Is D&D 90% combat / 10% RPing?

[Dalebert]

This thread is to continue a discussion started in the subtle spell thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472166-Subtle-Spell-is-under-rated&p=20217036#post20217036) It was posited that D&D is mostly about combat because that's what the rules are built around.


There are no major roleplaying rules.

What rules do you feel are necessary? It seems to me 90% addresses combat because role-playing is more free-form whereas creatures in direct conflict calls for mechanics to resolve who succeeds and how much. Putting a lot of rules in place for role-playing seems like it would be trying to put limits on something that should be very organic. Role-playing is an art; not a science. You just have to do it a lot and you get good at it and have more fun with it. A list of rules seems like it would make it robotic.

[Mr.Moron]

I've never really run it like that. I'd say it's a fair split in most of my games maybe slightly leaning more "non-combat RP" than "Combat".

Certainly the non-combat parts of the game have much fewer and much more loosely defined rules but RP doesn't really demand rules. I've had as good a time playing total freeform with no system at all as I have systems that lay solid frameworks for resolving social situations or investigations. Characters do what they do and roll when they need to roll to do that. How well granularity defined the rolls are in any given system really has no bearing on the characters doing what they'd do. It just defines how much the system determines the outcomes more than subjective DM or player judgement.

Certainly "90%" combat is a fair, objective description of rule and page count dedication. However that statement just kind of tells you if the system supports RP in a way or with a style you enjoy or not. It doesn't tell you how much RP is possible/ideal/done in practice with the system.

[georgie_leech]

While the rules in D&D aren't built to enhance roleplay per se, it certainly doesn't inhibit them for the most part. The rules may be 90% combat, and that's the part that's easiest to design for, but the game itself certainly isn't. To draw a comparison, the rules for Poker are all about how betting works and which hand beats which, but there's far more to the game than simply drawing cards and tossing chips on the table.

[HammeredWharf]

I agree that RPing doesn't need many rules, but even combat rules can be used for RP. Subtle spell is a good example of that, as your party's caster could create a distraction, fake an assassination attempt, etc. using it.

D&D is less customizable than some other systems, but what it's about still depends largely on the DM and players. I prefer games with an equal spread of combat / RPing / exploration, but many like combat-heavy games and that's ok, too. If your game focuses heavily (>60%) on RP, D&D might not be the best system for it, but it can still be used quite well.

[AcerbicOrb]

The rules might be primarily combat, but in terms of the gameplay it can be as combat heavy or RP heavy as the DM likes. You don't really need rules for RP as much as you need them for combat.

[rlc]

A lot of the variant rules say that you can allow your players to role play a certain thing instead of represent it mechanically. Inspiration is also a thing.
So, I guess these aren't really major rules, but they're definitely in the book.

[PoeticDwarf]

This thread is to continue a discussion started in the subtle spell thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472166-Subtle-Spell-is-under-rated&p=20217036#post20217036) It was posited that D&D is mostly about combat because that's what the rules are built around.



What rules do you feel are necessary? It seems to me 90% addresses combat because role-playing is more free-form whereas creatures in direct conflict calls for mechanics to resolve who succeeds and how much. Putting a lot of rules in place for role-playing seems like it would be trying to put limits on something that should be very organic. Role-playing is an art; not a science. You just have to do it a lot and you get good at it and have more fun with it. A list of rules seems like it would make it robotic.

The point of roleplaying is there shouldn't be rules. There are people who don't like roleplaying (or combat) that's OK, but you won't enjoy D&D optimal then.
Combat is very important for D&D, and of course it is where the rules are made for but that doesn't mean D&D is just combat. There are also rules for social situations and alternate events

[Natasha]

Even if we assume 10% role playing (and, by roleplaying, I suspect you mean social situations, since acting out battle cries in combat counts as RPing?), its not 90% combat. There are more than a fair amount of rules dedicated to exploration, traps, and other similar situations that aren't directly related to fights.

That said, yes, D&D does push combat more than anything else. Its roots are in war games, and while D&D attempts to separate itself from them, it doesn't help that the overwhelming majority of rules do call back to combat. The structure of the game focuses on monsters and challenges to overcome.

Even the few social rules we have treat them as challenges. Socializing isn't meant to be a challenge you overcome. You don't browbeat people into submission (well, you could, but that goes back to the whole combat thing). However, its still reduced to a simple skill roll where you try to hit someone's social AC. Its very binary, and not meant to model intrigue or subtle influences very well.

While nothing stops you from socializing), there's less that actually encourages it either. There's few incentives beyond the desire to do it. And, yes, having the rules for those situations are important - there is a direct correlation between the rules we have, and the game's story parts. D&D is very challenge focused - you encounter things that challenge you, you beat them or they beat you, you move on. That attitude carries over into social situations, and influences the way we think and treat social situations.

[caden_varn]

A lot of this is going to depend on the group. It is true that combat and magic make up the major chunk of the PHB rules in 5E - you may or may not see this as a barrier to roleplay.

Some people will feel that a lot of rules around social interaction just get in the way, so having fairly minor and vaguely defined rules will be a benefit. I'd think this will favour settled groups of reasonably articulate & proactive players, or ones who come from a more 'theatrical' background, for want of a better word.

Others will tend to follow the rules in the book, and will tend to build games that revolve more heavily around areas with clearly defined rules - which for D&D tends heavily towards combat. This is likely to suit more passive groups, or groups with a mismatch of personalities (ie a single fairly dominant player in a group of more passive players), new groups (not necessarily new to rpgs, but new to each other, such as a pickup group at a game store) and ones who just prefer to do fairly mindless monster-killing games.
For some of these types, games with more defined rules around social interaction will enhance the rpg experience. For others, the point of rpgs is a combat-heavy game, so it won't help them.

None of these approaches is wrong, mind you.

[Yuki Akuma]

90% of the rules for most RPGs are combat, or at least action-oriented 'do stuff' rules. That doesn't mean 90% of the gameplay is combat, it just means 'doing stuff' is a thing the designers think you should have resolution mechanics for, because it's not like you can roleplay swinging a sword at someone in most tabletop environments.

[Eisenheim]

First off, I've played and run D&D 3.5 and 4e, 7th sea, the serenity rpg, and now play and run fate.

I certainly found that D&D was the most combat focused of those games, I think for two reasons. The way characters are statted, and the the way challenges are resolved.

Look at the D&D character sheet. The 5e one has about 7 or eight items that might bear on non-combat actions, plus some skills. That's far more than earlier editions, and most of those things still have very little mechanical weight. It's just the chance for inspiration when you follow a trait. Earlier editions didn't even have that. So characters are mostly defined in terms of combat statistics, which means when you look at your sheet to see how you can solve problems, you mostly see spells and weapons and special abilities for fighting.

Compare that with 7th sea, where your background generates xp every time it's relevant, and combat is just a subset of skills, or fate where it's an even smaller subset of skills, and the main definition of character, aspects, don't necessarily have anything to do with how good you are at fighting.

Now let's talk about resolving challenges: in D&D, combat is complex and deep. It has its own pacing mechanics (hp, rounds) and most characters have options to choose from each action. For non-combat, skills and ability checks are what you have, along with some spells. Skills and checks are usually binary, success or failure, and spells often simply resolve problem if they're relevant. Beyond that, checks are swingy, because of the size of a d20 relative to skill bonus on characters who aren't high level or strongly optimized for skills, and DC are often arbitrary or the guidance on setting them is hard to parse.

compare to 7th sea, where there's a broader suite of non-combat skills, with many usages having defined TNs based on your target's stats, or fate, where identical mechanics can be used for tense social interaction as for a swordfight.

Of course you can have a deep roleplaying experience in D&D, but most of your rule-governed actions will be combat, because that's where the rules are, and that's not the only choice. You can have a game with a much lesser focus on combat, without 'rules for roleplaying,' in any negative way.

[CNagy]

By ruleweight, sure, D&D is overwhelmingly combat oriented. But it's just because combat is a chaotic situation of open hostility with both sides trying to win decisively--so we need some way to score the action. Without that, we're playing cops and robbers where one kid says "bang, I shot you!" and the other goes "no you didn't!"

To me, the combat pillar is like checkers and the social pillar is like chess. Checkers is simple and when you win, you win. The myriad social relationships, balance of power, favor and disfavor, etc, of social engagements means that an entire elaborate scene might only represent the movement of a couple of pieces on the chessboard. Skill checks and acting are the means of attack in the social sphere, and the outcomes are far more nuanced than whacking something until it stops moving.

[Zman]

The rules are very combat oriented, but to be fair combat requires a lot more rules than RP does.

In my IRL game last night, which was about five hours long. We spent half the time in combat and the other half interacting with the world. We are deep deep RPers, but they interrogated a bandit prisoner, turned them over to authorities. Brought additional reinforcements which they had negotiated to defend a town, then created a plan martialing the forces of said town to attack an Orc tribe that had been raiding them creating a two pronged attack.

The party traveled a total of a couple dozen miles, martialed forces, and assaulted an Orc tribe.

My games time wise 50% combat and 50% world interaction which is a lot of RP, information gathering, intrigue etc. It certainly isn't 90%, but I'm sure that you could run a nothing but combat game, but I don't think that's default.

[Nicodiemus]

As with any RP system, it is what you make it. If you're playing AL at the local hobby shop it IS going to lean more towards combat generally, but I tried all the DMs (my store can support 4) and found the one that had the RP level and tone I liked best.

As to roleplay rules consider this: I foolishly dumped my 8 into CHA because I was playing a War wizard. I'm an articulate person, so would often try to negotiate on the party's behalf, but my DM would make me role persuasion checks because my CHARACTER was not good at persuading rain to fall. Ended up building a new character that was more in line with my play style.

If the DM hadn't done that, I would have been allowed to negate that 8, effectively overbalancing my character.

And overall the skills list in 5e has enough diversification to hit most options without becoming bogged down in mechanics letting you treat it like it's meant to be: improv. Otherwise it would be:

Player: Drak the barbarian eats breakfast.

DM: Alright, role an eating skill check to see if you successfully get the fork to your mouth.

Player: Umm..... I rolled an 8, I'm not proficient, and my wisdom modifier is -1 so a 7. Did I eat successfully?

DM: Sucks to suck

[Cybren]

The points I find issue with are that an unoptomized character at combat will be "bad" and "hold back" a party that is optimized for combat. Not all characters need or should be good at fighting, if your rogue is good at lots of non combat things and everyone else is good at combat, great. And at any rate, each PC gets a turn in combat so you will still contribute something in some way.

D&D is a game with lots of combat, but it's not even particularly good at it, to be honest. Many other games do tactical combat with medieval weapons and tactics better (hi, GURPS), but d&d is a game larger than its rules, and my original point was that optimizing your character solely for DPR is one choice you can make but not the only valid one when you make a character, and that's the reason why abilities like subtle spell are often rated lower; there's no real objective metric for rating it, but damage output is measurable, so it's something people gravitate towards

[SwordChuck]

While the rules in D&D aren't built to enhance roleplay per se, it certainly doesn't inhibit them for the most part. The rules may be 90% combat, and that's the part that's easiest to design for, but the game itself certainly isn't. To draw a comparison, the rules for Poker are all about how betting works and which hand beats which, but there's far more to the game than simply drawing cards and tossing chips on the table.

Pretty much this.

The game itself is a majority of battle rules and the game just assumed the players will role play and such. There are many other more story/role-playing based games that are roleokaying first and battle comes in a distant second or third.

They aren't as popular becaus people like to kill things D&D 3, 4, and 5e has it right, I think, make the game like a videogame.

D&D gives you some guidelines but for the most part you make up the role playing aspects on your own (as a group). There really isn't any RAW rules on role-playing after all.*

×××edit

*Don't be an inebriated donkey is perhaps the golden rule.

[Tanarii]

As I said in the other thread, claiming 90% or any other large % of the page count are about combat is a common misconception:

the PHB is ~50% character creation (11% races, 25% classes, 4% personality & background, 8% equipment, 3% feats/multi classing), 8% playing the game (3% skills, 2% exploration, 3% combat), and 33% spells, and rest appendices & intro.

