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

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Using Bonds, Flaws and so on as something analogous to FATEs Aspects works pretty well in my experience.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

In my case, I usually have a session zero where players can mad lib their backgrounds with other players and the DM chiming in while using poker chips as a currency to buy their story. If anyone wants to add or change something they need to outbid or equal whatever was spent to get to that point.

I started doing this because any character's backstory has an effect on the campaign but also affects every other player at the table. The natural preventer that stops players from being jerks to each other is that anything they spend on someone else's story is less they have to spend on themselves and jerks get rooted out fast.

Ex.

"I am friends with all nobles and courtiers of the noonah empire, they love me and I'm always chatting with them to influence the world" - dick move.
GM vibes in with similar coin "Your friends are imaginary".. table erupts.
Another player chimes in.. "Imaginary in the sense that you're a seer and the friends give you visitations"
Last player.. "the noonah empire was overrun and replaced with the various city states of the game."
GM vibes in.. "and on occasion the ghosts will give you flashbacks or intel that help the party."

Player happy, and stunned that something cool came out of his power play but more respectful of the process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

evilbob

Explorer
A thread about opinions! Everyone loves giving opinions, so I'll post too!

I think D&D has a large number of rules concerning combat - really more than anything else - which tends to make it seem focused on combat. (4.0 was 10x more focused this way.)

But D&D is a game about people sitting around and telling stories to each other, and that means that each group will have its own focus based on its own tastes. So to claim something like "D&D is too focused on combat" is pointless because any group that wants less can have less.

And now, the statistically meaningless personal anecdote: we don't have a lot of combat in our game because we don't like it as much.

Opinion granted! Please place it in the pile of 8 (and growing) pages' worth of other people's opinions who also won't be read by most people who are more eager to give their own opinions than read others'. :) (I sure didn't read anyone else's.)
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
A thread about opinions! Everyone loves giving opinions, so I'll post too!

I think D&D has a large number of rules concerning combat - really more than anything else - which tends to make it seem focused on combat. (4.0 was 10x more focused this way.)

But D&D is a game about people sitting around and telling stories to each other, and that means that each group will have its own focus based on its own tastes. So to claim something like "D&D is too focused on combat" is pointless because any group that wants less can have less.

And now, the statistically meaningless personal anecdote: we don't have a lot of combat in our game because we don't like it as much.

Opinion granted! Please place it in the pile of 8 (and growing) pages' worth of other people's opinions who also won't be read by most people who are more eager to give their own opinions than read others'. :) (I sure didn't read anyone else's.)

thanks evilbob. :)
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
I think a lot of D&D, especially at higher levels is player characters preparing for combat, for example buying equipment for one's army and building a castle, there is a lot of detail involved in this. I used to sit down with my players and we'd talk about how much its going to cost to hire and equip mercenaries, what you want to equip them with, usually the PCs do this with the treasure they accumulated from the last Dungeon expedition, or sometimes they would just randomly travel around, having random encounters, and killing whatever attacks them and taking their treasure, and sometimes they would go on dragon hunts, trying to find a dragon's lair so they could steal its treasure, with all the money accumulated, they could build a keep, hire a bunch of mercenaries to patrol its walls, and enforce the law in he surrounding town that they built.
 

rmcoen

Adventurer
IME, if you don't have a good story, the (RPG) rules don't matter. The players will go play a boardgame that fills their "combat itch". Having said that, the way the rules are written can and will influence the will the story is told and played. If you are playing a grim & gritty game system, players will (tend to) play more conservatively; if you are "high fantasy" with full health 5 minutes away, more risks (and brashness and arrogance) will be seen. If a fireball clears a room, expect more fireballs; if it just announces "Roll for Initiative!" (4e, I'm looking at you), expect fewer fireballs.

I played Ars Magica in college for awhile (alongside D&D campaigns). The rules rewarded character growth. I hated when we had to leave the homebase and "deal with something", because it got in the way of my studies (XP and level-up, in D&D). Encounters were interruptions, problems "in the way", not methods of getting better/faster/stronger. [They were, though, opportunities to demonstrate *being* faster/better/stronger, so there was still some appeal.]

In GURPS, when I knew a single axe-hit could kill me (but a rapier thrust couldn't), it changed the way I entered combat. I played for the story, but the *way* I played changed.

I've run multi-year campaigns in 2e, 3e, and 4e now. The type of story I tell has been influenced by the game system (4e in particular, with the concepts of Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers), and in turn, the way the players have chosen to play has been influenced. My 2e campaign was heavy in Logistics... until it wasn't, because no one enjoyed it. The 3e campaign, then, started with logistics to set the mood - under equipped, rain, weather disruption from the Big Bad Event... then dropped, when that initial campaign goal was complete. the 4e campaign has only had to deal with Logistics for specific set-piece adventures - "the one on the frozen undead-covered island", or "the one in the swamps of Carceri", or "the one in the plane-locked drow city, where divine magic sets off alarm bells".

