Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gilean 01-02-06, 02:35 AM	This thread doesn't concern miniatures. Likewise, the length of the combat chapter is completely irrelevant. Previous editions are completely irrelevant. This community, or many people in this community, seem to tell that D&D isn't a combat-oriented, the players are. While this is, of course, partially true, it isn't the entire truth. The rules allow for noncombat resolution of conflicts. It is explicitly stated in the books. Character builds can be made around sneaking, for example. Concepts can, of course, be made around pretty much anything. Still, the game is focused on combat. Why? Combat is the only extended conflict mechanism in the system. Let me elaborate with an example. "I lie that we are only common travelers." 2 rolls: bluff and sense motive. "I stab the guard dead." Many rolls: At least attack and damage, possibly many times over. Which is more climatic, more exciting? Combat. That is the point. For climatic encounters, GM pretty much must use combat or it will fall flat. Without house rules, that is. So, the game has extended combat resolution. The game doesn't have extended rules for duels with arcane forces, unlike Ars Magica does. Because D&D is not a game about mages, it is a game about combat. The game doesn't have extended rules for Duels of Wit, unlike Burning Wheel does. Because D&D is not a game about intrigue or negotiation, it is a game about combat. You can, of course, use different challenges. They just won't be as exciting as combat is. And, if you hardly roll a die once a session, why use the rules at all?
TLomon 01-02-06, 03:03 AM	I think it really depends on the DM and the players. For example, I ran an adventure called Bladestar. The entire adventure had one small bit of combat at the very end. Up until that point, it was entirely roleplay as the players had to figure out a series of crimes in the area. Over all, an extremely fun adventure for both me and the players. Combat becomes the focus of the game when you choose it to be. It isn't a requirement.
Gilean 01-02-06, 03:18 AM	I think it really depends on the DM and the players.To large degree, yes.For example, I ran an adventure called Bladestar. The entire adventure had one small bit of combat at the very end. Up until that point, it was entirely roleplay as the players had to figure out a series of crimes in the area. Over all, an extremely fun adventure for both me and the players.Out of curiosity, was the combat the climax?Combat becomes the focus of the game when you choose it to be. It isn't a requirement.It need not be, but the rules heavily support is being important. It is, again, the only extended resolution mechanic.
TLomon 01-02-06, 03:26 AM	The fight was anti-climatic. Discovering what was behind the crimes was the part that made the players go WOW. (It's an adventure in the old module Treasures of Greyhawk)
Gilean 01-02-06, 03:48 AM	The fight was anti-climatic. Discovering what was behind the crimes was the part that made the players go WOW. (It's an adventure in the old module Treasures of Greyhawk)Okay. Did the discovering have any mechanical support? Like fighting someone by reducing hit points? I assume no. So, what had mechanical support was the equivalent off hitting the target (finding out things). I could run a fight without using hit points, just describing how wounded the opponent is, and ending at dramatic moment when sufficient hits have landed. Which doesn't make it a good mechanic. Another pointed question: what did the rules give you in the scenario?
Eksem 01-02-06, 04:13 AM	The game is obviously based on combat. The whole hobby was born from wargaming, and not only is D&D the first RPG, it still is the one closest to the roots (except for perhaps Hackmaster :)). Compared to most other RPGs, almost everything that can be done with the rules, except for some skills and some spells, deal with combat in some way. If you look at a game like Hero Quest/Hero Wars, a game for the Glorantha setting, there aren't even combat rules at all. The same game mechanic us used for debates as well as fighting. Many other games are like this too, like Nobilis. So, D&D is about combat. Making stuff for combat, buying stuff for combat, finding combat and participate in combat. All the rules are based around that. That doesn't mean individual sessions must be based around combat. From a session perspective, the focus of each session of course will be whatever the DM and players wan't from the game. But D&D itself is combat-oriented. The game rules are much to complex to bother about if you are not going to use the game for combat. There is noting wrong with that, however. It is the reason why I like to play D&D. The comat rules are so fun for everyone involved.
TLomon 01-02-06, 04:18 AM	The discovery was a combination of mechanics and roleplay. Characters used sense motive to determine if people were telling the truth. Intimidation, gather information, etc. In my campaign, how you roleplay gives you bonuses (or penalities) to the rolls.
Gilean 01-02-06, 04:28 AM	Eksem, we are in agreement. TLomon, is the following true?Did the discovering have any mechanical support? Like fighting someone by reducing hit points? I assume no. So, what had mechanical support was the equivalent off hitting the target (finding out things). I could run a fight without using hit points, just describing how wounded the opponent is, and ending at dramatic moment when sufficient hits have landed. Which doesn't make it a good mechanic.The skill checks were equivalent to attack rolls, damage was arbitrary GM fiat. An analogy.
Hairfoot 01-02-06, 07:00 AM	Still, the game is focused on combat. Well, yes. That's why D&D is alive and kicking, instead of lying at the bottom of the harbour with dozens of short-lived RPGs which asked people to be ham actors before they could get to the heroics.
Gilean 01-02-06, 08:37 AM	Well, yes. That's why D&D is alive and kicking, instead of lying at the bottom of the harbour with dozens of short-lived RPGs which asked people to be ham actors before they could get to the heroics.An heroism needs to be made manifest in combat? There is no heroism in contests of pure magical might, or a fierce debate, or exciting chase with or without mounts? All heroes always deal with their opponents by might. Everything else is nonheroic. Is that what you are saying?
Bullgrit 01-02-06, 08:56 AM	Still, the game is focused on combat.And water is wet. And I like both that way. :-) Bullgrit
KJW 01-02-06, 09:06 AM	D&D is combat based, but in many ways so is the real world. Admittedly, I am a fan of non-violence both in the real world and D&D, but the truth is that human society is violent and D&D, and most roleplaying games, reflects this. Still a good DM can work some magic and make combat secondary to a good story, but this is hard to do with the typical gaming group. I have run solo campaigns with minimal violence and the climax to the campaign often has nothing to do with combat, but in group campaigns a DM usually needs to go to combat for excitement. The reason is that in a group of 6 players only 1-2 are usually clever enough to handle a more non-violent campaign, to make everyone happy you need to run some combat. Now that said, when I run Star Trek (LUG), my d20 Future campaign, or even d20 Star Wars my players are far more peaceful than they are in D&D even though two of those campaigns use the same combat mechanics. The DM and setting is important for the tone of the campaign. D&D is about combat, not because of the mechanics per se, but I believe more because of the alignment absolutes which make everything black and white.
Gilean 01-02-06, 09:32 AM	And water is wet. And I like both that way. :-)Water is wet. Which doesn't prevent it being cold, or hot, or clear, or anything. Detailed combat system could have been augmented with other detailed and dramatic systems. This time, I am not pointing this things out because I don't like it. This is a reference thread for further claims of D&D not being combat-oriented.Still a good DM can work some magic and make combat secondary to a good story, but this is hard to do with the typical gaming group.The system resists it, too. But that is for the other threads.
Sigurd van Norhusen 01-02-06, 09:34 AM	I agree with Gilean. The blinder-like focus on combat is the #1 reason why I don't like the game overly much. It simplifies all other aspects of a character, sometimes to absurdity, while at the same time complicating combat by tons and tons of feats, spells, and the like. It's morbidly silly at times. (Yes, yes, I'm not currently playing, I know what a different GM can do, and, no, I'm not going away unless forced.)
Gilean 01-02-06, 10:13 AM	I agree with Gilean.Good to see that around here, once a while. Just to clarify my previous point, I do not think that focusing on combat is bad. I think that if similar focus had been put on other aspects of potential conflicts, it would have been better. But taking the focus from combat and putting nothing in stead would not have worked, due to the style of the system.
