The problem with the "Master Thespian DM" is that  it becomes a bit one-sided with the thespian regaling the players with his fanciful and vivid prose, and the players are then put on the spot to either react back or simply adopt this sort of passive "regale me, o master thespian" mode. In any case, no matter how good you are of a regaler of tales.. that doesn't mean you aren't going to confuse the player with the fireball spell. You see miniatures as a crutch? I think they might just be a tool you have never picked up yet.

And wait- are we playing a game or are we performing a game?

I'm no stranger to the stage- I have been in everything from one act plays to Sheakespearean comedy (Nick Bottom in two production of Midsummer Nights Dream, oh ho..), to musicals. If you google my name you can see that I wrote the score for a play that was reviewed (favorably) in the Washington Post. But I really don't care about thespianship in a game. We aren't talking about rules here, we are talking about a technique.

The truth is, we have no idea how good any of us are as a DM.. we aren't playing with each other (unless.. I dunno, come to GenCon, I DM a lot..this year you might get a chance) Also RPGPundit already covered this with his post "of course I'm the best DM.. I'm the RPGPundit.."

Braggadacio aside, the "one hit per level" rule (I always called it the Giant Class rule..) is totally the minion rule of AD&D- a single hit dice could easily be (and often was) 1 or 2 or 3 hit points.  The real question was "how many of these monsters can you even reach.." It certainly wasn't uncommon for a mid level fighter to slay 4 or 5 or 6 goblins or ruffians or whatever.. in a round. And a higher level fighter? Might kill 8. or 12.

I do think this is the origin of 3e feats like cleave, by the way.

Well I would say I am an average GM (though good at combat and tactics), an average actor and pretty crap at prose.

However I would say that in a fight with one of my NPCs or monsters you would experience the following

i) A palbable feeling that you could die hopefully inducing sweaty palms and a tendancy to panic

ii) A feeling that each of those opponents is a real and 3 dimentional thing not just a token on a game board

iii) A knowledge that you had best bring your best game to this fight because the bad guys were going to do exactly that.

As for describing a room. Less is definitely more. so

"You see ahead a large oval cavern about 60 feet long and 30 feet wide. The space is lit by a phosporescent fungus clinging to the damp walls, and from what you can see the floor is littered with scraps of armour and weapons and the occassional bone. As you peer into the shadowy heights of the chamber you hear a sound like stone scraping on stone from somewhere up above. What are you doing? "

That is all you get. Before the gargoyles swoop down to attack.

Look at this combat from my Current Amber game. http://www.jibbajibba.com/cgi-bin/moin.py/TraitorRake (combat starts about 1/2 way through). This was the first combat for the PCs involved and I also had to describe how I intended to run the system. This is a play by wiki but I don't think about any of this stuff I just ad lib it so a face to face game is the same.

Quote from: jibbajibba;373299i) A palbable feeling that you could die hopefully inducing sweaty palms and a tendancy to panic

ii) A feeling that each of those opponents is a real and 3 dimentional thing not just a token on a game board

iii) A knowledge that you had best bring your best game to this fight because the bad guys were going to do exactly that.

Excellent. I can do that with miniatures sitting on the table, myself.
Note I'm not saying it's objectively "better", or "harder" to do. It's just different, and definitely achievable.

Quote from: Peregrin;373192Correct me if I'm wrong, but in most situations, didn't a lot of people, even if they were using miniatures, basically just arrange them in marching order, and swap spots with a comrade if necessary?

At least 99% of the time, that's all they have ever been used for in my games. I like very fast, abstract combat in RPGs. I've seen GMs take longer to set up the dungeon tiles and get the correct figures for the opponents out and in place than it would take one of my groups to fight out the entire combat.

Detailed combat with minis/counters simply takes too long for they type of RPG I want to play. Combat is incidental in my campaigns, not the main focus (or even a major focus). I don't want something that isn't a major focus of the game to take up too much of our limited game time.

