Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 7733328" data-attributes="member: 46713">I've seen this argument quite often, but I'm convinced it doesn't hold water.There's nothing inherently different about combat that it merits being treated different from any other activities in an RPG. In fact there are numerous RPG systems that have seamlessly integrated combat-relevant skills in their skill system. The only reason combat is treated differently from other skills in D&D is that D&D historically didn't have a skill system.Combat encounters could be resolved purely by roleplaying exactly as any other kind of encounter. And the reverse is just as true: All kinds of encounters benefit from a rule framework, especially those that involve some kind of conflict. It doesn't matter if that conflict is fought with weapons, words or thoughts.Going back to the article's question, the answer depends entirely on the preferences of the players. D&D has traditionally been focused on combat, so unless players are reluctant to learn any other RPG systems, there's no reason to play D&D if you feel it's _too_ focused on combat. If you feel that D&D has just the right amount of combat, though, you're obviously fine.Interestingly, the article's author apparently chooses to ignore that there ever was a 4th edition of D&D. However, it was 4e that introduced the concept of skill challenges, i.e. trying to provide a rule framework for encounters involving something other than combat. 4e was also the edition where I as a GM first used milestones instead of tracking xp to decide when it was time for the pc's to level up. I'm not sure where I got the idea, maybe from 4e's DMG2?</blockquote>

Verification