Keep out of combat in D&D? Why?

[MerricB]

A few posts recently have touched upon a playstyle in older editions of D&D where you tried to avoid combat.

This is utterly opposed to how I played AD&D back in the day: the game was about combat. Sure, with some groups you could do great narrative games or have strong role-playing experiences, but, mostly, it was about the combat.

I delved into the Keep on the Borderlands, where I slew the monsters and took their stuff. Same with the Temple of Elemental Evil, and in the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief.

Now, certainly there were combats we avoided. We didn't run heedlessly into every possible combat, as some were obviously far above our capabilities. And, especially at low levels, our low-level characters died to good blows from otherwise feeble monsters such as orcs.

Choose your battles, yes: but most battles were definitely winnable.

Now, I admit that in later editions, with the rise in strong storylines and more linear structures, you don't always get the chance to run away from battles. (e.g. You must fight the gargoyles to finish the adventure successfully). So, designers don't put in as many "avoid this" encounters. However, I don't think there were that many of those in earlier adventures, either!

So, when I hear that in earlier editions you needed to avoid combat, I really wonder why my experience was so different.

What do you think?

Cheers!

 

[Hammerhead]

Those old gamers just didn't know how to have fun.

 

[Shemeska]

Now, I admit that in later editions, with the rise in strong storylines and more linear structures,

I'm not sure I see how having a strong storyline necessarily connects to a more linear structure. It's easy to do so if you railroad, which is poor judgement on a DM's part, but just as easy if you have less storyline but it's just a simple dungeon-crawling room by room hack'n'slash. Plot and linearity aren't linked in my mind and experience.

 

[MerricB]

I'm not sure I see how having a strong storyline necessarily connects to a more linear structure. It's easy to do so if you railroad, which is poor judgement on a DM's part, but just as easy if you have less storyline but it's just a simple dungeon-crawling room by room hack'n'slash. Plot and linearity aren't linked in my mind and experience.

Fair enough.

Could you please answer the question?

 

[Cadfan]

Nostalgia is a powerful drug. It can make you believe almost anything about the good old days. I'm pretty convinced that everyone else out there games at least roughly the same way I do. But once you become an older gamer, and you start to feel ennui about gaming, you often have to pick a target- and those combat heavy, simulation-light munchkin kiddies are a great target to choose, because obviously by contrast you must be mature and wise in comparison.

 

[Shemeska]

Fair enough.

Could you please answer the question?

I don't think I can answer it, because I never played any older editions (unless 3e qualifies).

 

[blargney the second]

We just had an encounter tonight in our 4e game where we had to run away. We kicked in the door, only to find that we were outnumbered and in an incredibly poor defensive position. Strategic retrograde maneuvers were the order of the day.
-blarg

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't know to what these specific posts / posters were referring to, but we regularly avoid combat in our OD&D game. It's just dumb not to. I mean, if we happen upon a dragon the best course of action is to get the hell out of there. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If we scout out a group of gnolls, we guess based on past experience we could take about 4 or 5 with some good spell use. But as there are more than that we just avoid them. If it's better to get rid of them, we'll try and separate them into smaller groups - waiting for a patrol to be sent out perhaps. On the other hand, we have bought off gnolls before as we've learned they are notoriously unloyal mercenaries and if we can find a way to parley I think we'd do it again. It all depends on circumstances: what we want, our resources, our own understandings of the situation, the give and take as things progress from attempting different plans, brainstorming for better and sometimes brilliant ideas, doing a little recon, whatever.

The big difference here is there is no expectation that anything you run into is pre-determined as beatable. You think and act just as you would if you were there dressed in that armor, carrying that sword, having had prepared those spells. There are no arrows hovering in the air on where we are to go or what we are to do. Nor are there bright red lines drawn on the ground saying "you're leaving Level 1 area" "entering level 5 area". If we're not cognizant of our surroundings and the thinking twice about the repercussions of our actions (and sometimes just bad luck - not dice related), we run into "really bad things" like dragons. Of course, we also slaughter kobolds and goblins and zombies without thinking too hard and sometimes getting in trouble for it. Mostly though those fights are just mop ups.

Things are more realistic in my opinion this way. You, the player, are in charge of what you do and where you go. You choose what to fight and how to fight or even if to fight. Any D&D game can remove combat completely if that's the desires of the players. Well, not completely, I myself try hard not to get hit by cars on the road, but sometimes, you know... **** happens. In medieval, monster-filled worlds things try and kill you. Sometimes for food, sometimes for gold, sometimes for your Nike boots, and sometimes they just do not like you. It's the world we asked to be in. Just like the setting in a fantasy novel, but without the expectation of success. We make our own success thank you.

Also, and I know plenty of people who just can't wrap their heads around this, we don't tell stories in our games. Not even just a little bit. (alright, sometimes we tell stories in character, but that's not what most people mean). That's because we don't play a "what does the DM want us to do?" game or have the DM warp the world for "a better story" vs. keeping it objective allowing our successes to be our own, real.

Play in D&D that avoids combat is just a really good way to stay alive. I know it's what I do in real life and it's worked so far.

Hmm.. maybe they are doing the Sun Tzu thing and refusing to fight combat as if everything happened on a barren plain with both sides fighting toe to toe? I mean, if I had a choice on how I'd beat a master assassin in real life it would be to nuke him from orbit.

Quick story, we killed 20+ orcs in the Caves of Chaos by staking tarps over their connected caves' 3 openings. Before holding down the tarps we simultaneously lit the fires with poisonous wood just on the other side. All died. Tons of XP. Of course, so did about a dozen prisoners we didn't realize they had. XP for them too, but my cleric repented for days afterward.

Maybe they meant they liked D&D where they chose to avoid combats. But maybe they meant they liked D&D were they got to play Howard's Conan, but not comic book Conan who can't be killed and mindlessly charges into combat against anything with a good chance of winning?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

A few posts recently have touched upon a playstyle in older editions of D&D where you tried to avoid combat...I don't think there were that many ["avoid this" encounters] in earlier adventures...So, when I hear that in earlier editions you needed to avoid combat, I really wonder why my experience was so different.

The bold part is probably the difference. "Avoid this" encounters are encounters that are too tough or are unlikely to have any treasure. Most (but certainly not all) "avoid this" encounters are wandering monsters. If you didn't use a lot of wandering monsters, that might be a major difference.

In OD&D, the default is a 1:6 chance of wandering monsters every turn. In AD&D, the rules don't specify exactly how often to check, but the example of play suggests a 1:6 chance every three turns (pg. 98).

Published modules might tend to be part of the difference, too. Many of them were tournament-oriented, with more definite goals and paths which didn't favor the looser, "explore + choose your own path + choose your own fights" approach. Most published modules had relatively small, lair-like dungeons, rather than large areas you can explore. A bigger dungeon usually has plenty of empty space, which helps in the exploration/choice factor. It also helps with the "run away" factor; running away and avoiding encounters is much more viable in a large, complex dungeon.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Nostalgia is a powerful drug. It can make you believe almost anything about the good old days...etc...etc...

I gamed in the "good old days," but I'm not talking about the good old days. I'm talking about right now. I'm running two OD&D 1974 games and playing in a Swords & Wizardry game. Avoiding unnecessary combat is a big factor in all of them. Combat is fun, but I only want to fight when I get some benefit from it.