When I was a kid with the basic sets, character progression was the most important thing to me outside of the game. When we were actually playing, exploration, imagination, teamwork were what I liked. Later on combat, tactical stuff became what I had the most fun with.
For me, it is the choices characters make that make a session memorable. The more risks they take in RP, exploring or combat the more memorable that sessions becomes.
In my experience the austistic-leaning kids loved the combat and the min-maxing, while the ADHD-leaning kids (such as myself) preferred the exploration and character progression. Different brain types gravitate to different elements, I guess.
Growing up with B/X, combat was fast and deadly. My players learned very quickly to enter combat only with overwhelming superiority, or to avoid it altogether. Faced with a dangerous foe, without preparation, fleeing was always option 1. The goal was gold, magic items, and levels, not owlbear skins.
Ya, Because Conan and other pulp fantasy heroes were always about fleeing and feeling cautious and overwhelmed constantly. Having read the original REH stories and even owning several Weird Tales magazines (that I acquired in my adult years for a good fee Conan)was injured in SOME stories, but in the original REH stories he wasn't just beat down and scared the whole adventure the way many " heroes" in OSR TTRPG games have to be to survive. Likewise, other pulp fantasy heroes like Fafhrd and Grey Mouser in their first adventure together "ILL Met In Lankhmar" literally run through and slay most of Lankhmar's Thieves Guild together, swords flashing before heading out of town due to grief. Most Pulp fantasy Sword and Sorcery heroes were larger than life and cool. This is why when people say OSR captures the feel of the pulps I think the statement is an equivocation. OSR world building and settings often have the feel of the Pulps but I think more modern game designs such as 5E (and others) capture the actual larger than life/heroic nature of the heroes (PCs) better. Was it Mike Mearls that talked about his original D&D game and how all the first level PCs faced cockatrices and got turned to stone? This does not sound like fun or pulp heroes. It sounds like random people shooting off into the world and only a few surviving. It has more in common with sperm than pulp heroes from what I see but to each their own. I don't like the cultural entitlement and over sensitivity, etc of many modern (5E gamers), but the heroic feel I like much better than the sheer fuckery that existed in prior editions (such as undead just draining multiple levels with a touch and no save or nothing) and that we put up with because we didn't know any better and had limited options back in the day. As a DM I always altered the way undead worked. Even when playing Ravenloft (the original not 5E) I figured I could scare my players by setting the tone, mood, and using scary descriptions versus some rule fuckery that didn't really scare so much as annoy the hell out of folks.
@@RPGPundit Yes and he survived and did heroic/daring feats without being turned to stone, level drained, and beat down the entire time unlike players in many OSR games.
But RPGs are not literature. You end up getting a "Conan" when you get a PC to survive long enough. That's how it works. The novels obviously won't show a dozen previous attempts to steal the gem from the snake temple that ended in quick death for would-be heroes.
A concise and well articulated argument. A valuable topic about which to post a video and sorely needed. It is all the more interesting especially because it is the informed fans of D&D who know about Chainmail and its place in D&Ds history. Possibly your finest 17 minutes.
Well thank you. If you want me to make more videos like this, as opposed to ones where I argue with the Woke or complain about WotC, please Spread the word and SHARE the video. These videos almost never get as many views as those other kinds I mentioned.
I appreciate your prompt response. As much as I love to hear other sane voices speak out against the prevailing madness, I'm beginning to think more videos like this that analyzes the mechanics of a game will better serve the new (and young) players as well as the older grognards who were exposed to the game at a young age and really only glanced over combat tables and spell lists and ignored so many mechanics. It is frustrating to hear people say that THACO is "complicated" or this or that is "broken" when the exact opposite is true. THACO is the OPPOSITE of complicated. You and a few other content creators are inspiring me to start my own channel. As I am an honorary luddite, I have been procrastinating with starting a channel. A member since 1979....@@RPGPundit
Just the other day I was telling a friend that in my 40 years of RPGs I have had many incredible memorable experiences - to rival some of the best experiences that can be had outside of RPGs - and NONE of them involved combat.
Combat was so important Gygax didn't even put it into the ODD, he shuffled that off to Chainmail. Only later did TSR decide it had a place in the actual game.
I've said this for years - D&D has always been a game about resource management. The most critical resource at the moment could be just 'time,' but often it is hit points, spells, etc. Combat is part of that, but so are traps, puzzles, etc. "What can you accomplish with what you have available?"
Most people want their "gaming" to be on par with a well written/balanced action movie. Which means quality character and/or conflict build up (through story), and direct conflict (combat). With some cursory romance establishment during (most of the hobby does this part poorly). That is probably the most broadly appealing storytelling formula. ...and before some mung files it to say "you're not telling a story to players, omg railroading!" or " hurr hurr you're a story-gamer " -- no. A good game can be looked back upon afterwards as being a good "story".
Not in the least, @@Lepidoptera666. The best game I ever played in had a plot to it. Look at what is generally thought to be one of the best modules ever put out by TSR: The Village of Homlet. It's a story. The players are certainly not obligated to follow along with that story and can run off to do something else if they want to but there is a definite story there. Just because the DM creates a plot doesn't make it a railroad. The DM has to change things in response to what the players decide to do. The DM has to change events in ways that make sense in the context of the world, "Oh, well, you decided that you didn't want to take on the local bandits raiding the merchant caravans near your home base city? Well... Things are going to get more expensive for starters. The local nobility might like you a little bit less since they directly asked for your help and even offered you a reward (like not having to pay any taxes on your 'recovered' property from the job) for doing it..." Hell, you can just roll for that kind of thing: "According to my monthly event roll a group of bandits is going to move into the area. According to the random rolls they're going to way too tough for the players to take on. Well... The duke is going to ask for their help anyway. If they're too stupid to scout the place first they'll be rolling up new characters. Live and learn, I guess. Or, in this case, die (or get taken prisoner and sold) and learn. Either way it'll be interesting." What the players do should matter in the world. Anything else is Monty Hall/Hack-n-Slash. If that's your thing... Well... You do you and have fun at it. Most people find that accomplishment only comes from overcoming difficulties though.
@@Lepidoptera666, I have no idea who Schooner or Shonner is. But you did seem to be disagreeing with Insertnamehere. Maybe there was a joke I just wasn't getting?
You're not wrong, but I would phrase this a bit differently. Combat is a flavor enhancement for the rest of the campaign akin to salt. When you add salt to a dish, you generally don't want it to taste salty so much as to make the other flavors pop.
Final Boss battles are still memories from 40 years ago, combat WAS a major part of the game. The struggle against the BBEG is the main feature though.
