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

I think there's an intermediate position between super detailed rule systems and nothing/leave it up to DM judgment. WotC erred on the side of nothing. 4E had some pretty good material in this, with some suggested tasks and DCs. Even just three or four possible tasks under each heading with some examples of consequences would be nice. It doesn't have to be complicated and over-burdened.

In an effort to simplify things, they over did it. There's no reason why the detailed skill descriptions found in 3.x could not have found their way into 5E. Replacing "ranks" with advantage is sufficient simplification. But losing all of the specifics found in a full skill description is not sufficient.

I would even like to have seen the skill descriptions say "normal ability score" and "alternative ability score" to decouple skills from abilities a bit more, especially for Intimidation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

These statements are true, but it is undeniable that the game rules offer support for some of those over others. The questions seem to be whether that is as it should be, and if not how to go about changing it.
I suppose I was not clear. You can replace D&D in my list of play styles with GURPS, V:TM, even Toon. The group has more influence over play style than the game system.
 

Reynard

Legend
I suppose I was not clear. You can replace D&D in my list of play styles with GURPS, V:TM, even Toon. The group has more influence over play style than the game system.
Sure but you can't simply dismiss what the rules do and do not support and whether the support or lack thereof determines the group's engagement with those playstyles.

"The GM can just make it up" isn't a reasonable response to people that actually want games to have rules for the things you are supposed to be able to do in said games. So in a game like D&D that relies on fairly intricate rules for combat, telling people to just handwave courtly intrigue or perilous exploration is dismissive and unhelpful.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app
 

Sure but you can't simply dismiss what the rules do and do not support and whether the support or lack thereof determines the group's engagement with those playstyles.

"The GM can just make it up" isn't a reasonable response to people that actually want games to have rules for the things you are supposed to be able to do in said games. So in a game like D&D that relies on fairly intricate rules for combat, telling people to just handwave courtly intrigue or perilous exploration is dismissive and unhelpful.

And yet, millions of people for 44 or so years have managed to do just what you say they shouldn't have to do. The original game rules were rules for fighting at 1:1 scale combats. And with those rules, people played out palace intrigues, heist style capers, dungeon crawls, all other mixes of combat or non-combat. The rules for all RPGs are just toolkits. And where those toolkits are found wanting, the GM fills in the blanks. And the game continues, and people show up session after session.

Frankly, if the need you say is truly necessary, truly a glaring hole in the rules, at some point, those rules would already exist and by now, after 13 revisions (od&d, Holmes Basic, AD&D, Moldvay Basic/Expert, AD&D UA, Metzner B/E/C/M/I, AD&D2, AD&D2 Skills and Powers, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, D&D 4.5, D&D 5 (and I left out Rules Cyclopedia and OSR versions, etc)), after hundreds of official books, etc. we still do not have these rules. And yet, people are still able to do palace intrigue without specific rules for it. So, don't tell me I'm handwaving or being dismissive. I have 44 years of history behind my statement that such rules are not necessary. Necessary is the important word. I did not say it would be bad to have such rules. But even if they existed, some population of players would ignore them, some population would use them, and the rest would house rule them to varying degrees of recognition. Just like they do with all the other rules in the books.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
I'm more bothered by Perform. If you have a lyre and are proficient in Perform, can you play the lyre with proficiency? If not (and by the rules no is probably the answer), what does Perform proficiency do? If you are using Perform for acting, shouldn't you use Decpetion instead? If you are using Perform for giving a rousing speech, shouldn't you use Persuasion instead? When does Perform do something?

I actually don't mind that some of these things are a bit nebulous. I think it promotes multiple paths to success. It can be a bit sloppy in places from a design perspective, yes, but at my table? doesn't bother me in the slightest.


I think there's an intermediate position between super detailed rule systems and nothing/leave it up to DM judgment. WotC erred on the side of nothing. 4E had some pretty good material in this, with some suggested tasks and DCs. Even just three or four possible tasks under each heading with some examples of consequences would be nice. It doesn't have to be complicated and over-burdened.

