Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?

[Ariosto]

TSR's D&D character sheets of 1977 were (on the front) mostly combat stats -- but not a lot of those. The back was mainly devoted to "distribution of all items carried", wrapping up with "special notes on abilities, skills, training, etc.".

That was a lot more than on the older single-sided sheets, which IIRC did not even have a place for hit points.

The AD&D goldenrod sheets ended in boilerplate for a will ("I, ______ , do hereby ...").

The Arduin Adventure boxed set included a sheet with such entries as "Favorite Food" and "Best Friend".

 

[Keefe the Thief]

An edition comparison. I sure didn´t see that coming. I also am surpised by who took position in what trench in this little shoot-out. It is so unusual to see, forex, Prof. Cirno chiding people for poor reading comprehension or Ariosto citing obscure knowledge to support that, indeed, older editions shine a little more in this or that regard.

Is it really necessary that every thread called "IS D&D..." becomes always a "HAS D&D ALWAYS BEEN..." thread? And please, don´t give me the "... but he started it! I only reacted to his post!!!!" line. Can we not talk about "meta-d&d" without taking jabs at editions you don´t like? I don´t think we need another analysis how 4e is more about combat than earlier editions.

So please, let´s stay on topic. And to be clear: i´m not the thread police. This is a request, nothing else. As in "please."

 

[Remathilis]

I think no matter what the edition, we can agree D&D has never been about improving the health and social welfare of all those monsters in that dungeon.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I am (to understate the case) not a big fan of the 4E "skill challenge". However, I can appreciate that it is an attempt to make things other than combat appealing to a certain sort of player in much the same game-mechanical ways. If the fundamental abstraction is interesting enough, people may get over their hangups concerning the superficial specifics.

A My Little Pony or Hello Kitty game might not stand a chance with adolescent males regardless of how engaging the tactical play was -- but a significant segment of that demographic does occasionally take to strategy without 'macho' imagery laid on.

Have you ever seen the cartoon My Little Pony? They have alm ost as much violence as D&D (although many filler episodes with just roleplaying).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think no matter what the edition, we can agree D&D has never been about improving the health and social welfare of all those monsters in that dungeon.

Stay right here, I'll organize the lynch mob for (or is that against?) you.

 

[billd91]

Wow. So, adding any mechanics beyond the bare bones basic ones contained in 2e and 3e skill checks makes non-combat encounters into combat encounters?

Damn, my Spirit of the Century game is all about combat then. Or Dogs in the Vineyard too. Or a plethora of games out there that have decided that having games as part of the "talkey" bits is fun too.

Part of the rationale behind skill challenges was fairly explicitly to bring combat-style resolution to non-combat situations. It's just using different actions than your typical combat actions. So, as I said, there is some support for looking at 4e as the edition of D&D with more emphasis on combat than any other, both in the development of character abilities and use of them within the rules structures.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm ... curious. At its root, OD&D was a tactical minatures wargame. AD&D had masses of combat rules (including weapon vs armour). 2E was the high point of fluff. 3E had exhaustive skill rules. 4e has mechanics dealing with non-combat situations (skill challenges). From my reading, the non-combat element of D&D has actually grown with each successive release.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Part of the rationale behind skill challenges was fairly explicitly to bring combat-style resolution to non-combat situations. It's just using different actions than your typical combat actions. So, as I said, there is some support for looking at 4e as the edition of D&D with more emphasis on combat than any other, both in the development of character abilities and use of them within the rules structures.

3E didn't have skill challenges, but it certainly had skill checks. They basically work like "Save or Die", so I guess 3E non-combat area is more like bringing the magic-style resolution system to non-magic situations?

 

[Dausuul]

Part of the rationale behind skill challenges was fairly explicitly to bring combat-style resolution to non-combat situations. It's just using different actions than your typical combat actions.

Phase 1: A set of rules that determine an outcome.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Combat!

 

[billd91]

3E didn't have skill challenges, but it certainly had skill checks. They basically work like "Save or Die", so I guess 3E non-combat area is more like bringing the magic-style resolution system to non-magic situations?

Not really. That's not understanding what I'm saying at all. Read up on skill challenges.