TheRPGSite

I 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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700927Here 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 would guess both of these things happen for most gamers at varying degrees, probably depending on personality types, group(s) culture(s) and dynamics, past gaming experiences, play styles favored over time, and so on. All these things interact with one another and affect both the choice of games, their practice, and how the processes described in the product in turn affect behaviors around the game table(s). Beyond, these will in turn affect what each particular participants' future game choices will be, how these games will then affect behaviors at their own future game tables, and on, and on.

I guess if we could talk to all the gamers there are in this world, we could theoretically go up and up the food chain back to the seminal groups that spawned this hobby, only to discover that the games these groups spawned were themselves influenced by a variety of factors, as exemplified with the way games like Chainmail and then D&D came to be, the Diplomacy variants, the wargames, Braunstein, fantasy literature in the 60s and earlier, etc etc. That's getting into Playing at the World territory, then (and beyond, of course).

'Trapped by Combat'

Any clarification of what that means?

Quote from: Bill;700932'Trapped by Combat'

Any clarification of what that means?

Yes. In the TBP thread the OP said that he/she felt "trapped" into running a lot of combat in the campaign specifically because the game system in use was D&D based, and that the implied social contract of D&D means a good deal of combat.

Thus the problem of enjoying D&D yet not feeling pressured to include a lot of fighting in the campaign.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700935Yes. In the TBP thread the OP said that he/she felt "trapped" into running a lot of combat in the campaign specifically because the game system in use was D&D based, and that the implied social contract of D&D means a good deal of combat.

Thus the problem of enjoying D&D yet not feeling pressured to include a lot of fighting in the campaign.

That just seems strange to me. I have never felt that way as a player or  a gm.

Quote from: Bill;700939That just seems strange to me. I have never felt that way as a player or  a gm.

Yup. Thats why I thought it was interesting. :)

I've played with a number of GMs who apologize if a session somehow goes without combat. I generally looked at evenings without violence (where everyone is nonetheless entertained) as speaking to the health/success of the group... that we are all engaging with the roleplaying and setting and non-combat activities to a significant degree. I'm sure there are folks who see it differently though.

As a GM I don't feel a need to shove in an arbitrary Chandler moment if no fights are happening through the PC's actions. There's generally always a fight to be had if they really want one. So I'm not inclined to apologize if the evening goes without bloodshed.
If players were insisting I needed to focus more on providing violent set-pieces in the game I might just step aside, since that's not my style... but I've never felt 'trapped' or that a particular set of rules forced combat on me.

I'd say the system isnt so much a factor as the players expectations and wants.

You can take the most bloodthirsty game around and turn it social. Werewolf being a good example. And you can take a very social focused game and go on a killing spree. Wraith or Lace & Steel might fit that.

The majority of RPGs tend to be the middle ground. You can do as you please easily. But some people see combat rules and just think they MUST run combat all the time. Or think that is all there is to the game.

Also the players background will be a factor. Are they a fan of the Conan books or more aptly the Conan movies? Wall to wall combat and low on the social. Or are they more versed in other novels that focus on the courtly intrigues. etc. This will set up certain interests and ideas on what to do in a RPG. Same for swashbuckling and romance.

It isnt helped that some players really just lack a broad imagination and cant see past some preconcieved notion of what a game may be and then cant be talked out of or shown it can be anything else.

I've bumped into players who wouldnt play Werewolf for example because they were dead set that it was all about sex because that what they believed Vampire was all about.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700927Here 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.

What are your favorite kinds of movie? And of those kinds which one do you see with your friends and why?

Very similar type of question. Basically it boils down what is your taste and how much of that is shared with your friends. Along with what your tolerance to doing something that you prefer as second or third best?

Specifically in the case of roleplaying games I feel a lot of the confusion can be avoided. By having the group focus on playing the character AS IF THEY ARE REALLY THERE. Pretend that during the session that you have been whisked to the referee's setting and act accordingly. If you want to adopt a different personality go for it but it works even for people who in essence roleplay themselves.

Don't consider mechanics or stats at all. Adopt the mindset and viewpoint as if you are there as the character. Then do what natural. The referee needs to adopt the same viewpoint for his NPCs. When it comes to actions, describe what you are doing and the referee should come up with a ruling. If the rules cover it then use the rule, if they don't then the referee needs to come up with some roll if the outcome is uncertain.

When you do this the mechanical differences between different ruleset fade away. Sure the rules still have an impact particularly for the fantastic elements like magic where the rules define the "physics".

In the end the problem isn't that RPG can't handle a arbitrary situation the problem is how much does the player or referee has to do to handle said situation.

