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.

 

[pemerton]

All the ways a player can assert himself in logistics and exploration fail in the face of an opponent.

Part of the difference between our play selves and our real selves is that in the universe of the game, something's actively trying make you unsafe, cause you harm.

Maybe we all should have just tried harder to talk with our opponents, but when it comes down to it they will kill us if we don't respond. Combat, and skill in combat, is a kind of tangible, measurable source of security and also agency. If the vampire refuses to be convinced by my argument that I should live, at least I can fight the vampire.

But this really begs the question - in that you assume that it is inherent in combat mechanics that they deliver finality in resolution, but social mechanics can't have the same character.

Classic Traveller doesn't have a universal social resolution system, but it has a few social resolution subsytems (especially for dealing with officials). And it delivers finality of resolution in those areas. One result is that Traveller players don't have their PCs blow up all the police and customs inspectors, because they know that a successful Admin or Bribery check can result in them being convinced.

Of course its still focused more on combat than anything else. Nearly every class ability is used primarily in combat. Characters still have Hit Points as the only codified rules system for determining whether or not they stay in the scene encounter or not. The only way to hurt Hit Points is to Attack in a combat.

As long as this is the primary form of taking out characters and monsters, this will never change.

One can argue that there are rules for other ways to resolve situations... Technically there isn't. Everything else is GM Fiat and GMs making rulings based on what they want to happen.

<snip>

The only say players really have is when combat happens, and initiative is rolled. Then players have some agency.

As for Exploration and Social encounters... There is no true codified system that tells players they can do something. The GM can always rule, if they choose to, not allow players to roll dice.

In the history of D&D there has been some exceptions to what you say here.

Gygax's DMG has a complex system for establishing social reactions, loyalty and morale, etc. As written, it is applicable to friends and acquaintances, not just hirelings. I'm not sure it's actually playable as written (there are surprisingly many and complex moving parts), but it does offer something other than GM fiat to resolve some aspects of social interaction.

Another exception that tackles head on a lot of your points is the 4e skill challenge - codified resolution framework, player checks matter, finality of resolution. Unfortunately the "died in a fire" (I think that's the technical term).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've seen this argument quite often, but I'm convinced it doesn't hold water.
There's nothing inherently different about combat that it merits being treated different from any other activities in an RPG. In fact there are numerous RPG systems that have seamlessly integrated combat-relevant skills in their skill system. The only reason combat is treated differently from other skills in D&D is that D&D historically didn't have a skill system.

Combat encounters could be resolved purely by roleplaying exactly as any other kind of encounter. And the reverse is just as true: All kinds of encounters benefit from a rule framework, especially those that involve some kind of conflict. It doesn't matter if that conflict is fought with weapons, words or thoughts.

Well, words and thoughts generally don't tend to injure, maim, or kill. The focus many games (not just D&D) place on combat is due to the deadly nature of combat. Games that go combat light on rules also tend to reduce consequences of combat.

 

[pemerton]

Well combat needs rules, role playing does not. Players can always play "Lets pretend" There is no die rolling involved when characters are attempting to solve a mystery, or haggling with a merchant to settle on a price

You can do combat with "let's pretend" also - I played a lot of "cops and robbers" and "armies" when I was a kid.

The reason for dice rolling in combat isn't because combat especially needs it - it's because it provides finality of outcome without people having just to agree on what happens.

You can do exactly the same thing in non-combat arenas of interaction. As I just posted, Classic Traveller had social resolution mechanics in 1977. It's not like this is cutting edge tech if you want it in your game.

 

[pemerton]

I feel that D&D makes the assumption that combat will be a lengthy mechanical part of a session whenever it occurs, so that every character should be good at it. This doesn't mean that you need a lot of combat, or that every session has combat. It does mean that when it occurs it's going to take a good chunk of time and involve everyone.

<snip>

Everyone being useful and having a niche in combat is a sacred cow of D&D and I accept that (and can easily play systems that don't have that when I feel like it), and that I accept. Where it could grow even stronger is if it too that assumption about combat and applied it across other pillars, so everyone had niches in them and could contribute, instead of only needing one Face, or one tracker, or one PC who can find and disarm traps.

I think this would require not only changing PC build rules, but also changing the default approach to non-combat encounter framing.

I don't use a lot of traps or other "exploration"-type challenges in my games, so can't comment on that. But it's very common for the 8 CHA Dwarf fighter in my main 4e game to make social checks in a skill challenge, because he is trying to produce some outcome in the fiction (make someone listen to him, or obey him, or agree with him, or whatever) and there's no other way to bring that about!

But I read a lot of posts which talk about leaving all the talking up to "the face". This suggests that situations are being set up so that none of the other PCs (and thereby the players) have anything distinctive at stake which they need to make social checks to achieve. Contrast the situation with combat, where (typically) every PC is at risk of losing hp.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think die roles should ever substitute for players using their brains to figure out a situation.

