Is D&D Too Focused on Combat?

Dungeons & Dragons' wargame roots are well-known, but what is sometimes forgotten is how much its origins influenced role-playing games. Although D&D has been a platform to tell many different kinds of stories, its mechanics focus on a few core themes and one of them is combat -- but it's not the only one. Picture courtesy of Pixabay. The Three Modes Jon Peterson in Playing at the World...

Dungeons & Dragons' wargame roots are well-known, but what is sometimes forgotten is how much its origins influenced role-playing games. Although D&D has been a platform to tell many different kinds of stories, its mechanics focus on a few core themes and one of them is combat -- but it's not the only one.

ai-generated-7896729_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

The Three Modes​

Jon Peterson in Playing at the World explained that there are three modes of D&D play, in which dramatic pacing is achieved by transitioning between the three:
...a mode of exploration, a mode of combat and a mode of logistics. Time flows differently in each of these modes, and by rationing the modes carefully a referee guides the players through satisfying cycles of tension, catharsis and banality that mimic the ebb and flow of powerful events.
These modes are interrelated in important ways, and modern role-players tolerance for all three has changed over time. Exploration has experienced a resurgence with sandbox-style play. Combat has been de-emphasized, particularly in story-telling games. And logistics are back in vogue thanks to the Old School Renaissance. Let's take a look at each in turn.

The First Mode: Exploration​

In the original boxed set of D&D, exploration was important, but beyond the scope of the rules. It was a key part of emergent play -- using basic guidelines to encourage creative strategies -- but it wasn't actually part of D&D itself. Instead, D&D encouraged players to buy Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival board game, as Peterson explains:
The object of Outdoor Survival is to navigate a wilderness, though there are five scenarios providing distinct justifications for doing so: for example, lost players returning to civilization at the edges of the map or racing to find the object of a search party. Given that the board itself is not a secret from the players (Outdoor Survival has no referee), some other means is required to simulate being lost in the woods, since the players necessarily command a bird’s-eye view of the environment. Dice therefore determine whether or not players are lost, and if so, in which direction they will wander. The board is overlain with a hexagonal grid, segmenting the board into hexagons about 1.5 centimeters across; as there are six possible directions on a hexagonal board to move, a six-sided die can easily dictate the orientation of lost players. Each hex contains a particular terrain type, in much the manner of Hellwig: there are mountains, swamps, rivers, deserts, plains and even roads (well, trails).
Evidence of D&D's interest in hexcrawling is strongly represented in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual, which was published after the original set but before the rest of the AD&D line. Each monster has a few noteworthy statistics, particularly: frequency, number appearing, and % in lair. Much of these stats do not make sense in a typical dungeon context, where the rooms are planned out; DMs would likely know the monsters that were to appear in their dungeons, and in fact author Gary Gygax states, "...It is not generally recommended for use in establishing the population of Dungeon Levels." But when used in hexcrawling they're useful in describing the encounters there, beginning with frequency, then determining if the monster encountered is in its lair, and then concluding with number of appearing (which could sometimes be in the hundreds, befitting a camp but not a dungeon room).

For a time, hexcrawling and emergent play were out of favor as more scripted adventures came into vogue. The OSR has reinvigorated sandbox-style play, in which the players generate the world as they adventure, one roll at a time.