Specifically for classic D&D the rules overtly support awarding XP for killing monster, acquiring gold, and acquiring magic items in some editions. So if the players successfully helps the village win water rights from a rival town without killing anybody there is no explicit advice other than some non-specific suggestions for awarding non-combat XP.

You could just do what Traveller does and make the reward totally in-game. But most groups would want XP in this case.

So there is additional work involved if the referee want to award XP to the player for gaining the water rights without killing, gold, or magic items.

So how much work is it to create a arbitrary XP award? With classic D&D I feel it not very difficult.

You could just give an X amount based on a whim.

You could do something like I do and award 100 xp times their level as a bonus for achieve a difficult goal.

You could say that the result is something worth a tangible value equal to x gp even tho it is not physically gold and give the xp that way.

And so on. I feel the choices are straightforward enough that even a total novice would not find it that hard.

From a practical standpoint there is little to get in the way of a D&D campaign to focus on things other than combat.

I find it strange, because I know I've had tons of D&D games where not a single combat encounter was had--because the players were more interested in talking to various game personalities.

I think that may just be his players, not the game..

Some players literally only play to 'kill stuff'.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700927Here 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 think a lot depends on the game system the Player started with, and also is modified by the experience of that same Player with other games. I started with D&D, then moved to Traveller when I found it. However, my combats in D&D since playing Traveller a lot have improved dramatically by allowing me to apply the lessons learned from a high lethality combat system to D&D.

When you first start gaming, you do not know any better and thus you adapt your preferences to the game in front of you. It is only after you have gained experience as a gamer that you can then start to choose games which support your particular preferences.

I think it's a combination of lots of things.

Our expectations of what RPGs 'are' is shaped by our experiences with them.

At the same time, people that don't enjoy their early experiences with RPGs will stop playing them.

So if a particular player doesn't mind combat, playing in high-combat RPGs will reinforce the idea that "RPG = combat", but the player will keep playing.  Conversely, a player not as interested in combat will just stop playing if their first experiences are with high-combat RPGs.

As always, it comes down to the individual player and group.  You can play pretty much any given game as high- or low-combat as you want.  I've done zero-combat games of 4e where the players had a blast.

I let my players know that I don't use experience points, and characters level whenever they've made some notable achievements (as determined by me, but I've been swayed by the group saying "We should totally level after that").  As such, it's entirely up to the group how combat heavy things are.  I had a high level D&D group solve most of it's problems by getting the enemies to fight each other.

I've heard Vampire LARPers complain about the "gun bunnies" who just show up for combat.  "So, this is like 'Blade,' right?"

Ultimately, I think that preference for a certain genre leads people towards specific systems (to the detriment of universal systems).  How combat is resolved becomes a consideration after the person has had some experience with RPGs.

Quote from: Silverlion;700952I find it strange, because I know I've had tons of D&D games where not a single combat encounter was had--because the players were more interested in talking to various game personalities.

Same here. My average D&D/D&D-like session over the last 30+ years probably is one-quarter combat (by playing-time). However, this includes sessions that were 80%-90% combat -- some dungeon complexes, battles during wars, etc.) and lots of sessions that little or no combat. The last session of my Microlite80 game had "combat" but is was a pair of "to the first blood" duels to settle a bet. Maybe 10 minutes of "combat" in the 4 hour session.

Sometimes I spend entire nights in social interactions.

Sometimes I spend entire nights hitting things.

Quote from: Old Geezer;701048Sometimes I spend entire nights in social interactions.

Sometimes I spend entire nights hitting things.

Me too.

Other nights, I play RPGs.

Dang, no "Like" button!

Someone from TBP is weak-willed and incapable of making his own decisions?  I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;700935Yes. In the TBP thread the OP said that he/she felt "trapped" into running a lot of combat in the campaign specifically because the game system in use was D&D based, and that the implied social contract of D&D means a good deal of combat.

That's a "load" of you know what if I ever heard it.  Ya play however you & your group wants to.

er... What is TBP by the way?

The Big Purple.

Ahhh... Why does anyone sane even remotely take anything said seriously over there anymore?

Yeah sure the crazy stuff can spark interesting ideas. I get that from BGG too.
But... eh...

I think I'm more violent than my players. I'll put on some speed metal and get ready to run a combat and it turns out they've puzzled out a pretty darn good diplomatic solution.

Quote from: Omega;701145Ahhh... Why does anyone sane even remotely take anything said seriously over there anymore?

Nobody does.

Quote from: Arduin;701068That's a "load" of you know what if I ever heard it.  Ya play however you & your group wants to.

