Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Moleculo 09-14-04, 01:55 AM	The central question of this thread is one sparking a lively debate among my friends. Some contend that since D&D arose from a set of rules to enhance a wargame with minis, its basic structure depends on resolving tactical warfare between individuals, and hence that combat focus is fundamental. If you look at the vast majority of material for building a character, you see it's primarily concerned with how s/he will do in combat, or to get around in "dungeon" settings, where the expectation is you'll explore, find subterranean nasties, and fight them for their loot. You explore Dungeons and you fight Dragons. No secret there. Combat is the name of the game. Pound for pound, there is more material in the core books related (directly or indirectly) to combat than anything else. Others hold that the core D&D books give you more than that. They give you structure for resolving combat, but the primary function of the D&D rules is to help you simulate a fantasy world and all that goes on within it. Combat is just one aspect. There are plenty of portions (take the skills for example) that aren't directly related to combat. D&D is a roleplaying game first and foremost, in which combat plays an important - but not dominant - part. Have an opinion?
Mister Mayhem 09-14-04, 02:12 AM	D&D *is* a very combat orientated game. Rules for combat take up a considerable portion of the book, wheras there is very little roleplaying guidance. How powerful a character is is *always* measured in their combat prowess, or so it seems. You would be very hard pressed to fit into a party with a character that isn't interested in combat. The majority of players seem to consider "can't fight = useless character". This is not the case with all RPGs, so it seems reasonable to believe that it is D&D that encourages this mindset. Of course, it is up to the players and DM how much role-playing their game will contain, but for a new player, the PHB doesn't give them much in the way of encouragement or example. **** The other issue that will, I predict, come up in this thread is the fact that a lot of people falsely equate "role-playing" with "anything you do that isn't combat". Hence assertions will arise that there is plenty in the book about roleplaying, including at least 2 classes that might depend upon it - bards and rogues. This is a false assertion, of course.
Escef 09-14-04, 02:29 AM	Combat takes up a large portion of any RPG game book. Even the ones with simple combat systems (such as White Wolf's World of Darkness) have a huge array of combat related skills and powers sucking up space in the book. It's funny how D&D is refered to as an "entry level" RPG, when it doesn't presume to guide the players by hand into roleplaying. If anything, roleplaying in D&D is largely the province of experienced gamers. In the end, there are no rules for roleplaying in the books because such rules would require a library of books to even approach comprehensiveness. We're talking about something as complex as human interaction, a mere chapter or two in the PHB or DMG would create more arguements than it solves. In the end, it's more about the group than the rules. Granted the rules do nudge in a certain direction at times. 3e/3.5's heavy combat emphasis does tend to nudge players more to the powergaming end of the spectrum, while, say, White Wolf's WoD books give a nudge in the other (though I've seen min/maxing, powergaming, and outright munchkinism in both systems).
Dorkboy 09-14-04, 03:19 AM	Yes, D&D places a lot of emphasis on combat. But, IMO, this stems more from clever system-designing than an actual bias as to how the agme should be played. I've played extensively in combat-light systems such as Soryteller (World of Darkness), Castle Falkenstein, SAGA (my favorite) and the like. They are all great systems (as I said, SAGA is my fave), but they all fall apart in one point: when someone decides to make a combat-oriented character, the systems in general can't handle them. By placing emphasis in "roleplaying", rules-lite systems neglect the combat-types. Some people assume that a combat-oriented character is automatically a "low-RPing" one, and, thus, the "heavy-RPing" systems neglect them. This is not so: many characters in the history of literature and film are combat-oriented and very complex (Lancelot, Beowulf, Achilles, the gunman in "Once Upon a Time in the West"...). I've seen Vampire sessions completely break down because one character could just beat all the NPCs into a pulp, just because he was a good brawler (not even heavy firearms could stop him). I've seen a great Falkenstein session go to waste because the GM didn't think someone would build a character capable of defending himself with a sword. You get my point. D&D offers us a detailed combat system so that these glitches do not ocurr. I can make almost any kind of character, and it won't break the game. The designers left the roleplaying part to us (instead of taking us by the hand and telling us how to roleplay our own characters), and took care of the crunchy math part. And I'm glad they did. Another reason for this emphasis (with which I wholeheartedly agree and support) is just sales. More people are interested in tactical combat than dramatic roleplaying, so WotC publishes combat-oriented material to prosper and stay in business. And I'm glad they do. I wish the RPG publishers all stay in business and make huge profits, so that our beloved hobby continues. Well, that's my 2 coppers. :)
Nurgan_the_drunked 09-14-04, 07:40 AM	To my mind, it's a case of what you can say inside the system to encourage roleplay: and that involves getting a setting, rather than anything in the PHB. There are a lot of rules, and like people said, it accounts that there will be combat, and that is something you know it can deal with. No matter how much roleplaying things you put into the rules, it won't necessarily enhance people's playing, and what D&D gives is a balanced system, which doesn't punish you too much for any specific character idea (unless you go out of your way to be quite toss). In fact, I'd like to know what sort of material people would think the system should use that would give better roleplaying. If there was a "roleplayer's handbook", what should be in it? I can't think of anything that couldn't be achieved with a little imagination Rules come from the system. Roleplay comes from the players
Levis 09-14-04, 09:22 AM	Its no more biased than any other system out there.