Bullgrit 01-02-06, 10:21 AM	An heroism needs to be made manifest in combat? There is no heroism in contests of pure magical might, or a fierce debate, or exciting chase with or without mounts? All heroes always deal with their opponents by might. Everything else is nonheroic. Is that what you are saying?I don't see it as "heroism", really. It's "excitement". Combat is exciting. A contest of magical might -- combat between mages, using spells. This exciting, and combat. Fierce debate -- sorry, but this would bore me to death. This is not exciting. Chase -- with combat at the end? Someone is trying to avoid the combat, the chaser is trying to instigate/complete it. This is exciting. Bullgrit
Cennedi 01-02-06, 10:29 AM	An heroism needs to be made manifest in combat? There is no heroism in contests of pure magical might, or a fierce debate, or exciting chase with or without mounts? All heroes always deal with their opponents by might. Everything else is nonheroic. Is that what you are saying? Its pretty much a fact. bards dont sing about sir rovillan the fierce debater, they sing about sir Jared the slayer of blutarsky
Gilean 01-02-06, 10:35 AM	A contest of magical might -- combat between mages, using spells. This exciting, and combat.This excitement, unfortunately, drops to "Roll initiative and cast a spell that most likely kills the other mage".Fierce debate -- sorry, but this would bore me to death. This is not exciting.Here (http://www.burningwheel.org/pdf/dow_95_108.pdf) you can find rules Duel of Wits, for Burning Wheel. Hardly boring, I'd say.Chase -- with combat at the end? Someone is trying to avoid the combat, the chaser is trying to instigate/complete it. This is exciting.The chased might be very inefficient combatant, so it is a factor of catching him, he'll probably surrender. For example.
Bullgrit 01-02-06, 11:33 AM	This excitement, unfortunately, drops to "Roll initiative and cast a spell that most likely kills the other mage".Unlikely. But even if so, it excites me. But your comments weren't that it might not be exciting, it was that it couldn't happen in the rules, because you seem to equate all combat with physical striking back and forth. I was just pointing out that magic combat is still "combat", and the rules allow for it just fine. Here you can find rules Duel of Wits, for Burning Wheel. Hardly boring, I'd say.I'm glad you can find excitement in a in-character debate. But regardless of the rules, such a scenario is boring to me. (Unless a fight broke out as a result :-) The chased might be very inefficient combatant, so it is a factor of catching him, he'll probably surrender. For example.Or, the chased might be a very strong combatant, so catching him might be very surprisingly climatic. For example. Bullgrit
Orcmonk89 01-02-06, 11:43 AM	As my party prefers Roleplaying to combat, I'm gonna try having half as much combat as roleplay. BTW, the mystery adventure sounds pretty cool.
Gilean 01-02-06, 11:43 AM	Unlikely. But even if so, it excites me. But your comments weren't that it might not be exciting, it was that it couldn't happen in the rules, because you seem to equate all combat with physical striking back and forth.A misunderstanding. A combat of raw magical prowess was what I meant, along the lines of two mages simply sitting next to a table, hands on a crystal ball, and channeling energy in and using it there to best each other. Could be an entry test to some mages guild, for example.I'm glad you can find excitement in a in-character debate. But regardless of the rules, such a scenario is boring to me. (Unless a fight broke out as a result :-)After the DoW has ended, the loser can escalate it to violence, which won't negate the Duel's results, but might kill the other guy. Sometimes, combat isn't the answer, and the capability to support other kinds of exciting (climatic, dramatic) conflicts would be a Good Thing.
Bullgrit 01-02-06, 11:58 AM	A misunderstanding. A combat of raw magical prowess was what I meant, along the lines of two mages simply sitting next to a table, hands on a crystal ball, and channeling energy in and using it there to best each other. Could be an entry test to some mages guild, for example.Oh, OK. Well, you're right. There's no RAW game mechanic for channeling energy into a crystal ball, so therefore, there is no RAW game mechanic for doing so as an opposed challenge. But I don't see how D&D being combat oriented relates at all to this concept. Crystal ball challenge: Roll initiative (modified by Intelligence/Charisma/Wisdom, depending on the character's spellcasting stat, instead of Dexterity). As an "attack action" on their turn, the opponents channel spell level energy through the ball at each other. Roll opposed caster level checks, and if the attacker wins, he deals 1d4 damage per spell level he just channeled to his opponent. Challenge is over when one mage is unconscious (or dead). You expand on this to make it as complicated as you'd like. It's still combat. Sometimes, combat isn't the answer, and the capability to support other kinds of exciting (climatic, dramatic) conflicts would be a Good Thing.Sure, but how big do you want the PHB to be? If every skill got its own combat-like system. . . Bullgrit
Gilean 01-02-06, 12:06 PM	Sure, but how big do you want the PHB to be? If every skill got its own combat-like system. . .That would be one great game, or would at least have the potential to be one. Of course, some other stuff like endless spell and monster listings might need to be shortened. Or just add a supplement.
PerennialRook 01-02-06, 12:29 PM	I would say the focus of your DnD game is your DM's fault not the system. The ruleset, though it includes many rules for combat, covers most any action that your character can take. If the ruleset does not cover the action your DM is free to adjucate how the action will work with the ruleset. The ruleset for combat is so in depth to make the hardest part of any system run smoothly. The way I have always explained it to new or potential players is this, "When you were young and played cops and robbers your friend would yell, 'bang bang I shot you,' and you would yell back, 'no you didn't,' and then all your fun would bog down into who shot who etc..." The ruleset makes combat run smoothly so that it is fair for the players and no one feels cheated. That said, the DM has to present challenges apropriate to the players and characters. If I had a mage, a fighter, a barbarian, and a monk most (not all) of my game would be somewhat combat oriented.
Gilean 01-02-06, 12:37 PM	I would say the focus of your DnD game is your DM's fault not the system.It is the designers' "fault", if anyone's. Did you read what I wrote? The only extended conflict mechanism is for combat. So it is the conflict mechanism for climatic/dramatic/exciting encounters. That is why the game is combat-heavy. That is where it can be noticed.
Board_Rider 01-02-06, 12:43 PM	I think that D&D focuses on the combat mechanic because, really, what else is there to focus on? I mean, sure, you have skills and stuff too, however the rolplaying stuff can only be left interpretated by each player. Combat needs rules to help the DM and Players move through combat in a more efficient manner. Does it require as many rules that 3.x brings? Especially compared to 2E? Well thats up to each person to decide. There has to be some baseline combat rules, IMO, or everything would be left to interpretation at the moment which could possibly lead to inconsistancies from gaming session to gaming session.
Bullgrit 01-02-06, 12:47 PM	It is the designers' "fault", if anyone's.It's the designers' "blessing". I *want* combat in my D&D. Also, note that even Vampire has detailed combat rules. And isn't that game held up as the epitamy of little/less/lower/non-combat RPGs? [Admittedly, I have very little experience with Vampire -- about 6 game sessions with VtM.] "Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is 'Yes'." :-) Bullgrit
Gilean 01-02-06, 12:47 PM	I think that D&D focuses on the combat mechanic because, really, what else is there to focus on? I mean, sure, you have skills and stuff too, however the rolplaying stuff can only be left interpretated by each player.I have given examples, and can give more. Good social rules might be a good start, they often have much influence on the setting and character's fate.Combat needs rules to help the DM and Players move through combat in a more efficient manner. Does it require as many rules that 3.x brings? Especially compared to 2E? Well thats up to each person to decide. There has to be some baseline combat rules, IMO, or everything would be left to interpretation at the moment which could possibly lead to inconsistancies from gaming session to gaming session.Applies to every facet of play. That is the second reason for rules (in D&D's case, this is), first being sharing credibility amongst players (including the GM).