I agree that combat feeling important is what really engages players, not the combat nitty gritty. At least, that's not what players seem to remember later. Mostly, in agreement with what @driakos commented, they seem to mostly remember their character's progression. I have a dumb question, if I may: If I have a question for you about your Dark Albion setting, what is the best way to ask you? (I purchased Cults of Chaos and it has my imagination churning nicely - nice work!)
In one game with brand new people playing a TTRPG for the first time, it was a game set in the sengoku jidai of feudal Japan. Very low magic, so mostly historic with some folklore creatures being real but very rare. The session that the players remember the most fondly and even years after that game ended was them getting lost in the mountains and having to chase a goat for food or risk dying of starvation. So, I agree. The players will remember the beats of the story they forged through their own actions and decisions way more than how many pluses they had before killing Goblin #78, in my experience.
I think your videos really shine when you are a mentor or educator. I think the ouroboros of woke RPGs has finally consumed enough of itself to stop drawing attention to itself. Your videos where you actually provide the alternative are top notch. Most people don't have your broad knowledge of history, myth, or actual old school gaming. If they are they're not making videos.
Thank you. But it's still a fact that videos where I'm talking about the latest woke nonsense or wotc screwup get more views. So, if you want to encourage me to make more stuff like this: spread the word, share the video!
@@RPGPunditWell WOTC might end flailing around like a grasshopper with a missing leg, but no doubt there'll be plenty more nonsense coming off their presses. They've already hit the point that they're past parody. (Autistic paladin creating deck of many things) I'll just have to get my fix of professor pundit from your live streams.
No I didn't. Games that have mechanics like "social combat" are abstracted and inferior, compared to a game like D&D where you are expected to actually roleplay.
I'm an old man, but while combat was always a part of the game, getting rich and avoiding combat was always better. Combat got people killed. People got killed in lots of ways, but running in and fighting everything was just a great way to get people killed. Even if you win the fight, you lose precious resources, which can get you killed, either by the inherent dangers of the environment or the next fight that you might not be able to avoid. But I'm talking about the old man, "Let's explore the old tomb or dungeon" type of game. Now you just take a "long rest" and you're ready to kill again.
@@RPGPundit, as @CatWithAHat2HD pointed out in another comment: The new editions of D&D are just video games that you run manually. In my opinion, because that makes it easier for the Woke of the Coast to sell them to video-game junkies who probably haven't ever read a book voluntarily.
The thing is that combat & leveling your character usually is "felt" as more empowering because it usually goes more as the game rules & dices go, so feels more logic than other aspects of the game that in some games are just DM mental diarrea as it goes... It's the work of the DM to make its players feel real imaginary world, that the rest of it out of combat and their char sheet also moves with rules, being it when interacting with npcs, handling treasure, traveling, or experiencing weather. I'm not saying just playing rules in front of them, instead that they can know how your world works, like what you need for being knighted, or how to be a guild master, or which weather is going to be for next travel and how to handle it, or were to hide their ship if they are pirates, etc, etc.
I made this mistake as a kid. Excessive combat seemed like the only thing to do from my 8-year-old perspective, poring over the Monster Manual and later playing the extreme combat-heavy Pool of Radiance. As I grew up, I grew tired of D&D combat, gave up on the hobby and didn't start learning about real roleplaying till I started watching Ander Wood in 2010.
People who claim D&D was just a wargame, confuse me. I mean what was Chainmail then? Kill, Steal, and Diplomacy. Also treasure includes payouts from NPC's, so convincing an NPC to give you more loot is part and parcel of progression. However, to be fair, combat has always been the one of the main draw's of the game.
Well it depends. First off, you can always use an existing setting that's set up for sandbox play. Sword & Caravan for instance (particularly with the guildelines in the Wilderlands supplement for how to sandbox through the campaign). Yes, you still have to read and know the setting well enough, but even that can be done gradually with a focus on the region you're in. But even if you make a sandbox from scratch, the tough part isn't so much preparing the setting (that's just figuring out what things/people are where and what they do), but making sure you have the right tools to generate events/developments/encounters.
@@RPGPundit, I think Sword and Caravan is an absolutely excellent setting... For a really good DM who knows how to create things off-the-cuff and how to fill in the details because they've running games for 20 years. The rest of us are going to need modules 'cause we're not that good. That was one of my problems with the old AD&D modules. They were really great starting points. But they weren't anything like complete. Maybe put out some modules for Lion & Dragon/Sword & Caravan? Maybe have a contest and the best one (as determined by you) gets put into the next Pundit Presents? I think that would be really cool and I'm quite certain that people would make things just for the bragging rights.
There already is a module for Sword & Caravan, it's Pundit Files 2: The Dead City. But I would say that the whole point of the huge numbers of generators I put into sword & caravan is so you don't have to be a 20-year GM. You just have to use the random tables when appropriate.
Yeah, those generators are really excellent,@@RPGPundit. I _really_ like the generators in Social Encounters, too. Anyway... It's just a suggestion for getting more material out there that you don't have to write yourself. (Of course... You'd have to review the submissions. Which might be more time consuming, I suppose. And you might want to make changes even the best one which would mean contacting the author. And then there's publishing rights. OK, this is kinda sounding like it's more trouble than it's worth. As you may have guessed I know nothing at all about publishing.)
I fundamentally disagree but I can see how this might be intuitive to theater of the mind players. It seems like any point made here can be made against RP also. "You never remember the actual RP, its the moments with friends that is important" and so on. There is certainly a lot of RP that is generic uninteresting slop the same way many combats are. And it seems like any memorable RP moment could be reduced to something more basic like being present to an important event and not the roleplay itself. It seems to me the best games have a solid mix of combat and RP, roughly 50/50 depending on the tastes of the players. Going too far in either direction falls off pretty fast. While I will always remember games with good stories I will also always play games with good gameplay.
"There is certainly a lot of RP that is generic uninteresting slop..." Yes. That would be the difference between a really good DM and a DM who shouldn't really be a DM. The DM has to be the kind of person who can tell you a story off the top of their head and have it make sense and be interesting. Not so many people are really good at that. I got lucky when I was a kid and my DM was really good at it. I don't really remember much of the combat but I remember the crazy things we did and the things that happened like the time we burned down a tavern because they wouldn't let my centaur character in... and the whole village caught on fire. Oops... (And it took some negotiation before he and I came up with stats for that character that were acceptable to both of us.)