I like Exploration, I love that part of a 4X, and I'd love to bring that to a new campaign... but D&D isn't the system for it, and I'm not comfortable as a GM "winging it".
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I would really start with framing and consequences first, because that's how combat works: GMs (typically) frame combat so that all the PCs get drawn in; and there are consequences for all players in combat (ie their PCs take hp loss). If you are playing the weakling mage, and choose not to roll any attacks, that doesn't stop the GM declaring attacks against you that sap your hit points.

So what is going on that players who never have their PCs say anything, and leave it all to the "face", never suffer consequences? Never have anyone try and speak to them? Ask them their opinion on the matter? Never develop reputatios as buffoons? Etc.

Once the framing and consequence issue has been indentified, then it makes sense to look at a system for integrating the multiple checks of multiple players into a single resolution of the encounter. Personally I think 4e's skill challenges work well for this, but one could go more gritty (eg like Duel of Wits) if desired.

The last step would be to think about giving different classes/roles different abilities to engage the situation. In the skill challenge framework, in my experience, having a CHA stat is enough. A more gritty/intricate system would probably need more (4e saves almost all of its intricacy for combat!).

I think this is an important takeaway. A lot of DM's won't engage people who don't want to engage with non-combat encounters, and I understand that some players just don't enjoy that element of the game as much as others.

But I do think that social encounters to function similarly to combat in that the NPCs can choose who they engage with. There's no reason that your NPC is going to engage with Billy just because Billy has high social scores. He may find John attractive. He may think Sue did something special last week and she's the only one with a brain on their shoulders. A non-face party member may have title or standing that the others do not. A spellcaster NPC may refuse to talk to non-spellcasters. There could be race or gender or other social issues.

As you say, the players don't get a choice if the bad guys want to attack them. Social really shouldn't be any different.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
IME, if you don't have a good story, the (RPG) rules don't matter. The players will go play a boardgame that fills their "combat itch". Having said that, the way the rules are written can and will influence the will the story is told and played. If you are playing a grim & gritty game system, players will (tend to) play more conservatively; if you are "high fantasy" with full health 5 minutes away, more risks (and brashness and arrogance) will be seen. If a fireball clears a room, expect more fireballs; if it just announces "Roll for Initiative!" (4e, I'm looking at you), expect fewer fireballs.

I played Ars Magica in college for awhile (alongside D&D campaigns). The rules rewarded character growth. I hated when we had to leave the homebase and "deal with something", because it got in the way of my studies (XP and level-up, in D&D). Encounters were interruptions, problems "in the way", not methods of getting better/faster/stronger. [They were, though, opportunities to demonstrate *being* faster/better/stronger, so there was still some appeal.]

In GURPS, when I knew a single axe-hit could kill me (but a rapier thrust couldn't), it changed the way I entered combat. I played for the story, but the *way* I played changed.

I've run multi-year campaigns in 2e, 3e, and 4e now. The type of story I tell has been influenced by the game system (4e in particular, with the concepts of Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers), and in turn, the way the players have chosen to play has been influenced. My 2e campaign was heavy in Logistics... until it wasn't, because no one enjoyed it. The 3e campaign, then, started with logistics to set the mood - under equipped, rain, weather disruption from the Big Bad Event... then dropped, when that initial campaign goal was complete. the 4e campaign has only had to deal with Logistics for specific set-piece adventures - "the one on the frozen undead-covered island", or "the one in the swamps of Carceri", or "the one in the plane-locked drow city, where divine magic sets off alarm bells".

I like Exploration, I love that part of a 4X, and I'd love to bring that to a new campaign... but D&D isn't the system for it, and I'm not comfortable as a GM "winging it".

As someone running a 5e exploration focused game with one exploration focused houserule (I changed rests to move hp gain from long rest to a new category full rest that requires 24 hours in a safe location), I kinda disagree.

The core books offer some great suggestions for exploration: tasks. One Ring expanded on this, but the core 5e rules still have the suggestions. When travelling, everyone does something. For me, I have navigating, trailblazing, foraging, mapping, being alert for danger, looking for points of interest, and other. You can do one job at a time. Foraging works just as the PHB says. Navigating works pretty much as the PHB says. Trailblazing is trying to reduce the travel time through terrain by picking paths. Being alert for danger means you don't have disadvantage to notice hostiles like everyone else doing something else. Looking for points of interest means you can roll to discover things that may be hidden while you travel (not all things are on the map visibly). Other is for things like tracking, or tending to a wounded comrade, or carrying the wounded comrade, etc. This means that players have to organize and make choices on what's important to them when they travel. Add in random travel encounters (I build mine base on the area but you can use those in Xanthar's) and you have a neat, pretty much by the book exploration subsystem. Set some DCs and roll out (pun semi-intended).