jericho_apa 09-14-04, 09:38 AM	Also another thing I find as I am running the game two of my PC's are more interested in leveling up and gaining access to their new powers (one is a wizard and the other is a cleric) and the rules don't really have too much about roleplaying experience. I usually give those who do a decent job a 10% xp bonus and if something truly remarkable (only happened once) a 15% bonus but I have had a few sessions degenerate into a huge dice-rolling session because the PC's didn't feel like roleplaying and just wanted to smash down the front door. Unfortunately the system leans towards combat but not to the point where great roleplaying can't be done. I have been in many sessions where someone has managed to surprise me by their roleplaying.
Arrowhen 09-14-04, 10:37 AM	Pound for pound, there is more material in the core books related (directly or indirectly) to combat than anything else. Combat requires more rules than anything else because it's the most difficult aspect of the game to simulate while you're sitting around the kitchen table chugging Mountain Dew. The problem isn't that there aren't enough rules for role-playing, it's that too few players lack the intelligence, creativity, flexibility and maturity to keep the rules in their proper place. I remember some game system (d6 Star Wars maybe?) that stated in the introduction to one of its books something along the lines of: "rules are what you use when you can't decide what happens next."
Conaill 09-14-04, 10:39 AM	Yup it's biased, and moreso than some other systems. There's still very much a "kill monsters for XP" attitude. Compare that to this quote from GURPS Lite for example:At the end of each play session, the GM should award bonus character points for good play. Good play is anything that advances the heroes mission or shows good roleplaying, preferably both. But roleplaying trumps mission success! If a player did something totally outside his character s personality (for instance, if a total coward performed a brave act), this should not be worth any points, even if it saved the day for the rest of the group! Notice the difference? No complex calculations of "5 orcs is worth xxx XP", or "you should probably add a little XP for non-combat encounters". Just by doing away with the whole XP calculation, you focus on how *well* the party actually did, not just how many of what type of critters they hacked to pieces...
JabberWocky 09-14-04, 10:42 AM	They are all great systems (as I said, SAGA is my fave), but they all fall apart in one point: when someone decides to make a combat-oriented character, the systems in general can't handle them. I kind of experienced this thing when I gave Shadowrun a try. I mean, I like SR alright, but going from D&D to d20 Modern to Shadowrun, you kind of expect that you are the heroes and you can pretty much hold your own in combat. Not so. Technically, some lucky punk with a pistol can shoot you in the head and kill you, no matter how combat-oriented your character is. And combat-oriented characters get shafted, quick, because the more you're in combat the more likely you are to die. I generally encourage roleplaying in my own little ways, and keep combat balanced between sessions. Of course, there is no right way to do this and it varies from GM to GM.
Masamune 09-14-04, 10:44 AM	well, look at the TITLE OF THE GAME!!! What would you expect from a game called Dungeons & Dragons? Plus, the combat is what makes D&D interesting. I know my players would rather play a combat-heavy campaign than a campaign filled with too many personal interactinos and puzzles.
StormKnight 09-14-04, 11:56 AM	Yes, I think D&D is a very combat oriented system. Most of the special abilities are designed towards combat. The combat system is extensive, well defined, and basically a wargame in complexity and detail. Does this inherently mean you can't do more roleplaying than fighting with it? I don't think so. But I think it means that if you aren't fighting you're kind of losing the point. The last BESM game I was running was very low on combat. Most of it was spent roleplaying and interacting. Now, BESM was very good for this, because it took all of a few lines and a few ability selection to define the character's mecha, magical powers, and everything else. When a fight did occur, it could be very quickly resolved letting us move on with the more important stuff. Now, with a D&D system if you've bothered to figure out all your combat feats and prepare your combat spells and figure out all your combat stats, its going to be a bit annoying if you don't get to use them! And when you do, because combat is complex, its going to take a focus of the action. While no game can determine how its played, I know that when I play at least we tend to lean toward what a game is good for. If we want a game with a lot of fights, we pick a game with a combat system that makes fights fun (in fact, there are some RPGs where we really get combat inclined no matter what we intend just BECAUSE combat is so fun!). If we want a heavy RPG game, we don't bother with a real rules-heavy system since we won't be getting much use out of it anyway. We don't need or want any die rolls to determine which prince the PC is falling in love with!
