Quote from: Seanchai;373389It seems to me that loving combat is basically synonymous with loving detailed, tactical interactions, which is what 3e and 4e are about combat-wise. I'm not sure how combat is essentially different from other interactions when it's fast and highly abstracted.

Seanchai

I might love hamburgers, but not want to order a burger every fucking time I go to a restaurant. It doesn't have to be the only item on the menu. Consequently, loving combat doesn't mean it has to be extremely detailed and tactically emphasized either. It may be loved too when it is fast, furious, and taking place in your mind's eye rather than a game board with miniatures on a table.

I'm still sticking with my argument that if you vastly prefer exploration over combat, there are plenty of better fantasy RPGs out there than D&D.  

Combat is what D&D does best and is the centerpiece of every edition of the game.  Minimizing that is like editing The Sopranos for tv.  Sure, it was about more than violence, swearing, and nudity - but you kind of defeat the point minimizing that stuff.  If you want pure family drama, there were better shows at that.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;373182I don't know of anything paralleling 'Cleave' in older editions . . .

When I saw the Cleave feat, what I immediately thought of was the AD&D "mook rule," so I tend to associate the two.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;373182. . . and flanking appeared in 3.0 as an abstraction to replace facing.

Yup. Flanking is facing's weak sister.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;373182Attacks of opportunity existing in 1e though not expressly defined (free strike against a full-retreating foe) . . .

It's not explicitly called an "attack of opportunity," but the practical effect is the same in action.

Quote from: jgants;373393I'm still sticking with my argument that if you vastly prefer exploration over combat, there are plenty of better fantasy RPGs out there than D&D.  

Combat is what D&D does best and is the centerpiece of every edition of the game.  Minimizing that is like editing The Sopranos for tv.  Sure, it was about more than violence, swearing, and nudity - but you kind of defeat the point minimizing that stuff.  If you want pure family drama, there were better shows at that.

I don't agree. I think, if you want detailed tactical combat there are better games out there. D&D has always been mainly about exploration and discovery for me and the folks I've gamed with. Back in the day I bought Melee and Wizard for tactical combat, and ended up getting my tactical fix with Battletech and Dragonquest as well. D&D was for exploration and, once we got into BR, diplomacy and strategic conflicts. Until 3e combat was more abstract and quick than it was tactically detailed, at least compared to what I experienced as tactics-heavy games.

Quote from: jgants;373393I'm still sticking with my argument that if you vastly prefer exploration over combat, there are plenty of better fantasy RPGs out there than D&D.

Which game does dungeon exploration better than D&D?

Quote from: jgants;373393Combat is what D&D does best and is the centerpiece of every edition of the game. Minimizing that is like editing The Sopranos for tv. Sure, it was about more than violence, swearing, and nudity - but you kind of defeat the point minimizing that stuff. If you want pure family drama, there were better shows at that.

I completely disagree, but you obviously don't give much of a fuck about it. W/e.

Quote from: The Shaman;373394When I saw the Cleave feat, what I immediately thought of was the AD&D "mook rule," so I tend to associate the two.

I believe you are referring to 'Great Cleave', where you can continue the cleave attacks until you fail to drop an opponent.

As a point of information, D&D is about whatever  the fuck you want it to be about.

Quote from: StormBringer;373398I believe you are referring to 'Great Cleave', where you can continue the cleave attacks until you fail to drop an opponent.

Yeah, the "bag of rats" one.

Anytime I ran AD&D, I usually included a fair number of encounters with 0-level humans and <1HD humanoids 'cause it was just so much fun watching the players' eyes light up as their higher-level characters prepared to tee off . . .  :cool:

Quote from: Aos;373399As a point of information, D&D is about whatever  the fuck you want it to be about.

Stop being moderate, ass-face, and pick a side.

Kids these fucking days.

Well in my case D&D is about monkey rape and hot robot sex- both of which involve exploration and combat.

Quote from: Aos;373402Well in my case D&D is about monkey rape and hot robot sex- both of which involve exploration and combat.

LOL I actually see how you come to this twisted, non-partisan conclusion, Ye Olde Monkey.
Though... you forgot the bongs, again.

I assure you, I never forget the bong.

Quote from: RandallS;373367Quoting Gygax: "The game is one of adventure, though, and combats of protected nature (several hours minimum of six or more player characters are considered involved against one or more opponents each) are undesirable, as the majority of participants are most definitely not miniature battle game enthusiasts."

Excellent quotes.

That's exactly what WotC did -- took what Gygax made for people who are not miniatures battle game enthusiasts and made it into a miniatures battle game.

Bunch of morons.

4e. What a joke.

I feel the shit is going to hit the fan in ... 3... 2... 1...

Glad to see I'm not the only one who though jgants' last posts read like dispatches from Bizarro-world.