I think it's fair to say that there is two distinct activities (or sets of activities) that people call role playing at this point. One is what you describe, the other is the "videogamified" stuff provided by systems like Pathfinder for instance - where combat clearly *is* expected to be *the* feature. The popularity of video games as such makes the definition of "role playing" quite wishy washy - slogans like "our game features RPG elements" are commonplace in the marketing for that medium, and most of the time all it means is systems for leveling up. So people think that's what RPGs are: games wherein the player unlocks more "available moves" as they play the game, rather than just learning the game as they play, thus perceiving more valid moves that were always there to begin with. Video games are very rigid by nature: there is only a small amount of possible options the developers can reasonably offer the player in a given scenario. So what makes even the "real" computer RPGs interesting is mechanical variety and the quality of the writing provided for the options that are indeed supported. And that's exactly the direction mainstream TTRPGs went for in recent years. (Or perhaps tried to go for...) I'm pretty positive this is self evident stuff, but my point is that the ppl who enjoy these games are not actually that interested in what we would call RPGs - at least not intrinsically. What they like is in fact closer to a skirmish wargame with heavy narrative elements that contextualize the tactics game. Immersion is not their ambition at all. They are playing a puzzle game stylized to look like fantasy combat. I think the main issue at hand is that the two camps call their game of choice an "RPG" despite the games not being that similar past an onlooker's 1st glance. . PS: If you answer with "Spread the word, share the video!" Imma cross the Atlantic just to whack you.
GREAT comment! I don't think it's all that self-evident at all. I think it's what the corporations are pushing because it's mindless and easy and it's really easy to sell more 'power-ups' for that kind of garbage, "Oh! Look! New powers for my cleric!!!" It's why they don't want the DM/GM to actually _create_ anything or _control_ anything. If your DM creates and excellent adventure they can't sell you anything. (Which is why I never bought anything from 2E: "Why would I want to buy all the books all over again when the ones I've got now work great?") I bought Paranoia, Gamma World, and a couple of other things but in the many decades since I got my 1e AD&D books the only other things I've bought were RPG Pundit's stuff. They're really good stuff. Yes... The generic reply is... Not good... But it's a long drive down there.
Well, this is a product largely of the theory behind the creation of 3e, of "rewarding system mastery". It turns the game into a contest of making the best builds and combos, which actually tends to increase to an increasingly horrible game experience. Especially since they also applied that to roleplay elements: if you want to change someone's mind with an impassioned speech you don't have to roleplay it, or even just read it, or even describe it. You just have to say "i make a speech" and have a +25 modified Diplomacy bonus. But aside from 3e and Pathfinder this is not really common.
Is that when they started the point-buy system for stats, @@RPGPundit? I still kinda wonder if it was influenced by early video games or if it was other games using a point-buy system. I _HATE_ the whole, "ub3r-l337 build," thing. It turns the game into an exercise in math and rules-lawyering.
Yeah, this is probably why I drifted away from D&D to Pathfinder 1e and then to Swords and Wizardry. Getting ExP for finding the treasure is much more rewarding. As an aside, I recently purchased your Gonzo companion and am very satisfied with the quality. I will likely purchase your Old School medieval companions next.
Thank you very much, I really appreciate that! The Old School Companion 1 is similar to the Gonzo Fantasy companion except about more medieval type stuff, including medieval magic etc. The Companion 2 is a set of adventures. World of the Last sun is the setting of my epic 11-year long (and counting) campaign.
When a game offers no character skills outside of combat, magic, and thievery, the whole of the game is going to be about combat, magic, and thievery. If one of the hallmarks of the OSR is precisely that there are no (or extrememy limited) skills available to player characters, it will limit their roleplaying by design.
No, that's not true. What it means, on the contrary, is that if a game does not force "social mechanics" on the players, the players will be free to actually just roleplay.
@@RPGPunditWho said anything about regulating social interaction? What about skills.to conn a ship, ride a horse, or even drive a car? Certainly the wheelman in a heist needs a driving skill to get away from the cops. Ot a skill to program a computer, or fix a robot. But tjere is none of that in the OSR.
I tend to prefer to leave that kind of nonsense to Venger. Do you want me telling you to go do meticulous research about a setting and read classic mythology, or do you want me to write an epic new space opera setting inspired by bronze age mythology as a campaign for Star Adventurer?
@@RPGPundit I'd buy a larger volume of the Pundit Files I with brief examples of implementation. Also, some concise written thoughts like this is contained in this video.
Well, some of the Pundit Files issues are peripherally connected to world-building. Issue 1 is about creating world-shaking events. Issue 4 will be about quickly creating NPCs with personalities.
As a DM, I’m pretty good with deploying combat encounters. While my role playing encounters are ok, they could be better. What’s the best product that I could use make my role playing encounters more fun?
@@RPGPundit the quick answer is, they aren’t fun enough. My players seem to view them as something to get through to get to the next combat. And I admit, they are often vanilla. The longer one is, my rp encounters lack interactivity and engagement to get my players immersed in the game. I’m not saying my DM game sucks. I just want it to be better
Here is but one of my quandaries. On one hand there’s Mike Mearls dice based role playing challenges. On the other end of the spectrum theater of the mind, divorced from character stats. Is there a best way?
In my opinion, it is always better to mostly Role-Play it. In OSR play, it's reaction rolls that can be used to gauge how a PC's charisma (and other factors) could influence an NPC. I did a whole book about that: Social Encounters. You may want to check that out.
I can't say my experience has been the same as you although I appreciate the perspective. Pure combat encounters have provided me a good number of memorable experiences that rival non-combat experiences. Some were even just random encounters where memorable campaign changing events and choices came purely from random dice rolls and snap decisions that never would have manifested without it being a fight. I will say the ratio of unmemorable to memorable combats is pretty skewed towards unmemorable though. Grind filler combats are the majority I have experienced and it's like smashing action figures together so you can get to the next room. Not anything anyone is going to remember. Encounters that come organically (even random encounters) will naturally flow into creating memorable combats and are a lot easier than having to "prepare" encounters for the party to face that are artificial. Having a clear goal for the opponents other than just "kill" all the time, having the environment matter (scatter terrain is great), and things as simple as the enemy not being mute and saying and doing things other than attack during the fight contribute a lot. A lot of encounters fail in all of those aspects and just end up being punching bag competitions in flat, empty rooms. That's when it becomes the "combat" part of the game that's off to the side and not the same game as the social and exploration parts. Also, there's nothing I've seen more than gets party comradery going than fighting together.
These are the best videos you do, @@RPGPundit: The videos about how the things in the mechanics of the game actually work and what the consequences of those mechanics really are. I loved your video on critical hits. I kinda new it but I had never really thought about the consequences of different mechanics for critical hits. You really brought it into focus. This video is the same kind of thing. Your comment about combat only being important if it is important to the future choices of the players (and I'm not saying that right) really resonated for me. If the only consequences of the combat is more loot to sell it's just a hack-and-slash game that you could get from Diablo or any of a million other video games.