The Second Mode: Combat​

D&D's second mode is the one most gamers are familiar with: killing things. D&D grew out of Chainmail, itself a product of wargaming, so combat's relevance to D&D goes all the way back to its first iteration. Additionally, it mimics the style of the fiction that influenced it, including the violent Conan among other swords and sorcery novels. What's changed is how D&D scales combats. The emphasis on leveling up was treasure, as explained in a previous article, "The Original End Goal of Dungeons & Dragons." Kiva Maginn (Battletech design lead) on Twitter explains how this changes the style of play:
As a player, you could gain experience by fighting monsters or claiming treasure. You could lose it by dying in battle with monsters. You could encounter monsters without treasure, and you could encounter treasure without monsters. So there was an obvious 'best' path. Get in, get the treasure, get out. Do as little fighting as possible, because fighting risks XP loss. Avoid encounters when you can, and subvert them with clever tricks if possible. Money you find without a fight is free XP.
This changed with Third Edition, in which experience points were rewarded for defeating a monster:
Consider 3rd Edition D&D, by contrast. Gold provides no inherent advancement. At a certain point, you simply don't need it anymore. You have so much of it that it's absurd to bother picking up any more. So there's a new obvious 'best' path. Ignore tricks and clever solutions. Never avoid fights. Kill every single monster in the dungeon, with 'it's in the dungeon!' as your justification for doing so. Seek out harder fights with bigger monsters. Don't stop killing.
Ironically, D&D became MORE about killing than less, as PCs were no longer incentivized to just accumulate gold to advance. Third Edition also did away with name levels and retainers as being an end gold, so the purpose of spending gold had shifted from building strongholds and hiring mercenaries to personally enriching the character through acquisition of magic items. This change was a recognition that players were less interested in leading armies and transitioning back to a life of perpetual adventuring, and the game shifted gears to reflect that.

Of course, role-playing has since moved beyond combat -- relying more heavily on the narrativist style of play -- even if it started with the primarily tactical dungeon and overland exploration of D&D.

The Third Mode: Logistics​

Logistics have largely fallen out of favor today due to onerous nature of keeping track of encumbrance, equipment, and gold. These factors were all intentional controls on player greed, ensuring that PCs couldn't just cart out mountains of gold (and thus experience points) without some challenges. You can read a more detailed discussion of inventory management and encumbrance in a previous article, "The Lost Art of Packing it All In."

Third Edition's shift towards combat meant that the nature of logistics changed to be less about accumulating gold and more about personal advancement, exemplified by Pathfinder which spins out even more options than Third Edition for character development.

D&D Today​

So where does that leave us with D&D today? Kiva points out that the combat biases are still there, but now D&D has expanded to encompass other styles of play -- it just doesn't emphasize it equally:
The flaw in later D&D was that it was a game that was good at modeling killing, and spent a decade trying to be anything other than a game about killing.
Inspiration, Personal Characteristics, and Background were added to incentivize players to role-play but as the AngryDM points out, many players forget all about it because of the way it's implemented:
It’s just this thing that’s easy to forget and sits in the game not really doing anything. It feels tacked on. Vestigial. An afterthought. It certainly doesn’t seem to have a clear purpose, as evidenced by the fact that the DM and the players get different advice about it and how it is weirdly disconnected from the mechanics that it seems to be connected to. It seems thrown in. “People like Bonds in Dungeon World and Aspects in Fate, we should probably slap something like that in there.”
Fifth Edition D&D has also changed how experience points are gained, providing an option to level up through milestones instead. This shifts the incentives yet again away from combat.

Is combat overemphasized in D&D? Maybe, but that's at least partially due to the other two modes of exploration and logistics falling out of favor. If the eight pages detailing combat are any indication in the Basic D&D Rules, combat is still an integral part of the game, and many players are just fine with that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Jhaelen

First Post
If anyone has experience with games that do a good job of mechanically implementing exploration and interaction, I'd love to hear about them. I hate glossing over them at my table, but I've yet to come across a better alternative.
"The One Ring" has pretty good rules for exploration; basically, every party member is assigned a particular role when traveling.
"The Burning Wheel" has a "Duel of Wits" to determine the outcome of social conflicts. In Ars Magica there's an elaborate system to determine the winner of a debate.
Well, words and thoughts generally don't tend to injure, maim, or kill.
Maybe not directly, but definitely indirectly: It's quite a common meme that the heroes are (falsely?) accused of committing a crime and have to talk their way out of it to avoid being punished. That punishment may well be fatal.
Okay, lets get a little ridiculous, lets say the player characters are in a shop trying to buy weapons, and one of them asks, "How much is that weapon?" The DM informs the player that he must roll a D20 to decide the outcome of this encounter. So the player rolls a D20 and the result is a natural 1, so the DM informs the player that the store proprietor gets mad, grabs the sword that is on the table and he attacks the player characters with it, and tells the players to role for initiative to determine the order of combat. The player who rolled the dices asks, "What happened, what did I do?" The DM tells the player, "You rolled a 1 on the d20 and as you know a natural 1 is an automatic failure in whatever you are trying to accomplish, sorry, just bad luck I guess."
That's a rather weird example. But apparently you're so focused on combat that you cannot imagine any negative outcome that doesn't involve the pcs being attacked?
I'd expect a roll of '1' to indicate that the store proprietor will flat out refuse to sell any weapons to the pcs. It's still a pretty bad example because usually you don't use a single die roll to determine the outcome of an encounter.
I just can not believe that there are Players who think that keeping track of Gold is onerous.