questionc 09-14-04, 03:08 PM	D&D really is a very heavy-combat game. If you're running a game that's not combat-heavy, you'd be a lot better using a different system, like d20 modern or a Whitewolf game. I'd say that a normal roleplay balance is... 1/3 combat skills 1/3 technical skills 1/3 social skills All the classes in D&D are more or less equal when it comes to combat skills, and in terms of the rest... well, many of the classes simply don't have any inherent ability, while others seem to master everything. OTOH, if you want to run a game that's combat-heavy and you're not using D&D, then the one guy that chose to make a socialite character is not going to have fun. Play a D&D game based on social intrigue and investigation, where a fight might come up every other session, and it's just not going to work out for Kronk. But... D&D's the only system I know of where you can base the game on stomping on monsters five times a session and everyone can still have fun.
Arrowhen 09-14-04, 03:25 PM	If you're running a game that's not combat-heavy, you'd be a lot better using a different system, like d20 modern or a Whitewolf game. Really. So if I wanted to run a game based around, say, political intrigue in the City of Greyhawk, would I be better off buying a copy of Vampire houseruling out all the stuff about vampires or buying a copy of D20 Modern and houseruling out everything modern?
questionc 09-14-04, 06:27 PM	Really. So if I wanted to run a game based around, say, political intrigue in the City of Greyhawk, would I be better off buying a copy of Vampire houseruling out all the stuff about vampires or buying a copy of D20 Modern and houseruling out everything modern? Yes, because D&D is the only roleplaying system out there which is set in fantasy :looloo:. Now that you mention it though, a homebrew modification to d20 Modern probably would be easier than using D&D. Have you looked at the Modern rules? They're really quite simple. Still, that's not what I way saying. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood, but let me try to restate my point in a more clear fashion... Compared to other RPG systems, D&D is very poorly equipped in terms of rules and balance for handling anything other than combat. Seriously. Would you want to be Kronk in campaign where you get into a fight maybe once a session? Fighting's the heart of D&D. You advance by killing things. You always get better at killing things when you advance.
Sober 09-14-04, 06:48 PM	DMs are allowed to award XP for anything, specifically combat, and on occasion RPing. Roleplaying is what makes the game interesting for some, but combat is mostly it. Some people like being told a story, and/or also being in it. I know I do, so RPing is a good thing for people like me. Combat is all rules and number based, but I guess some people like the crunch. I guess it's all a matter of your point of view.
Arrowhen 09-14-04, 06:50 PM	...a homebrew modification to d20 Modern probably would be easier than using D&D. How is homebrewing a bunch of modifications to a system easier than running a combat-light D&D campaign for combat-light D&D characters? Seriously. Would you want to be Kronk in campaign where you get into a fight maybe once a session? I don't know what a Kronk is, but I wouldn't want to play a strictly combat oriented character in a social/intrigue oriented campaign in ANY system. Just like I wouldn't want to play a strictly social character in a dungeon crawl, regardless of system. Fighting's the heart of D&D. You advance by killing things. You always get better at killing things when you advance. You advance by overcoming challenges. Some DMs only present their players with challenges that require combat, but there's nothing in the rules that forces them to do so.
Father Dale 09-14-04, 07:45 PM	Note that D&D was originally created as a modification to then existing wargames. That was the motivation, a wargame with a more personalized feel to it.
Nurgan_the_drunked 09-15-04, 08:22 AM	Compared to other RPG systems, D&D is very poorly equipped in terms of rules and balance for handling anything other than combat. Mainly playing Devil's advocat here, but like what? Rules for social interaction have no real need to be significantly more complex than what is in D&D, because if they are then diplomacy and negotiation become more about rules than roleplay. There are other things to deal with, but most of them will be specific to an environment or setting, and can't be covered by such a wide ranging set of rules.
