There's a discussion on Twitter right now about whether or not D&D is a "violence simulator" and it just strikes me as such an off-mark conversation to have
Because, there's a certain sense in which, of course it is. If, for you, D&D is the thing in the core rulebooks, it's a wargame with extra things tacked on to it to make the combat asymmetric and handle out-of-combat scenarios. A third of the rules are things to fight.
But there's also a sense in which it makes little sense to say that at all. If D&D, to you, is the thing that happens at the table, it's an expression of what the players find interesting. It's a way to give players a kind of power they don't have in their real lives. The rules put limits on that power so that it's satisfying to gain more - more gold, more magic items, more class levels, more political power.
So what we end up arguing about is which semantic level we're speaking on - something we should just acknowledge and frame the conversation around in the first place.
And it's worth noting that the worst conflict happens when your ideas about this are misaligned. If one player wants to eat nachos and kill orcs, and the other players want an epic tale of romance and want violence to be rare, dramatic, and consequential, *they will come into conflict*. It's even worse if the player with the differing assumptions is the game runner.
@tindall playing D&D is not really playing. It is historical enactment. There are soo many better RPGs and rule sets these days.
@tindall chess is a classic game. D&D was a prototype. We now have games like Rune Quest or Vampire The Masquerade or Call of Cuthulhu...
@jens_d are you saying that VtM and CoC are categorically better than D&D in every way? That seems hard to defend.
@tindall D&D is a primitive hack & slay & level up game. You hardly need dice. High level Character
wins the fight anyway.
@jens_d I don't agree with you, on an experiential and factual level. It's good to play other games but D&D is also pretty good.
@tindall Also, I quite like biffing things in games. Nothing wrong with a game being “about violence” if that’s what you want to play
@ghost_bird Absolutely. To the credit of folks talking about this, I think they recognize that and acknowledge it.
@tindall @ghost_bird I remember one night where we didn't advance in the plot at all, because we were too busy with shenanigans in the fictional tavern. One of our game masters was really good at filling the game with jokes and puns and nonsense. No power gamers at our table!
@gunchleoc Power gaming’s related but not identical. You can absolutely have a game of combat without power gaming
@ghost_bird We did combat too of course, it's part of the game. What we did though was to abolish the XP system and simply decide as a group when it was time to level up, so that we wouldn't level up too fast.
@gunchleoc One of the things I like about 5e is they made that an official option. It always made more sense to me, really, but that’s because I tend to focus on narrative
@ghost_bird We always had some house rules, e.g. the skill "Dangerous half knowledge" which was the most fun when you rolled badly.
the mastodon instance at cybre.space is retired
see the end-of-life plan for details: https://cybre.space/~chr/cybre-space-eol
Anyway I hate being the person defending D&D because WotC is bad. But, as someone who plays a lot of other games, including games by people who have expressed exactly this opinion - that D&D is about violence in a way that other games are not - I keep coming back to it, not because of marketing but because of community, because of modularity, and because of the, frankly, wide breadth of things it does well.