Quote from: RandallS;373313At least 99% of the time, that's all they have ever been used for in my games. I like very fast, abstract combat in RPGs. I've seen GMs take longer to set up the dungeon tiles and get the correct figures for the opponents out and in place than it would take one of my groups to fight out the entire combat.

Detailed combat with minis/counters simply takes too long for they type of RPG I want to play. Combat is incidental in my campaigns, not the main focus (or even a major focus). I don't want something that isn't a major focus of the game to take up too much of our limited game time.

Here's the thing, though - we're talking about D&D and in D&D, combat is indeed a major focus of the game (and always has been).  There are other things to do, certainly, but combat is a large part of them.

Frankly, I really don't understand your position.  D&D was invented as an action-adventure game about accumulating wealth and XP by killing monsters (and has remained so in every edition).  Taking away combat from it is like saying you prefer to play poker but not bet anything, or play 3 on 3 basketball but without keeping score.  It's completely missing the point of the game.

There are many good role-playing games out there for less combat-intensive fantasy games (Runequest or BRP would be my picks).  I can't fathom why someone would choose to play a game that is (and has always been) primarily good for combat and not much else over other games that are much better for a more RP-heavy less combat-heavy approach.  :confused:

Quote from: jgants;373348Frankly, I really don't understand your position.  D&D was invented as an action-adventure game about accumulating wealth and XP by killing monsters (and has remained so in every edition).  Taking away combat from it is like saying you prefer to play poker but not bet anything, or play 3 on 3 basketball but without keeping score.  It's completely missing the point of the game.

That's where you're getting it wrong, and where your confusion comes from. D&D is a game of exploration (of a dungeon, wilderness, whatever) at its roots. Whether you are conflating this concept with the notion of combat, and the degree to which you do, is entirely up to personal preferences and expectations.

Some dungeon exploration will focus on problem solving, mystery, and atmosphere rather than tactical combat. Besides, Randall never said he would take out combat from his D&D experience altogether. He just said it wasn't a primary focus of his games, and was incidental in nature, not the actual point of game play.

There is a nuance there that visibly escaped your scrutiny.

Quote from: jgants;373348Here's the thing, though - we're talking about D&D and in D&D, combat is indeed a major focus of the game (and always has been).  There are other things to do, certainly, but combat is a large part of them.

Quote from: Benoist;373353That's where you're getting it wrong, and where your confusion comes from. D&D is a game of exploration (of a dungeon, wilderness, whatever) at its roots. Whether you are conflating this concept with the notion of combat, and the degree to which you do, is entirely up to personal preferences and expectations.

Exactly so.  I think it can be reasonably said that combat is a major focus of the rules, not necessarily the game.  Which is to be expected; combat is quite complicated, and reducing all the physics and physiology to a couple of die roles will abstract a certain amount of it away.  Whether or not that part is missed is up to the reader to decide.  Almost all games focus an arguably disproportionate percentage of rules on combat.

That said, my colleague from Normandy is correct.  The bulk of the rules are really designed around a theme of adventure and exploration. I know we have done a rundown elsewhere, but looking over first level Magic User spells (and this generally holds even at higher levels), they are perhaps a third or less combat spells.  The rest are what are usually called 'utility' spells, or spells that have a split focus between combat and utility, often leaning more towards utility than combat.  At least as far as the rules are concerned, there is a clear bias towards exploration over combat.

And there are more subtle hints as well.  Wandering monsters are nearly worthless in terms of treasure gained for the resources expended to do so.  The treasure tables assigned to wandering monsters are positively stingy as compared to monsters that would have a more stable location.  Level draining and save or die effects make combat a dicey proposition, no matter what level you have achieved.  Guidelines for establishing and developing a small piece of land de-emphasize mano-a-mano combat at advanced levels.  There are all kinds of hints and nuances to demonstrate that the core of the game really isn't 'kill them and take their stuff'.