There are two reasons to flesh things out a little: Suggestions are helpful to both players and DMs, especially newbies, who may be wrapping their heads around how one would make use of skills and have little to work from. The other is that some players---including some folks I play with---are uncomfortable winging it on a lot of things. It doesn't make them bad players, but they like things a bit more cut and dried and laid out and it cuts way back on arguments when there are some rules to point to on common and/or life threatening tasks. My understanding is that the current WotC folks are a bunch of freeform drama types but not everyone is.

I agree about the intermediate approach. They could have used a bit more with the skills, and a few other areas of the game. I think that they likely went with the approach they did...to provide a minimal framework....because they expected that this would be the part of the game that would vary the most from table to table, regardless of how many rules they implement. So perhaps they saw a highly detailed approach to be not worth the effort? There's no way to know, but that's how it seems to me.

They could have included more examples and suggestions. But I also think they were moving back toward DM judgment rather than codified rules. So winging it, or the DM making a ruling, is baked into the game. Neither approach is right nor wrong, but will of course appeal to different people. For me, 5E was a breath of fresh air in getting rid of codified rules and leaning on rulings, but I recognize that for others, it's more like an incomplete system.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
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'.

View attachment 93553
 

Reynard

Legend
Frankly, if the need you say is truly necessary, truly a glaring hole in the rules, at some point, those rules would already exist and by now, after 13 revisions (od&d, Holmes Basic, AD&D, Moldvay Basic/Expert, AD&D UA, Metzner B/E/C/M/I, AD&D2, AD&D2 Skills and Powers, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4.0, D&D 4.5, D&D 5 (and I left out Rules Cyclopedia and OSR versions, etc)), after hundreds of official books, etc. we still do not have these rules.

Almost all of those editions have some versions of those rules, from the War Machine to the Wilderness Survival Guide to Birthright. The issue here (for me) is why 5E is so weak on them.
 

"The GM can just make it up" isn't a reasonable response to people that actually want games to have rules for the things you are supposed to be able to do in said games.
I want to zoom in on this. Among the more popular (or even less popular) rules systems, how many of them support these other styles of play? Not many, I presume, but I could be wrong. Enlighten me.

I know such rules aren't really in generic games like GURPS and HERO.

Does WoD have rules for palace intrigue? I mean that's the wheelhouse of V:TM, right, with it's princes of cities and houses?

Aspect games like FATE don't really have rules for intrigue since it all hinges on the aspects you create.

I'm also curious what these rules would look like. Are you envisioning something like 4E skill challenges (but fixed)? Or are you hoping for some kind of social points analogy to hit points?
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
The more rules there are for everything, the harder the game is to play! You ever try to play GURPs? The Generic Universal Role Playing System has a lot of volumes and a lot of rules for every little thing. There is a Core rulebook in fact, but if you want to have a fantasy game with any depth to it, you need to buy a few other volumes, you need a setting, you need a list of spells which is a separate volume, you need a list of creatures to challenge your players, that is another volume, and if you want to play another race beside a human, you probably need to consult yet another volume for that! That is five books! Dungeons & Dragons has just three, the information is organized differently. If you are a player, you keep the player's handbook handy, if you are a DM, you need the DM's guide and a Monster manual as well as the Player's handbook.

Now as a GURPS player what do you need? The Core Rulebook, probably GURPS Fantasy. Now imagine there are several players at your gaming table and they are fighting over the Core rule book, GURPS magic because some of them want to cast a spell and GURPS fantasy because they want to look up the particular abilities of the fantasy race of the character they are playing, and they want to buy some stuff, so they need to look at GURPS High Tech! See the problem?
 

Reynard

Legend
It isn't so much the idea of "more rules" as it is "similarly complex rules." So if players have lots of options and tactical choices in combat I think a game should have similarly complex social mechanics. In games with more breezy combat mechanics, breezy social mechanics are fine.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top