It's not a "load" of anything.  We all know full well that a lot of gaming groups are very insular.  How My Group Plays The Game is considered the only way possible, and the paradigms into which they lock themselves are so rigid that they're often positively bewildered at the suggestion that it could be any other way.

It's not very much of stretch to go from there to:

(a) The gaming group I joined is all about the combat; and
(b) We play nothing but D&D; so, therefore
(c) D&D is all about the combat.

Yeah, sure, of course the group can play however it wants.  But they just don't get that any other way exists.

I ran and played 4e for three years prior to going back to school. I found I didn't have the time to run a satisfying 4e game anymore and so I switched to RC. I've progressively got less and less rules. Now I play something that looks like Carcosa, if the source material was Conrad and Hughes instead of Cthulhu-esque authors.

I think this experience is pretty typical, so I'd lean toward chicken rather than egg.

I hadn't seen that thread on rpg.net but I entirely sympathise with the guy who posted it. I really dislike combat heavy games - many is the time I've sat and twiddled my thumbs for hours because I've come up with a 'merchant' or 'scholar' type PC and then discovered that some/several/most of the other players are combat monsters who scour the campaign world looking for things to get into fights with.

Before anyone says 'get another group', while I am fortunate to now be in several groups who are happy with different playstyles, for many years there were no options; play with the guys you get or don't play at all.

Several posters have already pointed that the roots of D&D heavily tie advancement into killing things for XP. From browsing here for a couple of years, many of you seem very capable of running interesting, exciting games of D&D (in various incarnations) without bowing to the need to have endless fights.

Bear in mind though that the current 800lb gorilla is Pathfinder (and D&D must still have a bigger share than any other RPG if you combine editions) so it is the most likely game for new starts, or people where the entry level is low (they want to just be able to pick up something and play). Paizo's business model is heavily based around adventure paths, and they put a lot of time into their organised play setting. If you've ever read them ,they are incredibly combat heavy - virtually every 'challenge' revolves itself in a fight. Is it any wonder that this becomes the expectation for players? Even when people have the time and inclination to write their own material, or move to other game systems, I'd reckon a fair proportion of them take some time to get out of that mindset (if they ever manage it at all).

Quote from: Derabar;701186Several posters have already pointed that the roots of D&D heavily tie advancement into killing things for XP. From browsing here for a couple of years, many of you seem very capable of running interesting, exciting games of D&D (in various incarnations) without bowing to the need to have endless fights.

Actually the roots of D&D reward getting loot by whatever means possible for the most XP. In the early stages of the game combat was more likely to get you killed than make you rich.

If you run early D&D, or even take a later version and change the reward dynamic, you can get a game in which doing things other than killing are worthwhile objectives to play as far as "winning" goes.

Quote from: Ravenswing;701180It's not a "load" of anything.

Sure it is. Freedom of choice proves it.    Ipso facto.

"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.

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.

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.

I'm not singling out D&D. There are games that put an emphasis on non-violent resolution or non militant situations, but these are comparatively rare (DrWho is the only one that immediately springs to mind). But I also don't see a problem with imaginary violence in the first place, and won't say it can't be a fun part of gaming and just as worthwhile a motivation for roleplaying as someone wanting to roleplay High Tea with Queen Victoria using the Wuthering Heights RPG.

I also tend to think most gamers go through a progression of "zen moments" (to quote the now infamous Old School Primer), and that these classically proceed along the following lines...

Play Dungeoncrawls ("zoos" as they were called in the 80s, a simple maze like construct housing random monsters and treasures w/o rhyme or reason.

>start thinking about how all those monsters got there and learn to create in-game rationales for both the residents of the dungeon and the explorers thereof

>remove the controlled environment of the dungeon and start exploring the open-ended environment (wilderness, a city, etc)

>removing the restrictions of the specific environment and start gaming in worlds as sandboxes. Sometimes sandboxes within sandboxes with meta-settings such as the Planes.

While these seem less than zen as such, each is accompanied by a lesser degree of reliance on a ruleset and a greater reliance on a DMs capacity for invention and improvisation.

Essentially whether the games were initially completely focused on or revolved around combat, that couldn't last as roleplaying becomes more and more tied to the idea of a "living setting".

Note that the aforementioned progression is in isolation of outside elements such as experienced GMs, adventure modules, published settings, or even online indoctrination. As such one would rarely these days find any individual gamer that exactly follows this like an algorithm, and there is always those who find one step along the way hits the sweet spot for them and are not interested in traveling further. I do not assign any implication of evolution nor superiority to one step or another, this is just the most commonly observed benchmarks I've observed with most older players eventually adopting sandbox as their preferred form of play (until nostalgia hits and they decide to give one of the earlier setups a try again, and sometimes find they prefer one of those. It's rare to see this come about without first trying sandbox to some extent, or for a player to stay still from the beginning to end of thier involvement with the hobby,assuming it outlasts high school.

