# Why do D&D players put such an emphasis on rules and tactics?



## TrippyHippy (Aug 31, 2014)

Now this is not a bash. If you get a kick from the game in any way, for whatever reason, then good luck to you….but…

If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you. 

Now, I may be old-fashioned here but I do take some solace from the ‘old school’ aspects in the new edition of the game, that attempts to simplify rules and re-emphasise narrative aspects of playing characters in interesting stories (and spectacularly imaginative worlds!). So maybe I’m not that old fashioned after all!  

When _I_ look at the character classes, what I look for is how well they’ll fit with a particular character I have in mind, or how cool they would be to play (in a narrative alter-ego way). The last thing I really care about is the best combo of abilities or what mechanical advantage they may or may not have over the other classes. I do recognise that combat and strategic play have their place in the game, but it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of how you can have fun with it. 

I’m not claiming some sort of superiority in all this - I’m just a gamer like everyone else here - but what gives?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 31, 2014)

Part of it is that we're on a forum.

Rules are the most objective part we can discuss, so that's what we do.

Narrative is more of an art, and dissecting art is harder.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 31, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> I’m not claiming some sort of superiority in all this - I’m just a gamer like everyone else here - but what gives?




I don't play, I just run games.  So, for this exercise, I'm going to try to channel the myriad players I've GMed over the years.  I suspect they would say:
_*
Picking a D&D class (etc) is like car-buying.*_

When you purchase a vehicle, you don't just look at the aesthetic "those lines are way awesome."  You don't just get the best out the door number possible.  You might want to see what's under the hood, or open the door and get inside, or open the boot/trunk, or research metrics online or in a magazine.   Things like its power to weight ratio, max horsepower:RPM value, or torque might matter because you want speed, power, or quickness.  You might care about turn radius, wheelbase, stiffness of suspension.  You might care about cubic volume in the boot/trunk, head/legroom in the cab.  You might care about its MPG, brakes, side/front impact crash testing, and overall safety ratings.

A car is more than just its looks, its more than just its brand, and its more than just its OTD cost.  You're going to be using it a lot for a lot of stuff that doesn't involve (a) looking at it, (b) feeling good about owning a car that says x on the label, and (c) marveling at your elite skills at getting a good deal.  So, hopefully it does all that stuff (commuting in the city, hauling (people or things), Sunday drives, highway driving, etc) to your satisfaction!  That is a big part of what you paid the engineers for afterall.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 31, 2014)

Actually, when I buy a car I just look at practicalities like……how cool it looks….


----------



## delericho (Aug 31, 2014)

MichaelSomething said:


> Part of it is that we're on a forum.
> 
> Rules are the most objective part we can discuss, so that's what we do.
> 
> Narrative is more of an art, and dissecting art is harder.




This.

Plus, the rules represent common ground - we can all go look them up in the books to find out what they say.

But to discuss the intricate details of _my_ campaign, I'd first need to write out a long screed about how things came to be the way they are, and then people would need to read all that. And, frankly, it's probably not very interesting for most people - "let me tell you about my character" writ large.

That's why the boards will always have an over-representation of threads about rules. Well, that, Edition Wars, and cloud-watching to see what WotC are going to do next.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 31, 2014)

Well, maybe there would be some purchase into threads like ‘help me write this adventure storyline’ or ‘help me build this character’ or ‘help me create this world’?

I, for one, would be interested in them.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 31, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well, maybe there would be some purchase into threads like ‘help me write this adventure storyline’ or ‘help me build this character’ or ‘help me create this world’?
> 
> I, for one, would be interested in them.




"Help me build this character" - well, that's going to require rules expertise to make a character that, under the rules set in question, does or can approach doing what they're supposed to.

I've seen a few "Help me create a world" threads, but they're often asking about a set of rules that will create a world to work in a way that's already in the designers' mind. Or adapting the rules you want to use so that they give results that make sense in the world you want to use.

"Help me write the adventure storyline" is the only one of those where I'd think would be primarily rules-agnostic, and even there some rules assumptions are going to bleed over - D&D games usually have very rapid healing especially through magic, whereas Pendragon games make healing of injuries much slower, and that plays a part in the sort of adventures that make sense.


----------



## Scorpio616 (Aug 31, 2014)

Because we just plowed through practically half a dozen iterations of D&D that put a heavy emphasis on positioning and inch by inch movement. It's going to be in the group psyche for a while.

2.5 (if the group used Combat and Tactics)
3.0
3.5
3.75 {Pathfinder]
4.0
4.Essentials


----------



## Blackwarder (Aug 31, 2014)

They don't, it's only us the vocal minority on the forums who realy care to argue about it.

Warder


----------



## Raith5 (Aug 31, 2014)

I think most players emphasise rules and tactics because the game does. Not only does the D&D descend from a war game in the form of Chainmail but every edition has tons of monsters - whole manuals in fact - but not the same weight on social or exploration. So D&D campaigns without a combat focus are certainly possible but there is not the same grist (at least compared with other rpgs). The costs on having your PC sucking in social or exploration situations are less than sucking in combat - indeed sucking at social or exploration situations actually often leads to combat. So when I create a character, while the story comes first, such as story will not include incompetency in combat!


----------



## Yora (Aug 31, 2014)

Why the emphasis on rules and tactics?

Because the 3rd and 4th edition books very strongly encourage to make the game all about rules and tactics. That's how the books are written and the systems designed. Everything says that you're supposed to do it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Now this is not a bash. If you get a kick from the game in any way, for whatever reason, then good luck to you….but…
> 
> If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you.
> 
> ...




Not to nitpick but rules and tactics are very different things. It is good for players to think about tactics on a situational level because it shows investment in the game, and a desire to be victorious through smart play instead of just waltzing into every situation front and center expecting to win simply because they call themselves heroes. 

Futzing over rules minutae is a different animal and has little to do with tactics.


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 31, 2014)

Yes, the rules are the objective parts that can more easily be debated, but also...



Raith5 said:


> I think most players emphasise rules and tactics  because the game does. Not only does the D&D descend from a war game  in the form of Chainmail but every edition has tons of monsters - whole  manuals in fact - but not the same weight on social or exploration. So  D&D campaigns without a combat focus are certainly possible but  there is not the same grist (at least compared with other rpgs). The  costs on having your PC sucking in social or exploration situations are  less than sucking in combat - indeed sucking at social or exploration  situations actually often leads to combat.




This.  All of it.  When 3e emphasized the battle grid, the game took a big turn towards the love of damage.  But where are the splat books on ruling kingdoms, running the villain's gang, or conducting the social club that includes both nobles AND peasants?  Well, the closest things that I saw were in 2e.  Although I have to thank Misters Marmell and Burlew for great 3e books like Dungeonscape and Cityscape, which covered dungeon _theme_ and guilds.

And with a "whole manual" on monsters, out to kill you (but, strangely, not out to save their own hides), the cost of sucking _is_ tremendous.

5e has ostensibly placed greater emphasis on exploration and interaction.  Let's see how the players react.


----------



## SkidAce (Aug 31, 2014)

MichaelSomething said:


> Part of it is that we're on a forum.
> 
> Rules are the most objective part we can discuss, so that's what we do.
> 
> Narrative is more of an art, and dissecting art is harder.




Nailed it with the first reply...


----------



## steenan (Aug 31, 2014)

In each RPG, I focus quite a lot on the rules.