It gives almost equal weight to skill use, exploration and combat rules. There are more personality & background rules than combat section rules, and twice as many equipment section rules. Even once you include combat applicable character section and spells section rules, it's not even close to 90% combat rules. Huge chunks of the rules are flavor, and rules for role playing, and social and exploration oriented game-play

Common misconception that the game is extremely heavy combat rules. It's not. They do a damn good job of emphasizing its only one of three parts of the game: social, exploration, and combat.

[SwordChuck]

As I said in the other thread, claiming 90% or any other large % of the page count are about combat is a common misconception:

the PHB is ~50% character creation (11% races, 25% classes, 4% personality & background, 8% equipment, 3% feats/multi classing), 8% playing the game (3% skills, 2% exploration, 3% combat), and 33% spells, and rest appendices & intro.

It gives almost equal weight to skill use, exploration and combat rules. There are more personality & background rules than combat section rules, and twice as many equipment section rules. Even once you include combat applicable character section and spells section rules, it's not even close to 90% combat rules. Huge chunks of the rules are flavor, and rules for role playing, and social and exploration oriented game-play

Common misconception that the game is extremely heavy combat rules. It's not. They do a damn good job of emphasizing its only one of three parts of the game: social, exploration, and combat.

Try making a class or subclasses that focus on roleplating and not in combat and see how that goes. It wouldn't fit into the game.

Plus, from my experience with my wife (and others), I've learned that anytime someone says "10%" or "90%" it's less of an exact science and more of a replacement for "very little" and "a whole lot".

[HammeredWharf]

Try making a class or subclasses that focus on roleplating and not in combat and see how that goes. It wouldn't fit into the game.

What would a class focused on roleplaying be like?

[Anonymouswizard]

As a side note, you can put add about 50% of the spell count to the combat rules, although in a smart group they don't stay as combat only, and a good proportion of the class abilities are combat-focused, I believe WotC actually considers non-combat abilities as 'ribbons' despite their power, but that's another argument, I call it at about 80%. I think I once hit an estimate that about half of the PhB was related to combat in some way, not to the level of 4e but not as unimportant as combat in Unknown Armies.

For the record, we can also put about 100% of the rules in the Monster Manual as being part of the combat focus, although as I understand little of the DMG.

Honestly, the fact that there's a core book called the 'monster manual' pretty much states that the game's pure assumptions are around combat.

A key thing is that, while no edition of D&D inhibits roleplay, most don't actually encourage it. sure, 5e's flaws and bonds and such encourage you to think about your character, but let's look at a game with a similar combat to social rules ratio: Unknown Armies.

As soon as I look at the 5e sheet the things that stand out are the ability scores, with everything else sort of blending together. This encourages me to think on a mechanical level until I pick my background (whether or not I do is a different matter). Even the character creation section tells me to consider my character's background after my race, class, and ability scores, in essence saying 'create an archetype, then fill it in'. It's essentially the most common variety of character creation.

On the other hand, in an Unknown Armies game I'm handed my sheet and one word grabs my attention: obsession. What does this mean? I was told that this was an Urban Fantasy game, but apparently my character is obsessed with something. The GM, as the only guy who owns a physical copy of the rulebook, tells us that yes are characters are obsessed with something, but no more than normal PCs, and so I happily write down 'protect the children of my street', while my friend picks 'Rainbow Dash is the best' and tells the GM he wants to play a Videomancer. Next we move onto step two, which is conveniently right below my obsession: my triggers. These, the GM/book explains, are what makes you mad, what makes you scared, and what makes you act like a better person (I can say from in-game experience that it's considering these, and if they effect my character enough to pull them, made these a bigger part of my character than his obsession). Next it's stats and skills, but I already have an idea of who my character is and tag my obsession skill as Charm, building my character to be a master of social fu, while deciding he didn't spend much time fighting and so don't put extra points into Struggle and Dodge. Finally I now have my character while he was entirely sane, and I have to decide if he's gone a little bit mad. I decide that who he's protecting the kids from is the Cabals, and so put two hardened notches in Unnatural and one in Self, while taking a failed in Violence, Isolation, and Unnatural. Here the character creation process has encouraged me to develop my character's personality and then build his skills around that, and the in-game effect of my obsession and triggers will give me an incentive to roleplay that character.

Not that such mechanics can't be done poorly, I think we've all seen that (*cough* social encounters as a skill challenge *cough). But when done right they can encourage roleplaying by giving mechanical effects.

[Tanarii]

Try making a class or subclasses that focus on roleplating and not in combat and see how that goes. It wouldn't fit into the game.

Plus, from my experience with my wife (and others), I've learned that anytime someone says "10%" or "90%" it's less of an exact science and more of a replacement for "very little" and "a whole lot".
I wouldn't do that because "roleplaying" isn't a pillar of the game. It goes along with all three pillars. It's something you do on top of the social, exploration and even combat.

I have, and will again in the future, made characters who primary focus is social or exploration. There are lots of crunchy rules for such characters. From race, class, and background features, to equipment, to the playing the game rules section (skills & exploration) to spells. Lore Bards, BM Rangers, Theif Rogues, and Diviners (and many other Wizards) excel in such roles, and there are lots of feats (if allowed) to make them even better at such things.

IMO estimating more than 50% of mechanical rule crunch as 'combat rules' means you either aren't digging into the non-combat rules for roleplay (8% for personalities & background!), social and exploration. Or are playing styles of play where they aren't really used as much. (For example, heavy narrative or combat-as-sport play.) Or you just consider combat the meat of the game, the part the other things are supposed to lead to, as opposed to be used to avoid. (Also common for combat-as-sport.)

[AbyssStalker]

(Didn't mean to hijack the other thread's discussion, thanks for creating this Dalebert)

Well, I believe my comment on the last thread is enough to provide my comment on this "The same could be said of breathing, there are no major rules on it, so why should we do it?" think about it like this, roleplaying is to the game as breathing is to life, they are required to keep it going, at least a little bit of both in their respective subjects, and yet just as some will be fighting one another in real life, some just sit on their couches spending more time breathing and talking than doing anything else.

[SwordChuck]

Not that such mechanics can't be done poorly, I think we've all seen that (*cough* social encounters as a skill challenge *cough). But when done right they can encourage roleplaying by giving mechanical effects.

In 3e, 4e, and now 5e anytime there is a chance for failure (or whaenever the DM wants you to) you rolled skill checks in a very combat oriented way.

Want to lie to someone? It has always been charisma versus wisdom rolls and not having your players talk it out. Sure you can role play the game but the core mechanics are still there in battle form. We need the mechanical combat system for this because people want to play characters that aren't themselves, however D&D boils that down to "let's do combat in some way" instead of having the rules be more fluid and story/role-playing based.

What I always felt was funny about the 4e skill challenge player hate, is that's how a lot of games I've played in for 3.5 actually ran social/skill based situations the exact same way. 4E just gave it a name and people went crazy. :smallbiggrin:

Edit××××

I guess it boils down to this.

Yes, you can be cool for owning a certain type of car, but that doesn't mean the car has any mechanics or rules about being cool. Being cool is a mostly* an outside force that is pushed upon the car and the car owner.

Just like how role playing is performed even though the rules, for a majority, support combat and is a battle game.

* If you own a 1970 ish Baracuda you are automatically cool.

[N810]

What would a class focused on roleplaying be like?

Probably...
Bard.
:elan:

[Anonymouswizard]

In 3e, 4e, and now 5e anytime there is a chance for failure (or whaenever the DM wants you to) you rolled skill checks in a very combat oriented way.

Want to lie to someone? It has always been charisma versus wisdom rolls and not having your players talk it out. Sure you can role play the game but the core mechanics are still there in battle form. We need the mechanical combat system for this because people want to play characters that aren't themselves, however D&D boils that down to "let's do combat in some way" instead of having the rules be more fluid and story/role-playing based.

What I always felt was funny about the 4e skill challenge player hate, is that's how a lot of games I've played in for 3.5 actually ran social/skill based situations the exact same way. 4E just gave it a name and people went crazy. :smallbiggrin:

I actually like skill challenges, except for social encounters. I think it would work even better for a game like Mage or Demon, where you can easily have one running alongside the combat and have players tag into and out of it based on their situation (think of it like the DmC Devil May Cry game if Vergil and Dante were disabling the Hellgate while fighting Mundas). I don't think they work for social situations, because it brings it into a solution that can be gamed, but I don't really have a system that does without using 'social hp' (which can work, but is annoying, and is less fun) or a 'follow the outcome and get pie' system.

I'd rather have an occasional skill roll in a roleplaying session when I'm unsure when an NPC would react than a skill challenge.

[Daehron]

For some people, yes.

[Tanarii]

Want to lie to someone? It has always been charisma versus wisdom rolls and not having your players talk it out. Sure you can role play the game but the core mechanics are still there in battle form. We need the mechanical combat system for this because people want to play characters that aren't themselves, however D&D boils that down to "let's do combat in some way" instead of having the rules be more fluid and story/role-playing based.
First of all, it hasn't always been done that way. There were some rules for various social interactions in the 1e DMG, but even that was late to the game, and they weren't opposed checks. I'll also note that exploration had extremely strong rules crunch in every edition of D&D, including 3e and 4e.

Second, you're trying to classify all mechanical rules resolution as combat. That's cheating. :p

BTW that's historical too. It comes from the Nuetral-DM roots of D&D. Which is: whenever possible, everything should be resolved by a rule for some kind of mechanical resolution, not pure DM fiat.

There's tons of non-combat rules. Lots of them get ignored as unnecessary or fiddly, but there are there. I mean, lots of people don't count arrows expended in combat or worry about restocking them. Ammunition isn't just a combat rule, it's also an exploration rule that people ignore so they can focus on the other combat rules.

[Strill]

What rules do you feel are necessary?
Role-playing rules are never necessary. You can easily roleplay with no rules at all. RP rules are just there to point the players in the right direction, and act as the carrot and stick to help them behave in a manner that fits the story.

One good example of another game system's role-playing rules is Chronicles of Darkness. That game rewards the player with experience points whenever bad things happen to their character. This encourages the player to seek out drama and conflict, and to help move the story forward.

Werewolf: The Forsaken 2e is another game with interesting role-playing rules, specifically it's "Harmony" system. The players, as werewolves, must balance the spirit and human aspects of themselves. If they behave too humanlike and neglect their spirit nature, they lose control of their abilities, and on the full moon will transform involuntarily and blindly attack everything around them. On the other hand, if they focus too much on their spirit nature, they become unable to return from the spirit world, and begin to transform completely into a spirit. Certain actions push them towards human, or towards spirit, and this forces players to take certain actions to avoid going too far to one side. For example, a player might kill an innocent person in cold blood in order to push themselves further to spirit, if they're leaning too far towards humanity.

So in general, role-playing rules should provide incentives to the players to act in a way that best fits the themes and tone of the story.

[Finieous]

Honestly, the fact that there's a core book called the 'monster manual' pretty much states that the game's pure assumptions are around combat.


The core game assumption is that adventurers will encounter monsters. Combat is just one way to resolve those encounters. In my opinion, it's poor play (and/or poor adventure design) if combat is the only way you resolve those encounters. But your assumption isn't new: Many players used Deities & Demigods as a combat manual because the entries included stat blocks. Focus on the parts of the game your group most enjoys. If combat is what you most enjoy, focus 90% of the game on it. IMO, one of the strengths of sandbox or location-based adventure design is that you can let the players choose their own focus rather than dictating it to them ahead of time.

[SwordChuck]

There's tons of non-combat rules. Lots of them get ignored as unnecessary or fiddly, but there are there. I mean, lots of people don't count arrows expended in combat or worry about restocking them. Ammunition isn't a combat rule, it's an exploration rule that people ignore so they can focus on the combat rules.

You have that very much backwards.

Tracking ammunition is a combat rule that is there to allow you to do combat with the gun/bow of your choice.

If you want to waive the rule and assume character competency, that is fine. Having a character need to say each short rest or when they are in town "I'm restocking my ammo by..." is the role playing way of changing a combat rule into a role playing rule.

