D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Define term "big-name RPG". By many measures, there are only two "big name" games - D&D and Pathfinder (which is really another form of D&D, as far as rules and focus are concerned). And then your statement doesn't mean all that much.

I can't decide between saying that your comment proves my point, or pointing out that I could have been clearer in stating that I was meaning to compare any particular version of D&D to the other games occupying the FLGS shelves or digital equivalent at the time.

Such as 2nd or 3rd edition and Vampire: the Masquerade, and other similar comparisons.

In my personal experience, D&D tends to emphasise combat as the ultimate method of conflict resolution, because only combat produces finality of resolution.

In what way is that statement not also true of, for example, Shadowrun or Vampire: the Masquerade?

The whole reason there are so many different systems (and more being created everyday) is to cater to different play styles.

Play style and the focus of the game are not quite the same thing.

There are many different systems because each provides a different flavor for the various pieces of it - the feel to combat resolution could present the "bold heroes and dangerous monsters" feel like D&D tries to, or it could present a "you'd be lucky to survive" feel like Call of Cthulhu aims for, or it could be something else entirely, and the feel of other parts of the game similarly can differ.

That doesn't mean that D&D written in such a way that it can't be used with very little focus on combat, just like it doesn't mean I can't have my Call of Cthulhu campaign be "Resident Evil: 1925"

Getting xp for winning fights also encourages combat.

Yes, what the game rewards XP for does encourage those behaviors. So it's a good thing that there has never been a version of D&D that offered up XP rewards for only combat, nor such disparity between combat and non-combat rewards that a player would be tempted to always choose combat, rather than other more efficient by being less risky methods. Sure, there is an odd-one-out version of D&D (specifically AD&D 2nd edition) that did, for whatever reason, make it so that the official default rule was XP only being gained from defeated monsters - but even that version presented detailed suggestions for what other XP awards a DM could hand out.

And really, if we are going to say that what the mechanics of the game give us is what is primarily responsible for coloring how the game is played, can you reconcile this for me: In Vampire: the Masquerade, the shared traits of every vampire character are all combat boosts - you gain a natural weapon, you can buff your physical stats beyond human capability, you are more resistant to damage, and can heal what damage you do sustain at an accelerated rate - and yet people don't commonly say "Masquerade is combat-focused."

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The assertion that all systems are the same or that system doesn't matter...

That's not the assertion that I made.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Play style and the focus of the game are not quite the same thing.

Sure, but you said that games typically don't assume either of them.

There are many different systems because each provides a different flavor for the various pieces of it - the feel to combat resolution could present the "bold heroes and dangerous monsters" feel like D&D tries to, or it could present a "you'd be lucky to survive" feel like Call of Cthulhu aims for, or it could be something else entirely, and the feel of other parts of the game similarly can differ.

"Flavor" and "feel", as nebulous as they are, can definitely be shaped by the mechanics. That doesn't mean that that is all that is affected by mechanics. Not to mention, what you describe here as flavor suggest a particular play style. "Bold heroes" suggests a proactive, heroic style while "lucky to survive" suggests a more cautious, paranoid style.

That doesn't mean that D&D written in such a way that it can't be used with very little focus on combat, just like it doesn't mean I can't have my Call of Cthulhu campaign be "Resident Evil: 1925"

That a screwdriver can be used for prying open paint cans as well as loosening screws does not mean that a screwdriver was not designed with a specific purpose in mind. D&D obviously can be used in many different ways since people do exactly that, but that doesn't mean that its designers didn't have certain play styles in mind or that the mechanics don't effect how it is played.

Yes, what the game rewards XP for does encourage those behaviors. So it's a good thing that there has never been a version of D&D that offered up XP rewards for only combat, nor such disparity between combat and non-combat rewards that a player would be tempted to always choose combat, rather than other more efficient by being less risky methods.

Why is this a good thing?

Sure, there is an odd-one-out version of D&D (specifically AD&D 2nd edition) that did, for whatever reason, make it so that the official default rule was XP only being gained from defeated monsters - but even that version presented detailed suggestions for what other XP awards a DM could hand out.

Okay, but XP isn't the only thing that effects player choices which is why I specifically mentioned something else before that.

And really, if we are going to say that what the mechanics of the game give us is what is primarily responsible for coloring how the game is played, can you reconcile this for me: In Vampire: the Masquerade, the shared traits of every vampire character are all combat boosts - you gain a natural weapon, you can buff your physical stats beyond human capability, you are more resistant to damage, and can heal what damage you do sustain at an accelerated rate - and yet people don't commonly say "Masquerade is combat-focused."

I've seen commenters on forums remark how other people's reaction to VtM ("It's all about roleplaying and story!") didn't at all jive with its mechanics (a traditional action resolution system) or its advice (which apparently explicitly called for railroading the players). Alas, I have never played VtM or talked about it with anyone who has so I don't know how people play the game, how they view it, or why they hold those views. If I have to hazard a guess, I would say that a big issue is that at that time there weren't any well known games that operated much differently so the expectations were that any system would naturally have a bunch of mechanics and stats about combat. The idea that you could have a system whose mechanics didn't focus on resolving discrete actions or provide specific stats for abilities and equipment was almost totally unheard of at that time. So people may have been very likely to judge games based on their visceral feelings about its themes. They read the fluff, say "Wow! I can play games about vampire politics!" and just assume that that was what the game was about.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not to mention, what you describe here as flavor suggest a particular play style. "Bold heroes" suggests a proactive, heroic style while "lucky to survive" suggests a more cautious, paranoid style.

That is false. A player can be attempting to play in a proactive, heroic style despite being in a lucky to survive system (I know, as I do it all the time). A player can also play cautious and paranoid while the mechanics paint the character a "bold hero" and the structure of the game in the example of play suggests players being proactive (I know, as I have seen players do exactly that).