Excepting that obviously there must be Players out there who think that because it is the internet afterall. What is next, leveling up just because the DM can not be bothered to keep track of XP?
Well, I think, it's much more elegant to have a system using abstract wealth categories to determine what kind and quality of equipment you have access to. Such systems are e.g. used by Shadowrun and Ars Magica.
And tracking xp? It's already a thing of the past for me. Using milestones is way better. It neatly solves a bunch of problems, e.g. leveling up when there's no time to rest, lagging behind the expected power level due to missed encounters, and most importantly the freedom to solve conflicts and quests in whatever way the players prefer without having to fear that they'll be punished for not picking a solution that would grant them xp according to the rules.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of RPGs that don't use the concept of 'levels'.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, I think, it's much more elegant to have a system using abstract wealth categories to determine what kind and quality of equipment you have access to. Such systems are e.g. used by Shadowrun and Ars Magica.
Since when does Shadowrun use abstract wealth? Last I checked, money was still tracked to the nuyen, and ammunition could be purchased by the shot.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
Since when does Shadowrun use abstract wealth? Last I checked, money was still tracked to the nuyen, and ammunition could be purchased by the shot.
Maybe I'm misremembering. You're right that it's not purely abstract, some things like weapons and implants are tracked. But almost everything else is subsumed under 'lifestyle', iirc.

Ars Magica also isn't purely abstract. You just don't count individual pennies. You do track expenses to upkeep your covenant like the cost of adding a new tower to your fortress. But starting equipment of characters is determined purely by your social status, e.g. a knight will start with a warhorse, plate mail and a set of weapons of good quality. The important thing is you don't have to worry about nit-picky details.
 

Rhianni32

Adventurer
Seems like a lot of people are confusing what they want out of RPing vs what the D&D ruleset focuses on. GMs and players can make whatever they want out of their game but if using D&D rules, and they want non combat situations and challenges, they have to put in a lot more extra work on their own vs what is given in the rules.

D&D has always been a Monster Murder Simulator rule set. They toss in some non combat rules in sidebars.
 

Reynard

Legend
Seems like a lot of people are confusing what they want out of RPing vs what the D&D ruleset focuses on. GMs and players can make whatever they want out of their game but if using D&D rules, and they want non combat situations and challenges, they have to put in a lot more extra work on their own vs what is given in the rules.

D&D has always been a Monster Murder Simulator rule set. They toss in some non combat rules in sidebars.

That's not "confusing" anything -- it is answering the question posed by the article. And for many people, the answer is "yes" -- although there is a good bit of variation in what the "yes" really means.

For my part, I don't want to see fewer combat rules so much as I want to see more robust "social combat" rules -- rules that involve the whole party in negotiations, trials or whatever, with options and consequences as interesting as physical combat. I'd like to see non combat, non social rules of a similar sort, too. This is all achievable, either through a strong core mechanic that applies equally to combat and other situations, or by robust sub systems.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
You can't even begin to work out who won a D&D combat just be finding out who hit how many target numbers.

At no point in time was I talking about resolving any of the pillars to its entirety. Within the bounds of my post, damage is a modifier to the end result of the hit. Location and position were mentioned in the second line as one of the add ons to support the game.

So again, if you don't like what I've written enough to comment without reading things first, either read fully or just put me on block so you don't waste your time.

