Quote from: Willie the Duck;1041337being there only for those things that are 1) uncertain, and 2) the DM would have a hard time consistently ruling fairly on. Within that context, the majority of the page space is spent on rules revolving around combat.

Well... The one problem i see with this, is you can easily make that argument for any contest between two characters (player or otherwise). The diplomacy example still fits with that as being uncertain and difficult for a DM to consistently rule fairly on (at least, in my experience as a player in games that do not have robust, or provisions for, intrigue rules) yet they chose not to include it.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1041330I feel the issue is, at least most of the time, a lot of important and memorable instances of those dungeons, and the things (at least in my experience) that a lot of PCs prepare for are combat, and given that the game has a very strong emphasis on exploring dungeons, the potential for, and use of combat rules are significantly increased over, say, a game about political intrigue. The setting of a Dungeon just makes combat, at the very least feel, more present of a danger.

...

As for the page count argument, it's less that there are x pages for y concept, and more the fact that the other rules have a strong tendency to tie back in with the combat rules, as though it is expected for you to be in combat most of the time. Each class generally has some significant and explicit combat role, and several of the spells are given effects in terms of combat application (be it hindering the enemies in some way, or even direct damage). I can see your argument that lack of rules doesn't necessarily, but I would argue that leaving rules out just encourages people to use the rules that are most prevalent, and if most of those involve combat, I would argue most people will play a game full of combat.

I think where your train of thought is chugging along just fine until someone throws a switch and you end up on a dead-end line is this:  Combat is an expected possible outcome in D&D.  Depending upon the savvy of the group, the edition being played, the style of game being run by the referee, etc., you might get more or less of it--but usually you expect some combat.  And running D&D with no combat is possible but kind of odd, if the group has any wide exposure to other rules.  It's not the best possible choice for such a game.

However, all that stated, everything you list for why the page count of the game (or any proxy for that) as evidence for "the game is about combat"--is also equally evidence for "the game expects there to be some combat".  Those are not logically the same things.  You keep coming back to the game "feels" like it is about combat.  Well, feels is about your experience with it and other games.  I have no doubt that some people feel D&D is about combat, because that is their focus when using it.  Nothing wrong with that at all, but it is not a very useful basis from which to evaluate what a game supports beyond, "At least I know it supports combat."  

Now, if you wanted to say something similar to, "D&D is about the threat that a fight could break out at any time," you'd still be off a little, but a lot closer to the mark.  Because a threat can be avoided or tangled with many different ways, and can manifest likewise.  A D&D game with no possible threat of a fight is a very odd duck.

I am reminded of some 60 page legal agreements I've read. While the terms often fit on a single page or less, there is a lot of text about things e.g. dispute resolution, escalation,  breach, and dissolution that both parties hope will never occur and thus hope that the agreement will never be about. But a lot of pages are spent on those things because they can be contentious and the outcome is often of major important.

It seems to me, that if we're now saying that avoiding combat is part of the way D&D is about combat, then we're really saying, as I suggested earlier, that D&D is about dungeon exploration (to the extent that it makes sense to say a game is "about" anything - something I'm sceptical about - at least if we're just talking about the mechanical side of the game).

So why not say that?  Why not just stick with the much less contentious "D&D is about dungeon exploration?"  rather than the more polemical and less accurate "D&D is about combat".  If we really mean the same thing by both statements why use the one that will cause more confusion?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1041354it is not a very useful basis from which to evaluate what a game supports beyond, "At least I know it supports combat."

this isn't a discussion about what the game does and does not support. It's a discussion about what the game is "about" and the feel and popular use are, in fact, good indicators of this, because they associate what the game means to its players, and how the game plays in a concrete way. just looking at what a game can do, realistically any RPG can do anything, so you can't rightly determine an RPGs meaning from what you can do in it, you have to look at what the rules support the most, and what people use it for the most, in an attempt to determine what the main purpose of using it is.

Quote from: TJS;1041362It seems to me, that if we're now saying that avoiding combat is part of the way D&D is about combat, then we're really saying, as I suggested earlier, that D&D is about dungeon exploration.

A generalization about the use of avoiding combat can't really be made. To my understanding, mechanics designed to help avoid combat are simply to allow the players a chance to pick and choose the time and place of their battles, and help them keep resources for future combats. I don't quite follow the logic of the ability to avoid conflict means that the game is about dungeon exploration, because escaping for delaying combat are all important parts of a conflict, regardless of setting or trappings of that conflict. Escaping isn't just an end in and of itself, the intention behind it is however, and if these methods are framed in the context of getting out of an unbeatable situation caused by accident, or as a means to preserve resources, and allow the party to regroup then they only end up helping the combat aspect of the game, not necessarily any other part.

I won't deny the idea of D&D being a "Dungeon Explorer" game, but I do think a lot of emphasis is placed on the combat aspect of that setting, enough to argue it has a combat focus. It was initially designed on the back of a miniature war game after all.

"Feel" is a good thing to discuss to explain why a game comes across a certain way to you.  It's a lousy basis from which to construct an argument about what something is about, because it doesn't take into account how anyone else feels about it.  You say it feels like it's about combat to you?  OK, I answer that it doesn't to me.  Impasse.  To get beyond that, you've got to explain the whys of it, and that's necessarily going to get into support.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1041382"Feel" is a good thing to discuss to explain why a game comes across a certain way to you.  It's a lousy basis from which to construct an argument about what something is about, because it doesn't take into account how anyone else feels about it.  You say it feels like it's about combat to you?  OK, I answer that it doesn't to me.  Impasse.  To get beyond that, you've got to explain the whys of it, and that's necessarily going to get into support.

