This is a long post, mostly of quotes from Lewis Pulsipher (but also some others) writing about D&D in the late 70s and early 80s.
First Lewis Pulsipher on the "philosophy" of D&D play:
[sblock]From White Dwarf 3, 1977 (I'm quoting from Best of WD v1, pp 45-47):
D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel, ie direct escapism through abandonment of oneself to the flow of play . . . The game-players may emphasise player skill in players-vs-monsters (and sometimes other players) or they may prefer players-vs-puzzles (riddles, traps, mazes, etc) . . . The escapists can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonists, and those who like a silly, totally unbelieveable game. In either case, there are two ways this can be accomplished. One is by innumerable dice rolls and situations which call for chance . . . - lottery D&D. The other is by manipulation of the situation by the referee, however he sees fit. In California, . . . this leads to referees who make up more than half of what happens, what is encountered and so on, as the game progresses rather than doing it beforehand. In either case the player is a passive receptor, with little control over what happens. . .
I personally consider the silly/escapist style to be both boring and inferior for any campaign, though all right occasionally for a weird evening. . . . I also prefer monster fighting to puzzle solving. . . .
One of the most destructive notions I've encountered in D&D is the belief that 'anything goes'. . . . Even in a fantasy game, moderation and self-discipline are virtues necessary to top refereeing. While campaigns may be run on other bases, I believe that a skill-game campaign is likeluy to satisfy people more in the long run. . . . The referee must think of himself as a friendly computer with discretion. . . . [T]his means that the referee should not make up anything important after an adventure has begun. He should only operate monsters encountered according to logic and, where necessary, dice rolls. . . . Every time the referee manipulates the game on the basis of his ominscience, he reduces the element of skill. . . .
The most basic of all D&D player decisions is the decision to fight or avoid a fight. If there is no way to avoid a fight, for lack of information, players are hamstrung. . . . In a campaign wehere using [detection] spells is a reasonable tactic, those who fail to do so die sooner or later. And they deserve it.
From a few years later (1981, WD 23, 24 and 27 - I'm quoting from Best of WD v2, pp 10-13, 18):
D&D is a "role-playing" fantasy game, that is to say, each player acst as an individual hero, wizard, priest, or other character . . .
In 1972 Dave Arneson described the original campaign to me, although I didn't know it would become D&D. It sounded like a normal armies vs armies campaign, but the role-playing element existed in the background. . . .
The most important thing to remember about D&D is that the nature of play depends on the DM. If you try it once and dislike it, in many cases it will be dislike of a particular style rather than of the game itself. . . .
D&D style ranges from the "simulation" through "wargame" to "absurd" and finaly "novel". As one moves along this continuum the DM's procedurse become less rigorous . . .
The "wargame" style is how D&D was designed to be played, though this doesn't mean you must play it this way. Players don't plauy against each other, but can still "win" or "lose" according to whether they survive and prosper. As much as possible, all that happens should be believable . . .
[T]he "absurd" style condones unbelievable occurrences. . . .
Finally we have the "novel" style. In effect, the DM writes an oral novel in which the players are participating characters. This can be pretty bad, but the players don't mind because they're helping to "write" it. In such games the DM may make up everything as he goes along.
As one passes along the continuum one finds that players are most passive in the novel style and most active in the wargame style. (The simulations style stresses realism so much that the characters tend to be hostage to the dice, the rules and the DM.) When you choose a style, keep the preferences of your potential players in mind. . . .
Some DMs rely on fighting to provide action and interest to the players, while others rely on a variety of puzzles. The average DM or player prefers fighting with an occasional puzzle to vary the pac. Unless you're good at devising puzzles, you'll probably take the same line. Beware: a fe players become bored with frequent fighting, but most become bored with numerous puzzles. . . .
Many wargamers dislike luck, for who wants to play well and still "lose"? D&D can never be a game without luck, but the DM can choose the extent to which luck dominates a game. My objective is to force the players to make choices. The more often they must choose, the more often the skilful player can make the better choice and increase his chance of survival. For example, some DMs allow a sword with detecting powers to operate at all times. . . . Better to allow the sword to detect only when the owner stops for a few rounds to concentrate on detection. . . .
Most wargamers tend to "put themselves" into the gmae and the character's goals are the goals the player would pursue in a fantasy world. . . .
Many non-wargamers, on the other hand, create elaborate personae for their characters different from their own. The idea is to play in accordance with the strictures of the persona. For example, if the character has a low intelligence the player will refuse to mention things which he is intelligent enough to perceive but the character would not. If for some reason the character is terrified of rats he will flee from them, even though the player knows there is little danger.
One player succeeds by acting out an interesting persona, while the other succeeds by acquiring make-believe power, wealth, or whatever. There is nothing wrong with either method, they are just different ways of viewing the game. The two kinds of player can play together, though with some friction, as long as the DM does not force players to play in persona. . . .
Every D&D player must adapt [sic] a persona to some extent, unless he plays only one characgter alignment, the one corresponding to his own.
