I don't think is true, at least not in 5e (you could MAYBE say something like that about 3e or 4e, but I don't play these much nowadays; if you want a combat-focused game, try Mythras).
[BTW, you can tell that I mean it by the number of posts about combat in this blog - more weapons, more maneuvers, more options, etc.]
Look at the PHB: the combat chapter is quite small. The list of weapons is very short and, dare I say, underwhelming. Many races and classes have powers that are related to investigation or interaction (darkvision, languages, etc). "Martial" classes without spells are rare.
The DMG has a few extra combat options, but also honor, sanity, etc. It has plenty of magic weapon, though; see below.
The MM monsters are a bit more combat focused, but they have plenty of lore, art, and non-combat aspects (alignment, languages, some skills, etc). Although I DO agree that encountering monsters is a bit too combat focused in this edition, for the lack of reaction rules and similar mechanics.
D&D's pillars are, supposedly, combat, exploration and interaction, which is a fair thing to say (I might add "character development" but that's another story).
 |
| Copyright WotC. |
Another thing D&D is about is MAGIC. It takes the biggest chapters, we get more spells with every splat (not a dozen new melee weapons IIRC, two or three new combat styles, but 200 new spells since the core books, or something).
In fact, if we want more tools for combat, we don't get many alternate rules for combat, but more combat spells (and magic weapons).
Maybe you can say that D&D is mostly about magic, or even magical combat... But ordinary combat?
Take another look. There are no details about the interaction between weapons and armor. Only one type of shield. No reason to use a (non-magic) mace RAW. No specific ways of hitting a specific body part. Grappling is very simple. Disarming is an optional rule. This is NOT a game with an exaggerated focus on combat.
I've played many RPGs in which combat was downplayed (say, Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies); D&D is certainly combat-focused when compared to those. But it is unfair to say D&D 5e is much more focused on combat than, say, GURPS, Mythras, Pendragon, or even Castle Falkenstein (which has some pretty specific dueling rules). I won't even go into Riddle of Steel, Dark Souls (I don't even know if the RPG I read is official, but...) or other games that ARE much more focused on combat.
Maybe you can think RPGs in general are too focused on combat. It is a matter of taste. Maybe you think videogames are too focused on combat. Might well be. But if you frame it as a criticism to D&D, specifically, it is inaccurate IMO.
I feel the same in practice (although that's anecdotal evidence): we spend only a fraction of our 5e games doing combat, and in my last CoS session there was no combat at all. My experience is not universal, but it is one example on how you can play D&D without focusing on combat.
---
I posted something similar over reddit and got massive criticism. Still, I believe readers of my blog will have a better understanding of this issue.
BTW, there is more 5e-combat-oriented stuff coming soon!
Something like Mythras, which is a system I love and should play more, has a lot of complex and sophisticated combat rules but it also has an equally strong skill system and a mostly non-combat magic system. It feels built for portraying mortal adventurers against the odds, whatever they may be.
ReplyDelete5e D&D has a less well developed combat system it's true, but so many of the rules, spells, and feats relate to combat and the default means to gain XP is through combat. One of the main draws of levelling up is rolling another die of HP.
It's built to portray powerful heroes vanquishing dangerous foes and saving the world and I think there's a certain player expectation of that from how characters are built. I think the encounter balancing rules encourage players to believe that hostile foes are a puzzle to be solved with steel rather than negotiation.
You can definitely run D&D games with minimal combat but I think even then it can feel like it's all combat due to the amount of time spent in combat, as fights can draw out especially at higher levels.
It's definitely true about the three pillars. There are a lot of cool utility class powers and if you read the Wizards' articles on creating 5e classes the balance built in is clear.
Yes, Mythras is an amazing game, with many different subsystems - including cults, groups, etc. - which are amazing. I just wanted to emphasize there are other games out there that have more detailed combat (Mythras has six or seven types of shields IIRC, which is something I miss in 5e, for example).
DeleteYou make a fair point about XP; new-school D&D has XP-for -combat as a default, even though I don't use it. You're probably right about high levels too - something I tend to avoid.
Anyway, D&D 5e has a lot of focus on combat, but not only combat, and not when compared to most "mainstream" games or other editions of D&D (3e, 4e).
Mythras combat is crazy, especially with focus on range and stance over just pounding away. You make a lot of good points, it's thought provoking stuff.
Delete5e definitely feels less combat centric than 3.5 or 4e (I haven't experienced any older versions than that)
Certainly D&D can be a heavy combat-orientated game, however the extent of that is left to individual groups and GMs to determine; if you ram your game with combat encounters then it'll seem fight-tastic, whereas if you focus more on social interaction or other elements of D&D then less so. In early D&D (which is my preferred area) there are certainly more rules for combat, but that's at least partly because social interaction and some other elements do not require extensive rules.