Thorak 01-02-06, 01:25 PM	The reason the rules focus on combat is because of the aforementioned origins of D&D, and also because it's one of the only easy to represent mechanics. And because a lot of the other conflicts aren't blow-by-blow exciting. I don't want to have to roll to find and hold each handhold as I climb 10' up a tree. That's not exciting. But each slash I make against an orc, sure. As for magic; the rules are all right there. It's just as complicated as combat. Counterspelling and all that. If you don't use it, that's not the system's fault. As for social matters; social elements are complicated, but again, typically boring in their minutiae. I don't want to see how well someone believes each individual aspect of a complicated lie, just whether they do or not. This is true in D&D, and in fiction. Even in fiction, fights take up more per-second space in sentences than almost anything else. Because it's fast-paced and intricate. There's very little typically described in social matters beyond the actual words said, and visible actions of the characters involved. This is of course a gross overgeneralization, but it is generally true. While there are other forms of interesting conflict, rules aren't the best way to deal with them. If I provide a riddle, I don't want my players to roll a check against their Int to see if they figure it out. Perhaps a hint, if it's a good check, but not an auto-solve. If anything, that reduces the fun, IMHO.
amorax_kaka 01-02-06, 01:29 PM	ummmm, Gilean I agree with you, the game is combat-oriented, however does that mean I shouldn't like it? just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to get others to, they can like it if they want to, you can hate it if you want to. Amorax out.
Sulaco 01-02-06, 01:31 PM	The sun is warm. Water is wet. Pain is painful. Sorry, I thought this was a "state the blindingly obvious" thread. ;)
Gilean 01-02-06, 01:47 PM	The reason the rules focus on combat is because of the aforementioned origins of D&D, and also because it's one of the only easy to represent mechanics. And because a lot of the other conflicts aren't blow-by-blow exciting. I don't want to have to roll to find and hold each handhold as I climb 10' up a tree. That's not exciting. But each slash I make against an orc, sure.Probably true.As for magic; the rules are all right there. It's just as complicated as combat. Counterspelling and all that. If you don't use it, that's not the system's fault.Counterspelling, now that is a good point. Still, it is quite sparse in comparison. Well, I always have Ars Magica for that, I guess.As for social matters; social elements are complicated, but again, typically boring in their minutiae. I don't want to see how well someone believes each individual aspect of a complicated lie, just whether they do or not.That is exactly why there are no court dramas on television, right? Rules for extended conflicts would be useful. Like, seducing someone over a long time (frequently happens alongside other events in action movies), negotiating a major diplomatic agreement between nations, and such. Perhaps knitting a web os falsehoods or contacts to protect and inform you.This is of course a gross overgeneralization, but it is generally true.Heavily dependant on the fiction in question. It is not mandatory for good one, but all too much bad one focuses on it. Where "bad fiction" largely consists of D&D books, more or less openly.While there are other forms of interesting conflict, rules aren't the best way to deal with them. If I provide a riddle, I don't want my players to roll a check against their Int to see if they figure it out. Perhaps a hint, if it's a good check, but not an auto-solve. If anything, that reduces the fun, IMHO.If using your wits to solve problems is what one enjoys, sure.It's the designers' "blessing". I *want* combat in my D&D.Yup. That why I wrote "fault", not fault. That was the word used by whoever I was responding to.Also, note that even Vampire has detailed combat rules.A relic. I don't play WoD, but consider the new one succesful in what it does. The new one is lighter than the old on the matter of combat, if I have understood correctly."Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is 'Yes'."Why won't you try the Riddle of Steel someday, in a convention or something? It is an RPG with even more detailed combat rules than D&D, and has the central theme of "what is worth fighting for". You might actually like it.however does that mean I shouldn't like it?No.Sorry, I thought this was a "state the blindingly obvious" thread. This is, kind of. Here people agree. But in the next breath they are telling that "it is the players, not the system, that make it all combat and hack'n'slash and stuff".
nastynate 01-02-06, 01:58 PM	D&D is very much a combat oriented game. the rules do indeed provide sytems for most any action a charcater may choose to take, but ultimately the game is very much based upon combat. CRs are designed to pit the characters against enemies that they can kill. Being able to defeat you enemies in combat, and earning experience for doing so, encourages you to fight them. In fact the entire XP system encourages combat. There is no more efficient way to gain XP in D&D than fighting things. Sure you can earn experience for other tasks, but combat is the biggest, and most effective way to advance. Other games I have played like Vampire, discourage combat by making your enemies far more powerful than you, and not awarding XP for combat at all. While I have had fun playing both types of games, there is clearly a greater emphasis upon heroic battle in D&D. I like to think of the game as a mixture of roleplaying and miniature combat. A good balance of both keeps the game fresh and interesting. If D&D were entirely based upon minis, then it would get boring. Vampire on the other hand, which really is almost entirely roleplaying, is brutal on the storyteller. He has to prepare interesting roleplaying opportunities for every session, plan for any contingency, and balance the powers that be very carefully or things spiral out of control. Not to mention in vampire you will be interacting with far fewer significant NPCs, so the loss of any one of them, can really change the entire dynamic of the story. I took a long hiatus from D&D to get away from hack and slash, but over time I really began to appreciate the system for what it was. Sure it's less sophistocated and more combat oriented, but that's a good thing. Combat provides an entertaining out, and less preperation to run. D&D doesn't consume your life before you even start playing. When I run D&D I can focus on roleplaying if I want to, but I can turn to a good combat encounter, when my life gets too busy to write ten pages of character dynamics for one NPC. Sometimes we take for granted just how well designed this game actually is. It has wide appeal, and enough flexibility to make it into whatever you want it to be. There is a good reason why D&D is the first, biggest, and most successful table top RPG ever, and the combat focus plays a very big part in that reason.
Jodjod 01-02-06, 01:58 PM	The rules are combat focused. Do people have to focus on combat? Nope. Considering the game was based on the rules set for a wargame, it's hardly suprising.
Gilean 01-02-06, 02:04 PM	nastynate, D&D takes a lot preparation, in the form of stat blocks. It is one of the few games (Rolemaster notwithstanding) I can't quickly create and remember NPCs for in my head. Which means, preparation.
nastynate 01-02-06, 02:30 PM	nastynate, D&D takes a lot preparation, in the form of stat blocks. It is one of the few games (Rolemaster notwithstanding) I can't quickly create and remember NPCs for in my head. Which means, preparation. Not nearly as much as other games of this genre. In Vampire, there is no monster manual that you can flip open. No random encounter tables, and no combat without serious implications upon the setting. Every encounter has to be carefully planned in some systems, while in D&D you can if you so choose, open the MM to Orc, and ambush the PCs with a tribe of Orc bandits. It will not ruin your carefully planned story, or have some far reaching effect upon society. Random encounter tables make it entirely possible to play completely on the fly if you so choose. You can take a great deal of time preparing in D&D, but you certainly don't have to, every time you get together.
Bullgrit 01-02-06, 02:31 PM	Here people agree. But in the next breath they are telling that "it is the players, not the system, that make it all combat and hack'n'slash and stuff".But see, you are changing your stance, and the core of this discussion. You've gone from "the game is focused on combat" and admitting that combat is exciting, to this "all combat and hack'n'slash". I will agree that the game is focused on combat, and I like combat. But it is not "all" combat and hack'n'slash. I also agree that the players, not the system, can make it all combat and hack'n'slash. I do not like "all combat and hack'n'slash". I like action movies with car chases, gunfights, and building blowing up. But there has to be story, character, and plot to support the action. Action movies focus on the action, but they should also have more. Chick-flicks focus on the emotions, but they might also have some action. Bullgrit
Asciiman 01-02-06, 02:42 PM	This is, kind of. Here people agree. But in the next breath they are telling that "it is the players, not the system, that make it all combat and hack'n'slash and stuff". Actually Gilean, Sulaco's post is NOT near the first post to outright agree with you and leave it at that. I agree that D&D is far and away combat oriented, and many of us like it that way.
