NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6242505" data-attributes="member: 2067">Hahaha, of course not. There's nothing evil about loving combat and wanting to play a game full of it. No one is calling anyone else badwrongevil, so don't be so jumpy! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> It is true, though, that D&D hasn't really ever positioned itself as a game defined by combat(just claim that 4e is all about combat and see the responses! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />), so I wonder why you'd insist that it must exclude those who don't want as much combat. D&D is a game of heroic fantasy, and heroic fantasy can and often does involve heroes who aren't very good at action-packed combat. It thus stands to reason that D&D should not be a game that automatically assumes that action-packed combat is what people are going to do all the time with it, and it should support characters who are good at things other than combat -- it's reasonable to assume from D&D's description of itself that it is comfortable with those kinds of characters.So if someone comes to the game wanting to play one of those characters like Samwise, a character who isn't very good at combat because the player isn't very into combat because they're trying to be a different kind of hero, and the game has hour-long combats, those players are going to tune the heck out. It's not a game they'll want to play, because it's not meeting their expectations, it's not what they want out of a heroic fantasy game. A combat game is fine, but when you sit down to play a game of heroic fantasy, you don't necessarily expect a game that's all about combat. It doesn't really matter if their character is good at that combat or not -- a warlord isn't going to meet their needs if their needs aren't related to slaying the dragon but rather in overcoming it in some other way. But D&D in general should be a game that they can play, IMO, since D&D is not a combat game, but a heroic fantasy game, and heroic fantasy is more than fighting. It needn't be a requirement that everyone can and must contribute equally to combat. It needn't be a requirement that everyone can and must be even *interested* in contributing to combat. Combat can just be a supporting point of the heroic fantasy adventure, no more important or less important than having an indefatigable spirit or being a conniving rake or being able to find your way through a thick wood. Which is why when I see this:it gives me the impression that you want a very narrow and exclusive kind of D&D that is not actually a fantasy adventure game, but is more specifically a game mostly about combat. What you've just said is that the premier game of fantasy adventure shouldn't support a character who is one of the greatest heroes of one of the defining works of fantasy adventure, because it would mean that you might have to not spend an hour on pure roll-hit-damage action-economy combat if you played at a table with them. It would seem odd to me for D&D to sell itself like that, as a fantasy combat game (with a bit of story on top). Mostly because that's never been what D&D is to me.</blockquote>

Verification