Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Gentlegamer]

The primary focus of D&D is combat. It is also what is most popular about the game.

This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.

 

[mhensley]

This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.

:\

It was with every group I ever played with... since the late 70's.

 

[Reynard]

This may be true of the current edition, but simply is not true of past editions.

I think you're thinking of a different game.

 

[GeorgeFields]

Another thing to consider about the review....

Not only is the review itself 8 years old, but KotB was 20 years old when it was written. Do you think the Tandy1000 would get a good review if written today?

 

[phindar]

Gentlegamer: Its difficult to get into talking about how a game is written versus how a game is played. You can run deeply roleplaying based 3e games, and straight hack and slash tactical exercises in 2e. Personally, I've never felt any addition of D&D had particularly strong roleplaying elements in the rules. Roleplaying is what the people bring to the game, its the human element, and so its more dependent on who is playing rather than what edition they're using. I've played in both types of games in all 3 editions of (A)D&D. (I don't really count my OD&D days, as that was just middle school and it was more just making stuff up with weird shaped dice.)

But a good way to stir up trouble is to say "Xed is good for (this type of game)." It just drives people nuts.

 

[painandgreed]

But a good way to stir up trouble is to say "Xed is good for (this type of game)." It just drives people nuts.

Who's Xed?

 

[Ourph]

:\

It was with every group I ever played with... since the late 70's.

Me too.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Who's Xed?

Xed's dead, baby, Xed's dead...

 

[T. Foster]

The primary focus of the game has almost always been on combat with groups I've played with too, but I daresay that's more because the groups I've played with have, on average, not been all that good, and not because the game necessarily works that way. Combat is the "easy" way to play the game -- it requires the least thought, you can just sit back and let the dice take care of everything (or at least you could in the old days), and even if you fail it's not really your fault, it was just bad luck (or a cheating DM throwing unbalanced challenges at you ). Avoiding combat while still finding ways to "win" and prosper is much more difficult, and requires much more thought and care. I also happen to find it a lot more fun (as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread).

Take, for example, The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (the module Mike Mearls and his lunchtime crew were playing through as, seemingly, one big combat). You can run this module as a straight-up melee hack-fest, and I daresay that's how most groups over the years have run it (note the objections to my claim earlier in the thread that I don't view the module as purely a combat exercise) -- wading more-or-less straight into the Great Hall and opening a can of whup-ass on the assembled giants until either all of them or all of the party are dead. But it doesn't have to play out that way -- if you read carefully (and a bit between the lines) you'll see there's an entirely different implicit storyline running through the module, involving the party infiltrating the place by stealth and trickery, disguising themselves as juvenile giants, making friends with various disaffected groups of maids and servants to gain information, picking off drunk giants one by one as they wander away from the party, perhaps even enlisting the aid of the cloud and stone giants (it's not specifically mentioned in the module-text, but why couldn't this happen?), inciting the orc slaves in the basement into a full-scale insurrection (a great diversion!), burning the place to the ground (which is definitely considered possible, even likely, to happen in the module -- going so far as to say who takes refuge where once it does), etc.

Some players might view this a boring way to play -- sneaking around gathering info when you're supposed to be throwing-down with the baddies, and it's certainly harder and requires more care, thought, and discipline, but at least to me it's a much more engaging and rewarding style of play, and much more fun. I always prefer to succeed in the game through careful planning, clever thinking, minimizing risk and the element of chance -- I'd just as soon never have to roll a die in-game, and in fact when it does come down to a situation where I have to roll, where my fate no longer lies in my own hands but in the whim of the dice, I feel like I've lost/failed, because even if things turn out well they could've just as easily turned out just the opposite and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Some players might view this a boring way to play -- sneaking around gathering info when you're supposed to be throwing-down with the baddies, and it's certainly harder and requires more care, thought, and discipline, but at least to me it's a much more engaging and rewarding style of play, and much more fun. I always prefer to succeed in the game through careful planning, clever thinking, minimizing risk and the element of chance -- I'd just as soon never have to roll a die in-game, and in fact when it does come down to a situation where I have to roll, where my fate no longer lies in my own hands but in the whim of the dice, I feel like I've lost/failed, because even if things turn out well they could've just as easily turned out just the opposite and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it...

So instead of fighting, you'd rather sneak around (Hide and Move Silently) and gather information (Gather Information, Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Disguise)... so as to avoid rolling dice?

-Hyp.