Sulaco 01-02-06, 02:47 PM	Here people agree. But in the next breath they are telling that "it is the players, not the system, that make it all combat and hack'n'slash and stuff". Combat does not necessarily equal hack-&-slash. The resons that D&D has a comprehensive system for adjudicating combat is cos a comprehensive system is required for adjudicating combat. You need mechanics to determine hits and effects because they do not exist beyond the bounds of the game itself. They are an entirely simulated, which is modelled mathematically through the combat system. The same largely holds true for the magic system as well. Things like interpersaonl interactions and problem solving are not simulations, they exist in part outside the game in that the cause and effect is largely determined by the player rather then the character. Basically what it comes down to is that you can't roleplay a sword swing. Now having said that, just cos D&D is combat oriented does not mean it is combat only, or even that it need be combat heavy. The combat engine is just that, and engine. It is the mechanical bit that makes the thing go but the DM still chooses what chasis he drops it in. Just like a single video game engine can make games as diverse and distinctly different as Grand Theft Auto and ESPN Baseball so too can the D&D engine be used to power any style of game you wish.
Lina_Inverse 01-02-06, 03:07 PM	D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. Heroism requires combat. Debateing the evil wizard into repenting isnt heroic, because your villian clealy isnt of a truly heroic nature if that happens. Slaying the evil wizard who can never be turned from his evil ways and bringing peace to the land is heroic and exciteing.
Sigurd van Norhusen 01-02-06, 03:35 PM	D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. Heroism requires combat. Debateing the evil wizard into repenting isnt heroic, because your villian clealy isnt of a truly heroic nature if that happens. Slaying the evil wizard who can never be turned from his evil ways and bringing peace to the land is heroic and exciteing. Well, that is an interesting statement. You basically said that the BOED is not heroic and by that not really D&D. Now, not that I disagree with that (I do disagree with parts, but that's not the point), I'm now waiting for the real kicking and screaming to begin. :)
q'afuu 01-02-06, 05:17 PM	D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. Heroism requires combat. Heroism doesn't require combat, but combat is by far the easiest way to introduce opportunities for heroics in your gaming session. Just point the PCs to the big ugly monster and let them swing away. Because of that, it's by far the most commonly used focus for adventures too. We humans are suckers for whatever's conveniently easy, after all. ;) I'm not saying combat is bad or that combat-focused DMs are bad, certainly not. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking combat is the be-all end-all of D&D heroism.
weasel fierce 01-02-06, 08:47 PM	D&D is about killing people and taking their stuff. The rules carry this out, and I figure thats why people play it. I like D&D (well, AD&D anyways) for light hearted, kick the door in, complete the quest and loot the dragon type of games. For serious or deep play, there's other systems, I'd rather use. Everything has its points and places.
Lina_Inverse 01-02-06, 09:06 PM	Heroism doesn't require combat, but combat is by far the easiest way to introduce opportunities for heroics in your gaming session. Just point the PCs to the big ugly monster and let them swing away. Because of that, it's by far the most commonly used focus for adventures too. We humans are suckers for whatever's conveniently easy, after all. ;) I'm not saying combat is bad or that combat-focused DMs are bad, certainly not. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking combat is the be-all end-all of D&D heroism. You say convient and easy, i say effciant. Combat is generally what we think of when we think of heroism. Rock climbing isnt heroic.
Seeker95 01-02-06, 09:13 PM	Rock climbing isnt heroic.Have you ever been? :P
weasel fierce 01-02-06, 09:14 PM	No.This is, kind of. Here people agree. But in the next breath they are telling that "it is the players, not the system, that make it all combat and hack'n'slash and stuff". To some extent, but system matters a LOT. I have witnessed the same group of players interact and play considerably different between D&D, Hunter, FATE and GURPS.
Hairfoot 01-02-06, 09:23 PM	Everything else is nonheroic. Is that what you are saying? No, what I'm saying is that combat is accessible and fun for newbies in a way that other high-fantasy staples aren't. In any case, the examples you cited (except debating) all take place in the context of combat.
Gilean 01-03-06, 05:00 AM	Not nearly as much as other games of this genre.In Vampire, I can arbitrarily assign scores to things without destroying the system. Like, say, gang-member, physical stats 2, one of them 3 (mentally select one), relevant skills ~2. But this is tangential.You've gone from "the game is focused on combat" and admitting that combat is exciting, to this "all combat and hack'n'slash".That was an average forum post. Not my stance. As can be seen, I am totally opposed to it. Otherwise, we are pretty much in agreement.The resons that D&D has a comprehensive system for adjudicating combat is cos a comprehensive system is required for adjudicating combat.Not true at all. Many games have simpler combat systems that still work fine. They just don't give tactical choices for players, at least not as many. I can create a generic system where bull rush amounts to "opposed str, and any applicable skills, result adjudicated by GM". I works just fine, but isn't tactical. This all is, of course, tangential.Things like interpersaonl interactions and problem solving are not simulations, they exist in part outside the game in that the cause and effect is largely determined by the player rather then the character. Basically what it comes down to is that you can't roleplay a sword swing.That line can be drawn quite arbitrarily. And it changes from group to another. Within certain limits, of course.so too can the D&D engine be used to power any style of game you wish.Which doesn't mean it works well, or even adequately. I can find some nice little games that would be extremely different in focus if changed to D20, and even more different if changed to D&D. Google Otherkind (by Vincent Baker) for an example. Weasel, we are in agreement. Rock climbing isnt heroic.Still many a movie has been made around mountaineering. And they are exciting. Some of the characters have been heroic.I have witnessed the same group of players interact and play considerably different between D&D, Hunter, FATE and GURPS.And of those, at least GURPS is pretty similar to D&D in many aspects, especially with the extended combat rues. Unlike, say, Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life with Master. Or Primetime Adventures.In any case, the examples you cited (except debating) all take place in the context of combat.Nope. My ability to communicate is simply insufficient.No, what I'm saying is that combat is accessible and fun for newbies in a way that other high-fantasy staples aren't.Hence, the popularity, to large degree.
MrBrown 01-03-06, 07:34 AM	Combat does not necessarily equal hack-&-slash. The resons that D&D has a comprehensive system for adjudicating combat is cos a comprehensive system is required for adjudicating combat. You need mechanics to determine hits and effects because they do not exist beyond the bounds of the game itself. They are an entirely simulated, which is modelled mathematically through the combat system. The same largely holds true for the magic system as well. Things like interpersaonl interactions and problem solving are not simulations, they exist in part outside the game in that the cause and effect is largely determined by the player rather then the character. Basically what it comes down to is that you can't roleplay a sword swing. One thing relevant to what Sulaco is talking about that everyone should consider is the difference between player skill and character skill. I would claim, and I'm pretty certain most here agree, that the essence of RPGs is to play a character that is not yourself. In other words, play a character who's flaws and talents are independent from those of the player. As such, there should be at least some character skill involved. How much player skill should be involved is largely up to preference IMO, though it's certainly a valid point to debate upon. Examples on how player skill and character skill come into play in using Diplomacy in a D&D game: a) Success is completely determined by the character's stats + roll, the player only makes the decision whether to use the skill or not => Almost 100% character skill (the decision counts in the larger context, afterall). b) Success is determined by stats+roll, but "how well the player roleplays" the situation, what kind of ideas he presents etc give him a bonus or penalty to the roll => Half-way between player skill and character skill. c) Success is determined completely by "how well the player roleplays", what ideas he presents etc, stats have no say at all => Completely player skill. Problems with the various methods: a) This is the method RAW seem to imply. It does not support any kind of storytelling or input from the player or player skill. Meaning, beyond the decision to use it or not, it's results are random or up to arbitration by the GM. Hence most people do away with it. b) & c) Both basically require the player to have skills in "diplomacy" himself for any kind of succesful use of it, with c) being the main culprit. This basically takes away from the roleplaying idea of the game, as the player is assumed to have (partial) talents equal to his character. (Another way of interpreting this situation: In a single case of usage of the diplomacy-skill, you either have the ultra-simulationist approach a), the ultra-narrativist approach c) and option b) which is a mix of both, but no gamist approach.) Now, back to what Sulaco said in his post... Combat obviously has alot of character skill involved, but it also has player skill. Deciding what actions to take, which spells to cast etc. Obviously this isn't player skill in actual combat, but rather skill in a game completely defined by the ruleset. This in contrast to diplomacy methods b) and c) above, which both require player skill in the actual skill whose usage is being simulated here. What Gilean seems to be saying, is that D&D is combat focused because it lacks this "dialogue game" that would both involve the players in dialogue and _not_ expect actual oratory skills from the player. Assuming I'm interpreting him correctly, I agree with his point. (Ok, maybe this all wasn't so relevant to Sulaco's post itself, but whatever :embarrass )
willxiv 01-03-06, 09:51 AM	Some of you are making this debate WAY too complex. It's pretty simple, actually. If you create a pie graph showing the content types of the core books, yes, you'll see the majority of the written material is for combat mechanics. BIG SUPRISE HERE, FOLKS. For what other reason would any of you gravitate towards this game if not for role-playing fantasy conflict? If you wanted to play a game where the majority of it was based on idle chatter, then I'm sure the local five-year-old girls in your neighborhood would love your company at their little tea table. Or perhaps a fine game of Candyland. There's no combat in Candyland.
