Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?

[Quantum]

Are you serious?

Basic D&D did indeed gave you experience for gold at a rate of 1 to 1. 1st Edition gave you xp for finding magic items but not gold.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Basic D&D did indeed gave you experience for gold at a rate of 1 to 1. 1st Edition gave you xp for finding magic items but not gold.

IIRC 1E xp was 1 to 1 default as well. XP for magic items was additional if the item was kept and used. If sold the gold gained from the sale counted instead of the use xp.

 

[Sadrik]

I think quantum is right.

 

[rogueattorney]

RogueAttourney

Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that Basic/Expert D&D, as written, isn't about killing and looting?

That's not what I said.

You said there were no non-combat related rules in Basic/Expert D&D. Factually incorrect. I cited numerous examples.

You said there was no social resolution mechanic in Basic/Expert D&D. Factually incorrect. I cited the page numbers.

You said there were few non-combat spells. Factually incorrect. Actually, a majority of the spells in Basic/Expert D&D are in fact, non-combat spells, even if you count healing and protection spells as "combat" spells.

But, since you asked... Based on the rules that are presented in the book, I would say the vast majority of the rules in Basic/Expert D&D deal with exploration and that's what I'd say the game is mainly designed to be about.

 

[rogueattorney]

1st Edition gave you xp for finding magic items but not gold.

I think quantum is right.

Guys, I know these are old rules and not everyone has immediate access to them... But jeeze-louise!!! Come on! If you don't know anything about the rules maybe you should stop commenting on these versions of the game. I know if I started pulling so-called 3e and 4e rules out of my nether regions, you guys would be calling me on it every time.

As a rule, one point of experience will be awarded for one gold piece gained by a character, with copper pieces, silver pieces, electrum pieces, platinum pieces, gems, jewelry, and like treasure being converted to a gold piece value.

Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience is awarded on a 1 for 1 basis.

Both books proceed to say that where the party is much stronger than the guardian of the treasure, the treasure award should be reduced.

 

[Quantum]

Guys, I know these are old rules and not everyone has immediate access to them... But jeeze-louise!!! Come on! If you don't know anything about the rules maybe you should stop commenting on these versions of the game. I know if I started pulling so-called 3e and 4e rules out of my nether regions, you guys would be calling me on it every time.

I wasn't calling anybody on anything. The guy just wasn't certain of the rule but I was and confirmed it for him.

Just remember, however, internet culture demands that being right is serious business.


At least for most posters.

And actually, it's serious business in real life too.

 

[Garthanos]

But, since you asked... Based on the rules that are presented in the book, I would say the vast majority of the rules in Basic/Expert D&D deal with exploration and that's what I'd say the game is mainly designed to be about.

If the main source of experience was finding places and meeting people, I would be agreeing with you. Game defined goals and rewards are significant and there seemed serious incentives to not stay level one. If the only way to quit being fragile was by getting lucky or sneaky fighting and looting.

Without the main topics of this thread the only D&D you can advance levels in is 4th edition.

 

[Chrono22]

^That's actually not true, even following a literal interpretation of the rules and ignoring suggestions for noncombat experience rewards.

D&D is not all about combat and pillaging. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Neonchameleon]

In terms of which edition focused more on combat, I would have to say 4e. Can anyone deny the mandatory battle grid as well as the obsession on class balance? These two points only facilitates combat.

Um... The class balance issue is far better at facilitating non-combat than the "Wizard can do it all" issues are. Please explain to me what fighters can be particularly good at in 1e outside combat, and how. (Unless you are using the Racial Stereotype Advantages).

Class balance rocks far harder out of combat than it does in combat; if you want to sneak in previous editions, it's normal to send The Sneaky Guy ™ - i.e. the party thief or rogue. Or to have the wizard mass invis. Which leaves the rest of the party sitting on their tush (not as badly as Cyberpunk using a Netrunner). 4e, everyone can be decent at at least some stealth related skill - it's the fighter (athletics) not the rogue who normally excels at climbing walls.

With that said, it is not necessarily a bad thing, so 4e fans have no reason to be pissed, unless they don't want me to have an opinion of their game that way.

If it was true... It's definitely true 4e combat is more fun than previous editions, and better balanced. But 4e also has indy-game mechanics for out of combat and spreads the ability around much more rather than leaving much of it to individual classes to go showboating.

 

[Nymrohd]

I think something that is very much missing from both 3E and 4E D&D is morale checks. At some point most monsters would simply surrender; it would only be logical. I am sure plenty of DMs run their games with that assumption but it should have been a core assumption in the first place. If someone surrenders, murder and pillaging becomes a clearly darker side of grey choice.