7:34 - Those are great dungeons... Also coming soon in digital format, via the high seas, to a Chinese sharing platform near you! You can tell Mr. Morgan not to blame me-- _somebody beat me to it._ 🏴☠
Pundit, any plan to make a L&D 2.0 or revised version of L&D? If so, I have some feedback that I'd like to share with you, from running the game for a bit. Also Dark Albion.
Not exactly, but Baptism of Fire's rules will be L&D "Revised/Expanded Edition". It will include a lot of the rules from the Old School Companion 1, and change a few things (perhaps most notably the Cleric).
And this is the key reason 4e failed. Not the only thing but I think the key one. 4e demonstrated how combat only is not engaging and 4e did combat near perfection. But it’s not enough to carry an rpg.
Yes, because 4e was created by people inspired by the theories of the Forge, which despised D&D. Crazy how listening to the people who hate your game is a bad idea!
My impression of everything old school has been that battle is largely a fail-state. My D&D experience began in 1996, so I'm a bit confused that some of the old hat guys see otherwise. GMing more modern renditions, I have seen battle simulator creep in, and it can be fun, but its still not the zeitgeist of the game.
🤔 Combat is the central feature. The system is built around it, thus the main feature. XP for gold just showed it was wiser to avoid combat when you can. That did not mean the intemt of the game was only combat, just it was designed around a combat system. Unless you are looking at that Jane Austin game, then all are based around a combat system. Combat is the thing that MUST be defined in game terms, because very little else requires impartiality for "fairness".
No, original D&D was based on a resource management system. Encumbrance, food rations, gold pieces, equipment, illumination, avoiding traps, fighting (or avoiding fights). All of those were part of the dungeoneering experience.
@@RPGPunditODND was also a supplement made for Chainmail. Until 1977 with Holmes Basic and 1e ADND Monster Manual, DND was not really a game, but an incomplete idea. Still, 1e changed as the MM was made for Holmes, and Holmes had 1e injected into it, but 1e changed even that making Holmes obsolete in 1978 with the PHB. In the end, the combat was so ridiculous it is and was the majority. Everything else is up to the players to choose to add. That is why DND never needed rules for "social interactions" or "roleplay" because you could add any of that. There was no Fotbidden Lands strict tundra survival rules, because DND wasnt required to be a tundra. Combat was the only thing needing to be defined as old wargamers always argued MOST about vague battle rules. 🙂
I see what you're saying and while some of the advice is interesting to consider I don't completely agree. I do quite like combat and think it is an important and crucial side of the game, even if it is about how it is avoided. To me the game is about going into dangerous and mysterious places, facing and overcoming perils and one of those is combat. Danger exists in many forms and the players job is to face it and overcome or solve it. To me the game is about problem solving in a immersive world and one of those problems is the potential of combat. So is ot the main focus well technically no but it is os one of what I consider to be the four pillars: Exploration, Combat, Problem solving and Roleplay. The worst players I have ever had all said the same line "I don't like combat, I just want to roleplay" they don't roleplay whatsoever and just act like a coward. Whenever that line is spoken I know they are loser who wants everything to be easy and safe, it is the sign of someone eho wants success given to them.
Well, as I said, it tends to be the case that it is epic moments, not combat itself, that is memorable to players. Sometimes there are epic moments in combat, but I think a lot of GMs mistake combat in and of itself with that epic feel.
@@RPGPundit fair enough and again I see your point and I think as advice it can be helpful. To be honest though I really don't mind running a hack and slash dungeon crawl, even if the combat is mundane. I recently have been checking out B5: Horror on the Hill and I feel it's a pretty straightforward hack and slash survival adventure and I like that about it.
No, I don't. I explicitly point out in the video that the point is not doing overtly non-combat adventures, particularly idiotic ones. The point is about understanding what actually generates peak experiences in rpgs.
Combat is fun but it's so over used and boring today... The nitty gritty math keeping doesn't help either. My players are enjoying SWADE now with quick combat, like last game it was only 2 turn, not rounds, TURNS at this mini boss and they win. Back to the roleplay and exploration
You’re splitting hairs. D&d has ALWAYS been primarily a combat focused game and it was born out of a war game. All d20 class/level based games are combat focused and are really just glorified board games. Nothing wrong with that but call a spade a spade. And the reason combat isn’t the most remembered part of a session is because combat in d20 games is boring, slow, and unfulfilling. You’re correct though, TTRPGs are bigger and more diverse than d&d. There are plenty of TTRPGs out there that are primarily social or investigative in nature (Call of Cthulhu, World of Darkness, Shadowrun, etc).
Nonsense. By your logic, CoC, WoD, SR, are all derived from the basic formulas of D&D, they're just a wider variation, and therefore are just wargames too. Of course, that's wrong because your first premise is wrong, that D&D is a wargame. It's not and it never was not even at the beginning when it was all dungeons, as I point out in the video. Also games that have social skills or "social combat mechanics" are WORSE at RP than games that do not. Because in the latter you have to just f*cking roleplay it, not roll dicepools like some sad b*tch.
When I was a kid with the basic sets, character progression was the most important thing to me outside of the game. When we were actually playing, exploration, imagination, teamwork were what I liked. Later on combat, tactical stuff became what I had the most fun with.
Spread the word, share the video!
For me, it is the choices characters make that make a session memorable. The more risks they take in RP, exploring or combat the more memorable that sessions becomes.
Choices, yes; and usually ones that lead to very memorable successes, or very memorable errors.
In my experience the austistic-leaning kids loved the combat and the min-maxing, while the ADHD-leaning kids (such as myself) preferred the exploration and character progression. Different brain types gravitate to different elements, I guess.
There's always going to be people who enjoy one or the other more.
Growing up with B/X, combat was fast and deadly. My players learned very quickly to enter combat only with overwhelming superiority, or to avoid it altogether. Faced with a dangerous foe, without preparation, fleeing was always option 1. The goal was gold, magic items, and levels, not owlbear skins.
Correct. Spread the word, share the video!
Ya, Because Conan and other pulp fantasy heroes were always about fleeing and feeling cautious and overwhelmed constantly. Having read the original REH stories and even owning several Weird Tales magazines (that I acquired in my adult years for a good fee Conan)was injured in SOME stories, but in the original REH stories he wasn't just beat down and scared the whole adventure the way many " heroes" in OSR TTRPG games have to be to survive.