Sulaco 01-03-06, 10:07 AM	For serious or deep play, there's other systems, I'd rather use. IMO for serious or deep play the rules system you use is utterly irrelevant. Serious or deep play is entirely dependant on how the game is played, not what system you run it in.
Sulaco 01-03-06, 10:11 AM	There's no combat in Candyland. Then you're not playing it right. ;)
Gilean 01-03-06, 11:11 AM	(Another way of interpreting this situation: In a single case of usage of the diplomacy-skill, you either have the ultra-simulationist approach a), the ultra-narrativist approach c) and option b) which is a mix of both, but no gamist approach.)This is tangential, but if you use the Forge theory, swap gamism and narrativism. Nothing addresses a premise there, and player skill is mostly gamist. The first option could very well be gamist, too, where the challenge was creating character with applicable skills. Or something like that.Now, back to what Sulaco said in his post... Combat obviously has alot of character skill involved, but it also has player skill. Deciding what actions to take, which spells to cast etc. Obviously this isn't player skill in actual combat, but rather skill in a game completely defined by the ruleset. This in contrast to diplomacy methods b) and c) above, which both require player skill in the actual skill whose usage is being simulated here.All of those use player skill, which is the important part.What Gilean seems to be saying, is that D&D is combat focused because it lacks this "dialogue game" that would both involve the players in dialogue and _not_ expect actual oratory skills from the player. Assuming I'm interpreting him correctly, I agree with his point.I'll have to think about that. Thanks.There's no combat in Candyland.Take a look at game called Puppetland. Here's (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/21/) a review.
ArchmageGromph 01-03-06, 11:53 AM	i for one agree that dnd is mostly combat orientated but i think you dont have to post a thread about your dislikes on the homepage of the rpg because you are asking for trouble. no offense. however if you are uninterested in the combat or less interested at least than the roleplaying aspect of the game, find a group of like minded individuals and play with them or make up your own house rules. not trying to bash you just offerring the simplest solution to the problem
Seeker95 01-03-06, 11:54 AM	Some of you are making this debate WAY too complex.Nobody is making it "complex". Gilean made a blanket declarative statement. That blanket statement does not convey any of the subtle nuances and variations of context each word of the statement carries. Your statement is neither right nor wrong. It is simply too all-encompassing in its scope to be judged as all-right or all-wrong. D&D - is - combat - oriented. By *D&D* do you mean: The rules-as-written? The rules-as-interpretted? The rules-as-intended? The rules-as-applied? The mechanics? The setting? The concept? The genre? The players-as-a-whole? Players-in-general? All players? New players? Experienced players? By *is* do you mean: inherently? universally? always? easily? by default? by design? invariably? essentially? predominantly? fundamentally? By *combat* do you mean: violence? conflict? interaction? By *oriented* do you mean: dependent? focused? narrowly focused? inherently focused? driven? dominant? dominated? aligned? biased? determined? supportive? supported? concentrated? Substitute just about any combination of these words for the blanket statement, and you will get varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. The "debate" is based upon the degree to which individuals reading the opening salvo (and replies along the way) are willing to permit such a black-and-white conclusion to cover what they recognize as a wide array of gray area.
Eksem 01-03-06, 12:28 PM	D&D should in a discussion like this be: The rules-as-written inherently violence inherently focused. Otherwise you have to take personal flavour and individual players and sessions into consideration, which isn't possible. And if I understand the purpose of this thread is it to just clarify that D&D largely is a game about fighting, for future reference. Because even if one can claim that water is wet, still some people seem to make a point of adding that water is only wet if you don't use a boat when going into it.
Gilean 01-03-06, 12:36 PM	The rules-as-written? Yes. The rules-as-interpretted? Clarify The rules-as-intended? Probably. The rules-as-applied? Usually. The mechanics? The key point. The setting? Somewhat. The concept? Clarify The genre? Quite, but not entirely. Players?: I don't know. inherently? I wouldn't say that, but pray clarify. universally? Clarify. always? Clarify, but probably no. easily? Yes. by default? Clarify. by design? Yes. invariably? No. essentially? Yes. predominantly? Yes. fundamentally? Tell the fundamentals. Combat: Harming animate things with means that can kill them with very little alteration. dependent? No. focused? Yes. narrowly focused? No. inherently focused? Clarify. driven? Usually. dominant? Often. dominated? Too easily, but tangential. aligned? Clarify. biased? Yes. determined? Clarify. supportive? Very much so. supported? Yes. concentrated? Yes. Not what you asked for, but maybe useful. The "clarifys" come from me not understanding the difference to other similar terms, or the intention at all. This is not my native language, so bear with me. ArchmageGromph, I have never said that I dislike D&D being combat-oriented. I just state that it is. No value judgement on that.
Gilean 01-03-06, 12:41 PM	The above post of mine was crossposted with Eksem's. And Eksem is correct.
q'afuu 01-03-06, 01:50 PM	Rock climbing isnt heroic. If it's a great big rock and you're more likely to plummet to your death than reach the top safely but climb it anyway because there's a damsel in distress/helpless kitten/obvious DM-introduced-for-the-sole-purpose-of-desperately-needing-assistance person up there, it's plenty heroic. Going into the kobolds' lair armed to the teeth and massacring them all, infants and elderly included, with one hand tied behind your back, all because of materialistic motivations - while indubitably combat - isn't heroic at all.
MrBrown 01-03-06, 02:09 PM	This is tangential, but if you use the Forge theory, swap gamism and narrativism. Nothing addresses a premise there, and player skill is mostly gamist. The first option could very well be gamist, too, where the challenge was creating character with applicable skills. Or something like that. I meant that in the perspective of a single usage of the diplomacy-skill, where there is no "build the optimal character" -game. I'm not very familiar with the gamist/simulationist/narrativist -theory, so maybe I misinterpreted it. :embarrass Also, I'm identifying two different kinds of player skill here: a) One that is similar to the character skill being played out, and b) one that is related to a metagame that represents the character skill being played out. In the case of D&D, combat uses only b), while several players use a) for dialogue-related skills. The "Duel of Wits" -system in Burning Wheel you linked to is an implementation of b) for dialogue.
Gilean 01-03-06, 02:33 PM	I meant that in the perspective of a single usage of the diplomacy-skill, where there is no "build the optimal character" -game.I know.I'm not very familiar with the gamist/simulationist/narrativist -theory, so maybe I misinterpreted it. :embarrass: PM me and I'll give you some reading. The easy ones first, if you want.Also, I'm identifying two different kinds of player skill here: a) One that is similar to the character skill being played out, and b) one that is related to a metagame that represents the character skill being played out. In the case of D&D, combat uses only b), while several players use a) for dialogue-related skills. The "Duel of Wits" -system in Burning Wheel you linked to is an implementation of b) for dialogue.True. I just thought of it as tangential to the matter, so didn't focus on it.
weasel fierce 01-03-06, 09:16 PM	IMO for serious or deep play the rules system you use is utterly irrelevant. Serious or deep play is entirely dependant on how the game is played, not what system you run it in. However, the system impacts play. D&D rewards you for murdering people. That produces a different game, than Toon would.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-03-06, 09:20 PM	The 'balancing' of spells are markedly anti-RP.
weasel fierce 01-03-06, 09:42 PM	There's generally always a balancing act between "roleplay / simulation" and "game / balance". Usually anything that steps in one direction takes the overall away from the opposite.