I may play a freeform game just fine without any rules. So if the game has rules, they should positively affect the experience. If I'm playing a game with rules, I'm not going to ignore them. If the rules don't work as they should, the game is not worth playing.

There may be different kinds of rules, depending on what the game is about. But whatever they are, they are important.



In D&D specifically, a lot of the rules are for combat. Players are given many mechanical tools for fighting, while there are none for, for example, building organizations, inventing new technologies or resolving emotional issues. So the focus on combat is not players' idea - it's in the game itself.

And it's not just combat. It's specifically tactical combat where one focuses on winning.
The rules don't care why are you fighting, what are you fighting for. What matters is what abilities you use and how. 
The rules don't care how the combat expresses your character.There is no incentive to do something that fits the concept if it's a bad move tactically.
The rules do nothing to make defeat interesting. It's either win or die (where "die" is either meaningless because of resurrection, or removes you from the game).
So what is left is playing to win, using whatever advantage you can get. And that's what most people do.


In games that work differently, players put emphasis on other aspects. For an extreme example, check *Chuubo's marvelous wish-granting engine* by Jenna Moran. The game has many rules, but there are no "combat" rules at all and hardly any "conflict" rules. In most cases, tactics is meaningless; in some, it actively hurts character development (both on story level and mechanical level). It's not surprising that discussions about Chuubo's are much different than discussions about D&D.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 31, 2014)

Because without it we're just a bunch of people making up stories in our heads.  The rules are our shared language through which we tell and explore those stories.


----------



## ephemeron (Aug 31, 2014)

I'd love to see more threads about worldbuilding/narrative/etc., and not just because I personally feel that I have more to contribute in those areas than in rules discussions.

Come to think of it, there are some things I've been chewing on lately that might be worth starting threads for...


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 31, 2014)

ephemeron said:


> I'd love to see more threads about worldbuilding/narrative/etc., and not just because I personally feel that I have more to contribute in those areas than in rules discussions.




The thing is, in all of the years I've been visiting ENworld, worldbuilding/narrative/character fluff threads barely get any responses. They pop up quite frequently, but they get maybe a couple replies and that's it. The only time the thread gets going is when it goes into discussions about rules, or debates on how the OP is screwing over his players or DM. Basically, people only respond when they get to be emotional about something.

I guess it just has to do with the fact that people find threads about fluff to be boring. Sometimes the original post *is* boring to read. Sometimes I can give some replies, but it's rare for me to read one of these threads and be inspired enough to give feedback. For me, it is kind of like hearing about a persons character. Sure, I'll nod my head out of respect as if I am interested. But we all know, none of us really care to hear about your character.  So it's probably the same thing about hearing about your game. You've really gotta spice it up and have something truly interesting to say about it if you want to grab a readers attention and comment about it.


----------



## Aribar (Aug 31, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you.
> ...
> When _I_ look at the character classes, what I look for is how well they’ll fit with a particular character I have in mind, or how cool they would be to play (in a narrative alter-ego way). The last thing I really care about is the best combo of abilities or what mechanical advantage they may or may not have over the other classes. I do recognise that combat and strategic play have their place in the game, but it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of how you can have fun with it.




I look at the mechanics because I'm potentially paying $150 for the _rules to a game_. I don't need a book to tell me how to roleplay, make up encounters, characters or a story, or anything like that. When I look at character classes, I want to know that the rules actually live up to the lore and the mechanics actually support the kind of character I want to make.

Plus the vast majority of the rules in D&D relate to combat. There's maybe two chapters per PHB on adventuring and using skills in non-combat situations. Compared to the combat stuff, there is relatively little role playing stuff.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 31, 2014)

Raith5 said:


> I think most players emphasise rules and tactics because the game does. Not only does the D&D descend from a war game in the form of Chainmail but every edition has tons of monsters - whole manuals in fact - but not the same weight on social or exploration. So D&D campaigns without a combat focus are certainly possible but there is not the same grist (at least compared with other rpgs). The costs on having your PC sucking in social or exploration situations are less than sucking in combat - indeed sucking at social or exploration situations actually often leads to combat. So when I create a character, while the story comes first, such as story will not include incompetency in combat!




I think this is at least partly true. D&D has always had a certain amount of tactical richness - and so did most other RPGs back in the day. There has always been a certain appeal to using good tactical combat in the games and a lot of players, particularly those also into board games, respond positively (maybe even excessively) to them. So I want to emphasize that this element has been in the game longer than 3e has been.

Then I think the increased tactical focus brought on by Players Option: Combat and Tactics and how it eventually led to 3e doubled-down on the rules and tactical oriented part of the game. No doubt TSR and then WotC were responding to demand they identified in the gamer market, but it's a feedback loop. Demand generates rules generates more discussion about nitpicky rules and tactics generates demand for more or revised rules and so on.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 31, 2014)

Oryan77 said:


> The thing is, in all of the years I've been visiting ENworld, worldbuilding/narrative/character fluff threads barely get any responses.




No one ever wants to hear about other people's character or world. Most of the time they are boring and not creative. With rules those are already written so people can argue about those easier. For a hobby that is thought of as a creative outlet most of the people playing it are just not that creative.


----------



## Haffrung (Aug 31, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> When _I_ look at the character classes, what I look for is how well they’ll fit with a particular character I have in mind, or how cool they would be to play (in a narrative alter-ego way). The last thing I really care about is the best combo of abilities or what mechanical advantage they may or may not have over the other classes. I do recognise that combat and strategic play have their place in the game, but it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of how you can have fun with it.




As do the players in my groups. Only a handful of the people I've played D&D with had any interest in mechanically-optimizing characters. But it's also worth nothing most of the people I've played with found little appealing in 3E or 4E for that very reason.



Blackwarder said:


> They don't, it's only us the vocal minority on the forums who realy care to argue about it.




There's that too. And I think for people who aren't actively playing (and there are a lot), char op and analyzing rules are a kind of sub-hobby. 



billd91 said:


> I think this is at least partly true. D&D has always had a certain amount of tactical richness - and so did most other RPGs back in the day. There has always been a certain appeal to using good tactical combat in the games and a lot of players, particularly those also into board games, respond positively (maybe even excessively) to them. So I want to emphasize that this element has been in the game longer than 3e has been.




But it's worth noting that by the standards of other fantasy RPGs in the early 80s, D&D was not tactically rich. People who wanted a more wargamey approach to fantasy RPGs played Runequest, Palladium Fantasy, or DragonQuest. There were few fantasy RPGs that were less crunchy than D&D when it came to combat. Maybe tunnels and Trolls? So if you wanted a combat-lite fantasy RPG, D&D really was your best choice. Especially B/X D&D.



TrippyHippy said:


> Then I think the increased tactical focus brought on by Players Option: Combat and Tactics and how it eventually led to 3e doubled-down on the rules and tactical oriented part of the game. No doubt TSR and then WotC were responding to demand they identified in the gamer market, but it's a feedback loop. Demand generates rules generates more discussion about nitpicky rules and tactics generates demand for more or revised rules and so on.




There definitely came a tipping-point where increased PC options and more robust tactical play became the mainstream approach to D&D. The publishers catered to that audience, and the audience came to be drawn from people who would have played Napoleonics wargames if they were born 20 years earlier.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 31, 2014)

Crothian said:


> For a hobby that is thought of as a creative outlet most of the people playing it are just not that creative.