[Tanarii]

You have that very much backwards.No. You do. That's a logistical rule, am exploration rule that supports combat rules.

Just like IRL, logistics can support combat. But it is not combat itself, even for the things used in combat.

You're also cheating by trying to divide he rules into role playing and combat rules. The rules are divided into social, exploration and combat, with some rules falling into several categories. And some direct role playing rules support in the personalities and backgrounds section.

(Edit: actually, I'd say it's fair to classify some logistics rules, such as ammunition, as 'both' exploration and combat.)

[Sitri]

My first 5e experience was with a DM that hated combat in general and went to great lengths to try and tell me that dating back to Tactical Studies Rules, D&D was not about combat. We would often spend 4-8 hours at a time sitting around listening to him do stupid voices and being told that we couldn't do anything of mechanical importance. It was miserable....

[Tanarii]

My first 5e experience was with a DM that hated combat in general and went to great lengths to try and tell me that dating back to Tactical Studies Rules, D&D was not about combat. We would often spend 4-8 hours at a time sitting around listening to him do stupid voices and being told that we couldn't do anything of mechanical importance. It was miserable....He created a false dichotomy.

It isn't about 'combat' vs 'silly voices'. It's about seeing that the mechanical stuff is divided between 'combat rules' and 'non-combat rules'. There is plenty of mechanical support for non-combat stuff in 5e. The PHB explicitly calls it out in the very beginning that the game has three parts: Social, Exploration and Combat. And there are mechanical rules for use in all of those.

Just because some people try to ignore the non-combat rules and do those things without mechanics doesn't mean they don't exist in 5e.

[Sitri]

He created a false dichotomy.

It isn't about 'combat' vs 'silly voices'. It's about seeing that the mechanical stuff is divided between 'combat rules' and 'non-combat rules'. There is plenty of mechanical support for non-combat stuff in 5e. The PHB explicitly calls it out in the very beginning that the game has three parts: Social, Exploration and Combat. And there are mechanical rules for use in all of those.

Just because some people try to ignore the non-combat rules and do those things without mechanics doesn't mean they don't exist in 5e.

Oh I agree his arguments were bad and his only textual support was what he kept calling Rule 0. I could go on for hours with horror stories, and sometimes me and my current DM do tell stories of those games for laughs at how bad they were.

I just threw in the story here as an example of how some people play at the opposite end of the spectrum. Personally I prefer about a 50-50 Combat-Other experience for my games.

[mephnick]

You can have a good role-playing experience playing any game, but it can be much better in a game that emphasizes it. There are many smaller games whose mechanics are based around NPC and party social interaction. D&D mechanics do nothing to enhance social interaction, hence it is a bad game for social interaction. It provides some exploration mechanics that work ok to enhance exploration but a majority of work making exploration fun comes from the GM and the players, the system offers very little itself.

D&D is a bad game to use if you want to focus on exploration and social interaction. It's a good game to use if you want to focus on combat over the course of adventuring days (which can contain the odd social and wilderness encounter).

TLDR: You can have decent role-playing sessions in D&D, but the system will not help you and will sometimes hinder you in that goal. You should pick a different system if that's going to be your focus or 100% of the work will have to come from the GM and players.

Pro Tip: Choose the style of game you want and pick the correct system. Just because you can run a murder mystery in D&D, doesn't mean you should, or that it's remotely the best system to do so.

[Tanarii]

I just threw in the story here as an example of how some people play at the opposite end of the spectrum. Personally I prefer about a 50-50 Combat-Other experience for my games.For sure. My point was his black vs white thinking was causing him to be an extremist not supported by actually looking at the rules just as much as anyone claiming '90% combat'. The rules are there to support all three parts of the game: social, exploration and combat.

[SwordChuck]

You can have a good role-playing experience playing any game, but it can be much better in a game that emphasizes it. There are many smaller games whose mechanics are based around NPC and party social interaction. D&D mechanics do nothing to enhance social interaction, hence it is a bad game for social interaction. It provides some exploration mechanics that work ok to enhance exploration but a majority of work making exploration fun comes from the GM and the players, the system offers very little itself.

D&D is a bad game to use if you want to focus on exploration and social interaction. It's a good game to use if you want to focus on combat over the course of adventuring days (which can contain the odd social and wilderness encounter).

TLDR: You can have decent role-playing sessions in D&D, but the system will not help you and will sometimes hinder you in that goal. You should pick a different system if that's going to be your focus or 100% of the work will have to come from the GM and players.

Pro Tip: Choose the style of game you want and pick the correct system. Just because you can run a murder mystery in D&D, doesn't mean you should, or that it's remotely the best system to do so.


Phrase it best, you did.

[Finieous]

D&D is a bad game to use if you want to focus on exploration and social interaction. It's a good game to use if you want to focus on combat over the course of adventuring days (which can contain the odd social and wilderness encounter).

[snip]

Pro Tip: Choose the style of game you want and pick the correct system. Just because you can run a murder mystery in D&D, doesn't mean you should, or that it's remotely the best system to do so.

Here's another pro-tip: Recognize that different players and DMs may want different things from codified rules. For example, I think D&D is an excellent game to use for exploration, but that's because this is mostly what I need in terms of "rules" support:



Whether adventurers are exploring a dusty dungeon or the complex relationships of a royal court, the game follows a natural rhythm, as outlined in the book’s introduction:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.

Typically, the DM uses a map as an outline of the adventure, tracking the characters’ progress as they explore dungeon corridors or wilderness regions. The DM’s notes, including a key to the map, describe what the adventurers find as they enter each new area. (D&D Fifth Edition Basic Rules, page 63)




At the start of the game, the players enter the dungeon and the DM describes what the characters can see. One player should draw a map from the DM's descriptions; that player is called the mapper. As the player characters move further into the dungeon, more and more of the dungeon is mapped. Eventually, the DM'smap and the players' map will look more or less alike. (Moldvay Basic, B4)


For me, exploration is what the game is. Exploration is the core play experience. Saying "D&D is a bad game for exploration" is like saying "D&D is a bad game for D&D." Now...some actual codified rules are sometimes helpful. But they should be pretty basic and pretty flexible, because the environment I imagine as DM can be anything and what I decide to do as a player can be anything. Some basic guidelines that we can use in that fundamental back-and-forth of DM description and player action is all I need; too many codified rules can actually undermine the experience as we try to shoehorn what we imagine as DMs and players into the game mechanics.

[Tanarii]

Saying "D&D is a bad game for exploration" is like saying "D&D is a bad game for D&D."Agreed. D&D has always been about exploration to a large degree. Be it Dungeoneering or Wilderness. Just moving from one room to another in a dungeon is 'exploration'.


Now...some actual codified rules are sometimes helpful. But they should be pretty basic and pretty flexible, because the environment I imagine as DM can be anything and what I decide to do as a player can be anything. Some basic guidelines that we can use in that fundamental back-and-forth of DM description and player action is all I need; too many codified rules can actually undermine the experience as we try to shoehorn what we imagine as DMs and players into the game mechanics.Disagree. AD&D 1e had the Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneers Survival Guide. Using those heavily codified rules worked fantastic, provided you enjoy that type of game play (ie Neutral-DM referee). Just as looser rules work fantastic if you prefer that type of play. Even no rules works just fine.

That holds true for all aspects of the game, even combat. 5e is looser in it's combat rules than 4e. 2e was looser in combat rules than Combat and Tactics. Both worked great for different styles of game play.

But trying to claim there isn't rules support in 5e for exploration is just false. Whether or not people choose to use them, they are there. From movement rules, to lighting rules, to divination & transport spells, to variant encumbrance rules, to rations, etc etc.

[mephnick]

For example, I think D&D is an excellent game to use for exploration, but that's because this is mostly what I need in terms of "rules" support:

So the system offers no mechanics that enhance exploration and thrust the entire weight of creating interesting exploration on the DM and Players. That is a bad system for running an exploration game. At that point why use a publish system at all? Why not just say "Uh you explore 3 days and find a troll cave." ? What has D&D as a system brought to that equation?

You can sit around a table and spout any BS you want without a game. If the mechanics don't encourage or enhance what you can do as a human with no system then it's a bad system for the goal you've set. Sure you can do it, but to say the game is designed with it in mind if there are no good mechanics is false.

[TheOOB]

I think an important point is that combat is RP, everything you do is RP. Roleplaying isn't talking to people, and doesn't stop when swords are drawn. Every action you take is by definition roleplaying, and how your character acts in combat is important for defining who your character is. Do you heal in injured ally or try to finish off the foe, that's an RP choice. Do you fight defensively, or try to rush in and take out the foe quickly. That's roleplaying. Do you save the civilians, or use them to distract your foe. That's roleplaying. Actions are the most important thing in defining who your character is.

And for anyone who says otherwise, the fact is D&D is about combat. D&D started as a mod for chainmail, a miniatures war game, and has never lost that spirit. Nearly everything in the book relates to your combat ability, you class primarily says how you fight, most spells and feats are about combat abilities, nearly every entry on your character sheet is for combat too, as well as most magic items, monsters, hazards, ect. D&D is, has, and will likely always be the kind of tactical combat roleplaying games. This isn't a problem, but something you should understand.

Combat is a natural choice for a focus for an RPG, apart from being immediately engaging, combat is an easy way to get the entire party involved in one thing. When a door is locked, or someone needs to be persuaded, only one or two characters are typically relevant, but in combat everyone has a role. Further, many players feel without combat there isn't stakes to what they're doing(this isn't always true, but the feeling is there).

As most RPG's owe most their existence to D&D, most are also heavily combat based. Even World of Darkness has a heavy combat leaning in it's mechanics(though it's arguable whether this is intentional or mismatched game design).

Now, even though D&D is about combat, that doesn't mean your campaign is about combat. That's up to the GM and your group, but if you are not including at least one fight in a session, you probably are not using the right system.

[Tanarii]

So the system offers no mechanics that enhance exploration and thrust the entire weight of creating interesting exploration on the DM and PlayersThat's false.

Try rereading the Race, Class, Backgrounds' Features, Equipment, Optional Feats, Exploration Game-play, and Spells sections of the PHB. There are tons of rules to enhance exploration contained in each of those sections.

Using those rules falls on the DM and Players. But the mechanics are there to be used.

[SwordChuck]

For me, exploration is what the game is. Exploration is the core play experience. Saying "D&D is a bad game for exploration" is like saying "D&D is a bad game for D&D." Now...some actual codified rules are sometimes helpful. But they should be pretty basic and pretty flexible, because the environment I imagine as DM can be anything and what I decide to do as a player can be anything. Some basic guidelines that we can use in that fundamental back-and-forth of DM description and player action is all I need; too many codified rules can actually undermine the experience as we try to shoehorn what we imagine as DMs and players into the game mechanics.

The problem is that the game isn't helping you as much as you are helping yourself.

If I'm willing to spend the time and energy I can take the rules for Red Rover and make it an adventure RPG game... That doesn't mean Red Rover is an adventure RPG game.

[Finieous]

Why not just say "Uh you explore 3 days and find a troll cave." ?


Because that sounds really boring, and even if it didn't, it doesn't sound at all like the kind of game whose core player experience is exploration. As I said, I don't need much more than that back-and-forth of DM describing the environment, player describing what his character does, DM resolving the outcome...but I do need that! "You explore three days and find the troll cave" skips the fun part. It's the exact opposite of what I want!



What has D&D as a system brought to that equation?


Classically, I think the key innovations are class-based characters and location-based adventures. Class-based characters, because what a character can do or how he can interact with the environment is in the player's imagination (and skill, experience), and not on the character sheet or the rulebook. And location-based adventures, for supporting that core play experience of which exploration is the whole point. There are other features of the game, such as logistics and resource management, that support this play style as well, but if I had to really distill it down, these are the two elements that stand out for me.

And, man, it's amazing how these kinds of discussions seem to rouse such anger!

