Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7069274" data-attributes="member: 53980"><p>90% combat? I've seen this figure thrown about on occasion, and generally it is taken to be a self-evident truth, but is it really? Chapters 7 & 8 of the PHB (which cover non-combat stuff) total 15 pages, whereas the the combat chapter is only 10 pages long. By that metric combat is only 40% of the game. (40/30/30 seems about right to me.)</p><p></p><p>Admittedly, there are plenty of other things in the book which can be grouped under the combat heading (Fireball, Extra Attack, etc.). On the other hand, there are plenty of things that aren't (half orc fluff, the aforementioned Find the Path spell, the Actor feat, etc.).</p><p></p><p>I've played numerous sessions of 5e where not a single combat occurred. Those have been some of my favorite sessions. It does beg the question of how were we having such a great time interfacing with only "10%" of the game.</p><p></p><p>My opinion of it is that this is a self-affirming fallacy. If you expect D&D to be 90% combat (or 100% for that matter) then you are correct, that is what it will be. I was recently listening to a session of 5e on YouTube (it helps me get into the proper mindset while coding) and there was an invisible enemy that the Ranger had Hunter's Marked. It never even occurred to the player that Hunters Mark gives them advantage to find their target (all they remembered was the extra damage); as such the party blundered around quite a bit trying to locate the enemy. </p><p></p><p>Games typically have a heavier focus on the rules of combat because that is where the stakes are usually high. Odds are, someone is going to die once the screen blurs and we enter the combat mini-game. In a social or exploration situation, the stakes might be high (navigating a dangerous area) or they might be minimal (failing to convince the merchant to give you a discount on the rations you want to buy). Most of the time, engaging with the non-combat pillars will not result in immediate life-or-death. Most of the time, engaging with combat may result in losing your character. As such, it behooves the designers to provide more nuanced rules for combat.</p><p></p><p>Murderhoboing is one particular play style which lends itself to 90% or more combat (it's perfectly valid, if you enjoy that style of play). Characterizing the game by that one particular playstyle, however, is painting with an absurdly broad brush. There are many valid play styles out there and they will engage with the various pillars in varying degrees. </p><p></p><p></p><p>With respect to the OP, Angry does have a rather... voluminous... writing style but I generally find his articles illuminating and well thought out, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. I haven't finished this one yet, but (while I don't agree with everything he says) I think it has some interesting ideas, especially for DMs who don't have experience with older editions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 7069274, member: 53980"] 90% combat? I've seen this figure thrown about on occasion, and generally it is taken to be a self-evident truth, but is it really? Chapters 7 & 8 of the PHB (which cover non-combat stuff) total 15 pages, whereas the the combat chapter is only 10 pages long. By that metric combat is only 40% of the game. (40/30/30 seems about right to me.) Admittedly, there are plenty of other things in the book which can be grouped under the combat heading (Fireball, Extra Attack, etc.). On the other hand, there are plenty of things that aren't (half orc fluff, the aforementioned Find the Path spell, the Actor feat, etc.). I've played numerous sessions of 5e where not a single combat occurred. Those have been some of my favorite sessions. It does beg the question of how were we having such a great time interfacing with only "10%" of the game. My opinion of it is that this is a self-affirming fallacy. If you expect D&D to be 90% combat (or 100% for that matter) then you are correct, that is what it will be. I was recently listening to a session of 5e on YouTube (it helps me get into the proper mindset while coding) and there was an invisible enemy that the Ranger had Hunter's Marked. It never even occurred to the player that Hunters Mark gives them advantage to find their target (all they remembered was the extra damage); as such the party blundered around quite a bit trying to locate the enemy. Games typically have a heavier focus on the rules of combat because that is where the stakes are usually high. Odds are, someone is going to die once the screen blurs and we enter the combat mini-game. In a social or exploration situation, the stakes might be high (navigating a dangerous area) or they might be minimal (failing to convince the merchant to give you a discount on the rations you want to buy). Most of the time, engaging with the non-combat pillars will not result in immediate life-or-death. Most of the time, engaging with combat may result in losing your character. As such, it behooves the designers to provide more nuanced rules for combat. Murderhoboing is one particular play style which lends itself to 90% or more combat (it's perfectly valid, if you enjoy that style of play). Characterizing the game by that one particular playstyle, however, is painting with an absurdly broad brush. There are many valid play styles out there and they will engage with the various pillars in varying degrees. With respect to the OP, Angry does have a rather... voluminous... writing style but I generally find his articles illuminating and well thought out, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. I haven't finished this one yet, but (while I don't agree with everything he says) I think it has some interesting ideas, especially for DMs who don't have experience with older editions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e
Top