Likewise, other pulp fantasy heroes like Fafhrd and Grey Mouser in their first adventure together "ILL Met In Lankhmar" literally run through and slay most of Lankhmar's Thieves Guild together, swords flashing before heading out of town due to grief. Most Pulp fantasy Sword and Sorcery heroes were larger than life and cool. This is why when people say OSR captures the feel of the pulps I think the statement is an equivocation. OSR world building and settings often have the feel of the Pulps but I think more modern game designs such as 5E (and others) capture the actual larger than life/heroic nature of the heroes (PCs) better.
Was it Mike Mearls that talked about his original D&D game and how all the first level PCs faced cockatrices and got turned to stone? This does not sound like fun or pulp heroes. It sounds like random people shooting off into the world and only a few surviving. It has more in common with sperm than pulp heroes from what I see but to each their own.
I don't like the cultural entitlement and over sensitivity, etc of many modern (5E gamers), but the heroic feel I like much better than the sheer fuckery that existed in prior editions (such as undead just draining multiple levels with a touch and no save or nothing) and that we put up with because we didn't know any better and had limited options back in the day. As a DM I always altered the way undead worked. Even when playing Ravenloft (the original not 5E) I figured I could scare my players by setting the tone, mood, and using scary descriptions versus some rule fuckery that didn't really scare so much as annoy the hell out of folks.
@@Fallstorm777 Conan starts out as a thief.
@@RPGPundit Yes and he survived and did heroic/daring feats without being turned to stone, level drained, and beat down the entire time unlike players in many OSR games.
But RPGs are not literature. You end up getting a "Conan" when you get a PC to survive long enough. That's how it works. The novels obviously won't show a dozen previous attempts to steal the gem from the snake temple that ended in quick death for would-be heroes.
A concise and well articulated argument. A valuable topic about which to post a video and sorely needed. It is all the more interesting especially because it is the informed fans of D&D who know about Chainmail and its place in D&Ds history. Possibly your finest 17 minutes.
Well thank you. If you want me to make more videos like this, as opposed to ones where I argue with the Woke or complain about WotC, please Spread the word and SHARE the video. These videos almost never get as many views as those other kinds I mentioned.
I appreciate your prompt response. As much as I love to hear other sane voices speak out against the prevailing madness, I'm beginning to think more videos like this that analyzes the mechanics of a game will better serve the new (and young) players as well as the older grognards who were exposed to the game at a young age and really only glanced over combat tables and spell lists and ignored so many mechanics. It is frustrating to hear people say that THACO is "complicated" or this or that is "broken" when the exact opposite is true. THACO is the OPPOSITE of complicated. You and a few other content creators are inspiring me to start my own channel. As I am an honorary luddite, I have been procrastinating with starting a channel. A member since 1979....@@RPGPundit
Just the other day I was telling a friend that in my 40 years of RPGs I have had many incredible memorable experiences - to rival some of the best experiences that can be had outside of RPGs - and NONE of them involved combat.
Spread the word, share the video!
Combat was so important Gygax didn't even put it into the ODD, he shuffled that off to Chainmail. Only later did TSR decide it had a place in the actual game.
A VERY good point!
To reappropriate a line from Bruce Lee: "You need Emotional Content."
Spread the word, share the video!
I've said this for years - D&D has always been a game about resource management. The most critical resource at the moment could be just 'time,' but often it is hit points, spells, etc. Combat is part of that, but so are traps, puzzles, etc. "What can you accomplish with what you have available?"
Most people want their "gaming" to be on par with a well written/balanced action movie. Which means quality character and/or conflict build up (through story), and direct conflict (combat). With some cursory romance establishment during (most of the hobby does this part poorly). That is probably the most broadly appealing storytelling formula.
...and before some mung files it to say "you're not telling a story to players, omg railroading!" or " hurr hurr you're a story-gamer " -- no. A good game can be looked back upon afterwards as being a good "story".
I want my games to be games. 😐
Yes, you are still living in Schooners head rent free. He just talked about you on 28mm stream. 😂 We traumatize him.
@@Lepidoptera666
/insert Tom Cruise laughing meme jpg
🤣
Not in the least, @@Lepidoptera666. The best game I ever played in had a plot to it.
Look at what is generally thought to be one of the best modules ever put out by TSR: The Village of Homlet. It's a story. The players are certainly not obligated to follow along with that story and can run off to do something else if they want to but there is a definite story there.
Just because the DM creates a plot doesn't make it a railroad. The DM has to change things in response to what the players decide to do. The DM has to change events in ways that make sense in the context of the world, "Oh, well, you decided that you didn't want to take on the local bandits raiding the merchant caravans near your home base city? Well... Things are going to get more expensive for starters. The local nobility might like you a little bit less since they directly asked for your help and even offered you a reward (like not having to pay any taxes on your 'recovered' property from the job) for doing it..." Hell, you can just roll for that kind of thing: "According to my monthly event roll a group of bandits is going to move into the area. According to the random rolls they're going to way too tough for the players to take on. Well... The duke is going to ask for their help anyway. If they're too stupid to scout the place first they'll be rolling up new characters. Live and learn, I guess. Or, in this case, die (or get taken prisoner and sold) and learn. Either way it'll be interesting."
What the players do should matter in the world. Anything else is Monty Hall/Hack-n-Slash. If that's your thing... Well... You do you and have fun at it. Most people find that accomplishment only comes from overcoming difficulties though.
@@MyName-tb9oz So you want to be a 4d player in one of Shonners games? 🤔
Or did you misunderstand the joke I was making with Insertnamehere? 😉
@@Lepidoptera666, I have no idea who Schooner or Shonner is. But you did seem to be disagreeing with Insertnamehere. Maybe there was a joke I just wasn't getting?
Very thought provoking video, thanks Pundit.
Spread the word, share the video!
Train the Murder Hobos to socially interact with the NPCs /before/ killing them so the GM isn't terminally bored. :D
The goal of any TTRPG is summed up by Ben Sisko in Far Beyond the Stars "IT'S REAL!"
PRECISELY. Emulation.
You're not wrong, but I would phrase this a bit differently. Combat is a flavor enhancement for the rest of the campaign akin to salt. When you add salt to a dish, you generally don't want it to taste salty so much as to make the other flavors pop.
That's an OK analogy, sure.
Final Boss battles are still memories from 40 years ago, combat WAS a major part of the game. The struggle against the BBEG is the main feature though.
I agree that combat feeling important is what really engages players, not the combat nitty gritty. At least, that's not what players seem to remember later. Mostly, in agreement with what @driakos commented, they seem to mostly remember their character's progression. I have a dumb question, if I may: If I have a question for you about your Dark Albion setting, what is the best way to ask you? (I purchased Cults of Chaos and it has my imagination churning nicely - nice work!)
