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 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.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Well,
1) in my game you don't get to roll a die unless you've described what you intend to do, and no, "I diplomate the shop-keeper" isn't sufficient. So, a die roll is never abstract. In fact, a good description of your actions may grant you a bonus on the roll, and a brilliant one may grant you an automatic success.
2) There's no such thing as common sense. It's a myth. Trust me on this.
3) What rolling dice in a social encounter does, is to move from a pre-determined outcome by GM fiat to a variety of different but likely outcomes. Rolling a crit or a fumble results in an outcome that is less likely but still entirely within reason. Such an unexpected result can be the seed for a whole new story idea: Why would the weapons merchant refuse to sell to the pcs? Obviously someone with sufficient influence must have told the merchant about the pcs and instructed him not to sell weapons to them. If the pcs have backgrounds, made contacts, allies, and enemies in the past, such a development is actually quite easy to integrate into an ongoing campaign.
4) I already explained why I think your example is an unreasonable scenario.

The more rules there are for everything, the harder the game is to play!

1) This is wrong. 2) 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.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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!).

 

[RevTurkey]

That's TOO ridiculous! What would actually happen is the shopkeeper would go, "that weapon is defective, sir" since the 1 means the PC picked a weapon that is defective. The shopkeeper would then tell the PCs that he doesn't have anymore of that type and recommends they go to another shop/location if he/she wants to buy one of that weapon type. As a punishment for rolling a 1, the PCs have to spend more time to buy that weapon.

What the PCs don't know is that they embroiled themselves in a spy adventure! A secret agent from a foreign land was suppose to come in and ask for a broken weapon, and get told to go to buy it somewhere else, and go get it there. You see, that weapon (somehow) stores a great deal of super important information and this process was all a super secret way to get that information to the secret agent.

So buying that weapon from the other location will ensure that SOMETHING will attack the PCs. Either the foreign agent trying to get the info storing weapon, or some other powerful entities/town guard/counter spy/mercenaries trying to prevent the agent from getting it! That's what would happen!

I like it! Making roll-playing drive the role-playing. It’s kind of like grabbing the ‘OSR stick of righteousness’ (common magic item) and beating the old grognards over the noggin with it

I’m more of a describe it rather than roll it kind of Gm. In the encounter imagined...I’d maybe head for the dice if the players were trying to extract more than a basic purchase...getting a discount, or maybe some plot information for example. So, I ‘might’ make them roll for that situation...with the 1 resulting in say, double the price but being convinced the item is very special when it isn’t (and of course maybe in the long run something interesting does get discovered about the item..maybe a curse on it etc)...or maybe the information gained is fake and maybe the merchant is a bit dubious and part of the Thieves Guild and sets up the group as a potential mark for robbery etc...

That’s how I tend to go...not going to either polar opposite...judge it by what will make the players enjoy the game...if there has been a lot of dice rolling happening...then a pure storytelling/narrative section of play might be good to break things up and vice versa...if the player’s tongues are getting tired of waggling along describing every last detail, then they probably appreciate a change in pace and just roll to resolve a situation.

Is D&D too combat heavy? You can dial it whichever way you want and don’t have to stick to that choice. Don’t let things become predictable or they become boring pretty soon in my experience. I think combat is a good area to throw some tactical/rule depth at. More than for social interactions for certain...but then it can be nice to introduce say something like Skill Challenges from 4th edition once in a blue moon just to give the players the unexpected.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

They could, but they never have over the decades. DnD is a combat game, from inception. The 75% of rules on combat has worked well so far!

Yep, and I think a lot of DMs are fine with not having detailed rules for situations that have been handled with player and DM interaction in the past.

When I'm running a game and a player says they want to convince the burgermeister of Diertburg of something, I want them to think what they are going to say and roleplay it out, give me a synopsis of what they are trying to say to him, or even jump into the skin of the PC and play it out like they are the PC talking. As a DM I know what will convince the NPC or what will influence them. If I was a good DM I dropped a lot of hints in that regard as well. Of course mechanical things like a high CHA score or skill will influence how I have the NPC react but what I get now is just "I'll make a persuasion check". I hate that and its the farthest thing from immersion to me. Plus it puts uncertainty in a situation where there may not need to be any. I may ask for a skill check after that or CHA check if its iffy and the situation needs a check to resolve a questionable outcome but why rush to that point?

Having a social combat and defense value and rolling that out like physical combat no thank you. To me RP needs to be more than leveraging the numbers on your sheet against other numbers.

 

[Reynard]

Having a social combat and defense value and rolling that out like physical combat no thank you. To me RP needs to be more than leveraging the numbers on your sheet against other numbers.

I think this suggests a hard dividing line between combat and role-playing that isn't necessary or desirable (IMO obviously). When characters engage the enemy in combat, the players are still role-playing. it is just that the process of combat is a lot more granular than other aspects of the game, meaning that their role-play involves their character sheets and rules a lot more. This doesn't need to be the case. D&D combat could just as easily (and satisfactorily) be treated the same way as the negotiation you described: the player tells you what they plan to do, their tactics and approach, and if you think that leaves some ambiguity they make a single "attack roll" to determine whether they win the fight or not, and what the consequences are of either. That's a perfectly viable way to conduct combat in D&D -- and in a lot of cases, especially when talking about combats that ultimately don't matter and exist primarily to drain party resources or eat game time, it is preferable. Sometimes, though, a fight should be a long drawn out affair with every parry and thrust and spell desrcibed in full.