questionc 09-15-04, 02:17 PM	Mainly playing Devil's advocat here, but like what? Rules for social interaction have no real need to be significantly more complex than what is in D&D, because if they are then diplomacy and negotiation become more about rules than roleplay. There are other things to deal with, but most of them will be specific to an environment or setting, and can't be covered by such a wide ranging set of rules. I roleplay combat with my nephew all the time and we do just fine without combat rules (having sticks or action figures does help however). Actually, my first roleplaying ever, we resolved just about everything that needed resolving with a flat opposed d20 roll, combat included. Want to hit a guy? Opposed d20s. Stab him in the eye? Opposed d20s. That said, I now do appreciate having a set of rules for making combat more set in the realities of the make-believe world's physics. It gives my character build meaning. But you know... I also appreciate having realistic rules for deciding whether or not I can succesfully pick a lock, trail an unwitting suspect, jump high enough to catch the foot of a helicopter. So if I want to make a sneaky master of subterfuge, again, it's about giving a character build meaning, and it's no different from combat. But ah, D&D does have rules for handling things other than combat. Well, yes, there are rules. While I do think that those rules make results more random than I'd like, they are there. Let's see what happens when we use them. Now, enter the fantasy world let's say that a rogue and a fighter are pairing up to solve a mystery involving the princess's disappearance. This sort of adventure should be pretty suitable for even lower levels. STORY START So, they might start off at a semi-formal event where they talk it up with some nobles (diplomacy), and might notice something suspiscious about the Queen's story (sense motive). Still, it'd be inappropriate to approach her, so they leave it be for now. They start poking around for some local stories or information (Gather Information), and someone they question gets nervous and when they start asking the hard questions, he runs for it. (Combat... well, not really) So, a chase ensues (chase rules), and the fleeing interrogee tries to disappear into an alley. They adventurers notice him (spot), and manage to squeeze the info out of him (intimidate). It turns out that the princess is being hidden in an abandoned dungeon of the castle. The adventurers skillfully get around the castle's official guards (either through deception or stealth), go to said dungeon, find it unguarded but for a few thugs. At first, they attempt to circumvent or eliminate them using subterfuge (sneak, hide), but this fails, and combat ensues (combat). Having defeated the 'guards', the advanturers take the key from off the body and release the princess. Now they have to find some suitable way of restoring the princess to her father, and confronting the queen, &ct., but we have enough good stuff here allready. STORY END Now, that seems pretty adventurous personally. First paragraph was a social situation, with the adventurers trying to play ball in the deceptive and complicated social game of wealthy elites. Second paragraph was an action scene more or less. One that really didn't need combat. Really, it'd make sense for the fighter to do pretty well in this compared to the rogue I suppose, with the fighter being physical and the rogue skilled... but really, there are no good chase rules in D&D, and the only realistic way to make it end was have the runner try to disappear into an alley. Third paragraph was a subterfuge situation really. Still, it did end in combat (presumably because the subterfuge failed). Now... who is more effective in the combat? The fighter or rogue? Well, they're combat balanced really. Both of them do things during the combat, and both walk away feeling they were a necissary part of that victory. Who got to do stuff for the rest of the whole adventure? The fighter is so hopelessly gimped in every situation outside of, well, fighting. I hope he had fun sitting on his thumb the whole adventure as ONE CHARACTER had the skills and abilities neccisary to complete damn near every challenge that faced them. As I see it, in D&D, you have three options... 1) Base your adventures in an even mix of skills, combat, and social interaction, and use the rules for those situations. This leaves you with one or to members of the party that have the exclusive skills neccisary to handle most situations, while the rest of the party sticks around for the occasional chance to achieve parity for 15 seconds. 2) Base your adventures in an even mix of skills, combat, and social interaction, and ignore the rules for those situations. ie, "Roleplay instead of Ruleplay". Still, I've already touched on why I appreciate being able to use the rules to build up my character to be skilled in certain circumstances. Seriously, why do we have a diplomacy skill in D&D? 3) Base your adventures in combat and use the rules for those situations. If you do this, everyone contributes, and the game is balanced across the classes. I do like D&D, but it encourages a specific breed of game, one where combat is pretty common, and it's balanced based on how good the different classes perform in that combat. This isn't a neccisarily bad thing; I like D&D for it. It's fun to run around fighting new monsters with mysterious powers and powering up myself. But I can't sit here and not say it's not slanted towards fighting. Let's say that you were a honey-tongued negotiator with contacts all over the city, and a habit of becoming scarce whenever combat ensued. Is this a valid character concept? I believe so. Is this a feasable concept in D&D? I seriously don't think having a character whose advancement is based solely on earning 'bonus experience' (which amounts to a houserule really) is workable in D&D. This is workable in other RP systems. I'm not so sure about d20 Modern, but Whitewolf games are generally built around making sure this kind of roleplay is rewarded as well as combat.
Belen Delos Bard 09-15-04, 02:52 PM	Combat has a lot of rules because it is tangible. If you read the older editions, you will see that a lot more was dedicated to RP than 3e allows.