Well, you can contact me on X, or on theRPGsite...
In one game with brand new people playing a TTRPG for the first time, it was a game set in the sengoku jidai of feudal Japan. Very low magic, so mostly historic with some folklore creatures being real but very rare.
The session that the players remember the most fondly and even years after that game ended was them getting lost in the mountains and having to chase a goat for food or risk dying of starvation.
So, I agree. The players will remember the beats of the story they forged through their own actions and decisions way more than how many pluses they had before killing Goblin #78, in my experience.
I think your videos really shine when you are a mentor or educator.
I think the ouroboros of woke RPGs has finally consumed enough of itself to stop drawing attention to itself.
Your videos where you actually provide the alternative are top notch. Most people don't have your broad knowledge of history, myth, or actual old school gaming. If they are they're not making videos.
Thank you. But it's still a fact that videos where I'm talking about the latest woke nonsense or wotc screwup get more views. So, if you want to encourage me to make more stuff like this: spread the word, share the video!
@@RPGPunditWell WOTC might end flailing around like a grasshopper with a missing leg, but no doubt there'll be plenty more nonsense coming off their presses. They've already hit the point that they're past parody. (Autistic paladin creating deck of many things)
I'll just have to get my fix of professor pundit from your live streams.
Pundit... you just made the case for story games, my guy.
No I didn't. Games that have mechanics like "social combat" are abstracted and inferior, compared to a game like D&D where you are expected to actually roleplay.
I'm an old man, but while combat was always a part of the game, getting rich and avoiding combat was always better. Combat got people killed. People got killed in lots of ways, but running in and fighting everything was just a great way to get people killed. Even if you win the fight, you lose precious resources, which can get you killed, either by the inherent dangers of the environment or the next fight that you might not be able to avoid. But I'm talking about the old man, "Let's explore the old tomb or dungeon" type of game. Now you just take a "long rest" and you're ready to kill again.
Yes; curiously later editions of D&D end up favoring combat more than earlier ones did.
@@RPGPundit, as @CatWithAHat2HD pointed out in another comment: The new editions of D&D are just video games that you run manually. In my opinion, because that makes it easier for the Woke of the Coast to sell them to video-game junkies who probably haven't ever read a book voluntarily.
No, the Satan-worship was the main draw for the old school.
LOL
I am having a hard time figuring out if you're trolling or not.
Thank you for helping me understand I don’t need modules and that the world is open to all manner of opportunities
Thank you! Spread the word, share the video!
Well to pick a pun, all of our social interactions as kids were combative; so there…lol
The thing is that combat & leveling your character usually is "felt" as more empowering because it usually goes more as the game rules & dices go, so feels more logic than other aspects of the game that in some games are just DM mental diarrea as it goes...
It's the work of the DM to make its players feel real imaginary world, that the rest of it out of combat and their char sheet also moves with rules, being it when interacting with npcs, handling treasure, traveling, or experiencing weather.
I'm not saying just playing rules in front of them, instead that they can know how your world works, like what you need for being knighted, or how to be a guild master, or which weather is going to be for next travel and how to handle it, or were to hide their ship if they are pirates, etc, etc.
I made this mistake as a kid. Excessive combat seemed like the only thing to do from my 8-year-old perspective, poring over the Monster Manual and later playing the extreme combat-heavy Pool of Radiance. As I grew up, I grew tired of D&D combat, gave up on the hobby and didn't start learning about real roleplaying till I started watching Ander Wood in 2010.
People who claim D&D was just a wargame, confuse me. I mean what was Chainmail then?
Kill, Steal, and Diplomacy.
Also treasure includes payouts from NPC's, so convincing an NPC to give you more loot is part and parcel of progression. However, to be fair, combat has always been the one of the main draw's of the game.
I feel like this is some high level GMing ideas, Open Sandboxing is so huge it takes such a long time to prepare for.
Well it depends. First off, you can always use an existing setting that's set up for sandbox play. Sword & Caravan for instance (particularly with the guildelines in the Wilderlands supplement for how to sandbox through the campaign). Yes, you still have to read and know the setting well enough, but even that can be done gradually with a focus on the region you're in. But even if you make a sandbox from scratch, the tough part isn't so much preparing the setting (that's just figuring out what things/people are where and what they do), but making sure you have the right tools to generate events/developments/encounters.
Just collect a few published hex crawl campaigns, pick and choose the hex’s you find interesting. Mash them all together into a new one.
@@RPGPundit, I think Sword and Caravan is an absolutely excellent setting... For a really good DM who knows how to create things off-the-cuff and how to fill in the details because they've running games for 20 years. The rest of us are going to need modules 'cause we're not that good.
That was one of my problems with the old AD&D modules. They were really great starting points. But they weren't anything like complete.
Maybe put out some modules for Lion & Dragon/Sword & Caravan? Maybe have a contest and the best one (as determined by you) gets put into the next Pundit Presents? I think that would be really cool and I'm quite certain that people would make things just for the bragging rights.
There already is a module for Sword & Caravan, it's Pundit Files 2: The Dead City. But I would say that the whole point of the huge numbers of generators I put into sword & caravan is so you don't have to be a 20-year GM. You just have to use the random tables when appropriate.
Yeah, those generators are really excellent,@@RPGPundit. I _really_ like the generators in Social Encounters, too.
Anyway... It's just a suggestion for getting more material out there that you don't have to write yourself.
(Of course... You'd have to review the submissions. Which might be more time consuming, I suppose.
And you might want to make changes even the best one which would mean contacting the author.
And then there's publishing rights.
OK, this is kinda sounding like it's more trouble than it's worth. As you may have guessed I know nothing at all about publishing.)
I fundamentally disagree but I can see how this might be intuitive to theater of the mind players. It seems like any point made here can be made against RP also. "You never remember the actual RP, its the moments with friends that is important" and so on. There is certainly a lot of RP that is generic uninteresting slop the same way many combats are. And it seems like any memorable RP moment could be reduced to something more basic like being present to an important event and not the roleplay itself.
It seems to me the best games have a solid mix of combat and RP, roughly 50/50 depending on the tastes of the players. Going too far in either direction falls off pretty fast. While I will always remember games with good stories I will also always play games with good gameplay.
"There is certainly a lot of RP that is generic uninteresting slop..."
Yes. That would be the difference between a really good DM and a DM who shouldn't really be a DM.
The DM has to be the kind of person who can tell you a story off the top of their head and have it make sense and be interesting. Not so many people are really good at that. I got lucky when I was a kid and my DM was really good at it. I don't really remember much of the combat but I remember the crazy things we did and the things that happened like the time we burned down a tavern because they wouldn't let my centaur character in... and the whole village caught on fire. Oops... (And it took some negotiation before he and I came up with stats for that character that were acceptable to both of us.)