That could explain the lack of responses to threads about fluff. But I'm grateful to the creative people that do exist. Whenever I have a mind fart, I get excited when I post online looking for ideas. I love hearing what the creative crowd throws my way and I can't wait to read the replies. Even if there are not many responses. I've implemented lots of things that people threw my way.

Even crunch-wise though, people lack creativity. A lot of character builds you see are nothing more than something that a player just went online and found. Maybe not 100%, but most everything was compiled together in his build based off of aspects that others suggested in optimization forums. I really don't like DMing those type of players. The last player I kicked out of the group insisted that his build was thought up all by himself. He had only been playing D&D for a couple of months, but I could point to the exact threads where he copied his build. He didn't deviate an inch from the best known 3.5 Conjurer builds. Even right down to the obscure alternate class features. His choices were flawless, including his spell selection. But he swore to me that he was just good at optimizing characters and likes to read all of the sourcebooks.  None of my other players bought his BS, and it was actually them that talked me into kicking him out. That wasn't the only reason they didn't want him around though.

I don't mind going online to look for build help if you have an idea in mind but can't find rules to make it happen. It's when a player flat out copies a build, or parts of builds that I don't like. As a DM, that's extremely uninspiring. I'm not really interested in DMing someone elses PC. I want to DM your PC. There seems to be too much emphasis on "power" with players these days. They are so worried about not being the best, that they have to go online to get tips on how to be the best. I'd compare that to you saying people playing are just not that creative.

Even worse, is when I see players starting threads to ask strangers how to deal with events happening in their game. Uhg. So now their DM isn't just DMing him, he's DMing the entire gaming community. It's like their PC found a library with internet access and is asking for advice on how to deal with the local evil necromancer and save the princes.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 1, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well, maybe there would be some purchase into threads like ‘help me write this adventure storyline’ or ‘help me build this character’ or ‘help me create this world’?



I generally find that when I post threads about scenario development, I don't get as much response as on threads about rules or GMing techniques.



Oryan77 said:


> The thing is, in all of the years I've been visiting ENworld, worldbuilding/narrative/character fluff threads barely get any responses.



In other words, this, or something ike it.

Also, have a look at the current 13th Age thread on the G-modules. Of half-a-dozen replies, at least one is just drive-by spam telling the OP that s/he's doing it wrong. Who needs that?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 1, 2014)

pemerton said:


> Also, have a look at the current 13th Age thread on the G-modules. Of half-a-dozen replies, at least one is just drive-by spam telling the OP that s/he's doing it wrong. Who needs that?




13th Age is in general going to get a lot less posts because fewer people are familiar with the game.


----------



## Derren (Sep 1, 2014)

D&D was never able to get away from its wargaming roots, no matter how hard the designers tried (or didn't).
In the end the majority of D&D is about tactical turn based combat where rules matter a lot. Everything else is pretty much just an addon to the combat rules. So its no surprise that all the discussions are about how to get better at combat using said rules.


----------



## Pickles JG (Sep 1, 2014)

Derren said:


> D&D was never able to get away from its wargaming roots, no matter how hard the designers tried (or didn't).
> In the end the majority of D&D is about tactical turn based combat where rules matter a lot. Everything else is pretty much just an addon to the combat rules. So its no surprise that all the discussions are about how to get better at combat using said rules.




Indeed that's why it's the best role-playing game with little of the stuff that detracts from the important parts.


----------



## Yora (Sep 1, 2014)

It's not that they even tried with getting away from Wargaming with 3rd and 4th edtion. Those were clearly designed to put more emphasis on wargaming than any previous edition before.


----------



## Evenglare (Sep 1, 2014)

Derren said:


> D&D was never able to get away from its wargaming roots, no matter how hard the designers tried (or didn't).
> In the end the majority of D&D is about tactical turn based combat where rules matter a lot. Everything else is pretty much just an addon to the combat rules. So its no surprise that all the discussions are about how to get better at combat using said rules.




I must be playing wrong then, most of my 6 hour games involve roleplaying and maybe one combat. Huh. Sometimes none at all. Weird. I wonder why 5e's combat chapter is so short, and 4e's combat focused game did so poorly selling then.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Sep 1, 2014)

Yora said:


> It's not that they even tried with getting away from Wargaming with 3rd and 4th edtion. Those were clearly designed to put more emphasis on wargaming than any previous edition before.




And now we are in 5E where we evidently are moving away from that aspect again.


----------



## Yora (Sep 1, 2014)

We'll see how that will work out for them. After 15 years, there's lots of people for who D&D has always been about miniatures on a grid and looking for another +1 bonus somewhere. Those who feel that "true D&D" should be rules-light with lots of handwaving might be a minority by now.


----------



## Raith5 (Sep 1, 2014)

Yora said:


> We'll see how that will work out for them. After 15 years, there's lots of people for who D&D has always been about miniatures on a grid and looking for another +1 bonus somewhere. Those who feel that "true D&D" should be rules-light with lots of handwaving might be a minority by now.




I doubt it. I think the success of 13th age and 5e shows that the design space of rpgs has moved decisively away from the grid. Mind you I used the grid since 1e so I think 3e and 4e were more like grid + heavy rules and mechanics (for good and ill).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 1, 2014)

D&D has been a hacked tabletop wargame ever since 1974 (other arguably than 4e being a hacked tabletop boardgame).  The D&D rulebooks are hardly the Fate Core/Accelerated rulebooks - and the AD&D rulebooks (especially 1e AD&D) are incredibly rules dense.

If you want to play without rules then why are you spending $150 (at 5e new costs) for them?  You aren't playing freeform+ as Fate tries to be, and you aren't playing Class-as-metaphor as Monsterhearts does so well.  What you spent the money on is a large, crunchy, rules intensive game.  So you talk about what the game brings to the table - which is rules.

Those who feel "True D&D" should be rules light were people who rejected AD&D in favour of oD&D, B/X or BECMI/RC.  They always were a minority of those who stuck with the game.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 1, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> D&D has been a hacked tabletop wargame ever since 1974 (other arguably than 4e being a hacked tabletop boardgame).  The D&D rulebooks are hardly the Fate Core/Accelerated rulebooks - and the AD&D rulebooks (especially 1e AD&D) are incredibly rules dense.




Fate has some complexity to it I would use a different example for rules light. 



> If you want to play without rules then why are you spending $150 (at 5e new costs) for them?  You aren't playing freeform+ as Fate tries to be, and you aren't playing Class-as-metaphor as Monsterhearts does so well.  What you spent the money on is a large, crunchy, rules intensive game.  So you talk about what the game brings to the table - which is rules.




To some of use $150 is not a lot of money but I am paying half that. Monsterhearts is fine but it is not fantasy dungeon crawling. There is the phrase D&D heartbreaker for a reason because we have all kinds of games that try to do what D&D does and fail. So, people keep with D&D and make it rules light because it works for them and it is a thousand times easier to find players for a version of D&D then Monsterhearts. 



> Those who feel "True D&D" should be rules light were people who rejected AD&D in favour of oD&D, B/X or BECMI/RC.  They always were a minority of those who stuck with the game.




Anyone who throws around the phrase True D&D has no idea what they are talking about because there is no such beast.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 1, 2014)

Crothian said:


> Fate has some complexity to it I would use a different example for rules light.