Always-Late 01-03-06, 10:37 PM	Just as a note, I don't see how a deciding a debate with dice would be very exciting. I mean, with combat everyone can imagine slashing, parrying, dodging, whatever. But what do you roll dice for in a duel of wits? Rolls 8: Statement! Rolls 12: Retort. Rolls 13: Counter-retort. Rolls 6: Logical Error. Rolls 20: Riposte! Confirm: Addon-Riposte! Rolls 16: Counter-riposte! Rolls 18: Witty comeback. Rolls 1: Logical error. Rolls 19: Press advantage. Rolls 3: Concedes defeat. In a duel of wits, a player (not character) has to be coming up good words for a debate to be exciting. Combat is one of those few things that it easy to imagine as dramatic. Maybe channeling magic energies would work, but what is a conflict of magic energies? Probably works like a combat system, only with energies and what-not. In the end, most of these come out to be "combat sytems" that are not combat systems in the technical sense. [[EDIT]] In the end, chases and raw magical might have to represented by dice. They are, after all, conflict. And thus, it's just combat in a different context.
Gilean 01-04-06, 03:31 AM	I mean, with combat everyone can imagine slashing, parrying, dodging, whatever. But what do you roll dice for in a duel of wits?Well, the things you created is pretty equivalent to combat that is narrated as Rolls 8: Charge! Rolls 12: AoO! Rolls 13: Take higher ground. Rolls 6: Lousy attack. Rolls 20: Hit! Confirm: critical hit! Rolls 16: Disarm! Rolls 18: Unarmed disarm! Rolls 1: Fumbled sunder with secondary weapon! Rolls 19: Full attack! Rolls 3: Surrenders/dies. That is not very exciting, either. Description makes it interesting. As it makes everything else interesting.Probably works like a combat system, only with energies and what-not. In the end, most of these come out to be "combat sytems" that are not combat systems in the technical sense.Which would be fine. Options for dramatic/exciting extended conflicts that do not consist of beating or fireballing the other guy to ground would be a Good Thing. Even if they were simple edited combat systems.
Eksem 01-04-06, 06:46 AM	Yeah, how do you use like, the intimidate or gather information skills? "I intimidate the kobold to tell me whats in the next room!" "Roll for intimidate." "I get 21! Hahaa!" "The kobold tells you that in the next room is another kobold." But I do agree that combat can still be exciting without descriptions and in-game talking. At least a bit more exciting than a duel of wits.
Roxlimn 01-04-06, 10:24 AM	I suppose you might say that D&D is combat oriented in that the combat rules are the most detailed in the system, but that doesn't mean that the game only caters to combat or even needs combat in every session. The problem is with the wording, as Sulaco pointed out. What exactly do you mean by "combat" and "oriented?" I mean, it's quite obvious that the mercantile portion of the game is by no means as detailed as say, Settlers of Catan. Nor is the magic portion as detailed as Ars Magica (more's the pity). Even so, the game does provide for a very healthy mechanical representation for a wide variety of activities, and it is by no means certain that combat comprises the climax of an adventure. For example, the environmental and travel rules are fairly detailed, and I daresay you can make a fair game out of getting from point A to point B, including only nautral hazards along the way. It's fundamentally different from a combat game, and from the game's combat mechanics, so there's just no comparison, really. Likewise, you can make a game of infiltration, and the game supports that just as robustly as combat. While there are less rolls for every "encounter," infiltration games also usually involve such diverse things as social interaction, sneaking, opening and closing devices, and navigating rooms at particular intervals, so the number of rolls may not be the same, but then again, as with travel, the game handles that aspect of life differently from combat. Yes, there's lots of support in the rules for this kind of play, and I daresay it's just as exciting as any combat the rules can support. It would probably get very boring really fast if everything in the game conformed to the mould of the combat engine. At the same time, it would be rather difficult to squeeze in something like a Lord of the Rings type traveling game into D&D without making large parts of it almost unusable and very daunting from the outset. Is combat an important part of D&D? Yes. Does the game support only combat as exciting set pieces? No. Can you play a great D&D game without combat? Yes. That the game does not support the kind of noncombat resolution present in other systems does not mean that it isn't there or that the game systems aren't there.
Eksem 01-04-06, 11:34 AM	"Is combat an important part of D&D? Yes. Does the game support only combat as exciting set pieces? No. Can you play a great D&D game without combat? Yes." And, I would like to add: If your game is not about combat, then why bother with D&D?
Roxlimn 01-04-06, 11:51 AM	Perhaps I need to be more specific. You see, the statements were meant to be taken in context. Thus when I say, "can you play a great D&D game without combat?" I meant "game" more like "sessions." You see, combat is an important part of D&D, so if you're planning never to run combat, you probably are better served by another system. Even so, if you like strategic combat at some point during the game, then D&D is a nice system to use. As I said, it depends on what you meant by "oriented." Not every D&D session is fated to have combat, and you can play a perfectly fun session using many D&D game mechanics without ever resorting to combat.
q'afuu 01-04-06, 12:00 PM	The 'balancing' of spells are markedly anti-RP. No, it's not. Not unless you consider being able to fly around all day just for the sake of flying instead of walking to be of roleplaying value.
Eksem 01-04-06, 12:51 PM	"Even so, if you like strategic combat at some point during the game, then D&D is a nice system to use. " Not just nice, rather the beoynd comparison best. When it comes to combat-oriented RPGs, D&D is unparalelled. For the type of games I like to run with my regular players D&D is friggin awesome. I just wish I tried it sooner, a lot of campaigns i've run during my years would have been much more fun if I had used D&D instead of the BRP-systems I have used. "I meant "game" more like "sessions."" Yeah, that's why I claimed that individual sessions isn't interesting in this discussion, because individual sessions can become anything really. But the game is combat-oriented. There is really not much to say except that, but a lot of people seem to think that such a claim is a negative one. It should just be established that D&D is a game of fantasy combat, a great game at that, and that there is nothing wrong with that. If D&D was to be a more broad game, it would have less combat-rules, and a bit more rules for social encounters. That would make it a less good game for me, however. I don't really like when games compromise. Rather, they should concentrate on one thing (balanced, combat oriented problem-solving in the case of D&D) and excel at it. I'm not a big fan of GURPS, as an example.
Gilean 01-04-06, 02:37 PM	Roxlimn, bote that combat is the only formalised resolution mechanic, in the sense that social scenario could go on and on, or end very quickly by GM fiat. Combat tends not to do that, because there are hit points. An example: travel mechanic. List some obstacles. Give a number that represents how many obstacles are added if you do not cross the initial one. Like, say Flooded river: 3 (crossing guarded by trolls, chasm with old rope bridge, thick woods) Mountain pass, danger of avalanches: 2 (giants' hall, abandoned dwarven tunnels) It could be more polished, with notes like "knowledge (local) allows passing one secondary obstacle". Of course, relevant skills and abilities could be used to pass all the obstacles. Reveal it to players, and it might very well increase excitement, especially if speed is imperative.Not just nice, rather the beoynd comparison best.I wouldn't give that kind of praise, but it is excellent for tactical combat.Rather, they should concentrate on one thing (balanced, combat oriented problem-solving in the case of D&D) and excel at it. I'm not a big fan of GURPS, as an example.Great minds think alike.
Sulaco 01-04-06, 03:00 PM	D&D rewards you for murdering people. I get your point but I's soprry to say that I actually find pretty much everything in that sentence to be false. - D&D doesn't reward me, the player, for anything. It is a game, not a person. - In a D&D game the PC's get experience awards for defeating enemies. More often than not this involves smiting evil. Very rarely does it involve murdering anyone. - I don't know about you but the reward that I get from D&D is having a good time and flexing my imagination with friends, neither of which has anything to do with "murdering people".
