Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9462268" data-attributes="member: 7045072">This seems a rather cynical take.  While it is obvious that OD&D was intended to be a skirmish wargame to some degree, its failure to become that (even during publication - see the late addition of the alternate combat system) shows that it really is something else.  While for some I'm sure it's tempting to write D&D out of the history of RPGs, much as reactionaries in the post-OSR space like to write everything post OSRIC out of the OSR, it seems rather reductive.Gygax's adventures are often focused on war game style scenarios of infiltration and conflict, but he always includes elements where negotiation and problem solving beyond grid and ruler combat. Even 0D&D includes rules for many things beyond grid combat.  Its spells include all sorts of non-combat applications, including ways to divine the intent of things one encounters, befriend strangers, and speak to creatures without speech.  Likewise there have always been mechanics related to negotiation in the game from its first iteration: morale, reaction rolls, and even alignment are there to help determine the success or possibility of non-combat interactions. It's just that these areas aren't mechanically modelled to the same degree as combat ... and there are reasons for this beyond disinterest or oversight. Remember also that D&D started as a very simple set of rules, and the "negotiation" rules aren't much smaller then the rules for things like establishing domains or making a character -- everything is a line or two, maybe a couple of paragraphs in 0D&D. I can't believe I'm defending AD&D, it's an absolute messy stinker of a system, but it's got a lot more in it then grid combat.</blockquote>

Verification