[AbyssStalker]

I think an important point is that combat is RP, everything you do is RP. Roleplaying isn't talking to people, and doesn't stop when swords are drawn. Every action you take is by definition roleplaying, and how your character acts in combat is important for defining who your character is. Do you heal in injured ally or try to finish off the foe, that's an RP choice. Do you fight defensively, or try to rush in and take out the foe quickly. That's roleplaying. Do you save the civilians, or use them to distract your foe. That's roleplaying. Actions are the most important thing in defining who your character is.

And for anyone who says otherwise, the fact is D&D is about combat. D&D started as a mod for chainmail, a miniatures war game, and has never lost that spirit. Nearly everything in the book relates to your combat ability, you class primarily says how you fight, most spells and feats are about combat abilities, nearly every entry on your character sheet is for combat too, as well as most magic items, monsters, hazards, ect. D&D is, has, and will likely always be the kind of tactical combat roleplaying games. This isn't a problem, but something you should understand.


Indeed, I agree with this, role-playing and combat are not separate but inter-connected entities, and yes it is a game designed for combat, although some seem to think that it is not worth putting effort into the other parts that make up it's whole, when in my view that can gimp the game for any-one who might appreciate the other facets of D&D (of course assuming you are not in strictly combat-focused adventure).

[SwordChuck]

Edit

Here is my question


If you gutted the role playing aspects of 5e, would you still have a complete game?

If you gutted the combat portions of 5e, would you still have a complete game?

The answer to the first one is yes, the answer to the second question is no.

[Finieous]

The problem is that the game isn't helping you as much as you are helping yourself.


Yeah, that isn't a problem for me. I don't need much "help" from the rules when it comes to creating exciting locations (as a DM) or exploring them (as a player). Likewise, bluffing and reading the opponent are central to the experience of playing poker, but there aren't any rules for it. And the game would not be better if there were rules for it.

[AbyssStalker]

The problem is that the game isn't helping you as much as you are helping yourself.

If I'm willing to spend the time and energy I can take the rules for Red Rover and make it an adventure RPG game... That doesn't mean Red Rover is an adventure RPG game.

Except you are acting as though the fluff isn't in the pillow... Come-on, just look at it, the pillow is fluffy!

No, really, look at your Player Handbook, your Monster's Manual, and your Dungeon Master Guides, there isn't just stat-blocks and rules are there? There is lore in addition to the mechanics, don't you see on every class that there is a section detailing what it is to be that class. Paladins have Oaths they are required to adhere to, Druids can't use metal armor, Bards exist, there is a section for how much it might be to pay for hire-lings even. The monster's entries have characteristics to form a basis by which their personalities could adhere to, and I don't even need to explain the DM guide.

[mephnick]

It's not really anger and I probably drew this a bit off topic. However, I do get frustrated when a publisher says, "D&D: It can do anything! Combat! Explore! Role-play!" and then give you nothing to actually achieve two of those goals. To act like it isn't a problem because "Well, the system doesn't ruin it!" is doing a disservice to people wondering how to system works.

There are games that actually mechanically encourage and reward exploration and RP or help the DM inspire and create things to explore (Mouseguard, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocolypse World, Fiasco, Burning Wheel, Stars without Number all in varying ways) and D&D does none of this. It is 100% reliant on DM and player labour.

D&D is a great game. I love it. But it is not good at doing everything. It is good at doing combat adventuring days with a cool magic system. You can do anything you want with it, but using it outside of it's comfort zone can lead to disappointment and confusion of expectations if the flaws in the system are never laid out for you.

[AbyssStalker]

Edit

Here is my question


If you gutted the role playing aspects of 5e, would you still have a complete game?

If you gutted the combat portions of 5e, would you still have a complete game?

The answer to the first one is yes, the answer to the second question is no.

Here is my point

If you gutted either aspect from ROLE-PLAYING GAME it ceases to be a complete role-playing game and is just one or the other. D&D is both.

[Tanarii]

However, I do get frustrated when a publisher says, "D&D: It can do anything! Combat! Explore! Role-play!" and then give you nothing to actually achieve two of those goals.No matter how much you repeat a falsehood that they give you nothing, you're not going to make the rules they gave us for use with both social and exploration in the PHB go away. Especially for exploration.

[Finieous]

It's not really anger and I probably drew this a bit off topic. However, I do get frustrated when a publisher says, "D&D: It can do anything! Combat! Explore! Role-play!" and then give you nothing to actually achieve two of those goals.

I think I see where you're coming from, really, I just think that two of those things -- exploration and role-play -- are of a kind that codified rules just aren't that helpful in creating a rewarding play experience.

I'll give a non-D&D example. On Friday, I played FFG's "End of the World" zombie apocalypse game. We played ourselves, and we'd all come together to a hotel in a small town for a game convention when the zombie apocalypse broke out. The whole session was roleplaying, exploring and interacting with that hotel. It was awesome! We built barricades, made shivs and prison armor from shower rods, magazines and duct tape, found and raided a vending machine, climbed from one balcony to another when our barricade failed, broke into another hotel room, and so on. I have no idea if the game includes any rules for roleplaying or exploration, but if it does we didn't use them. We didn't need them and I can't imagine they would have added anything to the experience.

[mephnick]

No matter how much you repeat a falsehood that they give you nothing, you're not going to make the rules they gave us for use with both social and exploration in the PHB go away. Especially for exploration.

I'm not totally sure what exploration rules you're referring to in the PHB.

There's some afterthought hex stuff and encounter tables in the DMG. Is that what you're referring to?

[Tanarii]

I'm not totally sure what exploration rules you're referring to in the PHB.

There's some afterthought hex stuff and encounter tables in the DMG. Is that what you're referring to?A short list off the top of my head, at least one example per section:

Races: Dwarven Stonecutting, Elven Keen Senses, all races Darkvision. (Keen Senses & Darkvision are also applicable in Combat obviously. )
Classes: Druid's Wildshape, Ranger's Natural Explorer, Warlock's Pact of the Chain.
Backgrounds: Outlander's Wanderer, Sailor's Ships Passage
Equipment: Rations, Torches, Chalk, Ropes, in fact most of Adventuring Gear. Also Cartographers & Navigators Tools. Mounts, Waterborn Vehicles.
Feats: Dungeon Delver, Keen Intellect, Observant.
Ability checks: Many types of checks across every ability score except charisma, which appears to be all Social.
Spells: Teleport, Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Phantom Steed.

Plus Chapter 8 Adventuring: This one I pulled up the Basic Guide for. Most of the entire section is rules for exploring. Some is dedicated to Social. But it includes rules for Time, Movement, Activities while Traveling, and interacting with the Environment. The last includes falling, vision and light, food and water, and interacting with objects. Also resting, which is often (but not always) going to occur in an 'exploring' phase of the game.

[Anonymouswizard]

Pro Tip: Choose the style of game you want and pick the correct system. Just because you can run a murder mystery in D&D, doesn't mean you should, or that it's remotely the best system to do so.

This is the best piece of advice in this thread. Am I using D&D5e for my upcoming Wuxia game? No, I'm using Qin: the Warring States, because it's mechanics support Wuxia Action first, cool Chinese magic second, adventuring third, and socialising and skill use fourth. I'd prefer for the other two to be switched around, but it still works a lot better than any edition of D&D.

If I wanted to run a Space Opera game I'd probably use GURPS. If I wanted high fantasy I might use 5e (probably not, I just don't like running D&D, I prefer to use human enemies). If I want urban fantasy I'll dust off my World of Darkness. If I want anything in a highly narrative form I'll dig out Fate. The fact I'm unlikely to use 5e does not make it inadequate, it just means I want a different mix of mechanics.


Edit

Here is my question


If you gutted the role playing aspects of 5e, would you still have a complete game?

If you gutted the combat portions of 5e, would you still have a complete game?

The answer to the first one is yes, the answer to the second question is no.

Alright, it's a bit more complicated than this.

If I removed the roleplaying aspects of 5e, I'd end up with a simplified 2e/3e, or to put it another way, overly complex Warhammer. It's still a game, but not the same game. It's not the same game, and there's no reason to use it over 2e, but it is a game.

If I removed the combat portions of 5e I still have a dungeon exploration game. It's missing something, and I'd want to hack combat back in because the PhB has lost a lot of word count (I believe more than the MM does actually), but it's still a game. It still has more rules than go, but less than a fully functional game.

[Killer Angel]

What rules do you feel are necessary? It seems to me 90% addresses combat because role-playing is more free-form whereas creatures in direct conflict calls for mechanics to resolve who succeeds and how much. Putting a lot of rules in place for role-playing seems like it would be trying to put limits on something that should be very organic. Role-playing is an art; not a science. You just have to do it a lot and you get good at it and have more fun with it. A list of rules seems like it would make it robotic.

Yes and no. You can implement the role-playing aspect with rules, but the system must be built around it.

in GURPS, you pick Disadvantages and Quirks to have more character points, and then you must roleplay a flawed character, with the limitations (phisical and mental) that you choose for it.

In Ars Magica, you have Virtues and Flaws, and some of them are Story Flaws, that define a part of your background and that will be played in the course of adventures.


D&D, is not born that way.

[Knaight]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned as a symptom of D&D's combat focus is the extent to which all characters made in the system have to be combatants. Every level HP goes up, there's a whole host of different abilities that enhance combat power and next to nothing for skills beyond a proficiency bonus, every character starts with a list of combat proficiency, so on and so forth. If you want to make a character who isn't cut out for fighting, the system opposes you at every turn. It's mercilessly combat focused, and would be a terrible choice for a role play heavy game where the characters aren't all warriors, battle mages and similar. It's the same way that one really shouldn't use the Warbirds system if they don't want to play a fighter pilot; the types of characters are deliberately limited to variations on a theme.

[Eisenheim]

Knaight, I agree completely. That's more-or-less what I said 30 post ago. When you look at the character sheet to see how you can resolve challenges, you see a lot about combat, but not nearly as much about anything else.

[Tanarii]

Knaight, I agree completely. That's more-or-less what I said 30 post ago. When you look at the character sheet to see how you can resolve challenges, you see a lot about combat, but not nearly as much about anything else.That's strange. Because I see a lot of 'else' for social & exploration on my character sheets. Ability scores for untrained checks. Skill & Tool proficiency to add to trained checks. A few racial, and depending on the class some to many class features. Often spells for spellcasters. Background Features. Feats, if that optional rule is allowed. Also Alignment, Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw for role-playing.

Just because you choose not to write down the 'else' on your character sheets doesn't make it not exist in this edition.

[Kane0]

Its funny, my group has been playing a PF kingmaker game for 2+ years now, and we've just got into a big dungeon complex. We feel really out of place to be honest, the rest of the game has features very little combat and this big dungeon crawl just doesn't feel right because its almost all combat and positioning. And thats using PF, the system I usually rip on for over rulefying everything, especially for combat.

Anyways, I find the idea of making rules for roleplaying interesting. Can somebody point me to some good examples?

Edit: I wonder how many people ignore the second page of the standard 5e character sheet set.

[DireSickFish]

Edit: I wonder how many people ignore the second page of the standard 5e character sheet set.

Can't ignore that, it's where I write down NPC names and my treasure. Beautiful beautiful loot.

[Kane0]

Can't ignore that, it's where I write down NPC names and my treasure. Beautiful beautiful loot.

Lol that sounds like a 50/50 split between RP and Combat right there!

[AbyssStalker]

Knaight, I agree completely. That's more-or-less what I said 30 post ago. When you look at the character sheet to see how you can resolve challenges, you see a lot about combat, but not nearly as much about anything else.

If the only answer to a challenge you see in 5e is combat then i'm surprised you haven't been TPK'ed in every game you have ever been in. Just because most of the mechanical meat is in the combat of a game doesn't mean that the game is outright unsuitable for role-playing, which is almost what vibe I'm getting from the combat-sayers. If it were really so bad at role-playing it wouldn't and shouldn't be called a role-playing game.

For example:

-The king's men slam their halberds together barring your path, archers peek out from every column, arrows notched visibly towards your wizard, the king's own court wizards are already casting several spells...

If your answer to this is violence, you might be deserving of a TPK

[mephnick]

Anyways, I find the idea of making rules for roleplaying interesting. Can somebody point me to some good examples?