What I don't understand is why people are so resistant to treating other aspects of the game the same way.

 

[Aldarc]

The issue of combat vs. social amounts to more than simply making skill checks. Other systems and subsystems may be at play as well.

In Fate, for example, the social pillar of the game is frequently tied into the characters' high concept, trouble, and other aspects. If you have the (high concept) aspect "Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric" then this gives the GM and character a lot of material for pushing the social dimension of the campaign forward via compels. This character aspect gives us information that the GM can "use against" the player. We know that the character is "disgraced," and that his character is tied to another character named "Prince Alfric" (and his associates), and that he served as his "bodyguard." This ties the character in question deeply into the story and the social world in which the characters inhabit. This would be "your character" and that provides more social information about who and what the character is about than simply "Level 7 Human Champion Fighter." This aspect could even be invoked in support of the exploration pillar: e.g., "Because I am the 'Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric,' I happen to know a lot of secret entrances of how to get in and out of this palace, and so I remember an underground path that leads from the inner chamber to a shed on the garden grounds."

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think this suggests a hard dividing line between combat and role-playing that isn't necessary or desirable (IMO obviously). When characters engage the enemy in combat, the players are still role-playing. it is just that the process of combat is a lot more granular than other aspects of the game, meaning that their role-play involves their character sheets and rules a lot more. This doesn't need to be the case. D&D combat could just as easily (and satisfactorily) be treated the same way as the negotiation you described: the player tells you what they plan to do, their tactics and approach, and if you think that leaves some ambiguity they make a single "attack roll" to determine whether they win the fight or not, and what the consequences are of either. That's a perfectly viable way to conduct combat in D&D -- and in a lot of cases, especially when talking about combats that ultimately don't matter and exist primarily to drain party resources or eat game time, it is preferable. Sometimes, though, a fight should be a long drawn out affair with every parry and thrust and spell desrcibed in full.

What I don't understand is why people are so resistant to treating other aspects of the game the same way.

Yes, you could have a largely diceless narrative game for sure. But where I want the system to dictate things is combat where every swing of the weapon is uncertain. Nobody in my group has sword fought to the death, but they are all experience in BS'ing, persuading, cajoling, and flattering people that they can use at the table in a roleplay situation. So we need mechanics in that area far less than combat. To me its more fun and immersive as a player to think of how I'm going to talk to a town official than thinking well I"ve got a +8 and I need to pass a check. Of course there is way to combine them both and many don't agree with me. Heck I'd get rid of all skills that aren't really tied to a class function so I'm an outlier I'd wager. All IMO, YMMV and that.

 

[Kobold Boots]

What I don't understand is why people are so resistant to treating other aspects of the game the same way.

I posted half of this answer in another post you've acknowledged with XP, so I'll only add the other half.

Objective tasks like combat require a lot of rules to handle properly and are bloated by character guidelines that increase word count.
Subjective tasks like social situations can't be modeled well given the same word count, it's actually less effective because you have far more nuance with the interaction

Here's something that works for my table:

Player trying to convince a merchant to lower pricing.
1. How strapped is the merchant - If he's doing well he'll be inclined to haggle -2 to difficulty. If not less so +2
2. How good of a mood is he in today - start at 10, roll 2d10. First die is 1-5 good mood, 6-10 bad.. second die is the modifier
(range of 0-20) sets the initial difficulty. So final diff is no check necessary to 22 - really bad day.

Roleplay because I don't allow a check without a trigger and the conversation itself is that trigger.

Player rolls against desired skill or attribute depending on what version of the game we're playing.
If they beat the target we continue the conversation favorably. If they fail it we continue the conversation less so unless it's really botched.

What I just typed up is all that's really needed when a contest is expected socially. You don't really need more. The responsibility is on the DM to set table rules for what has to happen before a check is allowed. If you require some rp then you'll get much more of it over time. If you don't, then none will happen or it will happen sporadically.

Thanks,
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

The issue of combat vs. social amounts to more than simply making skill checks. Other systems and subsystems may be at play as well.

In Fate, for example, the social pillar of the game is frequently tied into the characters' high concept, trouble, and other aspects. If you have the (high concept) aspect "Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric" then this gives the GM and character a lot of material for pushing the social dimension of the campaign forward via compels. This character aspect gives us information that the GM can "use against" the player. We know that the character is "disgraced," and that his character is tied to another character named "Prince Alfric" (and his associates), and that he served as his "bodyguard." This ties the character in question deeply into the story and the social world in which the characters inhabit. This would be "your character" and that provides more social information about who and what the character is about than simply "Level 7 Human Champion Fighter." This aspect could even be invoked in support of the exploration pillar: e.g., "Because I am the 'Disgraced Bodyguard of Prince Alfric,' I happen to know a lot of secret entrances of how to get in and out of this palace, and so I remember an underground path that leads from the inner chamber to a shed on the garden grounds."

My reply to this would be "Have your players write a one page background prior to sitting down at the table". Alternatively, create a game around it at session zero.

It's a good thing to have backgrounds that kick off the imagination, but I don't necessarily think that's the level of detail folks are arguing that 5e doesn't have.

 

[Reynard]

My reply to this would be "Have your players write a one page background prior to sitting down at the table". Alternatively, create a game around it at session zero.

It's a good thing to have backgrounds that kick off the imagination, but I don't necessarily think that's the level of detail folks are arguing that 5e doesn't have.

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