Be well
KB
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
"The One Ring" has pretty good rules for exploration; basically, every party member is assigned a particular role when traveling.
"The Burning Wheel" has a "Duel of Wits" to determine the outcome of social conflicts. In Ars Magica there's an elaborate system to determine the winner of a debate.
Maybe not directly, but definitely indirectly: It's quite a common meme that the heroes are (falsely?) accused of committing a crime and have to talk their way out of it to avoid being punished. That punishment may well be fatal.
That's a rather weird example. But apparently you're so focused on combat that you cannot imagine any negative outcome that doesn't involve the pcs being attacked?
I'd expect a roll of '1' to indicate that the store proprietor will flat out refuse to sell any weapons to the pcs. It's still a pretty bad example because usually you don't use a single die roll to determine the outcome of an encounter.
Well, I think, it's much more elegant to have a system using abstract wealth categories to determine what kind and quality of equipment you have access to. Such systems are e.g. used by Shadowrun and Ars Magica.
And tracking xp? It's already a thing of the past for me. Using milestones is way better. It neatly solves a bunch of problems, e.g. leveling up when there's no time to rest, lagging behind the expected power level due to missed encounters, and most importantly the freedom to solve conflicts and quests in whatever way the players prefer without having to fear that they'll be punished for not picking a solution that would grant them xp according to the rules.
And let's not forget that there are plenty of RPGs that don't use the concept of 'levels'.
Whether there is combat or not is up to the individual DM, the Game designers can't control what sort of DM he is going to be, using abstract die rolls as a substitute for social interactions is not every DM's style. Lots of DMs simply use common sense, for example the store proprietor is there to make money, to logically his actions are geared toward selling items to customers so he can make money and keep his shop open. If we use die rolls to determine what he does, he ends up behaving erratically, he would probably end up in jail if he attacked a customer like I just described. People's actions typically have some sort of logic behind them unless they are crazy.

Another practice I use in combat is to roll dice to determine which Player Character a monster attacks, that probably is not a realistic way to run a combat, after all players don't roll dice to determine what monster they attack. To give an example, lets suppose there is an Orc right next to a PC, the Orc gets the initiative, the PC is a wizard with a dagger and a spell he is about to cast. So the DM roles a die and determines that the Orc right in from of the Wizard attacks Bernie the Fighter, who is in a full suite of plate male, and so far he has never been hit in this combat. So the Orc pulls out a javelin and hurls it at Bernie the Fighter who is on the other side of the room, the wizard goes next, casting a sleep spell on the Orc right in front of him and then slits his throat with his dagger. Lucky wizard, he die roll determined that the orc was a moron and attacked the wrong PC, If he attacked the Wizard instead as common sense would dictate, this combat would have ended differently. It is much the same in social interactions.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
There are lots of problems with this Saelorn, not the least of which is how your extreme metagame aversion is incoherent with this position.

1) In reality (you're extremely predisposed toward extrapolation via internal causality), both informal and formal parlay (regardless of stakes and goals) among groups (associates/peers, would-bes, or strangers) typically involves multi-layered interactions. One of the most important in the animal kingdom is unspoken signalling such as postures and respect for courtesies or social norms. For instance, if someone is spoken to and they are ill-equipped to interact or aloof/rude/non-credible in their interactions, it damages the prospects of getting what a side wants out of the interchange. This speaks to both (i) framing (a GM engaging a non-"face" character during interaction) and (ii) lack of consequences/fallout if either the non-"face" character eschews the interaction or the "face" character steps in and denies the NPC their interchange with the other PC. In the real world, that typically doesn't fly and you'll draw the ire of someone ("I was talking to him/her") or they'll lose respect for both parties (due to the beta nature of the former and/or the unsolicited, rude interruption of the latter).

It may be "metagame cozy" to have the face do all the interactions (because of action resolution maths), but that should be a big problem of internal causality for anyone accustomed to varying social interactions in real life. And a GM who is insufficient at framing "non-face" characters into social interaction needs to step their game up. And a resolution system (GMing ethos or mechanics) that doesn't play into this paradigm is also likely a problem.

