Is D&D all about murder and pillaging?

[Garthanos]

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.

Exactly the progression has been towards making out of combat activity more integrated with the game part of D&D and yes the game is still largely kill it and take its stuff..but then recent "inherent bonuses" option goes a step in the direction of making the latter part less necessary too.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta go with Scribble on this one. The game has become less focused on combat with every iteration, not more.

I look at my Basic/Expert system - virtually nothing outside of combat mechanics - no skills, no social resolution mechanics, spells are almost entirely combat related with very few utility spells; outside of thief skills, there is virtually nothing codified outside of combat.

1e - again, no social resolution mechanics, no skills (outside of the thief), most spells are combat related (although there are more utility spells), and some of the classes have to fight to gain levels at a certain point.

2e - Buckets of flavour, but, mechanically, not a huge departure from 1e. You have very, very basic skill mechanics bolted onto what is essentially repackaged 1e. A bonus XP chart that includes a couple of non-combat awards (although fighters are still only rewarded for fighting). But, there is definitely a move towards somewhat less combat.

3e - Arguably less flavour than 2e, but, more robust social skill mechanics (at least compared to what came earlier), more robust non-combat skill system in general, none of the classes need to fight to gain levels, and at least a nod in the DMG towards giving xp for non-combat encounters.

4e - Similar social skill mechanics to 3e. Codified system for extended skill challenges that take the game out of "real time" resolution in order to allow larger events to be resolved by the mechanics. Actual codified rules for awarding rewards for non-combat events.

Now, I totally agree that D&D has always been about the hack. Of course it is. Heck, all you have to do is compare the number of modules that can be resolved without killing, to the number of modules where killing is not only expected, but pretty much required in order to resolve the module.

The number of non-combat or even "combat light" modules, compared to the other kind, is pretty darn small. D&D is a game about combat and killing. You are best and most directly rewarded by the system for killing every enemy.

Does it have to be played this way? Nope. It doesn't. But, the system certainly pushes you in that direction.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And I'm going to disagree with Hussar only on a small technicality. The older editions have the majority of your experience points given for collecting gold. Which means they aren't so much about combat as looting and pillaging - and killing is what you do to get the loot. It's more efficient not to fight as long as you can get the treasure without having to fight for it. In that sense and that sense alone, D&D has become more about combat over time.

 

[Hussar]

And I'm going to disagree with Hussar only on a small technicality. The older editions have the majority of your experience points given for collecting gold. Which means they aren't so much about combat as looting and pillaging - and killing is what you do to get the loot. It's more efficient not to fight as long as you can get the treasure without having to fight for it. In that sense and that sense alone, D&D has become more about combat over time.

Since we're quibbling over technicalities, only AD&D gave you exp for gold, so, this only applies to a single edition, not "older editions".

And, well, since almost all treasure was guarded by something, a point that has been hammered home to me very recently, you pretty much had to kill to get the loot. The option of not fighting to get the loot was rarely presented.

Often, because 1e characters were significantly more powerful relative to the monsters, it was far more effecient to simply kill everything in sight and take everything that wasn't nailed down.

But, the topic is about "Is D&D about murder and pillaging so, really, while the murder quotient is arguable, the pillaging part isn't.

I guess, it might be accurate to say the murder slider has become more rewarded while the pillaging slider has been reduced.

At the end of the day, I stand by the interpretation that non-combat, non-dungeon crawling efforts have become more rewarded with each edition.

 

[Truth Seeker]

I remember the days of 1st Ed, when I would GM a group of guys back then. The main drive was the killing of dragons or any creatures that might possess a near massive amount of treasure.

Honestly...that made me a bit disguisted with that. And began to slowly move away from that. Over time with other campiagns. I turned around the gold hunting mindset to deeper character interaction with the world, NPCs, and to other players. (Giving players something more meaty to deal with)

Today...I am the point now, I no longer place the need for gold hunting or pillaging for XP, or 'murdering' of some creature(s) just for kicks. Just to get XP.

Yes...the trend of that, did shifted in later editions. There was a sign of maturity filtering in, in the later years.

But, not to knock 4E but it was impressed upon me. It was just set for fighting. I did not entertain the idea of going backwards again. After 2 decades of game changing and growth.

Back then...even video games carried that mindset of killing monsters and getting gold, magic items, or whatever coin. That facade just compounded that allure further of seeking that wanted prize in the tabletop element.

Just like the RPGs these days now, that have shifted from that mentality. So has video game RPGs. But the money getting thing is still there...but on a smaller scale. (maybe).

But to answer the main question at hand...yes, back in the days, it was about the killing, graverobbing, and pillaging. But like life...things will either change to keep fresh or folks will seek a different game setting to satisfy their gaming needs.

In my world...the need of coin has been replaced with a credit storage system. PCs are paid for speciality skills (besides being whatever class they are). And they have a monthly salary, plus bonus. And whatever they find along the way...is their 's (but taxable by the state).