Sulaco 01-04-06, 03:07 PM	Well, the things you created is pretty equivalent to combat that is narrated as Rolls 8: Charge! Rolls 12: AoO! Rolls 13: Take higher ground. Rolls 6: Lousy attack. Rolls 20: Hit! Confirm: critical hit! Rolls 16: Disarm! Rolls 18: Unarmed disarm! Rolls 1: Fumbled sunder with secondary weapon! Rolls 19: Full attack! Rolls 3: Surrenders/dies. That is not very exciting, either. Well then I guess it's a good thing that the dice are used only to determine the reqults fo an action then rather than to determine the action itself as your example erroneously suggest. The fact of the matter is simple: the combat portion of the game is a virtual simulation and thus is mathematically modelled to facilitate the resolution of said simulation. Nothing more.
Sulaco 01-04-06, 03:13 PM	And, I would like to add: If your game is not about combat, then why bother with D&D? Sorry, but that is just absurd. It's like saying "If you don't watch Everybody Loves Rayomnd then why bother watching TV" and is based on the completely false assumption that D&D=Combat. Combat is just one part of the game, not the only part. I think one of the key problems is that peopole are getting hung up on the word "combat", when a better one would be "conflict". In essence the entirety of the D&D rules is a large conflict resolution system, only one aspect of which is combat. Whether the conflict is fighting with monsters, picking a lock, tricking a guard, or casting a spell, the D&D system has rules to model and resolve them. Conflict of all sorts is the entire basis of human literature. Without conflict there is no story. D&D handles all different types of conflict, not jsut combat, and it is both quite apt to use the system regardless fo the type of game you play. So rather than ask "If your game is not about combat, then why bother with D&D" perhaps you should ask yourself "If my game has not conflict then why bother playing at all".
Altar_Boy 01-04-06, 03:31 PM	- In a D&D game the PC's get experience awards for defeating enemies. More often than not this involves smiting evil. Very rarely does it involve murdering anyone. So what, you take on the cultists with Merciful Bastard Swords, tie them up, and leaving a note for the authorities: "A little gift, from your Friendly Neighbourhood Spiderman?" :P Smiting sentient beings = murder
weasel fierce 01-04-06, 03:56 PM	I get your point but I's soprry to say that I actually find pretty much everything in that sentence to be false. No need to be sorry. - D&D doesn't reward me, the player, for anything. It is a game, not a person. You, as a player, receive a stronger in-game persona to interact through, and receive new options that you did not have before. XP in D&D has always been a metagame concept, not a character specific one. - In a D&D game the PC's get experience awards for defeating enemies. More often than not this involves smiting evil. Very rarely does it involve murdering anyone. Righteous killing or ruthless genocide. It all involves sticking a sharp pointy object into someones intestines. - I don't know about you but the reward that I get from D&D is having a good time and flexing my imagination with friends, neither of which has anything to do with "murdering people". I'd hope anyone playing an RPG does so for the idea of having a grand time, joking and having fun. The fact remains however, the D&D is focused squarely and thoroughly on killing things and taking their stuff. That is okay, because fantasy tends to have good chunks of killing people and taking their stuff, over the course of various epic events, and the rules provide justification (they are evil). It doesnt change fact however, and it can be an inhibiting factor, if you dont realize that its what it all comes down to, unless you, yourself, add other things to the game.
Eksem 01-04-06, 03:56 PM	Sulaco "It's like saying "If you don't watch Everybody Loves Rayomnd then why bother watching TV"" Well rather, I meant something along the line: if you don't like sitcoms, why bother with Everybody Loves Raymond? Go watch something else on TV instead. If I would like my game to focus on something other than combat, then I would probably play another RPG instead of D&D (probably Nobilis, but that's just my taste). I see no point in playing a game with such complicated mechanics as the ones of D&D if I won't even use them. Gilean "I wouldn't give that kind of praise, but it is excellent for tactical combat." For tactical combat, D&D is much, much better than anything I have played, so far. Of course, even if one would have played 50 RPGs, there are still many, many more out there to play. And I haven't even played 50 (rather along the line of 15-20 or so).
MasterRookie 01-04-06, 04:18 PM	Umm whats your point. Of course DnD is combat oriented so what. People don't fail to realize that on the forum they just don't feel that DnD can exist on Combat alone. DnD has other attributes such as negotiation, use of skills, discovery. Of course a campain run solely off combat will start to suck pretty soon. "Okay you defeated the red dragon you now get 100,000 gp what would you like to buy" "I'm bored" Likewise a game were you never get to fight can be a bit lackluster. "well you've thwarted another plot to overthrow the king through discovery by rolling a 20 in your gather information check" there isn't really any reason to play DnD if you don't have combat. Theres too many combat rules for that. You end up rolling skill check after skill check and it all gets pointless. Not to say that a session or two with no combat and just plot isn't a good idea now and then. here's a decent analogy. Playing DnD with no combat is like buying a snowplow when you live in Florida. Sure it'll get you where you need to go, but there's really no good reason to own a car with a huge shovel on it.
Gilean 01-05-06, 03:12 AM	"well you've thwarted another plot to overthrow the king through discovery by rolling a 20 in your gather information check"Exactly my point. The extended conflict reolution mechanic is combat. Others, like that. Eksem and weasel fierce covered other points nicely.
FrEeZiNgFiRe 01-05-06, 03:51 PM	I donīt understand the responses of why social extended conflict reolution mechanic canīt be used because it would be boring. I mean itīs exactly the same as combat. Ofcourse you have to RP, you make a nice narrative around it, I mean combat is petty boring as "I parry and hit [insert monster] with my sword", you would make a nice narrative around it "I parry the blow of my enemy, and counter with a slicing attack at the point where his armor is pierced" (just a lousy example :P). It would be the same with an extended social conflict. As a houserule, I use the Exalted stunt mechanic if anyone is familiar with it. Rant over ^.^
Sulaco 01-05-06, 05:05 PM	So what, you take on the cultists with Merciful Bastard Swords, tie them up, and leaving a note for the authorities: "A little gift, from your Friendly Neighbourhood Spiderman?" :P Smiting sentient beings = murder Not quite. Murder always entails killing, but not all killing is murder.
Sulaco 01-05-06, 05:11 PM	Sulaco "It's like saying "If you don't watch Everybody Loves Rayomnd then why bother watching TV"" Well rather, I meant something along the line: if you don't like sitcoms, why bother with Everybody Loves Raymond? Go watch something else on TV instead. If I would like my game to focus on something other than combat, then I would probably play another RPG instead of D&D (probably Nobilis, but that's just my taste). I see no point in playing a game with such complicated mechanics as the ones of D&D if I won't even use them. And I would prefer not to have to learn and/or teach another rules system. To stick witht eh TV analogy, combat is merely one genre/aspect of it - like a sitcom. Just cos I don't watch that one genre to the exclusion of all others doesn't mean I can't still watch TV. I just watch something else and take away a differnt experience Your statement was not "if your game has not combat" rather "if your game is not combat-focused". If I were playing a game with no combat whatsoever I might consider another rules set, but in more than 20 years of playing I have yet to see a single D&D campaign with no combat whatsoever.
Gilean 01-06-06, 03:10 AM	Your statement was not "if your game has not combat" rather "if your game is not combat-focused". If I were playing a game with no combat whatsoever I might consider another rules set, but in more than 20 years of playing I have yet to see a single D&D campaign with no combat whatsoever.I am wondering if the last sentence is anecdotal support for me... Rules for social effects are lacking in other ways, too. Say, you want to create a Master of Whispers (if you have read Song of Ice and Fire, think of Varys), how do you do that? By giving him large scores in social skills and relevant knowledges. Perhaps a spymaster-like PrC. All of that gives no info on the character's overall influence and ability to know everything. Gather information helps one to personally listen in taverns and such. There is no skill, no stat, no ability to cover overall social influence. Roleplay it!, say some. So, let us say that there are two rogues, both of whom have exactly the same number on the sheet. Another has huge amounts of contacts in the capital and the court. The other doesn't. And we have an inbalance. Same for two fighters, where another is a king. No problem when crawling dungeons, but utter imbalance in relevant places. I say that political intrigue is very much not covered well in the rules. Even if such a campaing included the occasional assassination, it wouldn't be worth it using D&D, generally. Because the game is combt-oriented.