I'm not... the whole point of my argument was lots of people (quite possibly a majority) treat it like a combat game, and the game has a "feel" (here meaning many of its rules character options or encounters revolve around a particular subject) of combat, and by using those two metrics one can easily come to the conclusion that the game is "about" combat.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1041383I'm not... the whole point of my argument was lots of people (quite possibly a majority) treat it like a combat game, and the game has a "feel" (here meaning many of its rules character options or encounters revolve around a particular subject) of combat, and by using those two metrics one can easily come to the conclusion that the game is "about" combat.

The whole point of saying D&D is about "combat" is generally polemical.  It's usually meant to be dismissive and to imply people are playing games wrong in that snide internet forum way in which one tries to open up others to attack, while simultaneously obfuscating and hiding one's own position.


If we take away that polemical context and strip the statement down to mean "D&D has a rules system which places a lot of emphasis on resolving combat" then we're saying something that is both obvious and not particularly meaningful.

Saying D&D is "about dungeon exploration" places those combat rules into a context in which we actually have some expectation about how they might work.  It helps to give a sense of why the rules for combat are in fact different to those in other games which are also "about combat".

Otherwise we could say that OD&D and 4th Edition D&D are both "about combat".  This tells us very little.  If we say that OD&D is about dungeon exploration while 4E is generally about big dramatic showdowns and final conflicts we have a meaningful distinction.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1041383I'm not... the whole point of my argument was lots of people (quite possibly a majority) treat it like a combat game, and the game has a "feel" (here meaning many of its rules character options or encounters revolve around a particular subject) of combat, and by using those two metrics one can easily come to the conclusion that the game is "about" combat.

Those aren't "metrics", and they certainly aren't part of any kind of premise or argument that could get one to any kind of conclusion one way or the other.  For begging the question, though, they are great.

Quote from: TJS;1041387The whole point of saying D&D is about "combat" is generally polemical.  It's usually meant to be dismissive and to imply people are playing games wrong in that snide internet forum way in which one tries to open up others to attack, while simultaneously obfuscating and hiding one's own position.

Yes, because everyone knows the initial release was perfection incarnate and has no room for criticism or improvement (just ignore the official updates and new editions let alone the hundreds of tweaked and updated clones). :rolleyes:

Of course it needed an update. Gygax was too thespy.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1041410Of course it needed an update. Gygax was too thespy.

Pretty sure you'll find an old man claiming it didn't need to be and everything else that followed was rubbish.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1041406Yes, because everyone knows the initial release was perfection incarnate and has no room for criticism or improvement (just ignore the official updates and new editions let alone the hundreds of tweaked and updated clones). :rolleyes:

I think you must have quoted the wrong person.

Your reply seems to be completely unrelated to anything I actually said.

Quote from: TJS;1041425I think you must have quoted the wrong person.

Your reply seems to be completely unrelated to anything I actually said.

So an ostrich then.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1041380I won't deny the idea of D&D being a "Dungeon Explorer" game, but I do think a lot of emphasis is placed on the combat aspect of that setting, enough to argue it has a combat focus. It was initially designed on the back of a miniature war game after all.

Yes, D&D was based upon a wargame (which, at least for the context of this thread, we can probably shorthand as being 'about combat'). However, if D&D did not do anything that Chainmail did not, why would anyone have spent the equivalent of ~$50 on a whole second product?

QuoteA generalization about the use of avoiding combat can't really be made.

:confused: Can you expand on this? Why not?

QuoteTo my understanding, mechanics designed to help avoid combat are simply to allow the players a chance to pick and choose the time and place of their battles, and help them keep resources for future combats. I don't quite follow the logic of the ability to avoid conflict means that the game is about dungeon exploration, because escaping for delaying combat are all important parts of a conflict, regardless of setting or trappings of that conflict.

As I understand what he meant, it doesn't. The ability to avoid conflict doesn't inherently mean that the game is about dungeon exploration. The game is (posited to be) about dungeon exploration separately or over-arching-ly. Combat, and the avoidance thereof are simply tasks one performs within the exploration of dungeons.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1041382"Feel" is a good thing to discuss to explain why a game comes across a certain way to you.  It's a lousy basis from which to construct an argument about what something is about, because it doesn't take into account how anyone else feels about it.  You say it feels like it's about combat to you?  OK, I answer that it doesn't to me.  Impasse.  To get beyond that, you've got to explain the whys of it, and that's necessarily going to get into support.

Quote from: Hastur-The-Unnameable;1041383I'm not... the whole point of my argument was lots of people (quite possibly a majority) treat it like a combat game, and the game has a "feel" (here meaning many of its rules character options or encounters revolve around a particular subject) of combat, and by using those two metrics one can easily come to the conclusion that the game is "about" combat.

You certainly can come to that conclusion if you want. And someone else comes to the conclusion that it isn't. And you are at an impasse (and we are back to actually searching for support for those conclusions, of which a "feel" isn't really one that will convince someone who doesn't already share your position). That was literally the point of the text you quoted.