Welcome to this week’s blog book club. This week we are discussing Why D&D Has Lots of Rules for Combat by Nat of How to Start a Revolution in 21 Days or Less.
Next week we’ll be reading [Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles... | EN World D&D & Tabletop RPG News & Reviews a thread from EN World.
You can see a list of previous blog club posts here.
As I look ahead at our blog list I am seeing a reoccurring theme. Over the next few weeks we will be contrasting the OSR playstyle with that of other editions of D&D. This week we start things off with Nat contending that just because D&D has lots of rules for dictating the outcome of combat that does not mean it should be the central focus of the game. First the elephant in the room is addressed: 4th edition D&D is about combat because the party is always assumed to have the necessary resources to engage a fight and party survival is assumed by default. This will come up in next week’s Combat as Sport Vs Combat as War post.
Anyway, Nat posits that combat in Old School systems is interesting not due to game design but because of tactical infinity, and that these games have enough space for GMs and PCs to get creative. GMs who can make regular OSR play satisfying can also make its combat a fun time. An question is raised over whether combat is innately satisfying whether it takes over the game when its not lethal enough.
It is proposed that the purpose of combat rules imposing a rigid structure is to reduce the GMs control over fights unfolding so the success or failure feels like its decided by the strategy of the players and fate (as represented with dice) rather than just DM fiat. Its here that the terms that get bandied around in our circles like “referee” and “neutral arbiter of play” become significant. Just because the game is deadly, doesn’t mean it should feel fickle.
According to Nat, 3rd edition exists in a state somewhere in between the combat continuum of 4e and OSR with combat being important due to the volume of rules… but without necessarily having all of the enshrined protections that an all-combat game would have. I would put forwards that 5th edition D&D which was not out at the time of this post, is also somewhere around here as well. These editions make fighting attractive so players may not explore other types of challenges. Something that is unvoiced here is that if combat becomes a significant part of the GMs preparation activities they have a strong incentive to make sure it happens… and that’s how you breed Quantum Ogres people!
I would chime in here that the post doesn’t discuss the alternatives to entering combat. If there aren’t many they could be driving players to fight. For example, I personally find most rules for running away a mix of punitive, arbitrary, frustrating, or unsatisfying because it is harder to evaluate the chances of making a clean getaway. If it feels like trying to escape has a significant chance of ending up in a fight with even worse positioning people will not try to escape deadly encounters.
The blog posts ends on the very important note that combat needs interesting stakes! If it’s not just a fight for survival there better be something else important on the line. I thoroughly believe that should be true regardless of the type of game.
Online I see folks always repeating the maxim of combat as a fail state. In recent years others have started to push back that the idea has been taken too far. After all, sometimes we are drawn to fantasy because we want to slay the dragon; we just don’t want it to feel like its made of cardboard.