Games like Burning Wheel and Pendragon require you to play to your character/bonds/traits/flaws in order to be successful.

Now, those are not substitutes for D&D if you want to play action adventure beat 'em up high fantasy, but they are examples of games that take role-playing seriously as an inherent part of the system.

[JoeJ]

D&D is a bad game to use if you want to focus on exploration and social interaction. It's a good game to use if you want to focus on combat over the course of adventuring days (which can contain the odd social and wilderness encounter).

I'd say the exact opposite. I love 5e for a lot of reasons, but the combat system isn't among them. IME, D&D is pretty good for exploration, but it's not a very good combat game at all. It does a lousy job at providing either realism on the one hand, or cinematic action on the other.

[mephnick]

Another good point. There are different types of combat which are encouraged by certain mechanics in certain systems. Combat in D&D is in no way cinematic or realistic. It is tactically team-based, that's its goal.

If you want cinematic combat, there are better systems for that. The same can be said for realistic combat. But D&D does the combat it promotes well.

[KorvinStarmast]

This thread is to continue a discussion started in the subtle spell thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472166-Subtle-Spell-is-under-rated&p=20217036#post20217036) It was posited that D&D is mostly about combat because that's what the rules are built around.

Short answer is: it depends upon the table, the DM, and the players.

Is D&D 90% combat / 10% RPing

It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's strange. Because I see a lot of 'else' for social & exploration on my character sheets. Ability scores for untrained checks. Skill & Tool proficiency to add to trained checks. A few racial, and depending on the class some to many class features. Often spells for spellcasters. Background Features. Feats, if that optional rule is allowed. Also Alignment, Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw for role-playing.

Just because you choose not to write down the 'else' on your character sheets doesn't make it not exist in this edition.

I see: ability scores focused on combat and exploration, a very limited skill list (really, I hate games with less than 20 skills, more if weapon and Armour count), some racial features that normally aren't combat based and some that are, my class features of which 80% are probably based on combat, spells which may or may not be based on combat depending upon selection, a background feature that had zilch to do with combat, and the 'roleplay mechanics' with no actual mechanical effect.

Seriously, look at Unknown Armies, it's 'roleplay mechanics' actually effect the game. Look at something like M&M, where I'm encouraged to bring up my character flaws. Then look at 5e and tell me it has roleplaying mechanics.

[Vogonjeltz]

This thread is to continue a discussion started in the subtle spell thread. It was posited that D&D is mostly about combat because that's what the rules are built around.

I would say D&D is 100% roleplay, and that combat is merely another form of roleplaying. The rules around it are to assist in determining the result of the roleplayed activities.

D&D is all roleplay divided into three segments: Combat, Exploration, Social Interaction. The correct question would be: Is roleplaying 90% combat 5% exploration and 5% social interaction? To which I would say: No.

Combat probably takes the most play time depending on how bad the players are at figuring out their activities before it's their turn. Whereas the Exploration and Social Interaction are relatively rapid fire as people don't typically have to wait their turn to interject with questions or speaking. So if one person is really slow and takes their sweet time to think about what kind of spell they want to use, it's not slowing the rest of the group down in the two non-combat pillars.

[Kane0]

Might also be good to gather some data, even if it isn't the best quality. Time spent doing each pillar for example.

Last 5e session of mine lasted about 12 hours, 4 of which can be discarded due to eating and faffing about. Time spent adjusting character sheets is also thrown in here.
Combat: 3.5 Hours, split into 5 fights plus some smaller skirmishes. Thank god these go quicker in 5e or we'd be stuck for almost twice that. Also lucky we negotiated with the bandits we didn't kill earlier or we would have died without their help.
Exploration: 1 Hour, mostly travel time with a bit of atmosphere thrown in. The climb up the mountain was particularly fun but not very long.
Social: 3.5 hours. We coerced bandits, bought land, hired laborers, haggled for supplies, befriended barkeeps, talked down druids, argued IC.

Most of our sessions follow the same pattern, we don't do all that much Exploration but we are split about 60-40 in terms of time spent in combat compared to socializing. Sometimes combat time is clumped together into one or two big fights which makes them tough but drag on, but variety is the spice of life and all.

[Tanarii]

Anyways, I find the idea of making rules for roleplaying interesting. Can somebody point me to some good examples?They're light and flexible, but that's exactly what chapter on personality contains in it's rules (and many suggestions) for Alignment, Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. Not only that, they give you inspiration, so they have a direct mechanical affect on the game.


Edit: I wonder how many people ignore the second page of the standard 5e character sheet set.hahahahaha truth


I see: ability scores focused on combat and exploration, a very limited skill list (really, I hate games with less than 20 skills, more if weapon and Armour count), some racial features that normally aren't combat based and some that are, my class features of which 80% are probably based on combat, spells which may or may not be based on combat depending upon selection, a background feature that had zilch to do with combat, and the 'roleplay mechanics' with no actual mechanical effect.Ability scores are used for social interaction too. Especially Charisma and Wisdom. I feel you on wanting more (and more specific) skills though. ;) 5e (and it's predecessors) are intentionally super light and flexible and a fair amount of DM-fiat when it comes to how skills work. But that's not the same as saying they don't exist.

I think the % of class features depends on your class and level. Some classes are 100% combat, not including skills. Others are far less. Some are almost all spells, so 'class features' are kind of light on the ground in the first place. I'm not going to argue that a Champion or Battlemaster has a ton of non-combat class features. But a Bard or Rogue or Wizard or Ranger or Druid can be close to majority non-combat. Or at least features that apply to combat & another pillar of game-play. Depending on sub-class of course.

The role-play mechanics of Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw absolutely have a mechanical effect: Inspiration.

[AcidBlades]

Most of the games that I've been in generally involve 50%/50% split with RP to combat ratio. A good balance really, because any more and I'd would rather just play a free-form roleplaying game. Really DnD has a good level of none-combat stuff, assuming that you aren't a ****ty class like the barbarian or fighter.

[Kane0]

Most of the games that I've been in generally involve 50%/50% split with RP to combat ratio. A good balance really, because any more and I'd would rather just play a free-form roleplaying game. Really DnD has a good level of none-combat stuff, assuming that you aren't a ****ty class like the barbarian or fighter.

My current group has that as a rule of thumb, split each session down the middle between combat and not-combat. Keeps everybody more entertained and focused for longer.

[mephnick]

The role-play mechanics of Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw absolutely have a mechanical effect: Inspiration.

Man, I could write an entire article on why inspiration doesn't do what the system pretends it wants it to do (and some people have), but the easiest critique is that it only provides that mechanical impetus to role-play as long as you don't have inspiration. Once you have it the mechanic stops working. It also provides no guidance to the DM as to when it should be rewarded other than "Do it when someone's funny! Do it when something cool happens!" As opposed to games with "real" role-play mechanics where you need to portray your flaws and bonds to drive the game forward or be rewarded with character advancement.

[Tanarii]

Just because it doesn't work the way you want it to doesn't mean it stops being a mechanic the game has for role-play.

There seems to be a common theme in the objections I'm hearing here. They're all along the lines of 'I don't like/use it, so therefore it doesn't exist'.

[AbyssStalker]

Man, I could write an entire article on why inspiration doesn't do what the system pretends it wants it to do (and some people have), but the easiest critique is that it only provides that mechanical impetus to role-play as long as you don't have inspiration. Once you have it the mechanic stops working. It also provides no guidance to the DM as to when it should be rewarded other than "Do it when someone's funny! Do it when something cool happens!" As opposed to games with "real" role-play mechanics where you need to portray your flaws and bonds to drive the game forward or be rewarded with character advancement.

How about this, they help determine what your group does, does your brash fighter want to roll boulders off a mountain to soften a goblin tribe fortifications, does your silver-tonged bard want to coerce the tribe to allow the group to go through the pass, does the stealthy rogue want to sneak past, does the wizard just want to use his precious spell slot to tele-port straight there? This changes based on the actual personality of the character being presented, the fighter might be an amiable fellow that agrees with the bard, the rogue might want the hoard of treasure smack dab in the middle of the camp, the wizard may want a look at the spell-book the goblins plundered from a mage's tower several miles back. Many cases can be presented but there is more to it than what stats and mechanics are directly associated with role-play.

Inspiration is a simple way to help guide players to role-playing more, as it alludes to, it should help inspired actions and reactions.

[Kane0]

D&D (and a lot of RPG systems for that matter) might also struggle a bit with setting up rules to govern creativity, talking to people and other such aspects that are less... tangible than combat.
I think the concept of 'roleplay' as a whole necessitates the use of less rules than combat almost by definition.

Overall I'd call the split closer to say 70% / 30% rather than 90% / 10%.

[AbyssStalker]

D&D (and a lot of RPG systems for that matter) might also struggle a bit with setting up rules to govern creativity, talking to people and other such aspects that are less... tangible than combat.
I think the concept of 'roleplay' as a whole necessitates the use of less rules than combat almost by definition.

Overall I'd call the split closer to say 70% / 30% rather than 90% / 10%.

I would probably say that it depends on group, adventure, and DM. Probably say 50-70% / 50-30 % in most groups with it trending towards the later numbers in most adventures.

[Submortimer]

I would probably say that it depends on group, adventure, and DM. Probably say 50-70% / 50-30 % in most groups with it trending towards the later numbers in most adventures.

This. how much you RP HEAVILY depends on the group. I've played lots of games where RP is a major component of the game, sometimes even moreso than the combat; on the flipside, I've played even more games which essentially just become dungeon crawls. Both sides of it are fun.

That being said, unless the DM is great at doling out inspiration, there's little mechanical benefit to playing out your Flaws/Bonds/Traits.

[Mara]

Everyone in 5e can fight. There is no bad at fighting class. Everyone also has narrative power through skills, backgrounds, and improvised actions. Casters use spells for both.

If you view any action where the DM sets the DC as a non rule then 5e has about a fourth of the rules for you. At that point it is 90% combat but combat itself had most of it's depth removed.

[Lonely Tylenol]

On the flip side of this: Can I not have rules for role-playing?

Systems with rules which reinforce "good roleplay" or punish "bad roleplay" tend to be very subjective and usually just arbitrarily enforce the will of a DM who has decided that way of playing a role-playing game is the way that matters.

I am a character actor. If I decide that my character has a debilitating addiction, I will roleplay the consequences of that addiction, both when high and when under withdrawal, whether there are rules for addiction and drugs (3e, Pathfinder) or not (5e). If my character is driven by some specific purpose, like making sure a prophecy related to them comes true, or has a certain irrational fear, like spiders or loneliness, then I will act these out, regardless of whether there is mechanical reinforcement for it.

But if I'm sitting at a table as a DM with four players, two of whom want to solve puzzles, one of whom wants to fight, and one of whom just wants to optimize (regardless of how good they are at it), I'll build my world around solving puzzles and having tactically intriguing battles, with some bells and whistles for the players at the end. We might essentially be playing co-op Zelda at that point, but that's the game they want to play, so we'll play it. If they don't want to roleplay unnecessary elements, or be saddled down with rules which force them out of their comfort zones, why should they be?

You all can have your tangible rewards for role playing character flaws, or your "must-be-written-in-the-book-to-work" story building elements. Your group will play essentially the same with or without them, so you're better off recognizing this and reconciling conflicts with it out-of-world, rather than in-world. Meanwhile, I just want a system with as few unnecessary restrictions as possible, which offers guidance where rules need to be explicit for survival in-world and lets me arbitrate whatever else exists.

[Kane0]

On the flip side of this: Can I not have rules for role-playing?

Systems with rules which reinforce "good roleplay" or punish "bad roleplay" tend to be very subjective and usually just arbitrarily enforce the will of a DM who has decided that way of playing a role-playing game is the way that matters.


Why does this make me think of how alignment was handles in prior editions?

Anyways, good points all around. I don't want obscure drug-addiction rules in my 5e, thats the kind of thing that i'm happy to leave in the 3.5 era thanks. I'll just RP it out.

[mephnick]

On the flip side of this: Can I not have rules for role-playing?