Quote from: Benoist;373353That's where you're getting it wrong, and where your confusion comes from. D&D is a game of exploration (of a dungeon, wilderness, whatever) at its roots.

I know this is what a certain group of people are saying now, but I think this is a much more recent assertion. Exploration has certainly always been part of D&D, but it's also always been a game of action (yes, including a major focus on battle).

And that's as it should be, because battle is exciting and interesting and cool. D&D would never have taken off if it hadn't been for this.

Quote from: StormBringer;373361That said, my colleague from Normandy is correct.  The bulk of the rules are really designed around a theme of adventure and exploration. I know we have done a rundown elsewhere, but looking over first level Magic User spells (and this generally holds even at higher levels), they are perhaps a third or less combat spells.  The rest are what are usually called 'utility' spells, or spells that have a split focus between combat and utility, often leaning more towards utility than combat.  At least as far as the rules are concerned, there is a clear bias towards exploration over combat.

And there are more subtle hints as well.  Wandering monsters are nearly worthless in terms of treasure gained for the resources expended to do so.  The treasure tables assigned to wandering monsters are positively stingy as compared to monsters that would have a more stable location.  Level draining and save or die effects make combat a dicey proposition, no matter what level you have achieved.  Guidelines for establishing and developing a small piece of land de-emphasize mano-a-mano combat at advanced levels.  There are all kinds of hints and nuances to demonstrate that the core of the game really isn't 'kill them and take their stuff'.

In terms of "taking their stuff", there is also more reward for avoiding combat. Magic items have a high value in both gold and XP when acquired for AD&D and AD&D2. The trick being to think of a way to gain possession of those magic items without unduly risking your character.

Quote from: jeff37923;373364In terms of "taking their stuff", there is also more reward for avoiding combat. Magic items have a high value in both gold and XP when acquired for AD&D and AD&D2. The trick being to think of a way to gain possession of those magic items without unduly risking your character.

Exactly. I should have specified magic items and such are a major factor to the low ROI on 'wandering around killing things'.

Quote from: jgants;373348Frankly, I really don't understand your position.  D&D was invented as an action-adventure game about accumulating wealth and XP by killing monsters (and has remained so in every edition).  Taking away combat from it is like saying you prefer to play poker but not bet anything, or play 3 on 3 basketball but without keeping score.  It's completely missing the point of the game.

I didn't say anything about taking away combat. I said I prefer very fast, abstract combat to the detailed, time-consuming combats of WOTC editions. Why? Fast, abstract combat allows groups that love combat to have many combats in a single session while allowing groups who don't to have a few combats while still leaving lots of time for other activities.  My players have no interest in spending 40 to 90 minutes on every combat that does come up. 10 minute combats are fun. Over 20 minutes and my players get bored. (Time includes setup.)

However, what is early really D&D about?  In the words of the designer of AD&D:

QuoteThere can be no question as to the central theme of the game. It is the creation and development of the game persona, the fantastic player character who is to interact with his of her environment -- hopefully to develop into a commanding figure in the milieu. -- E. Gary Gygax, "The Melee in D&D" Dragon #24, April 1979

Yes, combat is a part of how this happens, but the game wasn't a game for detailed combat/miniatures players as Gygax goes on to say:

QuoteWhat must be simulated in melee combat are the thrusts and blows (smashing and cutting) of weapons wielded as well as natural body weaponry of monsters — teeth, claws, and so forth. Individual combat of this sort can be made exceptionally detailed by inclusion of such factors as armor, weapon(s), reflex speed, agility, position of weapon (left or right hand or both), training, strength, height, weight, tactics chosen (attack, defend, or in a combination), location of successful blows, and results of injury to specific areas. If, in fact, D&D were a game of simulation of hand-to-hand combat utilizing miniature figurines, such detail would be highly desirable. 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.

