Keep out of combat in D&D? Why?

[Dausuul]

Just a note on levelling: Gary explicitly said in an early "TSR" or Dragon article that a PC should reach "Name" (9th) level after about a year of play (40-60 sessions), and gain about 2-3 levels a year beyond that.

3e/4e have a slightly faster level-gain for low levels, but not that much more.

9th level after 50 sessions means one level every ~6.25 sessions.

3E is designed for a level every ~3.33 sessions.

4E is designed for a level every ~2.5 sessions.

So, in fact, there is a significant acceleration. Of course, 4E has tempered that by making each level worth less; a 3E level is worth about two 4E levels, so if you measure by actual character power as opposed to level, 4E advancement is closer to the 2E ideal than to 3E.

 

[Remathilis]

I seem to recall that all of my old 1e modules I bought where labeled "An adventure for characters level 5-8" or "An adventure for characters level 10-14". Not a single one of them was labeled "An adventure for characters whatever level they happen to be when they stumble into this mess".

And most DMs I knew wouldn't think of sending their PCs to the Tomb of Horrors before 10th level. We used those level guides as a marker for "Ok, Now I can use this module".

And you know what? Those modules that said "level 1-3" featured orcs and goblins, not demons and giants. Conversely, those "10-14" had many more demons, giants, and like then the did den's of kobolds. and I can't once recall a 1st level module that had holy avengers and staves or archmagi in them; they had +1 swords and wands of magic missile.

 

[Freakohollik]

The decision for or against combat is a strategic one:
Can we avoid it?
If we join battle, can we win?
What are our chances of winning?
If we win, what do we get out of it?
Can we defeat this without the risk of fighting?

This is definitely the sense I get from 1e. Those 1e adventures don't hesitate to throw really strong monsters at you. That combined with the high lethality of the combat system mean that carefully choosing and planning your battles was the only to survive.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

<snip>

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?

I think it boils down to the personal style and tastes of the people who were refereeing your games.

My first ever Dungeon Master (back in a school library in Aurora, CO in 1977) was all about the combat and the dungeon delve. Very hack 'n' slashy. Since then, though, I've almost always had GMs who had a broader playstyle, so much of my time in the hobby has involved an above average amount of strategic and tactical thinking. I've probably avoided nearly as many encounters as I've been involved in...and had a healthy dose of pure role-play as well.

And because of that, my own style as a GM has been shaped to include significant numbers of "avoid this combat" encounters.

I'm not averse to "kill 'em all" campaigns- I'm in one right now (at least, that's how it looks so far)- I just rarely run my own games that way.

 

[Mallus]

And you know what? Those modules that said "level 1-3" featured orcs and goblins, not demons and giants. Conversely, those "10-14" had many more demons, giants, and like then the did den's of kobolds. and I can't once recall a 1st level module that had holy avengers and staves or archmagi in them; they had +1 swords and wands of magic missile.

Exactly. The game has always scaled.

 

[justanobody]

Just a note on levelling: Gary explicitly said in an early "TSR" or Dragon article that a PC should reach "Name" (9th) level after about a year of play (40-60 sessions), and gain about 2-3 levels a year beyond that.

3e/4e have a slightly faster level-gain for low levels, but not that much more.

The game was designed with you gaining XP from treasure. I'm sure you can have lots of great games without that rule, but it isn't how the game is designed.

Cheers!

Subject to how often you play now vs then. If you play once a week now, the levels could fly by depending on the adventure. The XP seems to be the key factor then. combat does that now meaning it is more combat heavy. I don't really like the GP=XP bit, but seemed to slow things down in terms of gaining levels. I would prefer more than just combat to give the largest amount of XP, but not solely from collected treasure, but things from the story. Say a quest gives Y XP rather then the little combats that make it up. this could also be a reason for alteration of other things in 4th to gain XP and where things are more prominent for combat use rather than outside of combat use. Powers for example.

 

[Raven Crowking]

9th level after 50 sessions means one level every ~6.25 sessions.

3E is designed for a level every ~3.33 sessions.

4E is designed for a level every ~2.5 sessions.

So, in fact, there is a significant acceleration. Of course, 4E has tempered that by making each level worth less; a 3E level is worth about two 4E levels, so if you measure by actual character power as opposed to level, 4E advancement is closer to the 2E ideal than to 3E.

Only if you call "almost twice as fast" a "significant acceleration."

 

[Raven Crowking]

And you know what? Those modules that said "level 1-3" featured orcs and goblins, not demons and giants. Conversely, those "10-14" had many more demons, giants, and like then the did den's of kobolds. and I can't once recall a 1st level module that had holy avengers and staves or archmagi in them; they had +1 swords and wands of magic missile.

D&D always scaled; but it did not always scale as it does now.

Keep on the Borderlands: How many people died because of the minotaur? The owlbear? The medusa?

The last time I ran this module was in its 3e EN World adaptation, with characters of levels 3-4, and there were deaths. And it was as much fun as when I ran it in Holmes Basic, 1e, and 2e.

RC

 

[jensun]

D&D always scaled; but it did not always scale as it does now.

Keep on the Borderlands: How many people died because of the minotaur? The owlbear? The medusa?

You must have missed the multiple repeated and ongoing reports of whole parties dying to the Irontooth encounter in the first module printed for the game then.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I seem to recall that all of my old 1e modules I bought where labeled "An adventure for characters level 5-8" or "An adventure for characters level 10-14". Not a single one of them was labeled "An adventure for characters whatever level they happen to be when they stumble into this mess".

And you know what? Those modules that said "level 1-3" featured orcs and goblins, not demons and giants. Conversely, those "10-14" had many more demons, giants, and like then the did den's of kobolds. and I can't once recall a 1st level module that had holy avengers and staves or archmagi in them; they had +1 swords and wands of magic missile.

I refer you to my earlier post in the thread, where I said:

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.

I think many gamers who played the older editions back in the day did *not* play them in the manner I described, earlier, but took their cue from the published modules. I think that's especially true for younger players (I include myself in that category, at the time). However, published modules weren't necessarily examples of how the game was played and approached by some of the older groups. Remember that Gary was surprised there was a big market for published adventures; he's on record as saying he thought most referees would prefer to create their own material. Of course, TSR adapted and filled the need, though. Personally, I don't think there's *ever* been a published adventure that models the kind of underworld dungeon campaign play described in original D&D's "Volume III," The Underworld and Wilderness Adventure; published modules simply don't lend themselves to that kind of approach. (Also see Robert Fisher's recent blog post on D&D tournaments and modules.)

This isn't a right answer/wrong answer situation. Some people played the way I described, earlier, and other people did not. My goal isn't to prove that my explanation and favored approach is the way old-school D&D should be played, but rather to answer Merric's question on why avoiding combat was ever a old-school approach.

Lastly, I think there's a tendency for these edition-oriented discussions to fall into caricatured positions. For example, avoiding certain combats in old-school play is often a very smart approach. That doesn't mean that old school play attempted to avoid all combat; combat was still a *huge* draw and focal point for the game.