Systems with rules which reinforce "good roleplay" or punish "bad roleplay" tend to be very subjective and usually just arbitrarily enforce the will of a DM who has decided that way of playing a role-playing game is the way that matters.

No they don't. That's what I've been saying this whole time. Games that reinforce role-playing remove the DM from the equation by having inherent mechanics as the basis of the system. The DM and players play by the same rules and remove DM fiat completely when it comes to rewarding RP.

People who've only played D&D and it's clones have no idea how other systems work and the benefits they provide.

When I say the system "encourages role-play" I'm not saying the book tells the DM to be a cool dude. I'm saying the system actually encourages role-play.

[JackPhoenix]

Me and my players roleplay in D&D and enjoy it, even without rules that would force us to roleplay or that would bribe us with mechanical benefits for doing so. I can't speak for the others, but I wouldn't like a game who would do that much.

[MaxWilson]

Agreed. D&D has always been about exploration to a large degree. Be it Dungeoneering or Wilderness. Just moving from one room to another in a dungeon is 'exploration'.

Disagree. AD&D 1e had the Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneers Survival Guide. Using those heavily codified rules worked fantastic, provided you enjoy that type of game play (ie Neutral-DM referee). Just as looser rules work fantastic if you prefer that type of play. Even no rules works just fine.

That holds true for all aspects of the game, even combat. 5e is looser in it's combat rules than 4e. 2e was looser in combat rules than Combat and Tactics. Both worked great for different styles of game play.

But trying to claim there isn't rules support in 5e for exploration is just false. Whether or not people choose to use them, they are there. From movement rules, to lighting rules, to divination & transport spells, to variant encumbrance rules, to rations, etc etc.

D&D is generally pretty good at exploration and combat, and okay at social interaction. It tends to be really bad at economics and trade, mystery, psychological thrills, and technology. Wouldn't be my system of choice for playing Black Ops, X-Filed, or Iron Man vs. Batman. But then, it never claims to be good at those things.

My 5E game is 30% to 40% combat. If your game is less than 10% combat I'd choose another system, but 90% combat it is not.

[Nifft]

In my experience, D&D is 75% combat and 100% roleplaying.

Because combat is roleplaying by other means.

[tcrudisi]

In 5e? Yes, certainly for the groups that I play in. We play a lot of different games (for example, we are currently playing Warhammer). The only games we find to be dominated by combat? 5e D&D and 3.x D&D.

4e D&D was an exception. It was the only edition of D&D that we played through the whole lifespan, mostly because it was very role-play friendly. There were core rules for gaining xp through roleplaying, so we could enjoy the system a lot more. (Plus the fact that it strongly encouraged re-fluffing allowed us to go all sorts of crazy and have a great time roleplaying.)

This isn't a knock on 5e. It accomplishes what the designers wanted. If they had wanted it to be better at roleplaying, they would have had better support for it. No, you don't "need rules" for roleplaying ... but at the same time, you do. In 4e, we could create characters that never went into combat and could level up to 30 (the max level). In 5e ... we can't do that.


Try making a class or subclasses that focus on roleplating and not in combat and see how that goes. It wouldn't fit into the game.

Plus, from my experience with my wife (and others), I've learned that anytime someone says "10%" or "90%" it's less of an exact science and more of a replacement for "very little" and "a whole lot".

This is how I understood it. When you phrase the argument like this, my answer is an unequivocal "yes".

[AbyssStalker]

Huh, from what I was hearing on 4e I thought it was generally considered worse for role-play, but better in a mechanically balanced combat sense. Although I may have just misinterpreted what I read.

Edit: In any case, are you people crazy? Do you not award XP for non-combat means as well, I mean most of it will likely be through combat, but if you are not rewarding role-playing in any way do not be surprised when role-playing doesn't show up as often as combat.

[Tanarii]

Huh, from what I was hearing on 4e I thought it was generally considered worse for role-play, but better in a mechanically balanced combat sense. Although I may have just misinterpreted what I read.Nope. It's just that most people writing about 4e didn't, and still don't, have any clue what they're talking about. Skill Challenges were fully formalized encounters with commensurate XP awards just as for a combat encounter. It's the first D&D system to put non-combat on par with combat in that regard ... making an encounter an encounter an encounter, regardless of the content of it.

The two 'problems' were:
1) Skill Challenges were looser rules than combat rules, and less fleshed out, as they kind of have to be, required a lot of DM input to make the system work. Similar to how skills vs actions/tactical movement rules are now, except more so, because 4e combat rules and actions available were far more complex. Many people refused to accept they were equal on those grounds. Kind of like many people in this thread.
2) lots of people hated having codified rules of 'role playing' at all, and refused to accept skill challenges were an acceptable thing at all on those grounds. Kind of like many people in this thread.

Meanwhile people that accepted how the rules worked, had DMs that put in work preparing decent skill challenges, and managed to balance role play and roll play during skill challenges, had a fantastic tool for non-combat gameplay.

[AbyssStalker]

So... Just making sure I'm not the only one who thinks that role-playing can work reasonably well in both ways rule and not rule-heavy? Looking over the replies I seem not to be the only one, so that makes me a bit more satisfied. It really just depends a lot on personal (and situational) preference in many cases and what the individual's personal belief as to what extent is considered role-playing in the game. At least that is how I see it.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ability scores are used for social interaction too. Especially Charisma and Wisdom. I feel you on wanting more (and more specific) skills though. ;) 5e (and it's predecessors) are intentionally super light and flexible and a fair amount of DM-fiat when it comes to how skills work. But that's not the same as saying they don't exist.

That's, what, 2 Ability Scores for social interaction? Compared to 4/5 (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, and possibly Intelligence) for exploration. Yes, you can hack the mental ability scores into all being important for a social encounter, but as it is it's very biased towards one stat (Charisma).

The skills are the one thing that makes me hate running 5e. It might sound weird, but there just aren't enough. It's not that they are too narrow, it's that there just isn't enough of them.


I think the % of class features depends on your class and level. Some classes are 100% combat, not including skills. Others are far less. Some are almost all spells, so 'class features' are kind of light on the ground in the first place. I'm not going to argue that a Champion or Battlemaster has a ton of non-combat class features. But a Bard or Rogue or Wizard or Ranger or Druid can be close to majority non-combat. Or at least features that apply to combat & another pillar of game-play. Depending on sub-class of course.

Flipping through the Bard's features: Spellcasting (both), Bardic inspiration (obviously intended for combat, but not restricted to it), Jack of All Trades (non-combat), Song of Rest (which I define as combat-based even though it happens during a short rest, as it focuses on a combnat element [hp]), Expertise (non-combat), Font of Inspiration (Recovery), Countercharm (again, I see this as a combat ability, but you can argue it's not), Magical Secrets (completely awesome, time to nab a smite spell if you're a valour bard, but not actually combat), and Superior Inspiration (Recovery, and what shows that BI is intended for combat). So yeah, not focused on combat, but that's partially because full casters generally get their combat from Spellcasting. I'll admit defeat on this one, but class features don't jump out at me when I look at the sheet.


The role-play mechanics of Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw absolutely have a mechanical effect: Inspiration.

Boy, Inspiration is so minor I can forget it easily. Compared to Hero Points from M&M, or even Triggers in Unknown Armies, it's effect is minor. It would be worthwhile if I could have a few uses saved up (like Hero Points), but it just doesn't work to encourage roleplaying when you have it, and it's likely I'm going to hang onto that inspiration until I have to make a death saving throw. It lacks bite.

Plus I was talking about a direct mechanical effect, not an indirect one.


On the flip side of this: Can I not have rules for role-playing?

Systems with bad rules which reinforce "good roleplay" or punish "bad roleplay" tend to be very subjective and usually just arbitrarily enforce the will of a DM who has decided that way of playing a role-playing game is the way that matters.

There, fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

The times I saw Roleplay Mechanics work best they either had relatively strict rules (e.g. 'when your flaw stops you from interacting with the story gain a benny'), or could be triggered by the player (Fate's Aspects, Unknown Armies and it's Triggers).

Even for mechanics which are just poorly thought through, they generally encourage you to roleplay, but with the stick rather than the carrot. GURPS is an example of this, the rules are clear 'if the situation comes up and you don't want the disadvantage to take effect, roll'. I've stopped the GM from having to enforce my roleplay disadvantages by roleplaying them and avoiding trying to work around them, which has caused trouble before (voluntarily rolled a self control roll, failed and my overconfidence kicked in, it was decided I believed I could take on the entire Skaven-hold by myself).

It's only bad mechanics that directly force a player to roleplay a certain way. Rewarding with the carrot rather than punishing with the stick works much better.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Why does this make me think of how alignment was handles in prior editions?

It's only one of the things I was thinking of. Specifically, Paladin in previous editions, where being Lawful Good was mandatory to retain your class features - and anyone who's been in the 3e boards here has seen the countless "my DM made my Paladin fall, what do?" threads over the years, by DMs who would routinely bullwhip certain players to keep them toeing the line.

But this could also apply to SAN checks made at arbitrary times, or for arbitrary reasons (the amusement of the DM, to punish a player for circumventing another encounter in some way), or "uncontrollable rage" from loss of humanity, or, well, basically any roleplay mechanic in any game in which you hand your character sheet to the DM and become a spectator.


There, fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

I'll fix it again with the following rearrangement of words:

Bad All rules for roleplaying can afford all bad DMs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?23784-I-think-I-just-dealt-with-the-worst-gaming-session) the tools to strongarm players arbitrarily. That is more closely aligned with my statement in spirit.

I want none of this. I'll stay true to my character's fear of anthropomorphism. I'll roleplay a completely split personality. I'll even roll percentile die to determine who I'm playing as. But if I get saddled with the "the rules don't say you can" sort of DM, and DMs of any type that aren't me are in short supply here, I'd rather not arm that type of person with the tools to apply that thinking directly to my ability to roleplay.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience, D&D is 75% combat and 100% roleplaying.

Because combat is roleplaying by other means.
This is well said. It's also a style of the game that I enjoyed a lot back in the grognard days at a couple of tables where I played. We really got into the heroic fantasy and near hyperbole needed to make all of what we did larger than life ... or try to.

Great fun.

[Guran]

I can not voice my amazement that this topic even exists. I can understand that there are groups who basically only play encounter after encounter and in the end I think that is what it amounts to: that it depends on the group you play with. When you look at your sheet and only see combat option, than with all due respect and without intent to insult anyone, it is purely the perception of the person looking at the sheet. The rules are not to blame. The players handbook, monster manual and DM guide leave no illusions for what they want to be. Same goes for the adventure paths. They all motivate the player to be a character with a history, a background, with flaws and features. With skills to underline social interaction and some spells/abilities that are not purely meant for combat. The DM is presented with many different kinds of fluff in the form of monsters, items and adventures with which he can challenge the player characters to play their role.

Roleplaying should not have too much rules. If it were subjected to every single rule out there it would just weigh down on the game. It would probably start to feel more like a videogame. D&D is a flexible game. You can make it be whatever you want it to be. Enforcing rules on role playing often turns out rather unfair for the somewhat more shy people on the table or those who are less experienced or simply enjoy the roleplay but are a bit less creative than the guy on the other side of the table.

Honestly on a D&D night, wether I DM or play, it is rare to have more than two encounters. I am not saying that playing a combat focussed game of D&D is bad. The foremost rule of D&D is to have fun and having fun is the only way to win the game. If you have fun in the way you play the game, you win in my opinion.

[Heian]

Here are my two cents:

Roleplaying is, as far as I know, a collaborative story-telling effort, hence it needs to have rules, light or heavy, to solve conflicts between the people who tell the story. Different RPGs have rules that help narrating different stories and these rules obviously regard how to solve the aforementioned conflicts, D&D is a game of Violent Adventures, thus its rules are heavier on combat stuff. This has nothing to do with being roleplay heavy, it only means that D&D was good for thought for roleplaying violent conflicts (...chainmail). Following the evolution of roleplaying games a new type of rules have arisen, I call them "meta-roleplay-rules" (MRR).

Examples of MRR are FATE points in FATE, Inspiration in DnD 5 and their aim is to enrich the story and to help the players, whichever their role (DM, GM etc are players too), in fleshing out a more interesting story or a story that's more fitting with the RPG target type of narration.