Possibly so - but Fate Core/Accelerated is mostly emergent complexity.  You could fit Fate 3.0 onto a trifold and Fate Core is cleaner.  On the other hand it's not Lasers and Feelings or PDQ.



> Anyone who throws around the phrase True D&D has no idea what they are talking about because there is no such beast.




There is that


----------



## Hussar (Sep 1, 2014)

Quite simply because the other stuff you want to talk about only really applies to your table.

For example, I am currently running a short run dungeon crawl where the party has gone into an ancient vault.  The vault is mechanical in nature, with three independent, nested rings.  At random intervals, the rings begin spinning, completely rearranging the dungeon layout (I use 5d20 real time minutes to determine when the dungeon spins).  The rings are mapped such that they interlock at 45 degree intervals, basically giving me 8 different maps using the same 9 encounters.

Since the spinning is random and very damaging, the party cannot get a complete rest inside the vault and since the entrance is only open to the outside during one of the 8 configurations, they cannot escape the vault either.  

Lot's of fun.  

But, at this point, what is there to talk about?  I think it's a cool dungeon.  The players seem pretty groovy with it.  Not really sure what else there is to add.

OTOH, I could discuss, since this is a 4e game, how to incorporate a skill challenge into avoiding damage during the spinning process - IOW, a rules discussion and expect to get a fair bit of response.  Certainly more than what I'd get just talking about my game.  No one really likes gaming stories do they?


----------



## Libramarian (Sep 1, 2014)

One contributing factor is that [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] needessly moves all homebrew/fan creation stuff into separate forums.


----------



## N'raac (Sep 1, 2014)

Libramarian said:


> One contributing factor is that @_*Morrus*_ needessly moves all homebrew/fan creation stuff into separate forums.




Where it will be seen only by those who specifically go to that forum, presumably because they want to read and discuss those topics?  Seems like that either stimulates discussion or highlights that no one else is interested.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Sep 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> D&D has been a hacked tabletop wargame ever since 1974 (other arguably than 4e being a hacked tabletop boardgame).  The D&D rulebooks are hardly the Fate Core/Accelerated rulebooks - and the AD&D rulebooks (especially 1e AD&D) are incredibly rules dense.




With respect, I don’t regard FATE as being particularly light as a system, or non-tactical in approach. The game is driven quite heavily by mechanics, regardless of the association with ‘narrative’ gaming. I find the mechanics in D&D5E to be lighter and less obtrusive.


----------



## Haffrung (Sep 2, 2014)

Yora said:


> We'll see how that will work out for them. After 15 years, there's lots of people for who D&D has always been about miniatures on a grid and looking for another +1 bonus somewhere. Those who feel that "true D&D" should be rules-light with lots of handwaving might be a minority by now.




Presumably the D&D Next playtests showed that most participants were okay with rules-light D&D that de-emphasizes the grid, even if that isn't the way they've always played. The WotC devs have said how surprised they were that the preferences expressed in the playtest polls differed from those discussed on forums. It's probably what they mean when they say they catered too long to hardcore players, and people remember the stories generated in play more than what's written on a character sheet. 



Neonchameleon said:


> D&D has been a hacked tabletop wargame ever since 1974 (other arguably than 4e being a hacked tabletop boardgame).  The D&D rulebooks are hardly the Fate Core/Accelerated rulebooks - and the AD&D rulebooks (especially 1e AD&D) are incredibly rules dense.
> 
> If you want to play without rules then why are you spending $150 (at 5e new costs) for them?  You aren't playing freeform+ as Fate tries to be, and you aren't playing Class-as-metaphor as Monsterhearts does so well.  What you spent the money on is a large, crunchy, rules intensive game.  So you talk about what the game brings to the table - which is rules.
> 
> Those who feel "True D&D" should be rules light were people who rejected AD&D in favour of oD&D, B/X or BECMI/RC.  They always were a minority of those who stuck with the game.




A lot of us drew no distinction between AD&D, B/X, and the rest. It was all D&D, and published adventures for the various systems were useable without any pre-session conversion. And ultimately, the game varied more table-to-table than edition-to-edition. At my table, and those of several other groups I knew, fast, furious, and gridless was the name of the game.


----------



## Afrodyte (Sep 2, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well, maybe there would be some purchase into threads like ‘help me write this adventure storyline’ or ‘help me build this character’ or ‘help me create this world’?
> 
> I, for one, would be interested in them.




I've made those threads, but they've either been ignored or dismissed as (semi-)impossible.


----------



## Yora (Sep 2, 2014)

N'raac said:


> Where it will be seen only by those who specifically go to that forum, presumably because they want to read and discuss those topics?  Seems like that either stimulates discussion or highlights that no one else is interested.




There are almost never any posts when you look, so you stop looking.

It's not that people don't talk about ideas for backgrounds, creating adventures, and running campaigns. They just don't do it here so much.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 2, 2014)

Derren said:


> D&D was never able to get away from its wargaming roots, no matter how hard the designers tried (or didn't).
> In the end the majority of D&D is about tactical turn based combat where rules matter a lot.





Yora said:


> It's not that they even tried with getting away from Wargaming with 3rd and 4th edtion. Those were clearly designed to put more emphasis on wargaming than any previous edition before.





Evenglare said:


> I must be playing wrong then, most of my 6 hour games involve roleplaying and maybe one combat. Huh. Sometimes none at all. Weird. I wonder why 5e's combat chapter is so short, and 4e's combat focused game did so poorly selling then.



All this bitterness about the place of combat in the game. I don't understand why combat is regarded as so objectionable - it's a major site of conflict in a lot of other action dramas, why not in RPGing?

If you read the action resolution rules in classic D&D, you'll see that they also heavily emphasise combat (particularly when you take into account all the spell descriptions). Likewise 5e. Besides combat, B/X D&D has resolution mechanics only for thief abilities, dealing with traps, dealing with doors, overland movement, and reactions. 1st ed AD&D also has loyalty mechanics plus rangers' tracking.

4e is the only edition to have a general mechanical framework for resolving non-combat activity (the skill challenge - which is the closest D&D has ever got to a game like Fate or HeroWars/Quest).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 2, 2014)

pemerton said:


> All this bitterness about the place of combat in the game. I don't understand why combat is regarded as so objectionable - it's a major site of conflict in a lot of other action dramas, why not in RPGing?




As I understand it, there are three reasons.

1: If you're playing ToTM (which D&D isn't terribly good at but you can do in any edition) then there isn't much of a gear change between combat and non-combat.  4e has two distinct modes of play (and the out of combat one is not explained).

2: Combat takes too long.  More accurately combat takes too long _per round_.  Which means that keeping the energy up is harder.  3.X you could handle about half a high level combat (the buff phase) between sessions or through SOPs.  AD&D might have sometimes turned into a whiff-fest but the turns came back round relatively fast, meaning that even if you weren't doing much you were doing something regularly.

3: Analysis Paralysis.  People prone to Analysis Paralysis didn't have a class for them that wouldn't bog the entire pace down until Essentials.  One in a group could be a problem.  Two could kill the game.


----------



## N'raac (Sep 2, 2014)

Yora said:


> There are almost never any posts when you look, so you stop looking.




That suggests, to me at least, that there are few interested in making such posts.  There are lots of posts on other topics.  Did discussion of damage on a miss slow down when that was moved to its own forum?


