Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?

[Barastrondo]

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.

How do you mean "combat-style resolution"? The most significant and telling comparison I see is that a skill challenge, like combat, has an "everybody gets a turn" element -- it doesn't become a matter of deputizing one person at a time to do all the work while the rest of the group isn't involved.

Apart from that, though, it seems kind of unlike combat: the consequences of failure are usually much lessened, and resource management of items and powers is an exception rather than a rule. It seems to share much more in common with the extended roll mechanic of other game systems, wherein the goal is to accumulate enough successes before your failures end the roll.

That's an interesting thing. In most other game systems, a more robust mechanic for non-combat encounters would be seen as "increased emphasis on non-combat situations." Yet here it makes a game seem "more focused on combat." The context of "compared to other editions of D&D" and "compared to other RPGs" makes a heck of a difference.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

I am pretty sure I did read up on skill challenges before. I used them in play, and I designed my own for play. So I think it's not a problem of reading something up, but what specifically you want me to read.

If it was to me, I would say that skill challenges are not about combat at all. Combat is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's a way to frame a non-combat situation with tools provided by the game mechanics, without reducing its complexity to a single check - or removing the mechanics entirely from the situation.

It is about a mechanical resolution. It shares some similarities to the way the combat resolution works in that it has a certain complexity with the way you roll multiple checks and the total result of the situation resolved is based on the sum of thse checks. But that doesn't make it a combat game. It just makes it a game. Combat is about slinging spells, exchanging sword blows, shooting weapons, injuring, subduing or killing people.

A skill challenge to avoid the thief guild's agent catching you is not about combat. It's avoiding combat.

 

[Dausuul]

That's an interesting thing. In most other game systems, a more robust mechanic for non-combat encounters would be seen as "increased emphasis on non-combat situations." Yet here it makes a game seem "more focused on combat." The context of "compared to other editions of D&D" and "compared to other RPGs" makes a heck of a difference.

Well, to be fair, we've so far had exactly one guy arguing that it makes the game seem more focused on combat. I'm not seeing broad support (or, in fact, any support) for his position in the responses.

 

[billd91]

How do you mean "combat-style resolution"? The most significant and telling comparison I see is that a skill challenge, like combat, has an "everybody gets a turn" element -- it doesn't become a matter of deputizing one person at a time to do all the work while the rest of the group isn't involved.

Apart from that, though, it seems kind of unlike combat: the consequences of failure are usually much lessened, and resource management of items and powers is an exception rather than a rule. It seems to share much more in common with the extended roll mechanic of other game systems, wherein the goal is to accumulate enough successes before your failures end the roll.

That's an interesting thing. In most other game systems, a more robust mechanic for non-combat encounters would be seen as "increased emphasis on non-combat situations." Yet here it makes a game seem "more focused on combat." The context of "compared to other editions of D&D" and "compared to other RPGs" makes a heck of a difference.

The DMG constantly compares skill challenges to combat challenges in structure. You roll initiative and proceed with the skill challenge just like you would a fight, except that you're swapping out combat powers and using skills. I can see some advantage in this because it means skill challenges can be used in the middle of a combat challenge without having to have two different sorts of skill challenge resolution procedures. But it also does mean that combat-style adjudication is now harnessed for non-combat purposes. I think that's fertile ground for feeling that 4e has done more to push combat oriented play structure, a combat-oriented headspace, than any other edition.

 

[Gimby]

The DMG constantly compares skill challenges to combat challenges in structure. You roll initiative and proceed with the skill challenge just like you would a fight, except that you're swapping out combat powers and using skills. I can see some advantage in this because it means skill challenges can be used in the middle of a combat challenge without having to have two different sorts of skill challenge resolution procedures. But it also does mean that combat-style adjudication is now harnessed for non-combat purposes. I think that's fertile ground for feeling that 4e has done more to push combat oriented play structure, a combat-oriented headspace, than any other edition.

To use a non-D&D example, 2e Exalted's Battle, War and Debate use the same structure for resolution. Does this mean that Debate is actually about fighting?

Or ditto Dogs in the Vinyard's resolution system, Wushu's scene resolution system and so on.

-edit To expand, I'll agree that the mechanical resolution parts of 4e are focussed on *conflict*, but combat is only a subset of that.

 

[Garthanos]

The DMG constantly compares skill challenges to combat challenges in structure.

Consistant mechanics for conflicts physical combat or otherwise is done in a lot of games it doesnt make the combat more important so what is the purpose? it is supposed to simplify learning those mechanics. They exploit the same mechanical head space as you put it ... but the correspondence in 4e actually is not very good compared to various other games mentioned by others ... hence the fact that people dont seem to get skill challenges very easily.

The progression to include more non-combat mechanics is patently obvious and direct opposition to your premise. ... saying those mechanics try to stay similar to the combat ones (note about making something easier to learn)... so they make non combat more combat like ... so that makes combat more emphasized? is still very much a huh -- does not follow.

 

[billd91]

To use a non-D&D example, 2e Exalted's Battle, War and Debate use the same structure for resolution. Does this mean that Debate is actually about fighting?

Or ditto Dogs in the Vinyard's resolution system, Wushu's scene resolution system and so on.

-edit To expand, I'll agree that the mechanical resolution parts of 4e are focussed on *conflict*, but combat is only a subset of that.

Frankly, I don't care about other games in this context. The discussion is about D&D.

 

[Scribble]

Really I'd see it as just the opposite personally.

The game gives more then just a token look at things like skills, and non combat activity, even awarding experience in the process.

 

[Dm_from_Brazil]

"Is D&D about Murder?"

You know, this makes me think about the G.I.Joe Cartoons: you know, where the Joes shot 1 bazzilion bullets on the Cobra troops, blow their tanks and planes - and no one dies...so you can put war in a kids show, and no one comes asking "Is G.I.Joe about murder?".

 

[Barastrondo]

The DMG constantly compares skill challenges to combat challenges in structure. You roll initiative and proceed with the skill challenge just like you would a fight, except that you're swapping out combat powers and using skills.

So, turn order, then? There's not a lot of implication that you'll be using combat-related mechanics that aren't combat powers -- consideration for movement, or breaking up your turns into standard/move/minor -- as given. You could admittedly use them for specifically tailored challenges, but as the default, say, social negotiation challenge goes I don't see it borrowing anything from combat other than establishing a turn order.

I can see some advantage in this because it means skill challenges can be used in the middle of a combat challenge without having to have two different sorts of skill challenge resolution procedures. But it also does mean that combat-style adjudication is now harnessed for non-combat purposes. I think that's fertile ground for feeling that 4e has done more to push combat oriented play structure, a combat-oriented headspace, than any other edition.

I can sort of see that, but I honestly think it's kind of a stretch. Turn order is a basic game element outside of D&D, and nothing else seems to be consistent between the two states. I would agree more to the proposition that now out-of-combat encounters play out like minigames more, where previously they were too abstract to be very game-y.

That said, certainly to some people "roll for initiative" will always be a code phrase for "a fight is breaking out," and that reflex may be hard to overcome.