Conflict resolution rules are, by definition, prone to be considered a "board game" with clear winners, who enforce their vision of the story, and losers, and this happens even in cooperative games. The degree of "roleplay" present in a game depends on how often and how much this happens, the "board game" and the "role-play" appeal to different sides of our personality and I personally like a nice mix of the two, let's say 50/50, and so do the people with whom I usually play.

The moral of the story is "Fell Drain Ray of Frost with Metamagic School Focus(Evocation)" :smallwink:.....

[Tanarii]

Boy, Inspiration is so minor I can forget it easily. Compared to Hero Points from M&M, or even Triggers in Unknown Armies, it's effect is minor. It would be worthwhile if I could have a few uses saved up (like Hero Points), but it just doesn't work to encourage roleplaying when you have it, and it's likely I'm going to hang onto that inspiration until I have to make a death saving throw. It lacks bite.

Plus I was talking about a direct mechanical effect, not an indirect one.Oh wow. Advantage is the biggest mechanical advantage D&D 5e can give. And why on earth would you save Inspiration? Use it, and get another one. Over and over again. Inspiration is one of the most powerful abilities in the game, it's available to everyone, and comes with something you'll be doing anyway: role playing your character's personality.


I can't imagine ignoring it any more than a Wild Mage sorcerer not using Tides of Chaos, or a Barbarian not using Reckless Attack. In fact, a Wild Mage is a perfect comparison, he uses Tides of Chaos over and over again as much as possible, renewing it with every spell cast triggering a Surge.

[JackPhoenix]

Bad All rules for roleplaying can afford all bad DMs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?23784-I-think-I-just-dealt-with-the-worst-gaming-session) the tools to strongarm players arbitrarily. That is more closely aligned with my statement in spirit.

I want none of this. I'll stay true to my character's fear of anthropomorphism. I'll roleplay a completely split personality. I'll even roll percentile die to determine who I'm playing as. But if I get saddled with the "the rules don't say you can" sort of DM, and DMs of any type that aren't me are in short supply here, I'd rather not arm that type of person with the tools to apply that thinking directly to my ability to roleplay.

You said so much better than I ever could. I agree with this so much. Not that I have much experience with bad GM's (being almost always GM myself), but... I've done some bad GMing before because the rules encouraged me to. I think I can avoid repeating my mistakes, but I'd rather not have the temptation in the first place. Also one of my players (playing naive, low-wis paladin in PF game) actually rolled wisdom check few times if her character would do something stupid (in one case, leading to her character losing her hand)...without any basis in the rules or encouragement (in fact, I discouraged her from doing so, saying she can roleplay however she likes to) on my part.

[SwordChuck]

Oh wow. Advantage is the biggest mechanical advantage D&D 5e can give. And why on earth would you save Inspiration? Use it, and get another one. Over and over again. Inspiration is one of the most powerful abilities in the game, it's available to everyone, and comes with something you'll be doing anyway: role playing your character's personality.


I can't imagine ignoring it any more than a Wild Mage sorcerer not using Tides of Chaos, or a Barbarian not using Reckless Attack. In fact, a Wild Mage is a perfect comparison, he uses Tides of Chaos over and over again as much as possible, renewing it with every spell cast triggering a Surge.

From what I've seen in AL game and home games many DMs are very very very stingy with inspiration.

From what I've been told, it makes DMs feel that any role playing that is being done (and the player mentions their background or whatever) is for the mechanical benefit.

[Knaight]

That's strange. Because I see a lot of 'else' for social & exploration on my character sheets. Ability scores for untrained checks. Skill & Tool proficiency to add to trained checks. A few racial, and depending on the class some to many class features. Often spells for spellcasters. Background Features. Feats, if that optional rule is allowed. Also Alignment, Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw for role-playing.

Just because you choose not to write down the 'else' on your character sheets doesn't make it not exist in this edition.

Skill & Tool proficiency is literally a checklist of things which do or do not have proficiency, which provides a comparatively small bonus (whereas combat gets that proficiency boost, and then a whole bunch on top of it). Coming from a background of skill based systems, it's an absolute joke.

[Strill]

Oh wow. Advantage is the biggest mechanical advantage D&D 5e can give.
No it's not. It's at best a 25% increased chance of success, to a single roll. That is relatively minor for a consumable effect, and there are a variety of abilities that are superior to it - Expertise, Reliable Talent, Sacred Weapon, any number of conditions, like Paralyzed.

[endur]

90% of what?

If we look at this as time spent, a typical 3+ hours of gameplay for my group includes one combat encounter, some exploration, and role playing. That single combat encounter usually takes 30-60 minutes.

So, for my group, combat is probably at most 33% of a night. RPing, exploration, etc. are the rest.

[Tanarii]

From what I've seen in AL game and home games many DMs are very very very stingy with inspiration.

From what I've been told, it makes DMs feel that any role playing that is being done (and the player mentions their background or whatever) is for the mechanical benefit.I'm sorry to hear that. It hasn't been my experience at all.

That'd be like a DM denying a Wild Mage a Surge roll when casting a spell after he'd used Tides of Chaos. It's taking away an important part of the game for no real purpose. If you're playing with DMs like that, why not bring up with them that they're ignoring an important part of the game?


No it's not. It's at best a 25% increased chance of success, to a single roll. That is relatively minor for a consumable effect, and there are a variety of abilities that are superior to it - Expertise, Reliable Talent, Sacred Weapon, any number of conditions, like Paralyzed.Seriously, are you trying to tell me that Advantage isn't a powerful and important game effect? :smallconfused: It's just as powerful or more powerful as expertise, which grants +10%-+30%. Edit: Yeah, okay, I reread what I said. It's not the biggest mechanical advantage. It's just a very big one.


Skill & Tool proficiency is literally a checklist of things which do or do not have proficiency, which provides a comparatively small bonus (whereas combat gets that proficiency boost, and then a whole bunch on top of it). Coming from a background of skill based systems, it's an absolute joke.Just because you don't like it or find a way to use it effectively, doesn't mean it stops existing as a rule.

[Knaight]

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it stops existing as a rule.

That a rule exists at all doesn't mean that a system covers something. If, hypothetically all combat was handled with one opposed Fighting roll, that wouldn't mean that a game actually had a combat system. That would mean that they had a skill for combat in what is likely a much better developed skill system. D&D 5e is the opposite, with essentially no skill system, but a combat system with a great deal of page-count put its way (though not to the extent that the magic system gets page count).

D&D 5e is clearly built as a game for warriors and warmages exploring dungeons, with the rest being trappings surrounding that main goal. As a system that quickly covers a minor component of the game for characters who's focus is elsewhere, the skill system is exactly what it needs to be. For a game that isn't combat focused, it's sorely lacking.

[Strill]

Seriously, are you trying to tell me that Advantage isn't a powerful and important game effect? :smallconfused: It's just as powerful or more powerful as expertise, which grants +10%-+30%.
It's a powerful and important game effect, but one use of it every who knows how long is not going to make much of a difference.

And no, it's not more powerful than Expertise. Advantage can never bring you to 100% success, and is worth less the further your success chance is from 50%. Expertise, on the other hand, can completely eliminate your chance of failure.

[Knaight]

It's a powerful and important game effect, but one use of it every who knows how long is not going to make much of a difference.

For all that DM's tend to be stingy, part of it might just be that it gets hoarded a great deal. You can't give out Advantage to someone who already has it, even if you want to, and if nobody is using it it's easy for it not to come to mind as a mechanic. If it sees heavy use though, it will be in the forefront of everyone's brain, and probably continue to see heavier use.

[Tanarii]

That a rule exists at all doesn't mean that a system covers something. If, hypothetically all combat was handled with one opposed Fighting roll, that wouldn't mean that a game actually had a combat system. That would mean that they had a skill for combat in what is likely a much better developed skill system. D&D 5e is the opposite, with essentially no skill system, but a combat system with a great deal of page-count put its way (though not to the extent that the magic system gets page count).

D&D 5e is clearly built as a game for warriors and warmages exploring dungeons, with the rest being trappings surrounding that main goal. As a system that quickly covers a minor component of the game for characters who's focus is elsewhere, the skill system is exactly what it needs to be. For a game that isn't combat focused, it's sorely lacking.The game's combat is pretty damn close to 'one opposed Fighting roll'. So I don't understand your complaint there. It's a single mechanic with other mechanics spun out of it. Just like the skill system.

And you're wrong about the combat system page count and no skill system. Skills get just as much page count and the combat section. It's developed the same way. Single basic way of working, and expanded out from there.

Yes, D&D 5e is a system for warriors and warmages exploring dungeons. Here's the thing: exploring dungeons includes social, exploration, and combat. That's why D&D 5e has rules for all three. Including a skill system to do all three. And characters, or at least the party as a whole, needs to be able to cover all three effectively to survive.


It's a powerful and important game effect, but one use of it every who knows how long is not going to make much of a difference.

And no, it's not more powerful than Expertise. Advantage can never bring you to 100% success, and is worth less the further your success chance is from 50%. Expertise, on the other hand, can completely eliminate your chance of failure.Okay. Granted. I was over-stressing the value of Advantage. But advantage is an important game effect.

As to importance, apparently that's going to depend on if your DM is stingy or not. I've yet to see ones that are very stingy though. IMX it's about once per SR / 2 combats. Or the same as a 4e Action Point.

[Knaight]

The game's combat is pretty damn close to 'one opposed Fighting roll'. So I don't understand your complaint there. It's a single mechanic with other mechanics spun out of it. Just like the skill system.

Combat is ludicrously far from that*, and that was a hypothetical from the other direction. As for the skill system, it's a single mechanic with next to nothing spun out of it, and those few exceptions generally locked to the classes.

*An individual attack is pretty close to one opposed Fighting roll, but the very fact of it being an extended contest with HP and damage beyond the attack and AC system takes it past that, then there's the huge list of combat abilities.

[Tanarii]

Combat is ludicrously far from that*, and that was a hypothetical from the other direction. As for the skill system, it's a single mechanic with next to nothing spun out of it, and those few exceptions generally locked to the classes.

*An individual attack is pretty close to one opposed Fighting roll, but the very fact of it being an extended contest with HP and damage beyond the attack and AC system takes it past that, then there's the huge list of combat abilities.Guess you and I just look at the skill system differently. To me it's exactly the same as an attack roll or saving throw. With tons of extended rules built on to each of them. Attack rolls have cover, saving throws are used to avoid a trap, Dex/Stealth is used to hide, Wis/Perception to see something before it sees you, Cha/Persuasion to negotiate with something, Cartography can be used to make an accurate map.

Looking at it from the other direction, you choose to do something, then figure out what applies to it: ability check, skill check, tool proficiency, attack roll or saving throw. This applies to everything you do: social, exploration or combat. It's really a single integrated system. The subsystem that gets extreme detail isn't combat ... it's spellcasting.

[Talya]

I would counter that by adding "rules" to RP, you can actually inhibit roleplay.

As an example, I'd pick the White Wolf game "Exalted." Non-combat is so rules-heavy that roleplaying is also called "social combat."

[JoeJ]

Skill & Tool proficiency is literally a checklist of things which do or do not have proficiency, which provides a comparatively small bonus (whereas combat gets that proficiency boost, and then a whole bunch on top of it). Coming from a background of skill based systems, it's an absolute joke.

Skill & tool use gets your proficiency bonus, your ability score bonus, special bonuses from class features or feats, and any situational bonuses or penalties the DM chooses to impose. In comparison, attack rolls get your proficiency bonus, your ability score bonus, special bonuses from class features or feats, and any situational bonuses or penalties the DM chooses to impose.

[Knaight]

Skill & tool use gets your proficiency bonus, your ability score bonus, special bonuses from class features or feats, and any situational bonuses or penalties the DM chooses to impose. In comparison, attack rolls get your proficiency bonus, your ability score bonus, special bonuses from class features or feats, and any situational bonuses or penalties the DM chooses to impose.

