Original D&D Discussion - 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat

« 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 20, 2013, 4:06am

Original D&D Discussion :: Dungeons & Dragons (1971-1978) :: Men & Magic (1974) :: 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat

Author

Topic: 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat (Read 462 times)

klamath
Level 1 Medium

member is offline

Joined: Jun 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 22
Karma: 4

'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat
« Thread Started on Aug 24, 2009, 1:46pm »

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum--maybe it should be in 'Philosophy and D&D' or some such.

One very positive thing I’ve heard about D&D 4e, from people whose opinions I respect, is that the range of tactical options in it makes combat very exciting and gripping—more so, indeed, than in most other games. I don’t know if that’s the case or not, since I haven’t played 4e, and I don’t particularly care, one way or another. It did start me thinking about the combat systems in many traditional rpgs, though. As an overgeneralization, they often produce what I call vanilla combat, in which players do little beyond say ‘I attack’ and roll the dice. Some, like OD&D, do not have much in the way of explicit options beyond this spelled out in the combat rules.

That doesn’t mean tactical choices are entirely absent in such systems, of course. The use of spells or even missile weapons can insert a tactical element into combat, regardless of system; so can intelligent use of terrain. Clash Bowley has a very interesting blog post http://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/07/abstract-tactics.html on using tactics without a battleboard, and I’ve seen similar sorts of things done at a lot of tables, even if the game’s system did not explicitly offer mechanical support. And just because there are no explicit rules for specific tactics doesn’t mean they can’t be used—in fact, it may give you more leeway to invent your own on the spot.

Nonetheless, my experience has been that in many traditional games, at least for melee-oriented characters, a good deal of fighting comes down to vanilla combat. Your character stands there, toe-to-toe with the opposition and slugs it out. Few decisions, except perhaps whom to strike or when to give up and run for it. Your main way of affecting the situation is what you roll.

On the face of it, this seems like it would be boring, and I’m sure that many people find it so. But I think there are some attractions to this sort of combat, otherwise it would not have endured so long. So what are the attractions? Three things occur to me:

1. The gambling analogy. Saying ‘I attack’ and rolling the dice is a lot like pulling the handle of a slot machine. No decisions being made, beyond the choice to pull the handle or walk away, no tactics or way to influence the outcome. Just the thrill of putting things up to chance and seeing how the dice fall (or the wheels spin). It’s something that can be enjoyable in itself.

2. The spectator-sports analogy. Spectators in the stands can get very emotionally caught up, even though they are making no decisions and have no direct effect on the outcome of the contest they are watching. Could it be that players during vanilla combat have the same sort of identification with their characters that spectators do with athletes—a different form of identification than you have when you are actively choosing precisely what your character does? Further, there’s the advantage that the player does not have to have a detailed knowledge of tactics—either real-world or game-system—to play a character who is a great warrior.

3. The Three Musketeers analogy. I was surprised, when I reread this book a couple of years ago, at how brief and undetailed the accounts of combat in it tend to be. Most swordfights in it are dispatched in a paragraph or less; it’s very different from swashbuckling films, which tend to long action setpieces. Instead, the book emphasizes derring-do and plot. Perhaps vanilla combat is an indication of games that work basically the same way—combat in them is an occasional spice, but not really the main focus of attention. Certainly vanilla combat systems, which tend to be abstract, can let you get through a fight faster than ones with more tactical choice.

How would you explain the attractions of vanilla combat?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Finarvyn
Administrator

Dungeon Master
member is offline

Joined: Jun 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 4,673
Location: Near Chicago
Karma: 178

Re: 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat
« Reply #1 on Aug 24, 2009, 3:21pm »

Aug 24, 2009, 1:46pm, klamath wrote:

3. The Three Musketeers analogy. I was surprised, when I reread this book a couple of years ago, at how brief and undetailed the accounts of combat in it tend to be. Most swordfights in it are dispatched in a paragraph or less; it’s very different from swashbuckling films, which tend to long action setpieces. Instead, the book emphasizes derring-do and plot. Perhaps vanilla combat is an indication of games that work basically the same way—combat in them is an occasional spice, but not really the main focus of attention. Certainly vanilla combat systems, which tend to be abstract, can let you get through a fight faster than ones with more tactical choice.

