Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8854170" data-attributes="member: 7030755">I don't know that there is any one way that dnd has been played, either back in the day or now&nbsp; ([USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] has had much to say about this in various posts).&nbsp; For example, from what I've read, the whole &quot;munchkin&quot; and &quot;monty haul&quot; criticisms came from adult 70s gamers flummoxed by the murder hobo power fantasies of pre-teens entering the hobby in the 80s.&nbsp; Thus, the divide between combat-oriented and narrative-oriented was there from the start.Otherwise, I don't think it's a question of whether b/x or 5e (to take two examples) are more or less combat-oriented but rather is interesting to consider role of combat in each system.&nbsp; 5e, raw, awards xp for killing monsters and gives guidelines for how many resource-draining (e.g. combat) encounters a party can handle in an adventuring day.&nbsp; Most of the PC abilities, from core 5e to the current 1dnd playtest, center around what a character can do within combat, that is, after initiative is rolled.&nbsp; A session might not include a battle, but the next session might be <a href="https://youtu.be/c5NsUbMoXxw" target="_blank">4-5 hours of combat</a>.&nbsp; Whereas a b/x dungeon delve is adversarial--the dungeon does not want them there--but includes a variable amount of actual combat.I'll also note that this same difference is present, to my knowledge, in war games, many of which were strategy games more so than games just about combat.&nbsp; I mean, one of the main influences of 70s wargaming is diplomacy, a game which is all about war but not about combat.I would agree that the fiction around combat has changed, sort of.&nbsp; It's thankfully less popular now to run a Gygaxian settler-colonial simulator, and the parties adversaries in combat are villains who are justifiably villianous.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8854170, member: 7030755"] I don't know that there is any one way that dnd has been played, either back in the day or now ([USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] has had much to say about this in various posts). For example, from what I've read, the whole "munchkin" and "monty haul" criticisms came from adult 70s gamers flummoxed by the murder hobo power fantasies of pre-teens entering the hobby in the 80s. Thus, the divide between combat-oriented and narrative-oriented was there from the start. Otherwise, I don't think it's a question of whether b/x or 5e (to take two examples) are [B]more[/B] or [B]less[/B] combat-oriented but rather is interesting to consider role of combat in each system. 5e, raw, awards xp for killing monsters and gives guidelines for how many resource-draining (e.g. combat) encounters a party can handle in an adventuring day. Most of the PC abilities, from core 5e to the current 1dnd playtest, center around what a character can do within combat, that is, after initiative is rolled. A session might not include a battle, but the next session might be [URL='https://youtu.be/c5NsUbMoXxw']4-5 hours of combat[/URL]. Whereas a b/x dungeon delve is adversarial--the dungeon does not want them there--but includes a variable amount of actual combat. I'll also note that this same difference is present, to my knowledge, in war games, many of which were strategy games more so than games just about combat. I mean, one of the main influences of 70s wargaming is diplomacy, a game which is all about war but not about combat. I would agree that the [B]fiction[/B] around combat has changed, sort of. It's thankfully less popular now to run a Gygaxian settler-colonial simulator, and the parties adversaries in combat are villains who are justifiably villianous. [/QUOTE]

Verification