I personally don't think that's very contentious, but it's orthogonal to the issue of whether or not combat is especially in need of rules.

some editions tried adding rules to social and exploration elements of the game, they weren't terribly successful because all they ended up really accomplishing is setting DC's for diplomacy checks on making gods your friends. That's obviously not the approach we want to see.

The only edition that does this is 3E. It's not in AD&D. And it's not in 4e. (I'm not sure about 5e, but I don't think so.)

Social and exploration is very much less a fixed-outcome sort of deal and I think because of that, it's a lot more difficult to create rules. We don't know what the outcome of talking to the King is.

The player can establish the desired outcome when declaring his/her action.

Unless we're going to create rules that say something like "All Kings are the same." in the same way that all longswords are the same, we're never going to be able to have the same kind of rules we have for combat work for social situations.

Well, Traveller actually takes that approach to bureaucrats - a uniform resolution scheme for dealing with them. The result is that dealing with bureaucrats is a significant part of Classic Traveller play.

But there are plenty of systems with universal social resolution mechanics that "the same kind of rules" as for combat - eg HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. (Exactly the same in the case of the first and last of those.)

 

[Reynard]

"We try to convince the baron to write us a letter so we can get to the capital without being molested by guards" does not need to be handled terribly differently in the game rules than "We try to move down the hallways without setting off any of the pressure plates so we can get to the treasure without being pinioned with poison darts" or "we try to cut our way through the orc line so we can get to the necromancer without having our life force sucked out." Each one represents a bunch of steps and challenges that are based on the capabilities of the PC as written on the character sheet, guided by the strategies and tactics of the players. The problem with treating the first as special, requiring convincing statements, is that it becomes a game of "GM May I?" very quickly. Imagine the opposite where the outcome of combat was determined by how well you described your attacks and feints and was based primarily on whether the GM liked what you said, what their mood was and whether their kids had really rankled them that day. It doesn't make sense for combat (in a game not built around narrative devices, I mean) so it should not make any more sense in a social challenge or a non-combat skill challenge. Players should not have to be adept orators in order to play a con man any more than they should have to know how to fence in order to play a swashbuckler.

 

[BackInAction]

One other reason why combat might get more love than some of the parts of the game is the "real life" vs "fantasy" aspect. In "real-life" I deal with logistics, resources, social interactions, etc. all day long. I don't cast spells or swing a sword.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"We try to convince the baron to write us a letter so we can get to the capital without being molested by guards" does not need to be handled terribly differently in the game rules than "We try to move down the hallways without setting off any of the pressure plates so we can get to the treasure without being pinioned with poison darts" or "we try to cut our way through the orc line so we can get to the necromancer without having our life force sucked out." Each one represents a bunch of steps and challenges that are based on the capabilities of the PC as written on the character sheet, guided by the strategies and tactics of the players. The problem with treating the first as special, requiring convincing statements, is that it becomes a game of "GM May I?" very quickly. Imagine the opposite where the outcome of combat was determined by how well you described your attacks and feints and was based primarily on whether the GM liked what you said, what their mood was and whether their kids had really rankled them that day. It doesn't make sense for combat (in a game not built around narrative devices, I mean) so it should not make any more sense in a social challenge or a non-combat skill challenge. Players should not have to be adept orators in order to play a con man any more than they should have to know how to fence in order to play a swashbuckler.

I agree with you last sentence, but...

Having mechanical means for suicidal challenges means that the PCs are subject to the same kinds of social "attacks." That gets into telling people how their PC acts or thinks or feels. That's not bad, in and of itself, but it is a big reason people push back against codified mechanics for the social pillar.

I'm okay with having to adopt what mechanics tell me, but I have a few current players that would hate it. One of my old players would be enraged -- which is weird because he was a fantastic GM, even of ganes that had social mechanics. When he played, though, even trying to apply pressure, much less mechanics, turned him into a stubborn mule.

 

[Sebastrd]

Personally, I think the greatest failing of D&D is that it doesn't offer robust mechanical support outside of combat. 5E is particularly egregious given that the stated design goals included supporting all three "pillars" (combat, exploration, and interaction), but the rules didn't evolve to cover them. (That said, I'm a huge fan of 5E.)

If anyone has experience with games that do a good job of mechanically implementing exploration and interaction, I'd love to hear about them. I hate glossing over them at my table, but I've yet to come across a better alternative.

 

[Lord Zack]

Almost everything in D&D revolves around combat. Combat has always been the main course. And there is no shame in that, but we often see attempts made to either apologize or compensate for it unnecessarily. What I loved best about fourth edition was it actually embraced the true nature if the system. It was the most honest and innovative version of the game, and true to form, flawed no less than any of the others.

Most people may have played the game that way, but this would be because the early developers failed in adequetly communicating their intent. If you tried to go all hack and slash in Blackmoor and Greyhawk your characters would be slain in short order. Personally I find that a game where combat is emphasized over alternative solutions to be far less interesting.