Roxlimn 01-06-06, 04:32 AM	Gilean: Roxlimn, bote that combat is the only formalised resolution mechanic, in the sense that social scenario could go on and on, or end very quickly by GM fiat. Combat tends not to do that, because there are hit points. Comabt only tends not to do that when your adventure combats always involve the same old tactical goals every single time - reduce the enemy to 0 hitpoints. Quite frankly, that's so boring I'd hardly tolerate it as a DM. Combat can also go on and on depending on how much roleplaying is being done in combat (yes, you can do that, you know), or abruptly end when the DM says it does (some predetermined combat goal has been reached). How long each part of the game lasts is solely in the hands of those who play it. An example: travel mechanic. List some obstacles. Give a number that represents how many obstacles are added if you do not cross the initial one. Like, say Flooded river: 3 (crossing guarded by trolls, chasm with old rope bridge, thick woods) Mountain pass, danger of avalanches: 2 (giants' hall, abandoned dwarven tunnels) It could be more polished, with notes like "knowledge (local) allows passing one secondary obstacle". Of course, relevant skills and abilities could be used to pass all the obstacles. Reveal it to players, and it might very well increase excitement, especially if speed is imperative. Good god! Horrible. That's not a travel challenge, that's a tourist itinerary! Try this: Challenge: avoid an assassin nearing to within 50 yards of you for at least 5 days while traveling through various hazards and terrain. You're not supposed to lose him. Challenge one: On day one, you meet with inclement weather while passing through forest and hilly terrain. You have to determine how fast the assassin can move and also what kinds of tracking capabilities he possesses. You can't leave clues that are too obvious, but you can't lose the guy. The limited visibility from rain and fog is a double sided sword. You also need to protect yourself from cold and rain. Challenge two: You discover that the assassin has acquired flying scouts. You can't let them within 50 yards of you either (or your ruse will be penetrated). Choice of marsh with cover or narrow valley with steep cliffs. In marsh, hazards include drowning, movement slowdown, poisonous clouds, disease, and fog. Valley has better visibility, and no movement hazards, but there are falling hazards and the flying scouts could harass you with falling rocks from long beyond the range of your weapons. Water might be a problem in both instances, depending on group stores. That's just off the top of my head. I can craft better ones if you like. Relevant skills and abilities matter more than just passing the obstacles. In some cases, passing obstacles involves sacrifice, problem solving, or some sort of attrition. It's not the same challenge structure as combat, but it's just as interesting and just as compelling. All of these involve core rules in the core books, and have formalized mechanics attached to them.
Seeker95 01-06-06, 09:13 AM	The rules are very combat-detailed. Your game is as combat-oriented as you want it to be.
Sulaco 01-06-06, 09:16 AM	Rules for social effects are lacking in other ways, too. Cos rules for social effects are largely unnecessary. They are covered by the "role" part of "roleplaying" in that they are largely decided by the player actually playing his PC and interacting with other PCs and NPCs. Combat involves "rolls", everything else invovles "roles", and D&D is still a roleplaying game.
Eksem 01-06-06, 09:26 AM	"but in more than 20 years of playing I have yet to see a single D&D campaign with no combat whatsoever." I think that would be one of the points of this thread.
Sulaco 01-06-06, 09:55 AM	"but in more than 20 years of playing I have yet to see a single D&D campaign with no combat whatsoever." I think that would be one of the points of this thread. I have also never seen a single D&D game without PC/NPC interaction or PCs moving from point A to point B in the world but I don't see any "D&D is social-oriented" or "D&D is travel-oriented" threads. I think Seeker 95 summed it up succinctly with "The rules are very combat-detailed. Your game is as combat-oriented as you want it to be."
Eksem 01-06-06, 10:35 AM	One thing that we do not agree on is that I claim that System Does Matter. Choosing a combat-detailed-system (over social-oriented) will affect your game-sessions and make them more combat-oriented. A game with detailed social mechanics (over combat-oriented) will make the sessions more social-oriented. Somewhat hard to prove however, I have not seen any scientific studies on the subject (:)), I can just make arguments like the one earlier on that the stats on the character sheet probably would have an impact on player choices and actions.
Gilean 01-06-06, 12:31 PM	One thing that we do not agree on is that I claim that System Does Matter. Choosing a combat-detailed-system (over social-oriented) will affect your game-sessions and make them more combat-oriented. A game with detailed social mechanics (over combat-oriented) will make the sessions more social-oriented. Somewhat hard to prove however, I have not seen any scientific studies on the subject (:)), I can just make arguments like the one earlier on that the stats on the character sheet probably would have an impact on player choices and actions.Would you care to deal with all the other threads of mine, too? Ron Edward's essay "system does matter" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html). Just for reference. Roxlimn, Seeker and Sulaco, I am not arguing that D&D is not roleplaying game. I am not arguing that role- and rollplaying are exclusive (that is either a fallacy or only surface scratch, depending on defintions used). What I say is that the rules promote play that is combat-oriented. Which, usually, means that the system is combat-oriented, where system is the actual implementation of rules.Comabt only tends not to do that when your adventure combats always involve the same old tactical goals every single time - reduce the enemy to 0 hitpoints. Quite frankly, that's so boring I'd hardly tolerate it as a DM.That works, most of the time, irregardless of other goals. Anyway, if killing something is the combat's purpose, attrition (reducing hp) is the way of dealing with it. Which is extended mechanic. The only one, as far as I recall.How long each part of the game lasts is solely in the hands of those who play it.Obviously. But if I am the GM I can solve intrigue when a PC succeeds at a social check. Arbitrarily. When the contest is a combat, I could "cheat" by taking or adding hp, but other than that, there is a definitive way of ending the contest. (HP < 0) => end of combat.That's not a travel challenge, that's a tourist itinerary!Obviously they must be elaborated upon before use, or during use.Try thisAs written, GM can end it at any moment. Not really good for extended conflicts. Also, it is pretty "one failure dooms"-kind of scenario. Unlike combat, usually.All of these involve core rules in the core books, and have formalized mechanics attached to them.I have said as much. Hopefully. The presence of sufficient mechanics doesn't mean that something can adjucicate good extended conflicts. Roxlimn, assume there is a "by RaW" tag included in my arguments. That one can stay where it resides. Let us not derail this thread with it.
Seeker95 01-06-06, 01:13 PM	What I say is that the rules promote play that is combat-oriented.To which folks said: yeah? And water is wet. The rules promote play that is for heroic (good) PCs. Yet people play evil PCs all the time. The rules promote DM adjudication of rules. Yet people want things spelled out for them all the time. The rules promote balance. Yet people continue to demonstrate an affinity for imbalance. You made a very "obvious" statement, yet phrased it initially in a way that is intended to be controversial. Baiting people to disagree with you, practically. You made a *blanket statement* that does not cover the whole bed. And just about any blanket statement is going to be "not all right".
Sulaco 01-06-06, 01:24 PM	Sorry. Ignore.
Gilean 01-06-06, 01:32 PM	You made a very "obvious" statement, yet phrased it initially in a way that is intended to be controversial. Baiting people to disagree with you, practically.Honestly, I didn't consider that people would misunderstand my intent very badly. Somehow, it so simple that you can do almost anything with an RPG, but some things better than others. But rules are incapable of mind control. I stated that there are rules on many things. I focused on extended conflict mechanics, as a phrase and concept. How are people understanding my position? What did I do wrong? I would appreciate views on that to not repeat my mistakes.