I've also not addressed the divergent paths into narrative gaming because, well, this isn't storygames.com and I don't care about that as much other than to note the inversive differences.

TL;DR: who cares whatever sense Arduin might have made upthread, it was drowned out by him being an asshat.

I guess the baser answer is there is no answer that fits.
Theres too much variance from group to group. Too many ways to approach things, too many ways things can get entrenched. Way way too many players who near willfully ignore any other evidence that there ever was other ways to play.

If someone comes in with a closed mind then they are likely to see exactly what they want to see.

If someone has never had any other example to base off of then they might have a hard time viewing any other alternative.

And some people just read some hype positive or more likely negative and just set their minds in stone thereafter.

"I dont like D&D because it forces me to play combat all the time" isnt a problem with the game, its a problem with the player and possibly the group. This has been pointed out from several different angles. Yes, there are combat rules, and its an adventure game and the darn modules tend to be combat oriented. But there are usually plenty of options too to interact, or add interaction. Its not an all or nothing deal unless a group makes it so.

Pretty much.

Look: I don't like D&D.  But it really can be about whatever its players want it to be about.  Changing the XP system from rewarding "only" what you don't like to something suiting your preferences would take an experienced GM all of 90 seconds.

The gold=EXP system helped a little there as characters could do non-com stuff for say rewards and still garner exp.

I thought for sure there was a section in the DMG mentioning awarding EXP for good role playing. But Im not seeing it now on a glance through.

Quote from: Ravenswing;701851TL;DR: who cares whatever sense Arduin might have made upthread, it was drowned out by him being an asshat.

QFT!

The asshat noise ratio is part of the charm of this place. For me it just looks like he blended in with gusto, and under 50 posts at that. Bravo?
:idunno:
Hopefully whatever hatchet you all have, may it be buried soon enough. We're likely running out of ice cream, bourbon, and hugs.

That said I want to hear other subjective experiences from ExploderWizard's topic:

Do players select RPGs according to systems with mechanics that favor their desired play scope?

And do players who have a differing play scope end up gravitating towards the de facto assumed rewards of a particular system?

(Play scope is a condensing of "the scope of one's play," in reference to the table's focused range of play within a campaign. This can differ from play style, as that is a player/PC attitude and can be carried throughout different ranges of a setting's societies and locales.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;701893That said I want to hear other subjective experiences from ExploderWizard's topic:

Do players select RPGs according to systems with mechanics that favor their desired play scope?

And do players who have a differing play scope end up gravitating towards the de facto assumed rewards of a particular system?

(Play scope is a condensing of "the scope of one's play," in reference to the table's focused range of play within a campaign. This can differ from play style, as that is a player/PC attitude and can be carried throughout different ranges of a setting's societies and locales.)

Unfortunately depends on the player.

Marketing way back by TSR showed that the damn box art could be a big factor in deciding sales moreso than the system! Or at least work as a strong attractor enough to get someone to pick up the box, and hopefully flip it over and like what they saw.

Indicators are that a portion pf players buy RPGs sight unseen just because the setting blurb appeals. Others research and try to figure out if a system appeals. Unfortunately information tends to be so conflicting it can regress to buying sight unseen.

D&D boxed I got because I wanted a D&D game and it was on the shelves in the department store.
Gamma World I got because A: The box art caught my attention and B: the setting info on the back grabbed me instantly.
Star Frontiers I got from reading previews in Dragon. Otherwise I'd have grabbed it because the setting appealed.
Marvel Superheroes I got because again of the back blurbs.
Spelljammer I got again because of the setting.
Dark Sun I got out of curiosity. I was fairly sure it wouldnt appeal. But you never know till you try. Same for Planescape. That at least went over alot better.
Tunnels & Trolls I got because I'd heard of it for decades and finally ran into the BF folk at Gen con and I said I'd buy a copy when I had the cash (Found them at the trailing end of the con) and so I did.
Dragon Storm I got because Susan was at the booth explaining the basics and it looked like alot of fun.
Universe I got because it was so unlike anything I'd seen before for rules structure at a glance through. Totally impenetrable at a glance. I had to have it... aheh...

All of those and others I got without knowing a thing of the mechanics. Or because I was fairly sure it was based on a mechanic I allready knew. The exception being Dragon Storm which I bought knowing a bit of the mechanics. Enough to perk interest.