----------



## Derren (Sep 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> As I understand it, there are three reasons.




And number 4, it drowns out everything else. When you have a book filled to 90% with combat rules, what are players most likely to do in game even when they have a choice? As for economic reasons WotC won't print huge 400 pages books, it means that the non combat part will be lacking as too much space is spend on myriads of combat options.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 2, 2014)

Derren said:


> And number 4, it drowns out everything else. When you have a book filled to 90% with combat rules, what are players most likely to do in game even when they have a choice?




90% full of combat rules?  The combat rules in 4e take from page 264 to page 294 in the PHB - or less than 10% of the PHB

If you've somehow confused the combat rules with the character class rules, those take from page 50 to page 175 or just under 40% of the PHB.  Which is the approximate percentage 1e, 2e, and 3e gave over to spells.


----------



## Derren (Sep 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> 90% full of combat rules?  The combat rules in 4e take from page 264 to page 294 in the PHB - or less than 10% of the PHB




+ All the combat powers for each class
+ All the combat spells
+ All the magic items used for combat


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 2, 2014)

Derren said:


> + All the combat powers for each class
> + All the combat spells
> + All the magic items used for combat




As I said, the class rules take up 125 pages.  That covers both all the combat powers, and a lot of non-combat powers.

Meanwhile for any sort of balanced comparison, you must include every single combat spell in your preferred edition of D&D (after all you're doing this for 4e) and the sections of the DMG that include combat magic items.


----------



## Derren (Sep 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Meanwhile for any sort of balanced comparison, you must include every single combat spell in your preferred edition of D&D (after all you're doing this for 4e) and the sections of the DMG that include combat magic items.




Considering that my point was that D&D in general always was more of a wargame I do not see the point in comparing a D&D edition with a other D&D edition.
You were the one who started to be edition specific.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 3, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> When _I_ look at the character classes, what I look for is how well they’ll fit with a particular character I have in mind, or how cool they would be to play (in a narrative alter-ego way). The last thing I really care about is the best combo of abilities or what mechanical advantage they may or may not have over the other classes. I do recognise that combat and strategic play have their place in the game, but it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of how you can have fun with it.




I like both the narrative aspects and the strategic ones, but also I like the space between where the two kind-of merge, which IMO is problem-solving.

I don't like at all making analysis on "effectiveness" of mechanics, and I don't like playing with people whose analysis end up making their PC dominate the action.

That doesn't mean however that I don't look at functional features of classes, or other game elements. I do look at them, because playing a new character which functions differently from my previous, is a little bit like playing a different game, and so it's something new and fun to try out. 

Just to make an example, I've never played a Barbarian character, mostly because it just never came up as I had something else to play already. During the playtest, I really liked the description of the totem barbarians (particularly cougar and hawk), and this is the narrative/concept part that sparked an interest in me to play such character. But at the same time, I would also be interested to play it because of the Rage feature, which I've never played, because it's different, it has its own resource-management aspect, and it will require to think about how to use it tactically. Similarly, even tho I played Fighters before, I have never played a Fighter with the (new?) maneuvers system (actually I preferred the round-based playtest version, which was even more different) so this is the thing that currently makes me want to try play a Battlemaster, not so much the associated narrative to be honest.


----------



## Yora (Sep 3, 2014)

There is a good reason to have more rules for combat than for anything else. Because combat is the one thing that is the most in need of having rules to represent it.

Negotiation and Investigation are things that players and GM can actually do themselves. Tell the GM what your character wants to say, and tell the GM how your character is looking for clues. And the GM can determine success or failure based on reasoning and judging the situation alone.

Combat and magic are very different. You can't decide the outcome of a battle by giving the players swords and judging how nice they swing them around the table. In most groups, nobody at the table has any idea how fighting with weapons even work. Combat needs to be relegated to a dice game. There simply is no logical and obvious outcome when the players describe to the GM what their characters are trying to do.

Many, if not most people totally don't see it that way, but I consider AD&D to be one of the best games for roleplaying and investigation, because it has no rules for it. I don't need any rules that tell me "the king denies your request, even though you made very good points and it would be in his best interest" or in which a player says "I search the room. I got a 17." When negotiating and investigating gets outsourced to a minigame, players are no longer incentived to think about how they would attempt to solve something. All they need is to declare their goal, and in a worst case scenario, any additional elaboration they make on their characters actions doesn't affect the outcome at all.
Yes, you can roleplay with every system. But some systems have "don't bother, it doesn't affect the outcome" written between the lines everywhere.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2014)

I strongly disagree. For one, there are tons of games out there where combat mechanics do not take up the majority of the rules. 

Second, lacking rules, you are basically free forming. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the idea that free forming is a somehow "better" kind of role playing is an idea that really has passed it's sell by  date. 

Just because DnD has had very poor mechanics for resolving actions outside of combat doesn't mean that those mechanics don't exist.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2014)

Yora said:


> When negotiating and investigating gets outsourced to a minigame, players are no longer incentived to think about how they would attempt to solve something.



What is your evidence for this claim? It does not fit with my own experience at all.


----------



## steenan (Sep 3, 2014)

I agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] here (unfortunately, I can't XP them).

Many kinds of mechanical rules support engaging the situation, instead of ignoring them. 

Rules that effectively skip over a situation or reframe it can be used intentionally for things that are not important and that players shouldn't waste time on. But it's not the only kind of rules. And, on the other hand, combat rules may be treated in the same way.


A handful of examples:

Skill rules in Nobilis (and Chuubo's) tell you how effective (moving towards your goal), productive (making your life better) and good-looking your actions are. But it's only through roleplaying the situation that you determine what it really means in given case.

In Fate you need to engage the situation (expressed mechanically as situational aspects) to gather bonuses. Not only that - the situation determines what you can and cannot do, so you don't always have access to all mechanical tools .

In Dogs in the Vineyard, rules model engaged conversation, physical conflict and shooting each other as a single mechanical resolution with escalation. The conflict as a whole has a stake, but each separate action also means more than just a step towards the goal. And usually, how far you're willing to go to get the stakes is more important than if you get them.

In Blood&Smoke (the newest Vampire), combat is by default resolved in a single roll and ends with one side surrendering or running away. While you can run a round-by-round combat, it is described as optional and useful only in special circumstances. This game is not about fighting and the simplified combat rules fit it really well.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 3, 2014)

I may be going out on a limb here.  But isn't it possible that people focus on discussion of rules and tactics because combat is more FUN?


----------



## N'raac (Sep 3, 2014)

Yora said:


> Negotiation and Investigation are things that players and GM can actually do themselves. Tell the GM what your character wants to say, and tell the GM how your character is looking for clues. And the GM can determine success or failure based on reasoning and judging the situation alone.
> ******************************************************************************************
> Many, if not most people totally don't see it that way, but I consider AD&D to be one of the best games for roleplaying and investigation, because it has no rules for it. I don't need any rules that tell me "the king denies your request, even though you made very good points and it would be in his best interest" or in which a player says "I search the room. I got a 17." When negotiating and investigating gets outsourced to a minigame, players are no longer incentived to think about how they would attempt to solve something. All they need is to declare their goal, and in a worst case scenario, any additional elaboration they make on their characters actions doesn't affect the outcome at all.
> 
> Yes, you can roleplay with every system. But some systems have "don't bother, it doesn't affect the outcome" written between the lines everywhere.