Azigoth 09-15-04, 04:06 PM	There's a whole element here that I'm surprised nobody has touched on. D&D's rules are pretty heavy into combat, true. But they are also very meticulous about spells (combat-oriented and non-combat-oriented), fantastic monsters, alternative planes of existence, new religious orders, etc. The rules in D&D focus on things that, well, aren't common sense to us. If a group of three friends and I are going to play a game with a standard set of rules to abide by, it is pretty safe to say we've never fought toe-to-toe with bastard swords, dressed up in real plate armor, had a ghast try to touch us, try to make the gestures necessary to cast a spell while dodging arrow fire, etc. We probably don't share the experience of trying to slit a seven-foot-tall half-ogre's throat silently; none of us have probably ever hurled holy water at a partially concealed shadow in low visibility; and very few of us are (in real life) demihuman. So, these things require extensive rules. However, we all roleplay all the time. It's part of being human. Every one of us has different moods, treats different people differently (police officers differently than, say, a 6 year old kid who tries to steal something from your store), et cetera. D&D allows us to continue to do this, but in a very different setting, within different social contexts and as different people, or as different races. Why should D&D (or any other roleplaying game for that matter) require more emphasis on rules for roleplaying, when it's something we all understand innately? Combat, spells, monsters, etc. - these are the things that the D&D rules really emphasize, but I strongly feel that players who don't use their imagination to incorporate more than just the rulebooks into their gaming session are missing out on a whole lot of fun. Combat needs to be very strictly codified or everyone gets frustrated. Negotiating the price of, say, a warhorse doesn't. A lot of people have made very good points on this topic above, and one thing should be repeated over and over - it's all about the group having a good time. If tactical combat is what the group is into, that's what you should be doing. I've fought in grisly, polyhedra-only battles that took two full playing days of die-rolling and rules consulting to resolve, and I've also played sessions for days on end without a weapon ever being drawn, yet there were experience points flowing freely. D&D rules give the DM a lot of leeway regarding XP. There are examples that specifically mention that a character might deserve more XP for successfully avoiding a fight to the death than actually winning one. So, I find it hard to understand why D&D is so often criticized for being so "hack-and-slash" when the developers left so many loopholes in the rules for creative players and DMs to devise their own rewards systems.
Sulaco 09-15-04, 04:45 PM	If you look at the vast majority of material for building a character, you see it's primarily concerned with how s/he will do in combat, or to get around in "dungeon" settings, Have an opinion? An opinion? ME? Naw. Seriously though, the reason that so much of the rules are dedicated to combat and exploration is cos those are the areas of the game that require the most explanation and codifcation. You don't need a chapter detailing how to interact with the dukes niece at all ball cos that's mostly up to your RPing ability, but if she pulls a knife you need to know how much damage the knife does, how much you can take, her chances to hit, etc… Ditto exporation and dungeon crawling: you need to know how far you can see, how far the opponents can see, hazzards of the environment, etc… Think of the D&D rulebooks as textbooks. The thing with the D&D texts is that they deal with many subjects, but only some require extensive rules & formulae. For example, ff you had a school textbook that covered both Literature and Math you are going to find a lot more rules and formulae in the math section than in the Literature section.
Arrowhen 09-15-04, 05:06 PM	The problem is that so many people act as though the contents of the rulebooks dictate how a game must be played. D&D books are full of combat rules, therefore D&D is AUTOMATICALLY hack-n-slash. White Wolf games have 64 pages of overwrought flavor text, therefore they are AUTOMATICALLY trancendent roleplaying experiences that mere mortals like you can't even begin to comprehend. The rules are not the game. Rules are only tools. It's when you begin to use those tools that the game itself is created and the shape that game takes is dependant far more upon the minds of the players than upon the shape of the dice or the publisher of the books.
Sensei Gith 09-15-04, 05:29 PM	I've heard it said that the reason that 2e was more "RP-oriented" was that the rules were too convoluted to run regular combat encounters. The D&D books provide a mechanical framework for adventures to happen. The form of those adventures is up the the players and DM. They can roleplay just as well as in any other game system, and roleplaying xp is a core rule (though not codified). The combat rules are so much of the books so that you can have combat sessions if you want (as most players choose to). The roleplaying is up to the players and DM. I can't imagine a game system that spent 1,000 pages on the rules for roleplaying because it does not demand such complicated rules. You don't need a game system at all to roleplay.
Arrowhen 09-15-04, 05:32 PM	I've heard it said that the reason that 2e was more "RP-oriented" was that the rules were too convoluted to run regular combat encounters. :rofl: