GMforPowergamers
Legend
I never thought about it that way...While they've added more and more non-combat rules, they've also added more and more combat rules. The number of combat rules has vastly increased and the non-combat ones have increased slightly.
I'm not sure that's true... but for the sake of argument I will say maybe...The percentage of combat rules has actually increased with the more recent editions.
3e were the quickest combats we ever saw... we had 5-20 min average in 2e as well and 60ish sounds right for most of 4e... but I think we had a lot more less then 5 min fights in 3e then more then 60 in every edition combined...I know that the amount of time spent on combat has increased over the editions. We finished combats in 5-20 minutes in 2e. It takes 60-90 minutes to finish a combat in 3e or 4e.
3e had a lot of fights end before everyone took there first turn (witch almost never happened in 2e and only happened 5 fights in 4e...and those were in a row...)
My group found because fights took so long we tried to avoid them more... much less likely to pick fights and much more likely to try to find away around it.To me, that shows an increase in the focus of combat since now it takes up more of a session to run a combat and you spend more of your time dealing with combat.
Also, when people make up characters they spend more time thinking of how their character will perform in combat than they did in ages past. When I made up a 2e character, my thought was "Ok, I'm a fighter, I'm going to use a longsword in battle." In 4e, I have to pick the right combat feats, the right powers to have the best synergy with one another and the right weapon to qualify for the powers and feats I want. If I'm higher level, I have to choose appropriate magic items that synergize with my feat and power selections.
I agree between 2e and 4e... but that mostly started in 3e for us... hell those annoying 'builds' that people would plan 10 levels ahead for started for us right around 3.5... "Well I want X and Y feats and both have prereeq feats and stats and then I want this prestige class..."
4e saw again less then 3e with less multi classing we had a lot of "oh I want X epic destiny, but there was no building to it... just het the level.
I think in some ways simpler more condensed rules can be better for combat... we will have to just agree to disagree...That's kind of my point, but condensing it to easy and quick rules and taking up half the space, you are losing rules. By making them simpler, you are likely reducing the focus and detail of combat. One will have to be sacrificed for the other.
well first if WotC took 5 years off D&D I bet they could live off novel, board game, and misc (like those pdf sale and ddi) for a while just making very little profit... and if you recoupled it they could do so for ever because magic brings in more then you could ever dream D&D could...But we're already had a year long playtest of rules that I like. We don't need another year of playtests on another set of rules with more non-combat content. Nor could WOTC survive another year without putting out a product.
I will say what I said back when 5e playtest started... you need a more basic book. a soft cover player's guide with 4 classes and 3 races basic equipment and rules only... then the big advanced players guide and DMGYes, and it prevented new players from buying them. WOTC has said explicitly that the reason they separated the classes in the Essentials books into 2 books is to keep the page count down and therefore the price.
My FLGS that ran both encounters and LFR had 3 or 4 of us with all the books, two of us with laptops for character builders... no newbe needed to buy anything... so I don't know I never heard that. I don't doubt you just not what I'm used too.It's the number one reason I have heard given to me when new players come up to me at games days and say "I'd like to play, but I can't afford 40 dollars for a book, is there something cheaper I can buy?" Those are people who don't even want a MM or DMG they just want to know the rules so they can show up for things like D&D Encounters and Living Forgotten Realms.
yup my point.There's no way to prove this. You'd have to have the ability to know every game of D&D that was happening everywhere and film it all. Since that's impossible, I can only guess.
me tooHowever, I do have a vast amount of experience with D&D.
um back to unknowable...Way more than most people do.
ok I know a lot of people that's true for...This has a lot to do with the fact that I've traveled extensively and played D&D with people everywhere I've traveled.
when we started back in high school it was just 5 or 6 of us and 3 of them were brothers... my freshmen year of college we opened a RP club at the college and meet a lot of people that was true for... in fact I think that your 'credentials' makes you only slightly above average...I specifically go to conventions and lived for a year in another country and had to make all new D&D friends there.
wow, I have been to at least 7 Cons(most more then 3 times) I have been to Gen Con 8 times since my first trip in 2000 I have played and run in 3 states not counting Cons, and I found Most people HATE dungeon crawls in less it is only a one off...However, it's been my experience that in terms of pure time using the rules, the combat rules are always used the most. A large number of people run dungeon crawls almost exclusively.
before I posted I called the 3 players I know who have played with the most number of people... none of us think that as the 'average' experience...When an adventure consists of "You open the door, there are 12 orcs, roll for initiative." there are very few other rules used ever.
My friend Chris was in the Military for ever... he was in Germany playing D&D in the 90's and in Africa at the turn of the century. I meet him in 2004 He now lives here in the states and is retired but works for a government contractor... he travels all over the world some times for months at a time... he has played in 5 different countries and every time zone in the US... he is one of those 3 players I checked with...
well the best system are things that can be both... let me have my choice...Skill Tricks seemed like a good idea at the time. However, most of the skill tricks were still combat oriented or more useful in combat than they were outside of combat. "Demoralize multiple foes in combat simultaneously" and "Successful feint allows you to avoid attacks of opportunity" certainly aren't non-combat abilities.
yea it felt like all the fighter ones were like that...one of my complaints... until we got skill powers and themes to make up for it...Same with Utility powers. The average one gives you temporary hitpoints, lets you shift 10 squares to avoid OAs, or heals an ally. None of which are non-combat abilities.
Non combat abilities can also be hide in plain sight, and fast talking, and find information, and stiring speech.Non-combat abilities are things like "You can stay at inns for free", "You are always given an invitation to the ball if you are in town", and "You can use the resources of the thieves guild in any city you go to". There have been nearly none of these abilities in any edition of D&D. I'm glad D&D Next has a couple of these, but I'd hope not to go too much further in that direction.
I want just a bit more then it has now... but I agree 5e is shapeing up nice right now...And I'm glad for that. D&D went too far in that direction. I've been playing D&D Next for over a year now. When you said "more noncombat" I assumed you meant starting with D&D Next as the baseline then going further to the non-combat side.