You should look at Erick Wujcik's Amber Diceless Role Playing rules, because he addresses some of this very topic.

The examples given are:
1. Corwin fights with a non-combatant in a hospital. He wipes the guy out in a short sentence.
2. Corwin fights along a long stairstep, one step at a time against a whole bunch of bad guys. Zelazny spends a chapter giving details.

Combat can be quick or slow, terse or verbose in detail. Most of the details in an RPG is based on how the author wants to tell his or her story. (This includes the combat portion of the story as much as any other aspect.) Some campiagn settings or gaming groups might thrive on details, where a person might explain exactly what he is doing and how.

My group has no problem with the idea that when it's a player's turn he picks up dice and rolls to hit. They don't want to know if they have severed the wrist of a foe, or if spurts of blood cover the ground. They are more interested in abstract "hit and lose hit points" types of combat, and they focus on the story details of other parts of the campaign.

It all comes down to the way you want to play, and both are fun styles in certain instances.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Marv / Finarvyn
DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003)
I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox
Builder of the TrollBridge
Master of Mutants; MA since 1976
OD&D Player since 1975

"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson

dwayanu
Level 8 Warlock

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 942
Karma: 27

Re: 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat
« Reply #2 on Aug 24, 2009, 6:45pm »

It's easy to get into more detail as desired with on-the-spot rulings. One thing about having a lot of formal rules is that there can be a temptation to use them all the time -- even to feel as if they must be used. So long as that's avoided, though, I don't mind having them handy.

MELEE RESOLUTION - CONQUER, WITHDRAW, SURRENDER OR DIE! (a la Holmes)
As I see it, the primary issues in D&D combat are strategic: whether to fight in the first place, and then who wins and at what cost.

The latter can be affected by the choice of retreat or surrender. Over the course of a fight, small-unit tactics can come into play, as well as choices of spells.

So, instead of answering "who won, and at what cost" all at once, the game allows for multiple decision points. As characters go up in level and gain more hit points, they basically get more of those (and the role of chance is reduced).

The ability to get through those quickly (rather than spending 45 minutes or so per fight) enables packing in more really critical player-choices per session. It also facilitates the use of wandering monsters without their being too great a penalty in terms of real time spent on them.

OD&D seems to me mostly occupied with questions of managing resources: hit points, spells, time, treasure. I see it also as more concerned with significant choices than games that get bogged down in dice-rolls and other mechanical trivia that reduce the frequency of such choices.

Of course, significance is very much in the eye of the beholder! Some might find that OD&D deals too much in details preferably glossed over, while others might find it to the contrary far too abstract. Hence, the proliferation of other games with different focal points.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

dwayanu
Level 8 Warlock

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 942
Karma: 27

Re: 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat
« Reply #3 on Aug 24, 2009, 7:00pm »

Another aspect of "vanilla" is that it leaves a lot of room for creative description. Game-mechanical abstractions are not always made more interesting by multiplication! They may simply take up more time, leading to skimping on vivid "narrative" to save that resource. If there's a lot of time between resolution of one attack and the next, any narrative gets pretty choppy; the "slow motion" effect becomes so pronounced that it's more like long "freeze frames".

That is one reason I prefer the "simultaneous moves" approach. We get all statements of intent out of the way first, then move quickly among the interactions that result -- "telling the story" more fluidly than in "Is it my turn yet?" mode.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Morandir
Level 5 Thaumaturgist

member is offline

[avatar]

Apostate

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 299
Location: Misery
Karma: 12

Re: 'I attack': Attractions of Vanilla Combat
« Reply #4 on Aug 24, 2009, 9:58pm »

I agree. I think that people erroneously conflate "tactical" with "interesting" when it comes to combat. Adding tactical mechanics only makes combat more interesting if you happen to like tactical minis games - I don't. For me, saying "I use Steel Serpent Strike" is just as vanilla and boring as saying "I attack." In both cases, you need good combat narration from the DM to truly make it interesting, IMO.

Mor

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Archaeology is nothing like Indiana Jones. I've never once gotten to punch a Nazi!

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free