Keep out of combat in D&D? Why?

[Snoweel]

Also, and I know plenty of people who just can't wrap their heads around this, we don't tell stories in our games.

Are you as the player able to tell a story about the game?

That's because we don't play a "what does the DM want us to do?" game

Surely you all play a "What does the group (including the DM) want to do?" game?

I don't see how that leads automatically to story-less games.

How do you manage it?

I mean, as far as I'm aware, when we play an RPG we tell the DM what we want to do and he has to react to our choices by presenting us with consequences and then with more options.

You tend to end up with a story. It might even be a good one if your DM and players are good enough.

 

[IceFractal]

All games result in stories (sometimes interesting ones, sometimes not), but not all games are based on or guided by stories.

The only issue I have with "know when to run" is that often, if the creature is strong enough to need running away from, it's strong enough to catch you. I mean, take dragons, for instance - they fly quite fast, have excellent senses, and (at least in some editions) have a variety of spells for seeking out hidden people. Running away from a dragon only works when you have a convenient tunnel network nearby or the dragon doesn't bother chasing you.

But yes, wandering monsters do make a big difference. If that troll is guarding the only entryway to the lost scrolls you've been searching for, then you have to get past it, and often that means fighting it. If you see a troll splashing around in the swamp up ahead, you can often just avoid it.

 

[S'mon]

I think there's a difference between OD&D and Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer Basic, where Fighters have d8 hp, are about as tough as an orc, and everyone dies at 0, and post Unearthed Arcana AD&D where 1st level Fighters have ca 8-12 hp at 1st level and are attacking 3/2 for ca d8+4-6 damage (x2 weapon spec & STR). Post UA 1e AD&D (and 2e, 3e & 4e) is much more a "go there, kill everything" game even at low levels. In the original game that play style was suicidal at 1st level, hence the tendency to avoid combat.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've seen people here mention that one of the reasons their earlier games didn't focus on combat was because they gained the majority of their xp from treasure.

I wonder whether another reason was that any given combat didn't take you much closer to your next level. Unlike 3e, say, where 13.3 level-appropriate encounters would get you to the next level. A 1st level AD&D fighter needed, what, about 2000xp for 2nd level and got about 25xp per orc? Something in that ballpark? This meant that any given encounter was a smaller step towards your next level, and as such less to be sought out, perhaps.

Speaking from my own experience, we never liked xps for gps, and ditched that rule entirely (perhaps one of the reasons we levelled up so slowly!). In the end I reinstated the rule, but only in terms of xp for spending gps, and with a rate capped at 100xp per week. This removed money from the campaign, made time pass and worked well for us.

Of course, another reason was that in OD&D+greyhawk (what I started with effectively) healing was very limited - the cleric didn't even get his first CLW until 2nd level! Low hit points and limited healing made combat extra-deadly.

Cheers

 

[jensun]

My experience is similar to yours. While we started with BECMI we quickly moved on to 1e which we alternated with original MERP.

While our games were generally very political (our GM was a history buff who loved the machinations between the great powers of Europe) when they appeared monsters were generally there to be fought.

We might sneak around some of them if they looked well out of our league but part of the point of the game was make bloody war on all sorts of unnatural beasties.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I've seen people here mention that one of the reasons their earlier games didn't focus on combat was because they gained the majority of their xp from treasure...

Oh yeah, definitely. That's why wandering monsters are usually considered a waste; they almost never have significant treasure, so you burn your resources for no benefit.

Speaking from my own experience, we never liked xps for gps, and ditched that rule entirely (perhaps one of the reasons we levelled up so slowly!).

If you didn't replace it with something else, you'd level at a snail's pace (if at all). I think XP for treasure works fine as a game abstraction for the default method of play. I see it as a story or goal award. (More of my thoughts on this, here.)

In the end I reinstated the rule, but only in terms of xp for spending gps...

That's a cool variant with a well-established old school pedigree; Dave Arneson did that in his Blackmoor campaign.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you didn't replace it with something else, you'd level at a snail's pace (if at all). I think XP for treasure works fine as a game abstraction for the default method of play. I see it as a story or goal award. (More of my thoughts on this, here.)

Very interesting thoughts and observations on your site - I'll go back and read them all in detail later

I noticed the item on gaze attacks, and remembered that I'd done something similar - although in my D&D games I'd redesigned the saving throw table dramatically, expanding the number of columns, and giving each class distinct improvements in some areas and penalties in others. One of the new saves I'd introduced was 'vs Gaze', and thieves and assassins started off particularly good at this (they never meet anyone's eyes) while the 'samurai/paladin' class was particularly bad at it, because they never dropped their gaze from anyone

Cheers

 

[Hammerhead]

Why wouldn't a thief or assassin meet anyone's eyes? I mean, if anyone is going to be good liars, it's those guys.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Why wouldn't a thief or assassin meet anyone's eyes? I mean, if anyone is going to be good liars, it's those guys.

Nothing to do with good liars or not - it was that they were good at not being identified; their natural inclination was to not meet peoples eyes. Where do you think the idea of shifty thieves came from !

 

[The_Gneech]

Yes, XP for treasure, plus often really out-of-whack challenges. Monsters were often placed on dungeons levels by hit die, not overall threat.

Some campaigns had you start at 1st level if you lost a character, no matter what the rest of the party was, as well, which could make it really hard to catch up if a character took a dirt nap. ("Fireball!" "Crud, there goes Bingo IV. Guess I'll roll up Bingo V.")

-The Gneech