2) While this won't move you at all, genre fiction (upon which plenty of people draw genre logic inspiration from) isn't exactly starved of tense social engagements with non-specialists (either because they imposed their will upon the situation or the situation was imposed upon them).

Not to be contrary, but this is going to sound that way.

If I'm with a group of people in a car and we get pulled over by a cop, the "face" is going to be the sober guy driving and not the rest of us who have been drinking all night.
If I'm with a group of people at work and we're in a meeting, the "face" is going to be the person we all defer to "the person with the best chance of getting what we want done".
If I'm a teenager and on a hockey team, there's the captain of the team who is going to get better girls and teach us how to get better girls ourselves. He's the "face"

"Face" activity in RPGs is not metagaming. It happens every day in real life and it's entirely realistic. If I'm a dwarf fighter with a CHA of 8, and at least a passing WiS, provided that I'm going to get in trouble if I don't let the Bard CHA 18 speak for me, I'm going to. After that works once, I'm more likely to shut up and let it happen again within the same boundaries. Just like the drunk buddies, work associates or hockey jocks above.

Of course, the "face" isn't always going to be there for me. That's the breaks.

Thanks,
KB
 

Reynard

Legend
"Face" activity in RPGs is not metagaming. It happens every day in real life and it's entirely realistic. If I'm a dwarf fighter with a CHA of 8, and at least a passing WiS, provided that I'm going to get in trouble if I don't let the Bard CHA 18 speak for me, I'm going to. After that works once, I'm more likely to shut up and let it happen again within the same boundaries. Just like the drunk buddies, work associates or hockey jocks above.

What I hope for is a system that removes the whole idea of the singular face. that is, a social interaction system that is as inclusive for the whole party as combat is. A fight scene where only one character is useful is not very much fun. Why should we expect that a social scene would be? Part of that is of course people knowing this in advance and building characters -- and the GM building encounters -- to support this. But a big part of that is the game system making sure everyone is viable in the scenario.

One subsystem that i think manages this pretty well overall is Starfinder's ship combat. Ship combat roles are disassociated from character classes -- the technomancer is as good a potential pilot as the soldier for example -- and each role has mechanical actions they can take that have specific results. Commanders can give orders and offer support, gunners attack, science and engineering can mitigate damage or improve attacks and defenses and so on. So maybe a "social combat" system could be developed that keeps the "face" (the "pilot" of the social encounter) but adds an advisor role and a bodyguard role and a so on. Then you add a back and forth system where the sides are trying to wear down each others resolves and resistances and when enough "social damage" is done, the encounter is over and the consequences take place.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
What I hope for is a system that removes the whole idea of the singular face. that is, a social interaction system that is as inclusive for the whole party as combat is. A fight scene where only one character is useful is not very much fun. Why should we expect that a social scene would be? Part of that is of course people knowing this in advance and building characters -- and the GM building encounters -- to support this. But a big part of that is the game system making sure everyone is viable in the scenario.

One subsystem that i think manages this pretty well overall is Starfinder's ship combat. Ship combat roles are disassociated from character classes -- the technomancer is as good a potential pilot as the soldier for example -- and each role has mechanical actions they can take that have specific results. Commanders can give orders and offer support, gunners attack, science and engineering can mitigate damage or improve attacks and defenses and so on. So maybe a "social combat" system could be developed that keeps the "face" (the "pilot" of the social encounter) but adds an advisor role and a bodyguard role and a so on. Then you add a back and forth system where the sides are trying to wear down each others resolves and resistances and when enough "social damage" is done, the encounter is over and the consequences take place.

I hear where you're coming from Reynard, but it's not the responsibility of the rules system to ensure that all players have fun. That's largely on the DM and players. What you're suggesting, to me at least, looks like the rules being responsible such that every player gets a "participation trophy" even if they aren't specifically geared for whatever is going on at the time.

I don't subscribe to that being a great way to structure a game and think it takes too much away from the actual people at the table. Balance doesn't have to mean, every character useful all the time. "Social combat" to me, means "Write better plot and take ideas from the players so they are engaged"

Thanks
KB
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top