Some Notes on D&D and Combat
A couple of points:
Each edition of D&D is distinct and different -- producing very different gameplay. OD&D and B/X D&D are quite different games than 2E, 3E, or 5e, for example. And of course 4e is very different than any other edition.
I undesstand some people see the similarities and simply gloss over the differences and see them all as essentially the same. And as long as that works for them, that's fine. It's incorrect. But it isn't something I'm going to bother arguing about. All I can do is point people to read the actual rules, thinks about the implications of those rules, and see how game play will differ greatly.
With D&D (in all forms) it was mandatory that you fight anyone who didn't want to talk.
This is not true in the case of OD&D or B/X D&D. (Perhaps for other editions as well. I never played anything past AD&D and haven't played AD&D for decades now)
If one looks at how XP is awarded in these two editions of the game one sees that the XP for "killing things" is far, far less valuable than for bringing a treasure haul out of the dungeon.
Here is the table for XP rewards for monsters from Lamentations of the
Flame Princes, a something-clone of B/X D&D:
You'll note that if the party kills, say, six Level 4 monsters each player will net 75 XP. However, if they can carry out 2,400 gold pieces worth of treasure they will get 400 XP each.
Here's the thing: Fighting monsters is inherently risky. Picking up treasure and carrying out is not. If
one can get to the treasure without having to fight one can get more XP without the risk of death. (Here is
a post from my blog on a fuller write up about this.)
Thus, in early editions of the game it was
not expected the game was about fighting because the rewards actually pushed play toward the recovery and looting of treasure. Fighting might happen -- but it was not the focus.
I'm not saying many people didn't focus on combat. I'm saying in terms of the rules there was no expectation you would fight every monster. In fact, the rules encourage players to find ways to avoid the risk of combat and sneak out with the treasure without a fight since that was the best risk vs. reward strategy.
As for low PC death counts:
Yes. If the GM "balances" the encounters then there will probably be fewer, if no, deaths. For the record, in the LotFP game I am running I
never balance encounters. My job as Referee is to present challenges to the players. Their job is to approach them with caution and see if they can overcome them without dying. I'm not worried about making matters "balanced." I am concerned with making sure my players sometimes face problems with no obvious solutions. (I count "running up and killing it" as an obvious solution.) Instead the players have to poke and prod and observe and plan and see if they can pull off a solution with unknown and sometimes overpowering obstacles.
My players are smart. And they like to be challenged. And they come up with
awesome solutions.
But the point is they could die. The early editions of D&D are not protective of the PCs. This doesn't mean the PCs die all the time however. If the Players are smart with their PCs they can find ways of getting the treasure and surviving. (I suppose I should note here that I never have THE solution for defeating an enemy. Ever. There are options. But invariably the players come up with solutions I never thought of.)
The point is that there is a
risk of death hanging over the PCs the whole time. (Here is
a post I've written about that on my blog.) A
threat of death is not the same thing as
they will die. The threat of death only means there are consequences and risk.
I was very upfront about all of this with the players before we began play. So they have been thoughtful and cautious and smart in their play. They parlay when they can; they come up with asymmetrical plans of attack when they have to; they avoid combat if it isn't needed. We've had some deaths... but out of 6 initial PCs we still have 3 from the original group. (Two deaths, and three are trapped in a Nether Realm and might be rescued.) But the game itself is not making it safe for those three PCs. It is the players managing the actions of their PCs that is keeping the death count low.)
Classic Traveller grew from the original D&D rules (which is both obvious and confirmed by Marc Miller bluntly stated in a recent interview). It makes sense the focus of the game... its deadliness, its focus on material acquisition being the focus of the game... would mirror that of OD&D.
There have been many invitations and changes in how to play RPGs over the years. Some make such game play completely differently in other games. For example, in
Burning Wheel the PCs are much more robust than those found in OD&D or Classic Traveller, and the XP system is driven by the PCs chasing their passionate beliefs
despite risks entailed with chasing them ("I am loyal to my lord no matter what" can land a PC in a lot of trouble if the Lord is constantly getting into trouble). But, of course, the PCs of BW are much less squishy than those found in OD&D or CT.
Whereas a character in OD&D and Classic Traveller is much better off weigihing carefully whether passionate beliefs are worth much given the risk entails with acting on them. The PCs of such games --
if using the rules as written --will often be much better served by behaving as amoral mercenaries, treasure hunters, and explorers than people devoted to causes or doing what is right.
In OD&D and CT character creation is fairly quick, backstory doesn't matter much, and the point is to move forward into adventures that demand the PCs are considered expendable. (This is why character creation is relatively quick. If a PC dies you make a new one rather quickly.) But this doesn't mean the Player is willing to treat his PC as dispensable. He can work to hang onto his PC as long as he can, making decisions -- clever and sometimes cowardly -- to stay alive as long as possible while still moving toward his goals.