[/sblock]
Some changes of tone and description are evident between the two quotes: the advocacy for "wargaming" style becomes less strident, for instance. But there is a strong commonality as well, including a recognition that styles of D&D differ. What Pulsipher calls the "wargaming style" is the style of play actually explained and modelled by Gygax in his PHB and DMG. What Pulsipher calls the "novel" style, with detailed development of distinctive PC personalities, is what the 2nd ed AD&D PHB advocates. (Though it doesn't say much about how to go about it.) Note that Pulsipher regards both styles as
roleplaying, because by that word he means engaging the gameworld through the vehicle of an individual character. So, for him, figuring out how to make one's way through a frictionless corridor with super-tetanus spiked pits is roleplaying, just as much as haggling over the price of rations with a merchant.
Of course there are other approaches to playing D&D that Pulsipher doesn't describe - eg many of the 4e players who post on these boards play in one of the following two styles: either a "light skill" style which is quite different from Pulsipher's wargaming style, because it emphasises clever "moves" within a given situation rather than the sort of planing and informed decision-making that he stresses (and that Gygax stresses on pp 107-9 of his PHB); or a sort-of scene-framing style which is often associated with "indie" RPGing and is an attempt to get the "novel" experience without the player passivity that Pulsipher associated with his "novel" style.
It's also worth noting that, at the same time Pulsipher was writing, there were other voices.
[sblock]Eg consider this from Roger Musson (also 1981, in WD):
D&D in its highest form allows players the fun of actually taking part in a fantasy "novel", but not as such a high level as to demand that each player should be Sir John Gielgud.
(To digress: I believe that the restrictions on some character classes, thought the might be viewed as disadvantages, are more the reverse. Restrictions make it easier to play "in character" by dictating necessary attitudes. . . .) . . .
If the game is to generate the same interest as a novel, it must have the same ingredients: characters and plot. . . .
[A]ny DM is responsible for what he says a room contains . . . [N]ever feel obliged to uphold a random determination [of dungeon contents]. . . .
[T]here is a very good alternative for improvisation: the Emergency Room Register . . . If players move into an area [of the dungeon] you haven't populated, and open a room, select a room randomly from the appropriate list in the Emergency Room Register. . . . It is true that if they had opened the door three down on the right instead of the door they were at, it would have made no difference to whaty they would have found but as long as they don't know that, it won't hurt them. . . . In D&D it isn't necessary to play by the book, but it is essential that the players shall always think you are.
[/sblock]
A lot of this sounds very "modern" - especially the comment about restrictions as advantages rather than disadvantages, something that HERO and GURPS still haven't worked out but that more recent games like FATE, Burning Wheel and the like have. But it is the context of a series of articles about mega-dungeon design. And it still assumes that the basic activity of the game is exploring the dungeon, then looting it.
Finally, some comments from the same time period about the frequency of combat in the typical D&D game (in addition to those already seen in the Pulsipher quotes):
[sblock]
From Roger Musson, WD 15 1979:
uppose you have a moderately strong party interested in hauling some decent treasure out of fifth level. The first problem is getting the treasure; few DMs are going to let a party trick a monster out of its goodies, so that means a fight. . . . Now they have a second problem - getting it out. And getting back up all those stairs without meeting a wandering monster is not going to be easy. IN most dungeons the chances of meeting a really dangerous wanderer are high, and in many dungeons monsters attack automatically.
From Gygax's DMG, p 61:
Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures, and the participants in the campaign deserve a chance to exercise intelligent.choice during such confrontations. As hit points dwindle they can opt to break off the encounter and attempt to flee. With complex combat systems which stress so-called realism and feature hit location, special damage, and so on, either this option is severely limited or the rules are highly slanted towards favoring the player characters at the expense of their opponents.
From Gygax's PHB, pp 104, 106, 109:
The clever character does not attack first and ask questions (of self or monster) later, but every adventure will be likely to have combat for him or her at some point. . . .
[C]lerics' major aims are to use their spell abilities to aid during any given encounter, fighters aim to engage in combat, magic-users aim to cast spells, thieves aim to make gain by stealth, and monks aim to use their unusual talents to come to successful ends. If characters gain treasure by pursuit of their major aims, then they are generally entitled to a full share of earned experience points awarded by the DM. . . .
Avoid unnecessary encounters[/i.] This advice usually means the difference between success and failure when it is followed intelligently. Your party has an objective, and wandering monsters are something which stand between them and it. The easiest way to overcome such difficulties is to avoid the interposing or trailing creature if at all possible. Wandering monsters typically weaken the party through use of equipment and spells against them, and they also weaken the group by inflicting damage. Very few are going to be helpful; fewer still will have anything of any value to the party. Run first and ask questions later.
[/sblock]
There are some tensions in what Gygax has to say - eg if fighters get full XP when they seek out combat, are they penalised for fleeing even if that is the clever option? (On p 87 of his DMG, Gygax describes the following as POOR roleplaying: "[c]lerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself".)
Still, the net implication of these quotes from the late 70s and early 80s is that combat was understood to be a typical part of play, because most monsters had to be fought if they were to be looted, and wandering monsters couldn't always be avoided and hence at least sometimes had to be fought.