ReplyDeleteYes, it certainly depends on the group.
DeleteD&D is about what you make it. I would say an instance of tactical combat seems to take up more time than instances of other aspects on average and that may skew perceptions.
ReplyDeleteDo people really say that though? Or is it something people like to say that they hear?
I agree. But people really say it. Here is one example, with lots of people agreeing. I've heard people say that myself; it was a big selling point for "alternative" games.
Deletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/709yow/dd_is_too_focused_on_combat/
How much time dedicated is less about emphasis on combat and more about informed decision making and controlling rules lawyers because combat is a life and death situation while role playing social encounters is not.
ReplyDeleteThat plays a part, sure. However, I'm not sure combat is often a life and death situation in modern D&D, because of "balanced" encounter etc. Also, if you're playing something akin to game of thrones, for example, role playing social encounters could mena the difference between life and death...
DeleteMost editions of D&D, and many copy-cats, have few or zero robust game structures besides combat resolution.
ReplyDeleteSome have clear map exploration structures, but that's out of fashion.
DMs generally are tasked with inventing almost every non combat structure.
Seems like a valid complaint.
I see your point, but could you give some examples in mainstream games? I'm thinking Savage Worlds, Star Wars, GURPS, WFRP, Shadowrun, Rolemaster... those seem to be the most played games beside D&D. But I'll agree if you mean CoC, for example, or something PbtA (might be true for WoD; the versions I played had too much combat for a game where this shouldn't be the main issue).
DeleteMy point is, compared to other mainstream RPGs, D&D isn't an outlier.
Structures that come to mind are Burning Wheel Duel of Wits, Stars without Number Faction Turn, Ironsworn Progress Meters, and Blades in the Dark Clocks, Position/Effect, and Mission/Downtime structures.
DeleteHowever, I don't think the point is whether other games have other types of structures. D&D doesn't merely lack other structures, it implies that it has other structures! For example, there are promises of long treks through the wild, struggling to survive, but no systems to build that experience besides "characters can hike this far in a day..." What choices do the players have in this situation? Bring extra rations? That's hardly a game. There are implications in the rules for Adventuring that this should be an interesting segment of the game, but then no rules on how to play it out. No suggestions for how the players can manipulate the system or what complications should arise for poor judgement.
The Social interaction rules are worse. They call for "roleplaying", then describe some examples and say, "In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction." How? There are no rules for how to play this out. When should you roll? What are the potential consequences for using different types of skills? What choices do the players have?
The combat rules shine and explain all of these issues clearly. They define when a player takes action, what actions they can take, what the consequences are for different choices, and what will end the scene. The challenge rating system even gives the DM rules for how to set up the combat scene.
The Magic system is a tough one to consider. The structure is robust, for sure, in that you know clearly how many spells you can cast "in a day," but because there are no robust structures for what "a day" is, the players still lack information to make informed decisions.
Imagine if you read a stripped-down D&D manual that said, "Here are the rules for character creation, here are the rules for combat, and here are the rules for magic. If the characters are not involved in doing combat or magic, the DM improvises what happens." I don't think that manual would be too far different from what we have now.
Fair enough, you make a good argument.
DeleteCurrent D&D lacks clear/extensive rules for exploration and social iteration when compared to combat. Notice that there ARE rules in the DMG (including the ones you asked about ability checks and social interaction), but nothing compared to Burning Wheel, SWN, etc. (BW is good but... man does combat give me headaches!).
I didn't get your point about the "day"; I wouldn't want D&D to tell em what a day is.
I do agree in part with the last paragraph, although I think there is other angle to consider. The DM isn't supposed to improvise, but to use the DMG or published modules. There are some trais character traits focusing on exploration and social interaction (backgrounds, for example, bonds etc.), but not the same space dedicated to combat, I'll admit.
I Just think this might be a trait of mainstream RPGs in general.
Even with the points that I bring up, I don't think D&D is "only about combat." I agree with you that the type of game is common in the mainstream RPGs in general, and there's a good reason for it. Other game structures are difficult to play out well.
DeleteEven though the complaint is overstated, players shouldn't be shrugged off just for making the complaint.
We have seen first-hand the power of creative thinking in the video game industry, which generates new genres of video games at an amazing rate. RPGs share many psychological features and structures with video games, and we should be expecting more genres of RPGs. Many different players would enjoy different types of RPGs, if only they were created and distributed, and one of the best ways to create new types of games is by examining what parts of current games work for them, and which parts do not.
Yeah, ultimately the amount of combat you put in your game comes down to a matter of taste. I completely agree that people should try many different RPGs to find the ones that suit them the most - or even create their own!
DeleteI think this answer feels right. I don't think D&D is only about combat but I agree about the separation of 'the structured combat rules' and 'the handwavy everything else rules' and that could colour people's perceptions.
Delete