The emphasis on "not" in the last sentence was in the original, BTW. Gygax goes on to explain why the simple, abstract system used in D&D/AD&D was selected over more realistic/complex options:

QuoteClose simulation of actual hand-to-hand combat and inclusion of immediate result strokes have overall disadvantages from the standpoint of the game as a whole. Obviously, much of the excitement and action is not found in melee, and even excitement and action is not found in melee, and even shortening the process by adding in death strokes and the like causes undue emphasis on such combat. ..... The D&D combat systems are not all that "unrealistic" either, as will be discussed hereafter. The systems are designed to provide
relative speed of resolution without either bogging the referee in a morass of paperwork or giving high probability of death to participants' personae. Certainly, the longer and more involved the melee procedure, the more work and boredom from the Dungeon Master.

and, in summary

QuoteI am firmly convinced that this system is superior to all others so far conceived and published. It reflects actual combat reasonably, for weaponry, armor (protection and speed and magical factors), skill level, and allows for a limited amount of choice as to attacking or defending. It does not require participants to keep track of more than a minimal amount of information, it is quite fast, and it does not place undue burden upon the Dungeon Master. It allows those involved in combat to opt to retire if they are taking too much damage -- although this does not necessarily guarantee that they will succeed or that the opponents will not strike a telling blow prior to such retreat. Means of dealing fatal damage at a single stroke or melee routine are kept to a minimum commensurate with the excitement level of the system. Poison, weapons which deliver a fatal blow, etc. are rare or obvious. Thus, participants know that a giant snake or scorpion can fell with a single strike with poison, a dragon or a 12 headed hydra or a cloud giant deliver considerable amounts of damage when they succeed in striking, and they also are aware that it is quite unlikely that an opponent will have a sword of sharpness, a vorpal blade, or some similar deadly weapon. Melee, then, albeit a common enough occurrence, is a calculated risk which participants can usually determine before engaging in as to their likelihood of success; and even if the hazards are found to be too severe, they can often retract their characters to fight again another day.

As I'm not a "miniatures enthusiast," I'm just not interested in combat as detailed and time-consuming as it is in 3.x and 4e (unless one does some heavy rules-rewriting). Combat happens in my campaigns, but it isn't the most important or even the most exciting part of the average session. I've been running campaigns using D&D rules since 1975 and all the editions up to about 2000 handled my style of play just as easily as they handled the combat-fest style of play, so perhaps I can be excused for continuing to play using a game system that handled by style of play just fine -- at least until WOTC got a hold of it.

QuoteThere can be no question as to the central theme of the game. It is the creation and development of the game persona, the fantastic player character who is to interact with his of her environment -- hopefully to develop into a commanding figure in the milieu. -- E. Gary Gygax, "The Melee in D&D" Dragon #24, April 1979

Nod. My point was about that part I bolded: the interaction of the game persona with the milieu which is clearly emphasized as exploration (as in the contents of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, vol. 3 of the boxed set) in the original game. An exploration which can unfold in any number of ways, including but not limited to problem solving, combat, character interactions and so on, so forth.

Quote from: jeff37923;373364In terms of "taking their stuff", there is also more reward for avoiding combat. Magic items have a high value in both gold and XP when acquired for AD&D and AD&D2. The trick being to think of a way to gain possession of those magic items without unduly risking your character.

That's an excellent point. Not to mention, survival of the game persona itself is a strong incentive to sometimes avoid combat altogether.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;373363Exploration has certainly always been part of D&D, but it's also always been a game of action (yes, including a major focus on battle).

I'm with the "it's both" crowd. The game started with dungeoncrawls, which are exploring and killing. Then it moved on to wilderness sandbox type stuff, which is exploring and killing. There are narrative elements to the game or the two modes I mentioned, but I don't think those were ever more prominent, in general, than the other two. And the narrative mode can have elements of exploration and killing, too - mysteries to be solved are a good example.

Seanchai

Quote from: RandallS;373367Fast, abstract combat allows groups that love combat to have many combats in a single session while allowing groups who don't to have a few combats while still leaving lots of time for other activities.  

It 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