For social encounters, I have a few rulings I fall back on. Social rolls are only made once a player has stated a goal and a method to achieve it. This can be 'I try to bribe the guard 50g to let us in' to 'I try to convince the King to grant me a patent of nobility or I will reveal that his Queen is having an affair with his Royal Advisor!" The ask has to be reasonable -- the King would never give you all of the money in the vault, for instance, and the guard won't let you in armed to the teeth. The DC is set based if the attitude of the person towards you. Friendly is DC 10, indifferent is DC 15, and hostile is DC 20. This is modified by whether the ask is dangerous or trivial to the individual. For trivial things the DC is lowered by 5. For things that are neither trivial or dangerous, no change. For things that are dangerous -- either physically or to social status -- the DC is raised by 5.

If the player can leverage a trait, bond, flaw, or ideal in their ask that the target has, they gain advantage. If the target can leverage one of the player's trait's, bonds, flaws, or ideals, the player gets disadvantage. This would mean that if a character that had loyalty to the King as a bond trying to blackmail the king would be at disadvantage. If the player can provide some other kind of leverage, they can also gain advantage for that. If the player making the check isn't the one that benefits from the check - ie, you're asking for someone else - the check is at disadvantage -- asking a friend to help your other friend is harder than asking them to help you, for instance. So, if you're 'facing' for another player, you can, at best, get a straight roll against the DC if you can gain leverage in the situation. This encourages players to do their own thing, if they can work it. Also, the DC is set for the person asking, so if you try to get the face to help you convince your friend, their DC is already 5 high than yours and it's at disadvantage.

I've run out of time, so I'll leave this here and pick it up when I can get back. There are a few more things like consequences for failure I'd like to touch on.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Who says that you need more rules to model encounters that deal with something else than combat? What I'm proposing is to use the same system to resolve encounters, i.e. using a skill system. Why should using a weapon skill be inherently different from using a debate skill? Both can be determined by a die roll with a target number derived from the opponent's abilities. This actually results in fewer rules, not more.
My question is this: how do any of these more-die-rolls-for-social-situations proposals do anything other than mechanically discourage players from actually role-playing their characters in character in favour of just rolling dice?

That's right, they don't. Which by default makes them bad ideas.

pemerton said:
I would really start with framing and consequences first, because that's how combat works: GMs (typically) frame combat so that all the PCs get drawn in; and there are consequences for all players in combat (ie their PCs take hp loss). If you are playing the weakling mage, and choose not to roll any attacks, that doesn't stop the GM declaring attacks against you that sap your hit points.

So what is going on that players who never have their PCs say anything, and leave it all to the "face", never suffer consequences? Never have anyone try and speak to them? Ask them their opinion on the matter? Never develop reputatios as buffoons? Etc.
Agreed. A DM can easily draw other PCs in by simply speaking directly to them through NPCs...unless, of course, the "face" has been sent in alone - the social equivalent of sending the Thief ahead alone to scout and explore. A less subtle variant on this is that the NPC being approached will, on noticing the party contains one or more of [Dwarf, mage, knight, female, or whatever], only speak with those characters and completely ignore the rest:

Local Noble NPC: "By your armour, heraldry and bearing, ma'am, you are clearly a knight and thus worthy of my time. The rest of you may leave, or if you must stay, at the very least remain silent. Lady Knight, what is your business with me?"

And now the Fighter's on the spot. :)

But I don't agree that any of this needs a hard-coded resolution system. 3e's inclusion of codified social skills was IMO a mistake, sadly perpetuated since.

Lan-"given some other recent threads, my agreeing with pemerton here is almost an 'alert the media!' moment"-efan
 

Who says that you need more rules to model encounters that deal with something else than combat? What I'm proposing is to use the same system to resolve encounters, i.e. using a skill system. Why should using a weapon skill be inherently different from using a debate skill? Both can be determined by a die roll with a target number derived from the opponent's abilities. This actually results in fewer rules, not more.
History shows us that a system which requires combat skills and non-combat skills to compete for character resources will almost invariably end with players investing in combat skills and ignoring the non-combat skills. Words don't work against zombies or otyughs, but swords are effective against everything. Games that use a unified system for everything tend to have worse balance issues than games which keep those activities segregated.

As long as you maintain the distinct resource groups, like 5E does with combat skills coming from your class while non-combat skills come from your background (mostly, at least - even 5E could stand to be better about this), it wouldn't necessarily be impossible for combat to be resolved through a small handful of die rolls. Honestly, combat does pretty much start out that way, at low levels while using Theater-of-the-Mind style; it just explodes into wild complexity as HP numbers inflate.

Of course, that gets into the matter of that other thread. Since D&D goes into more mechanical detail with combat than with the other pillars, it's mostly played by people who enjoy the combat part of the game, so simplifying that out to just a couple of die rolls would be counter-productive in terms of enjoyment for that group.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top