I know nothing of Travellers original mechanics and I STILL want a copy even now. Just havent had cash and opportunity co-incide.

For me the setting had to fit my play scope. Deadlands, Vampire, GURPS, Paranoia, BESM, PAlladium, and others I passed on because some element didnt appeal. One or two games I havent bought because I dont like the company or the designer.

Mm.  I think a lot of people fall into playing this game or that because of circumstance or happenstance, not so much a matter of deliberate, thoughtful shopping around.

By around 1980 my homebrew was in full swing, and it was -- in retrospect -- this ramshackle, baroque construct.  Nonetheless, I was a very popular GM in our gaming circles, and two players asked permission to run my system.  One was still running it pretty much from force of habit as late as 1988, when I got *back* from him a copy of my homebrew's magic system, which I had long since lost.

But I'd long since moved on.  In 1983, I was about to start my campaign back up after a hiatus of nearly a year.  By that time, I'd started writing for Gamelords, which had just got a license to develop Fantasy Trip adventures.  The president of the company suggested that I reboot to TFT, to give me more scope for writing TFT adventures.  I'd long liked the system, finding it clean and easy, and that was the incentive I needed to use it.  (Repeating history, FOUR players in our gaming circle started to GM TFT campaigns, following my lead, and two did so well into the 90s at least.)

A couple years down the road, the aforementioned president got a courtesy copy of the GURPS playtest from Steve Jackson at a convention, and decided to fork it over to me.  I was still playing TFT (Metagaming having folded didn't bother me any), but GURPS looked to correct some of the problems I'd had with TFT, and I was tickled to get in on the ground floor of a new system.  (And yeah, several GMs in our circle promptly started running GURPS, including two of the folks I'd converted to running TFT.)

A whole lot of happenstance and follow-the-leader.

Quote from: Omega;702143I know nothing of Travellers original mechanics and I STILL want a copy even now. Just havent had cash and opportunity co-incide.

Today is your lucky day: http://www.rpgnow.com/product/80190/CT-ST-Starter-Traveller

Well, everyday really. ;)

Favorite publisher can factor in too.

You got game A. And liked it. So you are willing to give game B a try even if it is a totally new system.

Especially if the publisher has done fairly consistently good or at least ok work so far.

Quote from: Omega;702143... Marketing way back by TSR showed that the damn box art could be a big factor in deciding sales moreso than the system!...

Indicators are that a portion pf players buy RPGs sight unseen just because the setting blurb appeals. Others research and try to figure out if a system appeals...

All of those and others I got without knowing a thing of the mechanics. Or because I was fairly sure it was based on a mechanic I allready knew...

For me the setting had to fit my play scope...

Quote from: Ravenswing;702148Mm.  I think a lot of people fall into playing this game or that because of circumstance or happenstance, not so much a matter of deliberate, thoughtful shopping around...

(edit: interesting anecdote about communal homebrews and publisher betas making the rounds from word of mouth and exposure)

A whole lot of happenstance and follow-the-leader.

These responses to the first part sound similar to what I experienced. Granted I think Exploder's phrasing might assume a shelf of already purchased and read materials, instead of shopping around either literally or communally, but the results read the same. GM and players don't seem to be as deliberate and conscientious selectors of RPGs for the table.

I guess a lot of this new school "select the right tool for the task" attitude finds little purchase among RPG actual play.

Which brings us to the second part.

When play scope expectations conflicted with game system reward structures (be they real or assumed), did the players alter their behavior towards the system's structures, or did the GM/table alter the system towards the play's expectations?

Its the same with board games and PC games. Players tend to buy it sight unseen. Possibly with a review or two to sway them. But usually its some aspect of the theme or setting that draws them.

GURPs is a good example of draw and touting itself as a "do anything RPG".
That is going to attract anyone who likes to tinker but who do not want to, or simply do not have the mind to create a game from the ground up.

Albedo is an example of IP attraction on top of the other factors as it attracts readers of the comics, hard SF fans, anthropomorphic fans, sociopolitical intrigue fans and military action fans all rolled into one.

AD&D appeals to world builders, fantasy players, roll playing, role playing, hack-n-slash, courtly intrigue, high fantasy, low fantasy, horror, comedy, drama, and so much more. And WOTC really should tout more the world building and other aspects rather than trying to foolishly market brand players into a corner. Tout it as a do anything system and then sell settings for those who prefer someone else do the workhorse part..

And so on.

Now-a-days you do not see RPG boxed sets in retail stores. You may though find them in book stores. Players are a-lot less likely now to buy a game sight unseen and I think now tend to research more or go with a known company unless an unknown has a theme they really gravitate too.