So...no more need to hear that pouch bag making noise when walking, or a seedy rogue eyeing that big purse. (Don't worry, the rogues have turned to higher crimes to get money).

And plus...depending upon who DM back then. If they pick up on this feeling I had and stil have to this day. They too, would have alter that 'gold digging' situation to something better.

Who wants to spend 6 to 8 hours or more...just 'fighting and pillaging' most of that time?

I gotta go with Scribble on this one. The game has become less focused on combat with every iteration, not more.

I look at my Basic/Expert system - virtually nothing outside of combat mechanics - no skills, no social resolution mechanics, spells are almost entirely combat related with very few utility spells; outside of thief skills, there is virtually nothing codified outside of combat.

1e - again, no social resolution mechanics, no skills (outside of the thief), most spells are combat related (although there are more utility spells), and some of the classes have to fight to gain levels at a certain point.

2e - Buckets of flavour, but, mechanically, not a huge departure from 1e. You have very, very basic skill mechanics bolted onto what is essentially repackaged 1e. A bonus XP chart that includes a couple of non-combat awards (although fighters are still only rewarded for fighting). But, there is definitely a move towards somewhat less combat.

3e - Arguably less flavour than 2e, but, more robust social skill mechanics (at least compared to what came earlier), more robust non-combat skill system in general, none of the classes need to fight to gain levels, and at least a nod in the DMG towards giving xp for non-combat encounters.

4e - Similar social skill mechanics to 3e. Codified system for extended skill challenges that take the game out of "real time" resolution in order to allow larger events to be resolved by the mechanics. Actual codified rules for awarding rewards for non-combat events.

Now, I totally agree that D&D has always been about the hack. Of course it is. Heck, all you have to do is compare the number of modules that can be resolved without killing, to the number of modules where killing is not only expected, but pretty much required in order to resolve the module.

The number of non-combat or even "combat light" modules, compared to the other kind, is pretty darn small. D&D is a game about combat and killing. You are best and most directly rewarded by the system for killing every enemy.

Does it have to be played this way? Nope. It doesn't. But, the system certainly pushes you in that direction.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why do you think 4e has gone backwards? Other than that combat in 4e is much more fun than in previous editions?

 

[Hussar]

Who wants to spend 6 to 8 hours or more...just 'fighting and pillaging' most of that time?

Well, WOTC, Goodman Games, Paizo and various other module producers have certainly capitalized on the idea that you are going to be "fighting and pillaging" most of the time. All you have to do is look at modules. They haven't particularly changed in formula all that much. Get the quest, go out, kill the stuff that stands in the way of your quest, find the purpose of the quest, come home - describes the basic plot of most modules.

So, I think that spending a large amount of time, even a majority of time, killing and pillaging, does appeal to a rather large percentage of gamers.

If it didn't, do you really think D&D would still be king? If most people strongly disliked spending time in combat, or looting treasure, do you think D&D would have retained its position? After all, there are lots of games out there where "Kill stuff and take its treasure" is not the primary or even secondary goal.

To be completely honest, I fall somewhere in the middle. I can go either way. High hack or just 100% talky - it's all good AFAIC.

 

[Chrono22]

If D&D is about killing and pillaging, doesn't that mean that WoW, everquest and diablo are D&D with a more detailed interface, faster mechanics, and lower requirements?
What sets D&D apart from MMOs/CGs is not its combat or an emphasis on killing monsters. It's the human element- it's imagination, cooperative story building, and being able to realize and achieve success on your own terms.

 

[Truth Seeker]

It can be fun in any edition in truth. But each person has their own taste.

Why do you think 4e has gone backwards? Other than that combat in 4e is much more fun than in previous editions?

 

[Hussar]

If D&D is about killing and pillaging, doesn't that mean that WoW, everquest and diablo are D&D with a more detailed interface, faster mechanics, and lower requirements?
What sets D&D apart from MMOs/CGs is not its combat or an emphasis on killing monsters. It's the human element- it's imagination, cooperative story building, and being able to realize and achieve success on your own terms.

For you. And, really, for me too. But, I've played with more than a few people for whom D&D is just a computer game with slower pace and less time spent in travel. The plethora of dungeon crawls out there speaks volumes to how much people like combat in D&D.

For some, it's the social aspect - the beer and pretzels as you get to whack your way through some goblins. And, I think there are a very, very large number of casual gamers out there who, unlike probably you or me, don't spend a whole lot of time on gaming, and for whom gaming is on par with computer gaming or playing Texas Hold 'Em or whatever. It's a fun way to spend three or four hours and that's about as much effort or energy they put into it.

It can be fun in any edition in truth. But each person has their own taste.

Oh totally. Sorry if it came off that I meant anything different. Like I said, for me personally, I can swing both ways.