Why is this a good thing?

Because the way D&D has been - rewarding XP for more than just combat - sets the reward conditions in such a way as to not encourage combat over other methods, and thus not make the game more combat-focused than other games.

They read the fluff, say "Wow! I can play games about vampire politics!" and just assume that that was what the game was about.

...much like how someone can read a bit of a D&D book and say, "Wow! I can play games focused on combat!" and just assume that as being what the game was about. Both statements have their truths, but both statements are also missing the much larger variety of things which can be done with the system, and ways in which those things can be done.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

That is false. A player can be attempting to play in a proactive, heroic style despite being in a lucky to survive system (I know, as I do it all the time). A player can also play cautious and paranoid while the mechanics paint the character a "bold hero" and the structure of the game in the example of play suggests players being proactive (I know, as I have seen players do exactly that).

This is conflating the way users play the game with what the designers had in mind when they are two completely different things. How people play the game has no bearing on what the designers intentions were, just as how someone chooses to use a screwdriver says nothing about the screwdriver's intended purpose.

Because the way D&D has been - rewarding XP for more than just combat - sets the reward conditions in such a way as to not encourage combat over other methods, and thus not make the game more combat-focused than other games.

So if D&D was more combat focused than other games (which ones?) that would be bad? Why?

...much like how someone can read a bit of a D&D book and say, "Wow! I can play games focused on combat!" and just assume that as being what the game was about. Both statements have their truths, but both statements are also missing the much larger variety of things which can be done with the system, and ways in which those things can be done.

Sure, but the discussion here has focused on the mechanics so I don't see how this observation is relevant to the conversation at hand.

 

[Shasarak]

Ever since the XP system has been linked to combat, DnD has been a very combat focused game but it did not always used to be that way.

 

[rabindranath72]

Ever since the XP system has been linked to combat, DnD has been a very combat focused game but it did not always used to be that way.

Indeed, up to BECMI, roughly 80% of XP came from treasure, and only 20% from defeating (which doesn't mean necessarily killing) monsters. In 2e the XP guidelines were rather fluid, and the DM could decide for what to award XP besides defeating monsters. The source of XPs, if stated upfront by the DM, definitely informs the way the game is played.

 

[rabindranath72]

* double post *

 

[pemerton]

n my personal experience, D&D tends to emphasise combat as the ultimate method of conflict resolution, because only combat produces finality of resolution.

In what way is that statement not also true of, for example, Shadowrun or Vampire: the Masquerade?

It may well be. I don't have first-hand experience with either (except for one con game of VtM a long time ago now). What [MENTION=6775557]HomegrownHydra[/MENTION] says about VtM fits with my own readings - its mechanics, which are pretty traditional, don't deliver on its "revolutionary" promise.

But I can give a couple of examples of what I have in mind.

Rolemaster has social skills and social resolution mechanics baked into the system. They are, in some ways, comparable to those in 3E, but they are not identical: there is not quite the same hard-and-fast DC setting rules; and it is not possible for a character's skill bonus to grow largely without bound as in the case of 3E.

These features of 3E mean that it's Diplomacy rules are widely regarded as dysfunctional, and as a result are often not adhered to. On the other hand, the RM mechanics produce no such pressure to disregard them, and hence are capable of producing a degree of finality in resolution without resorting to combat. When this is combined with a host of other mechanics that work together as a synergistic package (eg a wider range of non-combat spells; a wide range of knowledge skills that allow players to gain access to relevant backstory in various ways, again avoiding some of the 3E issues), including the relative viciousness of RM combat compared to D&D, non-violent options (again, in my experience) tend to see more play.

5e is in many ways closer to this than 3E (eg bounded accuracy should solve some of the "grows without bound issues") but not in all ways.

There are other systems, more modern than Rolemaster, that allow social conflict to be final in almost just the same ways as D&D combat is final (ie reduction to zero of some score, which cannot be altered by any participant except via the mechanics of the game). 4e is one - but there are other features of 4e that tend to make combat the most salient form of resolving conflict.

Burning Wheel is another that I am GMing at a moment. It also has the RM-style skills, and the non-combat magic. For similar reasons to RM, but with even more mechanical robustness, it tends to make non-violent options salient in a way that I find is not the case for D&D.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is conflating the way users play the game with what the designers had in mind when they are two completely different things.

We seem to be talking past each other; this conflating you describe is the exact thing which I have based my opinion on this matter upon - because the designers of D&D, for all but 2nd edition at the very least, had in mind a lot more than the common misconception in question suggests they had in mind.

And the designers of other games that people think of as "less combat focused" still intend upon combat to be a variable-to-individual-taste aspect of the game - which is what it is in D&D (with 2nd edition being a semi-exception)

So if D&D was more combat focused than other games (which ones?) that would be bad? Why?

It would be bad because it would mean that what are in reality negative misconceptions - a thing which can potentially be overcome, resulting in more people being D&D fans - would instead be negative realities responsible for certain people not being D&D fans

Sure, but the discussion here has focused on the mechanics so I don't see how this observation is relevant to the conversation at hand.

If you don't see how it is relevant, then I'm not sure you understand the point that I made that you are arguing against.

The mechanics of Shadowrun, to use an example, cover all manner of activity - just like the D&D rules do. But if you dig in and determine how many of the "crunchy bits" of the game apply to combat scenarios, even if they also apply to some non-combat scenarios, you find that both games have a very high percentage of content that is combat-oriented.

Same with all the World of Darkness (new and old) games that I've read. Same with Call of Cthulhu. Same with Savage Worlds. Same with GURPS. Same with all of the D&D-esque games I've heard of, even the ones that intentionally decide they aren't just cloning a particular version of D&D. Same with Exalted... and so on.