There are very different views in this regard.  Some people want to play an agile Rogue or a mighty Warrior, even though they lack those traits (agility; strength; etc.) in real life.  The game allows them to play the character they envision by providing rules for this.

A social wallflower may want to play a suave ladies' man or a cunning con man.  A player not good with puzzles may want to play Sherlock Holmes.  Mechanics for social interaction and investigation, respectively, permit the player to do so.  Why should that not be permitted?  If the player's oratorical skills, glibness or investigative skills determine success in these areas, then the player can only play his own skills, not those of the fictional character he envisions.

Then we get to "role playing".  Your comments seem to imply role playing can only happen out of combat.  I disagree.  If my character loathes Goblins, this should be role pla yed - in combat, that means focusing my attacks on those vile Goblins.  If my character is a wisecracking swashbuckler, then he will play in combat very differently from a grim, methodical avenger or a physical coward.  That's "role playing".

Investigation?  If my character has a 6 WIS and a 7 INT, portraying him as Sherlock Holmes deftly seeking out the subtle clues isn't playing that role.  Nor is my 8 CHA character with no social skills played as a great orator and persuader role playing my character.  It's role playing a character very different from the one I created.

Does that mean players have no ability to influence their odds?  To the same extent, I suppose, that they have no ability to influence their success in combat.  Casting the wrong spells, using an inappropriate weapon, attacking the wrong target, choosing the right maneuvers, teamwork to flank the enemy, or just concentrating missile fire on one opponent to reduce the opposition rather than spreading it out to lightly wound all of them are all decisions players can make that impact combat.  They don't grant the characters any new abilities, or make it more likely the 8 STR Wizard's dagger will hit more regularly and more potently than the 19 STR Barbarian's War Axe.  Player choices and character abilities combine to generate the combat narrative and results.

Similarly, interaction doesn't just mean rolling the dice.  Do we do some homework on the King beforehand, perhaps approaching others who have contact with him, determine he fancies himself an expert in, and patron of, the arts, learning that he considers himself a man of peace, not of battle, etc. and tailor our approach to that knowledge -  perhaps bringing him a gift such as an original manuscript of a famed playwright (maybe we found one in the dungeon and thought "what's this good for?" but haven't sold it yet)  or leverage connections we have made with members of the local arts community, and tailoring our discussion not to the War against Evil, but the need to quickly and decisively end the raids and bring peace to the Hillsfolk.  That's all tactics of social interaction, and we should gain bonuses. 

Now, enough of those good points would stack enough bonuses that something already in the King's best interests (not a high difficulty for success) is guaranteed, just like a lone goblin isn't much of a threat to our party of 8th level characters.  But neither are the stuff of the epic quests of Heroes - they're just easily overcome speedbumps.  Tipping the balance of the war by persuading the isolationist, traditionally neutral nation to add its considerable resources to our side - allying with a side for the first time in hundreds of years?  That's the stuff great games are made of.  But it's also not likely to be a sure thing, and I want the pitch made by our 18 CHA orator and diplomat, not Crass the Cussing, 6 CHA Barbarian with the sole social skill of "do what I say or I'll thump ya".  And I don't find it great role playing for Crass to suddenly take on the oratorical skills of a consummate politician because, today, that would be better than his usual personality and skill set.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 3, 2014)

TwoSix said:


> I may be going out on a limb here.  But isn't it possible that people focus on discussion of rules and tactics because combat is more FUN?




I play a lot of different RPGs, and each one gets me something different. What I love about D&D is the combat. The miniatures (and I own a lot!), the tactical movement, the list of possible actions and spells that you have to go over and plan for, and especially the magic equipment that can be collected and used to kill things in more and better ways. For me, that's the draw of D&D.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2014)

N'raac said:


> Then we get to "role playing".  Your comments seem to imply role playing can only happen out of combat.  I disagree.  If my character loathes Goblins, this should be role pla yed - in combat, that means focusing my attacks on those vile Goblins.  If my character is a wisecracking swashbuckler, then he will play in combat very differently from a grim, methodical avenger or a physical coward.  That's "role playing".




Yes, but when the question of rules to cover things come up, this aspect becomes a non-issue.  There's a ton of rules for combat already.  If your character wants to express his personality/role with weapons or other violence, the rules are there in full.

The question is whether we need or want rules for expressing personality/role in realms where many games are somewhat rules-deficient.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but when the question of rules to cover things come up, this aspect becomes a non-issue.  There's a ton of rules for combat already.  If your character wants to express his personality/role with weapons or other violence, the rules are there in full.
> 
> The question is whether we need or want rules for expressing personality/role in realms where many games are somewhat rules-deficient.




I'm a huge believer that rules certainly can promote expressing personality/role.  They don't necessarily have to be so fine grained as say, GURPS combat rules (then again, IMNSHO, NOTHING needs to be that fine grained ), but, the presence of rules works to channel player actions.

Take the idea of expressing character in combat.  Sans any rules, there is no difference between the player who buckles his swash during combat, and the player who says, "I got an 18.  Hit?  Ok, 12 damage. "  Adding in mechanics that reward player behaviour or, conversely, punish player behaviour, go a long way towards eliciting particular responses.

Is there really a question here?  It's been shown pretty definitively in education circles that if you want particular results, you have to scaffold the lesson in a particular way.  If you want your language class (I'm an ESL teacher, so bear with me) to focus on speaking using present simple, you have to create activities that promote speaking.  Playing a tape and having the class do nothing but listening obviously won't work.

Same goes in games.  If you want role play, you need to reward role play and the best way to do that is through mechanics which reward role play.  So, the guy who buckles his swash is more effective than the guy who is playing Combat Bingo.

I mean, there's a reason that pretty much every other gamer out there looks down on D&D gamers as the nadir of role play.


----------



## Yora (Sep 4, 2014)

N'raac said:


> A social wallflower may want to play a suave ladies' man or a cunning con man.  A player not good with puzzles may want to play Sherlock Holmes.  Mechanics for social interaction and investigation, respectively, permit the player to do so.  Why should that not be permitted?  If the player's oratorical skills, glibness or investigative skills determine success in these areas, then the player can only play his own skills, not those of the fictional character he envisions.




And I think that's not the case. People who are bad at telling the GM what their character wants to do will certainly not be better at convincing the rest of the group what they should be doing. When it comes to making plans and descisions, the other more vocal and active players would still do all the planning and once a descision has been made, the player with the high Charisma character is told that they need him to make a skill check now.
Combat is a physical activity, negotiating a purely verbal one. And playing the game is a verbal and social activity and not a physical one. That's an important difference. These two aspects of the game are not the same thing.

Being awesome as manipulation is not something that can be emulated the same way as being awesome at swordfighting. I did have quite a number of players in my groups who tended to sit back and do their part, but leave the planning and descision making mostly to a smaller group of three or maybe four players, who do 90% of the talking. And never did any of them want to play a character who is a great talker.
I see where the idea is coming from, but I just don't think it's really the case.


----------



## N'raac (Sep 4, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Same goes in games. If you want role play, you need to reward role play and the best way to do that is through mechanics which reward role play. So, the guy who buckles his swash is more effective than the guy who is playing Combat Bingo.
> 
> I mean, there's a reason that pretty much every other gamer out there looks down on D&D gamers as the nadir of role play.