I think it's fair to say that there is two distinct activities (or sets of activities) that people call role playing at this point. One is what you describe, the other is the "videogamified" stuff provided by systems like Pathfinder for instance - where combat clearly *is* expected to be *the* feature. The popularity of video games as such makes the definition of "role playing" quite wishy washy - slogans like "our game features RPG elements" are commonplace in the marketing for that medium, and most of the time all it means is systems for leveling up. So people think that's what RPGs are: games wherein the player unlocks more "available moves" as they play the game, rather than just learning the game as they play, thus perceiving more valid moves that were always there to begin with. Video games are very rigid by nature: there is only a small amount of possible options the developers can reasonably offer the player in a given scenario. So what makes even the "real" computer RPGs interesting is mechanical variety and the quality of the writing provided for the options that are indeed supported. And that's exactly the direction mainstream TTRPGs went for in recent years. (Or perhaps tried to go for...) I'm pretty positive this is self evident stuff, but my point is that the ppl who enjoy these games are not actually that interested in what we would call RPGs - at least not intrinsically. What they like is in fact closer to a skirmish wargame with heavy narrative elements that contextualize the tactics game. Immersion is not their ambition at all. They are playing a puzzle game stylized to look like fantasy combat. I think the main issue at hand is that the two camps call their game of choice an "RPG" despite the games not being that similar past an onlooker's 1st glance.
.
PS: If you answer with "Spread the word, share the video!" Imma cross the Atlantic just to whack you.
GREAT comment!
I don't think it's all that self-evident at all. I think it's what the corporations are pushing because it's mindless and easy and it's really easy to sell more 'power-ups' for that kind of garbage, "Oh! Look! New powers for my cleric!!!" It's why they don't want the DM/GM to actually _create_ anything or _control_ anything. If your DM creates and excellent adventure they can't sell you anything. (Which is why I never bought anything from 2E: "Why would I want to buy all the books all over again when the ones I've got now work great?")
I bought Paranoia, Gamma World, and a couple of other things but in the many decades since I got my 1e AD&D books the only other things I've bought were RPG Pundit's stuff. They're really good stuff.
Yes... The generic reply is... Not good... But it's a long drive down there.
Well, this is a product largely of the theory behind the creation of 3e, of "rewarding system mastery". It turns the game into a contest of making the best builds and combos, which actually tends to increase to an increasingly horrible game experience. Especially since they also applied that to roleplay elements: if you want to change someone's mind with an impassioned speech you don't have to roleplay it, or even just read it, or even describe it. You just have to say "i make a speech" and have a +25 modified Diplomacy bonus. But aside from 3e and Pathfinder this is not really common.
Is that when they started the point-buy system for stats, @@RPGPundit?
I still kinda wonder if it was influenced by early video games or if it was other games using a point-buy system.
I _HATE_ the whole, "ub3r-l337 build," thing. It turns the game into an exercise in math and rules-lawyering.
Yeah, this is probably why I drifted away from D&D to Pathfinder 1e and then to Swords and Wizardry. Getting ExP for finding the treasure is much more rewarding.
As an aside, I recently purchased your Gonzo companion and am very satisfied with the quality. I will likely purchase your Old School medieval companions next.
Thank you very much, I really appreciate that! The Old School Companion 1 is similar to the Gonzo Fantasy companion except about more medieval type stuff, including medieval magic etc. The Companion 2 is a set of adventures. World of the Last sun is the setting of my epic 11-year long (and counting) campaign.
When a game offers no character skills outside of combat, magic, and thievery, the whole of the game is going to be about combat, magic, and thievery.
If one of the hallmarks of the OSR is precisely that there are no (or extrememy limited) skills available to player characters, it will limit their roleplaying by design.
No, that's not true. What it means, on the contrary, is that if a game does not force "social mechanics" on the players, the players will be free to actually just roleplay.
@@RPGPundit This is basically just what I replied to you in my comment. 🤨
@@RPGPunditWho said anything about regulating social interaction?
What about skills.to conn a ship, ride a horse, or even drive a car? Certainly the wheelman in a heist needs a driving skill to get away from the cops. Ot a skill to program a computer, or fix a robot.
But tjere is none of that in the OSR.
@@bopaintsminis you obviously haven't bought my games, or many other OSR games.
Obviously this is a discussion you don't want to have.
When are you going to put out Pundit's Guide to World Building and Campaign Creation?
I tend to prefer to leave that kind of nonsense to Venger. Do you want me telling you to go do meticulous research about a setting and read classic mythology, or do you want me to write an epic new space opera setting inspired by bronze age mythology as a campaign for Star Adventurer?
@@RPGPundit I'd buy a larger volume of the Pundit Files I with brief examples of implementation. Also, some concise written thoughts like this is contained in this video.
Well, some of the Pundit Files issues are peripherally connected to world-building. Issue 1 is about creating world-shaking events. Issue 4 will be about quickly creating NPCs with personalities.
As a DM, I’m pretty good with deploying combat encounters. While my role playing encounters are ok, they could be better. What’s the best product that I could use make my role playing encounters more fun?
What is wrong with your roleplaying encounters? Where do you go wrong?
@@RPGPundit the quick answer is, they aren’t fun enough. My players seem to view them as something to get through to get to the next combat. And I admit, they are often vanilla. The longer one is, my rp encounters lack interactivity and engagement to get my players immersed in the game. I’m not saying my DM game sucks. I just want it to be better
Here is but one of my quandaries. On one hand there’s Mike Mearls dice based role playing challenges. On the other end of the spectrum theater of the mind, divorced from character stats. Is there a best way?
In my opinion, it is always better to mostly Role-Play it. In OSR play, it's reaction rolls that can be used to gauge how a PC's charisma (and other factors) could influence an NPC. I did a whole book about that: Social Encounters. You may want to check that out.
@@RPGPundit thanks! I will check it out
I can't say my experience has been the same as you although I appreciate the perspective. Pure combat encounters have provided me a good number of memorable experiences that rival non-combat experiences. Some were even just random encounters where memorable campaign changing events and choices came purely from random dice rolls and snap decisions that never would have manifested without it being a fight. I will say the ratio of unmemorable to memorable combats is pretty skewed towards unmemorable though. Grind filler combats are the majority I have experienced and it's like smashing action figures together so you can get to the next room. Not anything anyone is going to remember.
