"A lot" is relative to different things for different people. Any edition of D&D is frankly more zoomed in on fighting action -- the character classes and so on being primed for it -- than less specifically tailored rules sets such as BRP or GURPS. Going to another extreme, there are rules sets tailored to situations that generally don't involve fighting. Those are nowhere near as popular as the ones based on more or less violent action-adventure genres, but might be more what some people are after.

Sometimes it's a matter of picking the right tool for the job.

Quote from: Arduin;701210Sure it is. Freedom of choice proves it.    Ipso facto.

Err ... it isn't a "fact" just because you proclaim it to be.  You don't have "freedom of choice" if you have no idea that choices exist.

Quote from: Arduin;701210Sure it is. Freedom of choice proves it.    Ipso facto.

Welcome to my asshole, ignore list.

Quote from: Ravenswing;701228Err ... it isn't a "fact" just because you proclaim it to be.  You don't have "freedom of choice" if you have no idea that choices exist.

You misunderstand.  An axiom stands on its own.  It doesn't matter if it was stated by me or, by no one.

Quote from: Old Geezer;701248Welcome to my asshole, ignore list.

It IS an honor to be on your list.  Seriously.

Quote from: Arduin;701259You misunderstand.  An axiom stands on its own.  It doesn't matter if it was stated by me or, by no one.

What you stated was not an axiom , however. An axiom is a premise that is accepted as a starting point for reasoning. As your argument is not self evident, you cannot claim a status of axiom. What you have is a hypothesis.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700927I was scanning some threads over at TBP and started reading a thread written by someone who said that they feel "trapped" by combat when running D&D and was wondering about the implied social contract concerning D&D with regard to to the level of combat activity.

I thought is was an interesting topic worth bringing to a board more tolerant of open discussion.

To try and head off the inevitable edition war, high combat is a playstyle that a lot of players from all editions enjoy. Hack & slash has been around for a very long time so it isn't fair to characterize the playstyle as belonging to any particular edition or generation of gamers.

There are of course, differences regarding the rewards gained from combat that vary by edition. It is these differences and their effect on style preference that I would like to discuss.

Old style D&D feature random chargen and rewarded the winning of treasure most highly in the XP system.

Newer style D&D features custom character design and rewards winning encounters (not all of them combat) most highly in the XP system.

Of course one can change any or all of these assumptions to taste for personal preference. I am using out of the book values here.

Here is where the chicken/egg part comes in. Do players pick a game system that best rewards the kind of activities they enjoy or do they play a certain system then adapt their preferred activities to ones that the system rewards the most?

I suspect there will be a combination of preferences and some overlap but I'm curious to see how much.

I go for a mix I look for games that allow for characters balanced in any of the three pillars. It's why I prefer FC/DCC/GURPS/WW and dislike 4e. 4e is too focused on one pillar and limited to boot. Oh yeah, Palladium Fantasy still does Dnd 1/2e better in my opinion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700935Thus the problem of enjoying D&D yet not feeling pressured to include a lot of fighting in the campaign.

I understand this. If I play D&D, I expect some slaughter.

Quote from: Marleycat;701315Oh yeah, Palladium Fantasy still does Dnd 1/2e better in my opinion.

Original Palladium Fantasy is a truly great RPG. A GM with a firm hand can also make PF 2e work nicely too.

Quote from: Spinachcat;701324I understand this. If I play D&D, I expect some slaughter.




Original Palladium Fantasy is a truly great RPG. A GM with a firm hand can also make PF 2e work nicely too.

Like 1/2e no psionics in my baseline game it helps immensely. Wolfen were so well conceived, like UA Barbarians that can play well with others.

I expect serious combat in a Dnd style game but love if the system supports social games and some investigation stuff.

Quote from: TristramEvans;701264What you stated was not an axiom

Yes, it is.

Quote from: ExploderwizardHere is where the chicken/egg part comes in. Do players pick a game system that best rewards the kind of activities they enjoy or do they play a certain system then adapt their preferred activities to ones that the system rewards the most?

Mostly, one of us picks a book (or in the old days maybe a box) that looks cool, then becomes GM because he's the one who has the rules set. If there's enough fun in it, then the group will adopt house rules to amend whatever seems in need of amendment. If there's not enough fun in it, then it will gather dust and something else will come up for a try.

Quote from: Arduin;701474Yes, it is.

Well, insistence obviously makes it so.

I think the brand holders have generally fairly advertised what to expect from Dungeons & Dragons, but perhaps the original AD&D book covers were best.

Monster Manual: There's a unicorn in there, sure, but clearly more of the 300 or so critters therein are malevolent than benign.

Players Handbook: Bloody lizard-man corpses strewn about or being hauled off, men prying a huge gem from an idol's eye.

Dungeon Masters Guide: That efreeti clearly isn't inviting the humans to a friendly cup of coffee, nor do their prominently brandished weapons suggest that they are peace-loving pilgrims, either.

It's not likely anyone would seriously mistake this for a game centered on dynastic intrigues, match-making and rebellious romance, which is the other main strain of pseudo-medieval fantasy.

Quote from: TristramEvans;701483Well, insistence obviously makes it so.

No but, if you'd like, I can loan you a good English language dictionary to help ya out...

Quote from: Arduin;701485No but, if you'd like, I can loan you a good English language dictionary to help ya out...

You mean the one I quoted and you refuted with a "nuh uh"? Lol. I don't care if you want to misuse the term, but it doesn't make for a convincing argument. But then, if you had an argument you would have made it, so shine on you crazy diamond.