Quote from: Exploderwizard;700927To try and head off the inevitable edition war, high combat is a playstyle that a lot of players from all editions enjoy.

To plunge straight into the inevitable edition war...

One of the reasons I don't like 4E is that combat takes way too much time. The mechanics of the game give you a choice between "totally irrelevant mook-killing with zero risk" and "massive commitment of time and focus" with little or nothing inbetween.

It's the only system where I've ever felt seriously constrained scenario design. And I had an entire group of players independently describe their experience (with D&D 4E Gamma World) as the combat encounters taking them "hostage" as players.

So when I'm playing 4E: Yes, I feel "trapped by combat". I've played sessions of 4E which didn't feature any combat, but the combat was still this giant pool of quicksand that was always lurking somewhere nearby threatening to break out and consume the entire session.

It's late so forgive the possible misreading, but it appears that Arduin is saying that...

D&D itself does NOT trap you into a combat heavy game.

That's not to say that you can't be trapped, either by your table's method of playing or your own inexperience with the game, but that the game itself is not forcing a "combat majority" experience.

I'd consider that pretty self-evident for most versions of D&D, if not most RPGs that exist.

Well its advertised as a game about adventuring. That tends to involve a little talking, and alot of beating things over the head to get them to stop being so ornery.

Often you get a sort of balance.

But there will allways be swings left or right, combat or negotiation for individual groups that like one or hate the other.

Most fantasy literature is combat oriented. Often with alot of negotiating at the start and sometimes with a fair amount of travel in the middle. Conan, John Carter, and on up all have that, sometimes swinging one way or the other.

Edition is in the end irrelevant as you can do what you please. Yes it will nudge to combat themes, well duh! It is a fantasy setting. You did not buy Harlequin Romance RPG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;701576It's late so forgive the possible misreading, but it appears that Arduin is saying that...

D&D itself does NOT trap you into a combat heavy game.

That's not to say that you can't be trapped, either by your table's method of playing or your own inexperience with the game, but that the game itself is not forcing a "combat majority" experience.

I'd consider that pretty self-evident for most versions of D&D, if not most RPGs that exist.

I don't think it's refutable no one's forced to play that way, but a valid point was made that if the game singularly encourages it & players are unaware of any other style of play, the freedom of choice is made irrelevant by not knowing the choice exists. Obviously this applies to new potential players and not ones deep into the hobbie's abyssal maw.

Not that I have any problem with a combat orientated game.

If only the DM has the books and the DM is the players only refference for the most part to the game. Then it could be very easy for a situation to arise where they never know there is any other style of playing. Especially since some of the role-playing advice was in the DMG in earlier editions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;701492You mean the one I quoted

No, I mean the actual definition.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;701573One of the reasons I don't like 4E is that combat takes way too much time. The mechanics of the game give you a choice between "totally irrelevant mook-killing with zero risk" and "massive commitment of time and focus" with little or nothing inbetween.

That's because it was designed to be a table top game that emulates a video game feel.   Also why they lost the top spot in RPG sales to Paizo...

Quote from: Arduin;701628No, I mean the actual definition.

Which TristamEvans provided.  QED.  You can continue to post if you like - it's a free forum - but you've lost the argument by forfeit.

I don't think many players make a conscious decision.

When we started playing at school we were all 11 I started off a group some other kid in another class did by the ned of the year there was maybe 1/2 a dozen groups.
In 2nd year I started an offical RPG club and we had 4 -6 groups but by the end of that year we were down to maybe 2.
I think the group of 8 or 9 I was with and there was cross over with the other just ended up with a default blend that didn't shift much in 30 years.

I started a group out here in singapore. 4 players showed up none of them played RPGs before though a few had minor experience of 4e. first game i ran for them was investigation based but by sesssin 3 i coudl see they wantred some combat so i added some.
then we started a campaign and we are playign Strontium Dog and mostly they role play but there is probably 1 combat per session but they prefer to plan it if they can and as they have a precog it gives them and edge

So i don't think many players have a favoured content and I am pretty certain a GM can run any sort of game with any sort of system though it might not be entirely 'right' . Most players just join a game and then they play that game regardless of the nuance. Its the GM that decides if he wants long complex combats quick brutal combats or long drawnout combats of attrition that peter on like marriages most plyers jusr shrug and get on with it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;701582I don't think it's refutable no one's forced to play that way, but a valid point was made that if the game singularly encourages it & players are unaware of any other style of play, the freedom of choice is made irrelevant by not knowing the choice exists. Obviously this applies to new potential players and not ones deep into the hobbie's abyssal maw.

Not that I have any problem with a combat orientated game.

Quote from: Omega;701596If only the DM has the books and the DM is the players only refference for the most part to the game. Then it could be very easy for a situation to arise where they never know there is any other style of playing. Especially since some of the role-playing advice was in the DMG in earlier editions.

True, but I guess I'm not seeing how this concept applies to D&D more than any other RPG. With the exception of maybe Traveller, most games are going to have a higher rules density around combat then say for example social skills.

Quote from: CRKrueger;701662True, but I guess I'm not seeing how this concept applies to D&D more than any other RPG. With the exception of maybe Traveller, most games are going to have a higher rules density around combat then say for example social skills.

Yeah, with traveller, combat is almost an afterthought, like "you get shot, you die or nearly so"; T5 even introduces "Personals", which are social combat rules in dealing with people. Though Traveller is very light on the "mook" factor, npc's are usually as dangerous as pc's. Though I have noticed that over time, certain "-isms" have crept in from other games, such as making combat less deadly or trying to avoid having tables for everything, such as combat.