I think you can encourage or discourage certain role play by rules.  The GM can also encourage or discourage role play (for example, whenever our Swashbuckler does anything but swing to hit or miss, the GM rolls his eyes and announces some failure - the chandelier can't hold your weight - GM call; a sword strike while swinging from the chandelier takes -8 to hit and does half damage - mechanical discouragement).  But, for many players, role play is its own reward.  Punish it and the player may stop, or may just find a group with a play style suited for his play.  You can certainly role play a character's personality, both in and out of combat, with or without mechanical awards. 

In many groups, the reward is the admiration of your peers "That was really cool" carries no mechanical reward, but it will be remembered long after a +2 bonus to hit has been forgotten.



Yora said:


> And I think that's not the case. People who are bad at telling the GM what their character wants to do will certainly not be better at convincing the rest of the group what they should be doing. When it comes to making plans and descisions, the other more vocal and active players would still do all the planning and once a descision has been made, the player with the high Charisma character is told that they need him to make a skill check now.




A player who is a poor orator and running a character with an 18 CHA and maxed out interaction skills should be FAR better at, say persuading the Captain of the Guard that their presence in the local graveyard at 2 AM with shovels was for very good reasons, and he should leave them to it (an extreme example, to be sure) than a player who is glib and well spoken, whose character has an 8 CHA and no investment in social skills.  I doubt either player will not know it would be great to persuade this fellow that they are not up to nefarious activity, but only one character has the social skills to have a shot a pulling it off.  Both should get a bonus for raising the recent incursion of Zombies on the locals, but the high CHA character Hs a much better shot at presenting the case so as to persuade the Captain that we are here to stop those incursions, not because we are responsible for them.



Yora said:


> Combat is a physical activity, negotiating a purely verbal one. And playing the game is a verbal and social activity and not a physical one. That's an important difference. These two aspects of the game are not the same thing.




They are different in some respects and similar in others.  The fact is, some people are better at physical activities, and others are better at verbal, or social, or any other, activities.  If the player’s abilities determine success at social activities, then all that’s left for them to invest resources in will be combat – their character abilities won’t change their chances of success.  You stutter and look at your shoes, so you can never play a persuasive Orator.  The glib layer can, and he gets to be as good at combat as you are.  To me, that limits the game inequitably.



Yora said:


> Being awesome as manipulation is not something that can be emulated the same way as being awesome at swordfighting. I did have quite a number of players in my groups who tended to sit back and do their part, but leave the planning and descision making mostly to a smaller group of three or maybe four players, who do 90% of the talking. And never did any of them want to play a character who is a great talker.
> I see where the idea is coming from, but I just don't think it's really the case.




They did not want to, or they have learned that they cannot change the mechanics in any way, so attempting to play such a character is an exercise in futility?   I find it hard to believe there are no players out there who want to play someone better at social skills than they are.  Maybe your players are the exception, or maybe players who want this don't get it from your game, so they either accept that and stop trying, or they find a group which allows them to effectively play the character they want to play.

Sure, the players may discuss what they want to accomplish and how.  In combat, one player might suggest another use a specific ability, engage a certain opponent, or use a certain tactic (“if you make a 5’ step, you can Flank”), but the player’s great tactics don’t mean he can describe the skilled knifefighting of his Wizard to get a to hit and damage bonus on par with the Fighter.  So why should the glib orator be able to use those skills to make his social outcast character as good a persuasion as the 18 CHA bard?

You make a character, and you play that character.  He has strengths you lack, and you have strengths he lacks.  He's not "you in a different body".


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 4, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Now this is not a bash. If you get a kick from the game in any way, for whatever reason, then good luck to you….but…
> 
> If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you.



This is largely because the "rules" came out from behind the screen around 2nd ed. (at least officially) and we've suffered rules lawyers ever since. Players are playing the game on the messageboards by determining the best options for building their characters. 



> Now, I may be old-fashioned here but I do take some solace from the ‘old school’ aspects in the new edition of the game, that attempts to simplify rules and re-emphasise narrative aspects of playing characters in interesting stories (and spectacularly imaginative worlds!). So maybe I’m not that old fashioned after all!



Old School means the rejection of "narrative" game elements and storytelling in games for RPGs that reward actual game play instead. I.e. the strategic thinking you're dismissing below. Old School is game play. New School is conflating group storytelling with gaming. There is no such thing as storytelling or stories in actual games (or even roleplaying). 



> When _I_ look at the character classes, what I look for is how well they’ll fit with a particular character I have in mind, or how cool they would be to play (in a narrative alter-ego way). The last thing I really care about is the best combo of abilities or what mechanical advantage they may or may not have over the other classes. I do recognise that combat and strategic play have their place in the game, but it isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of how you can have fun with it.



Yes, actually playing a game strategically is the fun games are designed to support. It's why games are so rigorously measured and balanced and designed as patterns. Strategizing _is _the be-all-and-end-all of fun, at least in games. Sure, you can treat a game as something else, but they are designed to support game play and that's what a well designed game delivers. 



> I’m not claiming some sort of superiority in all this - I’m just a gamer like everyone else here - but what gives?



It's good to ask questions if we are don't understand what's going on. To make it simple: Games are about pattern recognition. Our community has spent over a decade engaging with D&D that way through character creation as often as not. So that variety of game play is actually occurring online too.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Sep 5, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Old School means the rejection of "narrative" game elements and storytelling in games for RPGs that reward actual game play instead. I.e. the strategic thinking you're dismissing below. Old School is game play. New School is conflating group storytelling with gaming. There is no such thing as storytelling or stories in actual games (or even roleplaying).




No it doesn’t. I regard myself as an Old School player to a degree, and what to means to me is rejecting needless complexity or straightjacketing rules in games. I don’t reject ‘narrative’ elements - I reject rules that insist I play the game in a predetermined way. I like to provide the narrative play through my own experiences at the table, rather than what is prescribed. By extension, I also find game rules that get presented through increasingly dense rule-sets a turn off. That can be due to rules to simulate tactical play or excessive narrative mechanical devices. 

In short, I like D&D5 _and_ Fiasco but I’m not a fan of D&D4 or The Burning Wheel.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Sep 5, 2014)

Yora said:


> I see where the idea is coming from, but I just don't think it's really the case.



At least in regards to my play experience, you're very wrong.


----------



## neonagash (Sep 5, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Now this is not a bash. If you get a kick from the game in any way, for whatever reason, then good luck to you….but…
> 
> If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you.
> 
> ...




In part its a self fulfilling cycle. People who arent that interested in rules debates look and see a whole front page of rules debates. Rather then trying to swim upstream against a perceived board preference they just check a different board and look for active threads about the things they are interested in. 

And on the other hand a person interested in rules debates see a bunch of rules debates say "yippee" and dive right in.... adding to the rules debate overload.


----------



## Afrodyte (Sep 9, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Now this is not a bash. If you get a kick from the game in any way, for whatever reason, then good luck to you….but…
> 
> If you look down all discussions in the forum, the most common theme we get from most of them is deconstructing the mechanics behind various Classes to see which one is the most effective in combat situations, or what have you.
> 
> ...




In my experience, I think that a lot of it has to do with players who have experienced a more adversarial style of DMing and have learned to prioritize mechanics over narrative. So they get certain fixed notions about what D&D is and what it's for, and that colors how they approach every D&D game.

I started noticing it when I paid attention to what players who weren't deep into D&D brought to the table. What I find is that players new to D&D don't come with preconceived notions, and they tend to talk about their characters in terms of personality, motivations, and general capabilities.