Encounters that come organically (even random encounters) will naturally flow into creating memorable combats and are a lot easier than having to "prepare" encounters for the party to face that are artificial. Having a clear goal for the opponents other than just "kill" all the time, having the environment matter (scatter terrain is great), and things as simple as the enemy not being mute and saying and doing things other than attack during the fight contribute a lot. A lot of encounters fail in all of those aspects and just end up being punching bag competitions in flat, empty rooms. That's when it becomes the "combat" part of the game that's off to the side and not the same game as the social and exploration parts.
Also, there's nothing I've seen more than gets party comradery going than fighting together.
Well, you raise some good points; particularly that a lot of GMs just dial-in the combat itself, which could be the topic of a whole other video!
Absolutely, one at the very least.@@RPGPundit
These are the best videos you do, @@RPGPundit: The videos about how the things in the mechanics of the game actually work and what the consequences of those mechanics really are. I loved your video on critical hits. I kinda new it but I had never really thought about the consequences of different mechanics for critical hits. You really brought it into focus.
This video is the same kind of thing. Your comment about combat only being important if it is important to the future choices of the players (and I'm not saying that right) really resonated for me. If the only consequences of the combat is more loot to sell it's just a hack-and-slash game that you could get from Diablo or any of a million other video games.
7:34 - Those are great dungeons... Also coming soon in digital format, via the high seas, to a Chinese sharing platform near you! You can tell Mr. Morgan not to blame me-- _somebody beat me to it._ 🏴☠
Pundit, any plan to make a L&D 2.0 or revised version of L&D? If so, I have some feedback that I'd like to share with you, from running the game for a bit. Also Dark Albion.
Not exactly, but Baptism of Fire's rules will be L&D "Revised/Expanded Edition". It will include a lot of the rules from the Old School Companion 1, and change a few things (perhaps most notably the Cleric).
Pundit has gone 4d... I will have to watch this later.
😂
And this is the key reason 4e failed. Not the only thing but I think the key one. 4e demonstrated how combat only is not engaging and 4e did combat near perfection. But it’s not enough to carry an rpg.
Yes, because 4e was created by people inspired by the theories of the Forge, which despised D&D. Crazy how listening to the people who hate your game is a bad idea!
@@RPGPundit indeed!
My impression of everything old school has been that battle is largely a fail-state. My D&D experience began in 1996, so I'm a bit confused that some of the old hat guys see otherwise. GMing more modern renditions, I have seen battle simulator creep in, and it can be fun, but its still not the zeitgeist of the game.
Well, ironically when you had later editions the XP award for combat inflated considerably, suddenly making combat more central to the game.
🤔 Combat is the central feature. The system is built around it, thus the main feature. XP for gold just showed it was wiser to avoid combat when you can.
That did not mean the intemt of the game was only combat, just it was designed around a combat system.
Unless you are looking at that Jane Austin game, then all are based around a combat system. Combat is the thing that MUST be defined in game terms, because very little else requires impartiality for "fairness".
No, original D&D was based on a resource management system. Encumbrance, food rations, gold pieces, equipment, illumination, avoiding traps, fighting (or avoiding fights). All of those were part of the dungeoneering experience.
@@RPGPunditODND was also a supplement made for Chainmail. Until 1977 with Holmes Basic and 1e ADND Monster Manual, DND was not really a game, but an incomplete idea. Still, 1e changed as the MM was made for Holmes, and Holmes had 1e injected into it, but 1e changed even that making Holmes obsolete in 1978 with the PHB.
In the end, the combat was so ridiculous it is and was the majority. Everything else is up to the players to choose to add. That is why DND never needed rules for "social interactions" or "roleplay" because you could add any of that. There was no Fotbidden Lands strict tundra survival rules, because DND wasnt required to be a tundra.
Combat was the only thing needing to be defined as old wargamers always argued MOST about vague battle rules. 🙂
I see what you're saying and while some of the advice is interesting to consider I don't completely agree. I do quite like combat and think it is an important and crucial side of the game, even if it is about how it is avoided. To me the game is about going into dangerous and mysterious places, facing and overcoming perils and one of those is combat. Danger exists in many forms and the players job is to face it and overcome or solve it. To me the game is about problem solving in a immersive world and one of those problems is the potential of combat. So is ot the main focus well technically no but it is os one of what I consider to be the four pillars: Exploration, Combat, Problem solving and Roleplay.
The worst players I have ever had all said the same line "I don't like combat, I just want to roleplay" they don't roleplay whatsoever and just act like a coward. Whenever that line is spoken I know they are loser who wants everything to be easy and safe, it is the sign of someone eho wants success given to them.
Well, as I said, it tends to be the case that it is epic moments, not combat itself, that is memorable to players. Sometimes there are epic moments in combat, but I think a lot of GMs mistake combat in and of itself with that epic feel.
@@RPGPundit fair enough and again I see your point and I think as advice it can be helpful. To be honest though I really don't mind running a hack and slash dungeon crawl, even if the combat is mundane. I recently have been checking out B5: Horror on the Hill and I feel it's a pretty straightforward hack and slash survival adventure and I like that about it.
So you agree with WOTC to have dnd be about going to class and proms.
It's called DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS not diplomacy and dating.
No, I don't. I explicitly point out in the video that the point is not doing overtly non-combat adventures, particularly idiotic ones. The point is about understanding what actually generates peak experiences in rpgs.
Combat is fun but it's so over used and boring today... The nitty gritty math keeping doesn't help either.
My players are enjoying SWADE now with quick combat, like last game it was only 2 turn, not rounds, TURNS at this mini boss and they win. Back to the roleplay and exploration
Spread the word, share the video!
Not for _you._ *Fireball*
No, not for the game itself, or the way RPGs are intended to work, and the optimum experience of gameplay. Facts don't care about your feelings.
+1
You’re splitting hairs. D&d has ALWAYS been primarily a combat focused game and it was born out of a war game. All d20 class/level based games are combat focused and are really just glorified board games. Nothing wrong with that but call a spade a spade. And the reason combat isn’t the most remembered part of a session is because combat in d20 games is boring, slow, and unfulfilling.
You’re correct though, TTRPGs are bigger and more diverse than d&d. There are plenty of TTRPGs out there that are primarily social or investigative in nature (Call of Cthulhu, World of Darkness, Shadowrun, etc).
Nonsense. By your logic, CoC, WoD, SR, are all derived from the basic formulas of D&D, they're just a wider variation, and therefore are just wargames too.
Of course, that's wrong because your first premise is wrong, that D&D is a wargame. It's not and it never was not even at the beginning when it was all dungeons, as I point out in the video.
Also games that have social skills or "social combat mechanics" are WORSE at RP than games that do not. Because in the latter you have to just f*cking roleplay it, not roll dicepools like some sad b*tch.