combat. And AD&D for me was about combat, or the expectation of combat.

Personally, I think it's very difficult to define D&D by what it includes. I think you get a broader picture by looking at what it omits. If you play HeroWars or HeroQuest, FATE, Fiasco, Universalis, Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel you start to see what D&D (and countless games built on the same premise) doesn't include.

 

[pemerton]

in my experience 4e is geared to tactical collaborative combat.

This fits my experience too. I think combat is central to expressing and resolving conflict in D&D.

Where I depart from some of the "yes"-advocates (not necessarily you) is in the relationship between "geared to" and "about". I guess I'm taking a vague notion ("about") and rendering it less vague in my own conception of it.

 

[pemerton]

Several of the stores you described have lines of characters shooting ineffectively at the enemies.

I would say the *ineffective* use of guns is not uncommon in his work.

But to make guns ineffective against aliens and horrors doesn't require D&D-style combat rules. "If you stop and shoot, roll a die: 1-3 you're eaten, 4-5 your gunfire has no effect but you may keep running if you wish, 6 you hit your target and delay it for a moment or two" might do the job.

given the number of rpgs that do contain separate and relatively elaborate combat rules, I think this may be the exception that proves the rule.

<snip>

In an rpg, players would expect to roll attacks and damage, even if in a book this is unnecesasry.

<snip>

In a game, objectifying the ineffectiveness of weapons is specifically frightening to players who are used to other rpgs (and I think CoC in any form is designed for people who play multiple rpgs and are aware of certain conventions like killing things and taking their stuff).

<snip>

I also find it important to have rules for combat, even when I don't use them. In my last CoC session, there was a constant threat of violence, but most of the actual violent acts occurred when the PCs weren't present. Without rules for combat, however, I don't think the players would feel that potential enemies represented the same threat.

<snip>

The rpg format, unlike the others, uses rules, and the expectations of players and the nature of combat suggest that those rules should focus somewhat on fighting. I describe that as a limitation of the medium-that it requires combat to be serviced

I think what you've identified here is less a limit of the medium and more an expectation (or set of expectations) held by certain participants in the medium.

The players you refer to, who expect attack and damage rolls, and who acknowledge fear or threats only if these are expressed in terms of to hit bonuses and damage rolls relative to defences and hit points, seem to be specifically D&D players. (Or players of games with cognate mechanics.)

I think that physical combat lends itself more easily to a set of dice rolls describing the effects of concrete actions than does a heated argument or an investigation. That isn't to say the latter absolutely can't be well-represented within a ruleset designed to do so.

I don't agree with the first sentence - physical combat gives rise to notorious mechanical complexities like initiative systems and what they represent, hit points and what they represent, etc, etc. I do agree with the second - in that coherent and highly playable action resolution mechanics for non-combat actions are certainly viable.

So my conclusion is that modern D&D is not about combat much more about combat than the average of the many rpgs that have come about since its initial development, many of which are not battle-focused at all.

Well, as I've posted upthread I don't think it's about combat. I think combat looms larger in D&D than in many other RPGs, though, even RPGs with superficial resemblances in respect of mechanics and/or tropes like RM, RQ etc.

 

[billd91]

But to make guns ineffective against aliens and horrors doesn't require D&D-style combat rules. "If you stop and shoot, roll a die: 1-3 you're eaten, 4-5 your gunfire has no effect but you may keep running if you wish, 6 you hit your target and delay it for a moment or two" might do the job.

I think I can say that most players would find combat rules that boiled down to that to be utterly unacceptable. Even for a game in which the odds in combat are so starkly against the PCs.

At the very least, I'd like some way of operationalizing one of the most important concerns in Call of Cthulhu - "Can I outrun it" and the adjunct "If I can't outrun it, can I at least outrun Bob?"

 

[pemerton]

At the very least, I'd like some way of operationalizing one of the most important concerns in Call of Cthulhu - "Can I outrun it" and the adjunct "If I can't outrun it, can I at least outrun Bob?"

Sure (although my "roll a die" rule does have scope for that, with its notions of "keep running" and "delaying the monster for a round or two"). I don't know what CoC's chase rules are like, but as far as D&D is concerned this actually takes us back to Hussar's horse race example - namely, D&D doesn't have chase or running rules, because its treatment of small scale movement is in the service of another concern, namely, manoeuvring in combat.

I think I can say that most players would find combat rules that boiled down to that to be utterly unacceptable.

Perhaps. Especially if they were D&D players. HeroWars/Quest simple contests add a few bells and whistles - an opposed check, and the opportunity to spend Hero Points to "bump" up success levels (or mitigate failure levels).

Anyway, while I wouldn't really expect anyone to operationalise my example mechanic without some tweaking, I note that it fairly closely resembles class D&D's investigation mechanic (roll a d6 - you notice it on a 1). In CoC I would have thought that investigation and combat could just about exchange the mechanical emphasis that they enjoy in D&D.

 

[billd91]

Perhaps. Especially if they were D&D players.

Or Indiana Jones fans. Or Allan Quatermain fans. Or Lovecraft fans since Lovecraft's protagonists often make some pretty amazing escapes (good Dodge rolls, lucky rolls on POW tests, just enough luck on SAN checks to make it back to civilization to write their stories down). The thing is, players sending PCs into mortal danger typically want as much of an edge as they can get and one major edge is having choices to make that can affect the outcome. And that's the role of a combat system with some detail.