----------



## Oryan77 (Sep 9, 2014)

Afrodyte said:


> In my experience, I think that a lot of it has to do with players who have experienced a more adversarial style of DMing and have learned to prioritize mechanics over narrative.



I had kind of a similar, but opposite thing happen to me. I was a DM, that had a boatload of adversarial players during the first half of the 3.5 era. I came from 2e and was used to being very loose with the rules. Then I get into 3.5e and started playing with new players and I was consistently bombarded by rules-lawyers and argumentative players. To the point where I knew that in order to keep a group together, I had to learn and run the 3.5 rules correctly to the point that I could be a rules lawyer myself. Unfortunately, that's exactly what I turned into and I hate it. I still run 3.5e, and these days I really try to be as loose with the rules as I can get away with. It's still extremely hard to do even with the great group that I have now. People just can't let go of the rules anymore these days. 

Just last session a player argued with me because the squares my NPC took during his withdraw still allowed for the PC to get an AoO when I didn't realize he did indeed get one. And after the debate about it (he was right), all I had to do is tell him that this NPC isn't stupid enough to risk getting hit like that and all he had to do is move over one square to take a slightly different path to avoid his AoO. It's just exhausting dealing with these sort of rules debates mid game and there really isn't any way around it unless you play a different game.

[/QUOTE]I started noticing it when I paid attention to what players who weren't deep into D&D brought to the table. What I find is that players new to D&D don't come with preconceived notions, and they tend to talk about their characters in terms of personality, motivations, and general capabilities.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly why I like to DM for new players. Whenever I hear or even read players talking about all the mechanical crap that their PCs could do and nothing about anything they did outside of combat, I cringe. It's the guys that talk about the things their PCs did that didn't have to do with mechanics that are the guys I prefer having in my games.


----------



## am181d (Sep 9, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Old School is game play. New School is conflating group storytelling with gaming. There is no such thing as storytelling or stories in actual games (or even roleplaying).




People have been using RPGs (including D&D) to tell stories as far back as the early 80s, and this play style has always been supported by the rules, printed GM and player advice, etc. I don't see much point in creating new definitions for words that don't match up to commonsense usage.


----------



## Grainger (Sep 16, 2014)

Yeah, as a BECMI (and sometime 2e) player, I'd say we went more with the story-telling/role-playing than with tactical side of things. Sure, there were plenty of power-gamers and hack-and-slash players back then (and by the way, both tended to be frowned upon by RPG magazines) but there was nothing like the level of tactical obsession that is around today. AD&D was criticised for being rule-bound even back then, and there was nothing like the dissection of the rules going on by players.

All the character optimisation talk may simply be a function of the Internet, or an result of the play style from 3.0 onwards, or a result of the type of players attracted to the modern game, or a combination of all three - I'm not sure. While it's true most of us didn't have the Internet back then in order to discuss such things, it's worth noting that today's BECMI forums are not full of character optimisation talk.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2014)

Grainger said:


> Yeah, as a BECMI (and sometime 2e) player, I'd say we went more with the story-telling/role-playing than with tactical side of things. Sure, there were plenty of power-gamers and hack-and-slash players back then (and by the way, both tended to be frowned upon by RPG magazines) but there was nothing like the level of tactical obsession that is around today. AD&D was criticised for being rule-bound even back then, and there was nothing like the dissection of the rules going on by players.
> 
> All the character optimisation talk may simply be a function of the Internet, or an result of the play style from 3.0 onwards, or a result of the type of players attracted to the modern game, or a combination of all three - I'm not sure. While it's true most of us didn't have the Internet back then in order to discuss such things, it's worth noting that today's BECMI forums are not full of character optimisation talk.




There is a pretty simple explanation for that.  It's virtually impossible to optimise an AD&D character.  You have virtually no choices to make after you've created the character - everything is pretty much dictated to you at level up.  I mean, what choices can you make after 1st level for any given character?  It's not like you have any mechanics supporting the ability to optimise characters.  

So, yeah, it does make sense that you'd get a lot more optimisation talk in a 3e forum than a BECMI one.


----------



## Grainger (Sep 19, 2014)

Hussar said:


> There is a pretty simple explanation for that.  It's virtually impossible to optimise an AD&D character.  You have virtually no choices to make after you've created the character - everything is pretty much dictated to you at level up.  I mean, what choices can you make after 1st level for any given character?  It's not like you have any mechanics supporting the ability to optimise characters.
> 
> So, yeah, it does make sense that you'd get a lot more optimisation talk in a 3e forum than a BECMI one.




Good point! I did see a player claim to have "amazingly" rolled 18/00 strength (the DM had asked us to roll up characters before the game); it was _very_ lucky (hmmmm), because his character build was a Fighter who throws darts. I forget the details, but he could throw several darts (I think he had a high DEX too) and do masses of damage per round at level 1. The party didn't need the rest of us in it: he mowed down everything we met.

So it did go on.

This wasn't my usual group, and it was an alien playing style to me; my network of friends had several groups in it, and except (possibly) for one player, everyone enjoyed playing characters and problem solving, rather than gaming the system.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Sep 19, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> I’m not claiming some sort of superiority in all this - I’m just a gamer like everyone else here - but what gives?



I'm going to chime in with those who have replied with 'The interweb gives.' For better or for worse*, any game or edition published by WotC is going to be dissected by countless fans, and then discussed on the forums. It happened with 3e, it happened with 4e, it's already happening with 5e, and I'm certain that it would've happened with the earlier editions, had easy net access existed at the time. It's just a fact of the interwebbed world.

Anecdotally though, most D&Ders I've played 3e and 4e with are no more interested in rules than they were during the 2e era. They don't peruse D&D message boards, they don't have strong opinions about old school vs. new school or narrative play vs. whatever-play or balance vs. immersion; heck, most don't even understand that barmy cant! Most D&Ders just want to play a game and have fun with their friends.

*Personally, I think that rules discussion is for the better. Even if I don't care about all of the details, discussion is a good thing!


----------



## Grainger (Sep 19, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I'm going to chime in with those who have replied with 'The interweb gives.' For better or for worse*, any game or edition published by WotC is going to be dissected by countless fans, and then discussed on the forums. It happened with 3e, it happened with 4e, it's already happening with 5e, and I'm certain that it would've happened with the earlier editions, had easy net access existed at the time. It's just a fact of the interwebbed world.
> 
> Anecdotally though, most D&Ders I've played 3e and 4e with are no more interested in rules than they were during the 2e era. They don't peruse D&D message boards, they don't have strong opinions about old school vs. new school or narrative play vs. whatever-play or balance vs. immersion; heck, most don't even understand that barmy cant! Most D&Ders just want to play a game and have fun with their friends.
> 
> *Personally, I think that rules discussion is for the better. Even if I don't care about all of the details, discussion is a good thing!




Yeah, you're probably right. I find your second paragraph heartening really. While it's great to discuss rules if you're into that sort of thing, it's nice to hear that lots of players just get on with enjoying the game.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 20, 2014)

Yora said:


> Being awesome as manipulation is not something that can be emulated the same way as being awesome at swordfighting.



What is your evidence for this? A fortnight ago I GMed a session of Burning Wheel. There was one combat and two episodes of haggling. The resolution (opposed dice pools with a few bells and whistles) was the same in each case.


----------

