D&D 5E Dungeons & Dragons is X Percent Combat

[Nebulous]

I'm not really sure how to answer. We definitely don't have a fight every session. When we do, it's not often a fight takes a whole (2 hour) session. On rare occasions, we have a balls to the wall drag out fight that will last 2-3 sessions straight over a couple weeks with nothing but combat, but then switch to roleplaying the next month. This also changes campaign to campaign, based on the story. When I ran Forge of Fury from 3rd-5th level, there were 5 PC deaths. It was a meatgrinder, and only one character escaped alive at the end. By comparison, I'm running Strahd for a newbie group and I've gone easy. They're 9th level now and not a single PC death yet. So, I suppose my answer is just "it depends." The numbers fluctuate too much to give it a definite amount.

 

[Lyxen]

The percentage should be on either rule use or page count. When players are just role -playing, they're not really playing any particular game. Go an entire session without using rules, and it doesn't matter what RPG you're (not) using.

It's very rare when you are "just roleplaying" without any influence from what your character is, how he is defined, what he can do, etc. and even more importantly in which world he lives and what other creatures live there and can do. All of that influences your roleplaying, heavily. When you are discussing a political situation, you are considering how to solve it, for example, and I won't do that the same at all when I'm playing D&D or CoC.

 

[GMMichael]

It's very rare when you are "just roleplaying" without any influence from what your character is, how he is defined, what he can do . . . and I won't do that the same at all when I'm playing D&D or CoC.

Sure, you're not going to role-play a "druid" in your Lancer game.

But Just Roleplaying is effectively the exact same thing if you're playing D&D (choose edition), Dragon Age, Pathfinder (choose edition), GURPS (choose fantasy book), Zweihaender, Savage Worlds, Fate, 13th Age, Microlite20, Warhammer Fantasy, Final Fantasy d6, Hero Quest (yep), u.s.w.

So there's little point in saying that D&D is X% combat based on how much role-playing one does, because that applies to every fantasy game. What differs between games is how often the rules come into use.

Note that I left Dungeon World out of the above list because its rules apply to the story and not the simulation. So a group could easily be using Dungeon World while role-playing/not fighting.

 

[Lyxen]

What differs between games is how often the rules come into use.

And again, I don't agree. The rules are not the game. The game has a spirit that goes beyond the exact rules and permeates the way roleplay is conducted. And thus no, sorry, I don't roleplay at all the same way in the games above (the ones that I played), because the GAME is different in addition to the rules being different.

And yes, some games give more incitation to roleplay than others, but it's rarely due to the rules, but I don't think that there's any direct link between the two. For example we did a huge amount of roleplay in Runequest, where actually there are much more rules about combat than D&D because it's very detailed tactically.

 

[loverdrive]

I don't really care about the exact percentage, but my answer is int A_FREAKING_LOT.

That's not a bad thing, tho. Idk why D&D fans vehemently oppose that D&D been combat-centric since 2000s at the very least.

 

[loverdrive]

And again, I don't agree. The rules are not the game. The game has a spirit that goes beyond the exact rules and permeates the way roleplay is conducted. And thus no, sorry, I don't roleplay at all the same way in the games above (the ones that I played), because the GAME is different in addition to the rules being different.

And yes, some games give more incitation to roleplay than others, but it's rarely due to the rules, but I don't think that there's any direct link between the two. For example we did a huge amount of roleplay in Runequest, where actually there are much more rules about combat than D&D because it's very detailed tactically.

I think it essentially boils down to "is roleplaying a good idea?".

This is not purely a rules question, of course. Group composition, athmosphere, all that also contribute (but then, group composition and athmosphere are also kinda interlinked with the rules, so it becomes even more muddy).

On the hospital average, roleplaying in any edition of D&D is a bad idea -- it puts you, the player, at disadvantage. A blank slate character with "flexible" morals would fare better in any situation than consistent, fleshed-out one. But that's true for ALL midschool/trad/whatever games, and certainly not endemic to D&D.

 

[Jer]

I don't really care about the exact percentage, but my answer is int A_FREAKING_LOT.

That's not a bad thing, tho. Idk why D&D fans vehemently oppose that D&D been combat-centric since 2000s at the very least.

Because not everyone plays the game that way?

This thread is weird because it feels like a lot of people wanting to declare that there's one right way to play D&D when there isn't. There might be correct and incorrect ways to apply certain rules, but when it comes to the mix of combat vs. investigation vs. social interaction for a game there's no "right" way to mix them, only personal preferences.

 

[loverdrive]

Because not everyone plays the game that way?

This thread is weird because it feels like a lot of people wanting to declare that there's one right way to play D&D when there isn't. There might be correct and incorrect ways to apply certain rules, but when it comes to the mix of combat vs. investigation vs. social interaction for a game there's no "right" way to mix them, only personal preferences.

Welp, that's kinda of a big design problem.

All in all, D&D does non-combat activities just as well as a slovesochka, a game with no rules, and reasons to use a 300+ pg (600+, if we count DMG, as we should) rulebook to use only skillcheck rules out of it eludes me.

Does system support [X] is a very easy question to answer. Is [X] the only possible outcome that will unavoidably happen as a natural result of engaging with the rules in a good faith? If the answer is no, then, no, the system in question doesn't support [X].

Is it possible to play D&D without investigation? Yeah. Ergo, D&D doesn't support investigations.

 

[Jer]

Is it possible to play D&D without investigation? Yeah. Ergo, D&D doesn't support investigations.

That's such a weird thing to say. It's possible to play D&D without combat. I know - I've done it. Therefore by this logic D&D doesn't support combat either.

I mean, I could see if your argument was being made about AD&D 1e or BECMI D&D or something - yeah those were basically combat engines where you needed to craft your own house rules to run an investigation game. (But honestly even the combat engines most folks IME crafted their own house rules - entire binders full of house rules). But 5e? 5e is a bog-standard roll a die and add an attribute+skill to it vs. a difficulty number system. The skill list is broad enough to resolve any kind of investigatory or social interaction a player might decide to do and do it pretty easily. I'd honestly prefer to run an investigation-oriented or even social-oriented game in 5e over something like WW's Storyteller system, which is supposedly built for those kinds of games but is clunky in comparison at the table IME.

 

[GMMichael]

Because not everyone plays the game that way?

This thread is weird because it feels like a lot of people wanting to declare that there's one right way to play D&D when there isn't. There might be correct and incorrect ways to apply certain rules, but when it comes to the mix of combat vs. investigation vs. social interaction for a game there's no "right" way to mix them, only personal preferences.

So we have at least two types of voting responses here:

1) What percentage of Dungeons & Dragons the RPG is combat?
2) What percentage of your Dungeons & Dragons session is combat?

As you point out, #2 is subjective. #1 is actually worth discussing. Somewhat.