Quote from: KrakaJakIn the fact D&D does not support other forms of action as valid game strategy, when even in the genre it emulates (high fantasy) has plenty of Social, Mental, Physical, Emotional and Metaphysical conflicts and resolutions.

Even if you were right, that's a genre emulation argument, not a "sophistication" argument. That's another topic. Suffice it to say that I have had plenty of adventures that have resembled plenty of fantasy literature, and that I consider different media to have different "optimal modes", so strict emulation isn't a necessary requirement for all participants or audiences.

As far as it goes, a significant amount of players are perfectly happy to have social or emotional conflicts player out with minimal or no rules input. (I like a bit more support for non-combat conflicts, but consider many games who claim to support such things to go too far.)

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't know anyone that thinks D&D is only about combat, but the rules definitely place a high focus on it.

You don't get out much, do you?

I guess not. Either that or I am discerning in the people I hang out with. Nah, that can't be it. I'm here.

Show me a game that doesn't have a separate section on combat and I'll show you a game no one wants to play.

And really, that's all it amounts to. D&D has a chapter on combat. So does Vampire. So does Exalted (and shit, exalted combat is way more byzantine and complex than D&D), and yet the latter is the darling of the fuckhead Swine, and the former they hate because its "Powergaming".  :confused:

The only games that don't put about the same emphasis on combat that D&D does are games that pretty well no one plays. You know, Forge games.

RPGPundit

Count all the rules, all the prestige class abilties, and all the spells. Count how many are combat oriented and how many focus on non-combat things. You'll find a large majority are aimed at new and innovative ways to kill and disable things. It's much more than "a chapter on combat."

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Nor am I saying that you have to have combat when you play D&D. All I'm saying is that most of the rules are built around combat.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not saying this is a bad thing. Nor am I saying that you have to have combat when you play D&D. All I'm saying is that most of the rules are built around combat.

Count all of the rules in most games and you could argue they are centered around combat. To a very large degree, these rules determine whether your character lives or dies and thus determines whether the game continues or not (at least for individual characters). They are needed to give structure to that most important part of RPGs; whether it continues or not without GM fiat. That's pretty important to lots of people. Add to that the fact that physical harm is more easily identified with than psychological harm (which also has in depth rules in many systems) and it should be no surprise. Also, that kind of action is a bit more exciting than wondering whether nasty bullying aliens reduce your sense of self-worth (or whatever). However, add a bit of one to the other and you have a nice balence.

It's of no surprise to me that the mechanics that determine whether the game continues or not get the lions share of the attention. Maybe the "d&d is a combat based game" meme comes from the fact that there are so many monster manual type books with adverseries to kill/interact with.

None of this means in any way that a game in that system has to be combat based. The experience point thing is also facetious. Assign a CR to a political negotiation, successfully building a dam to stop flooding etc. etc. Or simply give a set amount a session whatever happens. Other methods of xp awards are mentioned in the DMs Guide.

EDIT: One area of d20 that is a missed opportunity IMO to mechanically widen the scope of the game is Feats. These are largely exersises in min-maxing, with combat or combat capability in the long run, almost exclusively their goal. A DM i had about 15 years ago had a feat system, where every 2 levels, we got a "non-weapon proffeciency". My Dwarf thief had 'Able to eat really shit food' like cave crickets, stirges and meat a day or so past its sell by date. This had no mechanical effect, no resistance to poison or anything, but if he ran out of food, he could eat revolting stuff no-one else could (he was a tomb-robber basically). He also had 'hard head' which allowed him to use Bend Bars or open doors with his head! (in case he was tied up!) he used it in Hell once to rescue the party Paladin. But that's another story...

Quote from: BalbinusPeople who think D&D is only about combat plainly don't play much D&D.

Which D&D are you playing?

Quote from: One Horse TownNone of this means in any way that a game in that system has to be combat based.

Precisely.

QuoteThe experience point thing is also facetious.

Had someone brought that up yet? You're right that it's crap I'd be willing to bet that most XP in most games comes from fighting, but you are supposed to get XP for overcoming any encounter, with any methods. Talking your way past the Ogre Magi is worth the same XP as killing him.

Quote from: jrientsWhich D&D are you playing?

Probably the same one I've been playing.

I think it's all very simple and it's a matter of history.

D&D had lots of rules for combat from the start because it was an outgrowth of tactical miniatures play. Other games followed this example (which was reinforced by the fact that most of the genres taken up were action-adventure).

And with combat comes the removal of units. Fighting meant life or death, and that became the implicit stakes in RPGs – does my character live or die?

For me, two of Greg Costikyan's games blew that idea apart. In Paranoia it didn't matter if your chr died because you had half a dozen clones. In Toon your chr couldn't die at all. You might say these were edge cases, but they demonstrated that, in principle, the stakes didn't have to be life and death.

But history is a powerful force, and people kept on making games that centred around modelling combat.

And that's self-fulfilling, because the games attracted people who were interested in combat.

So the problem for some of us has been not "How do we get rid of combat?" but "How do we make anything else interesting?"

People say "Why don't you just ROLEPLAY IT?" To which my reply is: engaging the system is fun. You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?

Quote from: droogSo the problem for some of us has been not "How do we get rid of combat?" but "How do we make anything else interesting?"

People say "Why don't you just ROLEPLAY IT?" To which my reply is: engaging the system is fun. You have fun rolling dice and angling for modifiers in combat, why shouldn't I have fun rolling dice etc in other situations as well?

You can, but for some of us it merely gets in the way.  I used to think socializing mechanics and more finely grained mechanics for everything, not just combat, was a good idea.

Then I was exposed to actually having to game that stuff...  Burning Wheel, Exalted 2nd Edition's social combat, etc.

I came to the conclusion that it was simply easier and more fun to roleplay stuff like that out with the occasional simple mechanical roll to back it up.

YMM, of course, V.

Quote from: RedFoxYou can, but for some of us it merely gets in the way.  I used to think socializing mechanics and more finely grained mechanics for everything, not just combat, was a good idea.

Then I was exposed to actually having to game that stuff...  Burning Wheel, Exalted 2nd Edition's social combat, etc.

It doesn't have to be fine-grained – cf. Risus. But in any case, I'm not saying all games ought to be this way. If you like games that model combat in detail and everything else in less detail, that's cool and you should play those games. I'm just saying that, historically, games  that do this have been in the majority, and games that model other options in the same detail have been rare.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadProbably the same one I've been playing.

Not that I'm big on harshing other people's play styles, but I don't really see the point of using the D&D system for games that don't involve a lot of mayhem.  It strikes me as buying a sportscar simply for Sunday drives through the park.  Aren't there better systems for non-violence oriented fantasy gaming?

Quote from: James McMurrayHad someone brought that up yet? You're right that it's crap I'd be willing to bet that most XP in most games comes from fighting, but you are supposed to get XP for overcoming any encounter, with any methods. Talking your way past the Ogre Magi is worth the same XP as killing him.

I've seen it as a debating point before about the combat-based nature of d&d (d20), that xps are only given out for duffing up monsters. I don't think here, but it's out there. I normally assign a CR for every encounter or challenge that the PCs encounter and overcome, whatever it is.

Yeah, it's pretty common on the WotC boards (or was years ago when I was there). I was wondering if I'd missed some posts or not.