Quote from: CRKrueger;701662True, but I guess I'm not seeing how this concept applies to D&D more than any other RPG. With the exception of maybe Traveller, most games are going to have a higher rules density around combat then say for example social skills.

Im not saying it only applies to D&D. I think it could apply to any RPG where one person has the rules and are the only conduit through which the players learn to play.

GM playstyle can have a major impact on players perceptions of a game. That has been known for a long time now. Players can also impact the GM of course the other way round.

But when one person has the rules and are the conduit for learning. Then players can end up with a narrower view.

And sometimes the whole group just starts off with a certain mindset and as far as they are concerned that is the only way.
In board gaming here is an example. Supremacy has a reputation as a friendship destroyer. The game can be played as a dry by the rules global economic wargame. But the game really encourages players wheeling and dealing, diplomacy, deals and treachery like few others. And that mad diplomatic game is all some players will ever see the game as.

Same applies to RPGs. Only more so due to the wild variance in styles.

I really don't understand most of your arguments as you seem to be talking across each other.

CRKrueger got the gist of Arduin's comment. I thought it was apparent myself. And, as per usual, we must comb through 3rd definitions:

Merriam Webster

Quoteax·i·om noun \ˈak-sē-əm\
: a rule or principal that many people accept as true
 
Full Definition of AXIOM

1:  a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2:  a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference :  postulate 1
3:  an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
 
Examples of AXIOM

one of the key axioms of the theory of evolution
Origin of AXIOM

Latin axioma, from Greek axiōma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive — more at agent
First Known Use: 15th century

Other Logic Terms

a posteriori, connotation, corollary, inference, mutually exclusive, paradox, postulate, syllogism

axiom noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)
In mathematics or logic, an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful (e.g., "Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect"). The term is often used interchangeably with postulate, though the latter term is sometimes reserved for mathematical applications (such as the postulates of Euclidean geometry). It should be contrasted with a theorem, which requires a rigorous proof.

Further, given that AD&D DMGs explicitly said repeatedly the game should be altered to your campaign -- and went out of the way to give various examples on how to do so, including dealing with EXP, and especially in AD&d 2e -- the argument for lack of awareness of options can only be left to willful illiteracy and ignorance. Hell, even combat-tastic 4e gave variable experience advice, including skill challenges etc. I repeat: nothing about D&D mandates it to be a combat slog, and there is explicit advice to handle it as it makes sense to your campaign. It is self-evident that you are not supposed to run "all combat, all the time."

Sure, if you never read the books on such relevant topics you can end up with such a misconception. But that's user operator error. That's like complaining about prescription medicine on the whole being inconvenient enemas, but refusing to read or listen to the prescribed applications. Critical reading and thinking is important; seriously think of what sort of specious argument everyone is defending here.

There's just no argument here. Due to the explicit nature of recommendations on this (alter the game to suit your campaign) peppered throughout the texts, and throughout the editions, there is no validly arguable other side. The only exception requires to play without reading the text and run things according community groupthink -- a de facto application over a de jure application. One would have to be willfully oblivious to the core books themselves to suffer this.

Now given the problem with applied CR, et al., this is unsurprising. The same groupthink appears on how CoC has to be a TPK ASAP. Lesson: read the damn book for yourself; your friends and online geniuses probably didn't read it thoroughly in the first place. Can't tell you how many times we've all likely encountered this with CCGs and boardgames (remember Monopoly?), why should RPGs be excepted? But it's the fault of the groupthink to give such "imprisoning" impressions.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700927... I was wondering about the implied social contract concerning D&D with regard to to the level of combat activity...

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?

Going back to the topic...

IME, people tend to game the most familiar system first, then worry about it accommodating their desired premise. Most people in person are just not that familiar with more than a mere handful of RPGs. And of those they tend to prefer the one they are most familiar with because they can make sense of, or manipulate it, best.

So the former part just doesn't make much of a presence in my circles. It would require a lot of (oh fuck me, this will sound pretentious) "RPG literacy" to make a decision based on which RPG will primarily accommodate a certain play style. In the end the table groupthink tends to gravitate to lowest common denominator; though open to new games for a brief spin, the old classics hold thrall.

As for playing a system with something preferred in mind and then gravitate towards the system's "reward condition," common enough around organized play. Outside organized play it depends on how strong the GM is in controlling his or her table. If you play a familiar classic, have a specific premise, but overlook altering (or informing of) the game's rewards to the campaign's needs... well, don't be surprised by players giving up on the specific premise.

That's just bad GMing in my opinion. You offered the players one thing, but really it was the same thing all along. I see it happen, but it derives most commonly from a fear to dishearten players from joining. So they run their game along the familiar groupthink, get discouraged that everyone ignored their special premise, and the game collapses soon after.

The moment a GM relinquishes control of their game to groupthink expectations and whining, the game is dead IMHO&E. The time for shared discussions about campaign expectations is before play. And the resulting expectations should have representation in the resulting resolution of play. People hate a cheap bait and switch.

The reasoning is simple...a postulate cannot be used in an axiom. This really science 101. The postulate in this case being Free Will a presumed state with so many caveats needed to conform the concept to this instance that its an invisible rainbow being used here as the foundation for a house.

That explained, its also me engaging in pedanticism, albeit regarding the misuse of a term that'sjust obscure enough that my inner linguist sees no reasons to see it tainted into the junior high thesaurus equivilant of "QED". But I'll cease to grammar police now.