:smallsigh:

The point is that the combat system is built out of far more than individual attack rolls, and it's in this far more that the detail comes in. There's things like weapon specializations, the rage mechanics, extra attacks, etc. that can be used to make combat focused characters actually good at combat, and which provides detail. This compensates for the simplicity in binary proficiency.

Meanwhile, skills have Expertise, and a binary proficiency. It's exceedingly primitive compared to even something like WoD, where there's a 1-5 skill applied at the level of individual skills, and some amount of fine control in how good you want a character to be at various things. In short, it has an actual skill system, and that's despite being a bit of a mess in general.

In extremely simple terms, consider the detail in which D&D 5e can describe a combatant, particularly the combat related things. Then consider the detail in which D&D 5e can describe a noncombatant's noncombatant things. You've got the ability scores, a proficiency number, then a checklist of skills you either have or you don't. That's woefully inadequate design for a skill focused system, and just fine for one where skills are a peripheral mechanic. So the conclusions here are either that the designers are incompetent - which seems exceedingly unlikely for a number of reasons - or that skills were designed as a peripheral mechanic.

This is without getting into the lavish detail spent on spells, which exceeds even the combat system. The obvious conclusion to that would be that D&D 5e is also very magic focused, and only really intended for games which feature magic. It's pretty much the same reasoning that goes into stating that it isn't really meant to handle non-combat in any detail, but because it isn't seen as a defect the people arguing for the perfection of the system don't have to distort the criticisms until they're adequately deflected.

[Mr.Moron]

Given how many discrete actions are defined that are only of use in combat, and the modal change you go through in combat to iniative and things being broken down into granular defined segments of time: Turns, Rounds I think it's really hard to equate the combat rules to a simple extension of the general rules. I think by most any measure combat is clearly it's own, different and special thing as compared to the portions of the system that are non-combat.

[Tanarii]

It's still an extension of the regular rules at the most basic level: pick action, figure out which ability check / saving throw applies, resolve per specifics of the action/spell. But yes, the action economy & turn order becomes strictly codified once combat starts.

Also to be clear: I'm not arguing the system is perfect. It does approximately what its design goal was: primarily dungeon based, but occasional wilderness based, exploration. With additional social & yes typically plenty of combat components as appropriate.

I'm not arguing that D&D is awesome for political intrigue or horror or any one of a bunch of other genres. I'm just saying that claiming it's a pure/heavy combat game is making all sorts of game play assumptions. And claiming it doesn't have social, or (especially) exploration rules is just false. There are plenty of rules for those, albeit mostly oriented for the primary purpose of the game: dungeon & some wilderness exploration.

[Eisenheim]

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in this thread who has played several different RPGs, and wants to argue that D&D isn't far to the combat-focused end of the genre?

[Tanarii]

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in this thread who has played several different RPGs, and wants to argue that D&D isn't far to the combat-focused end of the genre?Palladium (Robotech, Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural). Top Secret. Call of the Cthulu. Warhammer Fantasy RPG. Shadowrun. Battletech. Runequest. GURPS ... oh so much GURPs. Even Dragon Roar. :)

It's in the middle IMX, although I'll grant slightly more towards the combat side of things overall. With organized play leaning more to combat, and home play leaning more to non-combat. And high-school lunch games being almost pure combat. :smalltongue: Like most systems, what you get out of it is what you try to get out of it. but its definitely one of the more streamlined and less complex RPGs out there.

[Mr.Moron]

Palladium (Robotech, Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural). Top Secret. Call of the Cthulu. Warhammer Fantasy RPG. Shadowrun. Battletech. Runequest. GURPS ... oh so much GURPs. Even Dragon Roar. :)

It's in the middle IMX, although I'll grant slightly more towards the combat side of things overall. With organized play leaning more to combat, and home play leaning more to non-combat. And high-school lunch games being almost pure combat. :smalltongue: Like most systems, what you get out of it is what you try to get out of it. but its definitely one of the more streamlined and less complex RPGs out there.

I can at the very least figure out how combat is supposed to work. I remember my buddy tried to sell me on Exalted and when I tried to parse the abilities and rules for their effects/pre-reqs all I could think is: "Those sure are some words placed next to some other words in some kind of structure."

[georgie_leech]

Palladium (Robotech, Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural). Top Secret. Call of the Cthulu. Warhammer Fantasy RPG. Shadowrun. Battletech. Runequest. GURPS ... oh so much GURPs. Even Dragon Roar. :)

It's in the middle IMX, although I'll grant slightly more towards the combat side of things overall. With organized play leaning more to combat, and home play leaning more to non-combat. And high-school lunch games being almost pure combat. :smalltongue: Like most systems, what you get out of it is what you try to get out of it. but its definitely one of the more streamlined and less complex RPGs out there.

4e had a fairly significant combat structure as well. A huge majority of the rules and rules text was devoted to it. While it could handle exploration about as well as any other edition of D&D (provided you were willing to work with the system), it definitely focused on it more than a lot of games I've tried.

[Tanarii]

4e had a fairly significant combat structure as well. A huge majority of the rules and rules text was devoted to it. While it could handle exploration about as well as any other edition of D&D (provided you were willing to work with the system), it definitely focused on it more than a lot of games I've tried.
Oh, different editions have massively different feel ... as well as table variation and how much you used the rules vs not.

Personally:
BECMI was all about exploring the Mystara/Gazateer world for my groups, basically world & cultural exploration & roleplaying. I saw lots of combat in the Ylari Emirates & Ethengar Khanates though.
1e I mostly played Oriental adventures, really in-depth social/cultural roleplaying. Not much combat, but when we did it was always really important.
2e was my Forgotten Realms heydey, with a LOT of strongholds & mass combat battles & world conquering. Also Planescape & Spelljammer super-high-magic adventuring.
3e was my first tactical battle mat play, with lots of WotC-published module dungeon delving. This was the second most combat heavy version I've ever played.
4e was all Encounters & Official Adventure play. Very linear. Very very tactical combat regularly, mixed up with often poorly constructed and rushed through skill challenges.
5e so far has been a good blend of sandbox exploration, classic dungeon delving, and AL linear adventuring. Mostly Theater of the Mind combat, with some battle mat in AL.

Looking back, what makes D&D feel combat-heavy to me is one thing: Did we use a battle mat?

[georgie_leech]

Oh, different editions have massively different feel ... as well as table variation and how much you used the rules vs not.

Personally:
BECMI was all about exploring the Mystara/Gazateer world for my groups, basically world & cultural exploration & roleplaying. I saw lots of combat in the Ylari Emirates & Ethengar Khanates though.
1e I mostly played Oriental adventures, really in-depth social/cultural roleplaying. Not much combat, but when we did it was always really important.
2e was my Forgotten Realms heydey, with a LOT of strongholds & mass combat battles & world conquering. Also Planescape & Spelljammer super-high-magic adventuring.
3e was my first tactical battle mat play, with lots of WotC-published module dungeon delving. This was the second most combat heavy version I've ever played.
4e was all Encounters & Official Adventure play. Very linear. Very very tactical combat regularly, mixed up with often poorly constructed and rushed through skill challenges.
5e so far has been a good blend of sandbox exploration, classic dungeon delving, and AL linear adventuring. Mostly Theater of the Mind combat, with some battle mat in AL.

Looking back, what makes D&D feel combat-heavy to me is one thing: Did we use a battle mat?

That's a fair way of putting it. Personally, I think Skill Challenges could have done a lot better if they were better explained and the adventure paths themselves better implemented them. I've played in a few games where they were handled exceptionally, but that had more to do with the DM since it was a homebrew campaign.

[Tanarii]

That's a fair way of putting it. Personally, I think Skill Challenges could have done a lot better if they were better explained and the adventure paths themselves better implemented them. I've played in a few games where they were handled exceptionally, but that had more to do with the DM since it was a homebrew campaign.For sure. As I said earlier in this thread, the idea of skill challenges was fantastic. It's all about how they were laid out (by either adventure or DM during homebrew design), and executed by the DM and players during play.

[Eisenheim]

Palladium (Robotech, Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural). Top Secret. Call of the Cthulu. Warhammer Fantasy RPG. Shadowrun. Battletech. Runequest. GURPS ... oh so much GURPs. Even Dragon Roar. :)


If you try one or two things from the lighter/narrativist side, you might re-calibrate your rankings. Almost everything on your list looks super combat focused next to fate, for instance, but I take your point that there is stuff that's even more combat-heavy than D&D.

[Tanarii]

If you try one or two things from the lighter/narrativist side, you might re-calibrate your rankings. Almost everything on your list looks super combat focused next to fate, for instance, but I take your point that there is stuff that's even more combat-heavy than D&D.I'll hunt around for a game. I'm always open to trying something new. :)

[Estrillian]

I would counter that by adding "rules" to RP, you can actually inhibit roleplay.

As an example, I'd pick the White Wolf game "Exalted." Non-combat is so rules-heavy that roleplaying is also called "social combat."

I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread using the word "roleplaying" in a whole lot of different ways, without elucidating what they actually mean (sorry to use you as an example Talya, plenty of others have done the same.)

So for example here you are using "roleplaying" to mean "social interactions" (i.e. something distinct from exploration, or combat), while others use it to mean "playing your character's personality", or "describing your actions", or "talking". It is a classic define your terms sort of issue, and different meanings of 'roleplay' imply different answers. In exactly the same way some people are taking the question to be "how much of a session's time is spent on non-combat" and others are reading it as "how many of the rule-book mechanics are not combat related".

So if we define roleplaying as "describing what your character does" then the answer is that D&D is 100% roleplay, just like any other game, but that different sorts of roleplay intersect with the rules more or less often. So for example a rule pops up every time I say "I hit it" but not every time I say "I look inside it" or "I talk to it".

On the other hand if we say roleplaying is "non-combat activities" or "social interaction", then we can see that while we may well spend 50% or more of a session on these activities (whatever percentage your table happens to like) a much smaller percentage of the rules are devoted to these things. So there are 2 social interaction rules for example (make a charisma check to change someone's attitude and make an insight check to discover their motives) and a slightly larger number of general non-combat rules (a fair number for travel, less for other things).

Similarly lots of people are saying "I can roleplay without needing some rules" (where roleplay usually means "representing my character's personality"), but that's basically an acknowledgement that, unlike GURPS, FATE, WoD and a myriad of other games (heck even the new Lone Wolf game has personality traits with defined mechanical effects), there aren't rules attached to these things in D&D (other than Inspiration). If you are answering the "how much time" question then clearly D&D can be *full* of this sort of roleplaying, but if you are looking at rules percentage then it isn't.

Finally you have a totally different question : would D&D be better (or is some other game better) because it does give such things equal rule time? e.g. do you portray your character better in GURPS because your major personality traits have more rules attached? Do you have better social conflicts in FATE because there are combat equivalent rules for it?

My own answers would be: D&D has lots of social interaction and character portrayal in practice (at least 50% of my sessions), but few rules to support them. For me it would be better if there were a few more rules for social conflict (I am not sure I need more for character portrayal), because the ones in the DMG seem entirely focussed on trade / requests, and nothing much for building alliances, or commanding soldiers, or attracting followers, or fast-talking your way past a guard. I'd also like it if non spellcaster classes had more defined tools for exploration and social interaction than spell casters.

[Estrillian]

I'll hunt around for a game. I'm always open to trying something new. :)

There are plenty of games which don't have rules for combat at all, either in the sense that they just have generic rules for all sorts of conflict, or because they *really* don't support combat as a mode of resolving things in any meaningful way. Others have rules for combat, but they are no more (or less) complex than the rules for other sorts of actions.

FATE is a poster child for the first sort of game (it has rules for resolving all sorts of conflict, but makes no mechanical distinction between physical combat and social combat). Plenty of indie games have followed this same model, e.g. my own Solipsist, In a Wicked Age, even Apocalypse World probably counts for this.

The second sort of game tends to be laser focussed on telling some sort of story that just doesn't accommodate physical combat, which also means they tend to be small and not general purpose. Things like Best Friends, Mud Dragons, Fiasco, Microscope, Shock!

The third type of game may have combat as complex as D&D, but provides similar complexity for social interaction, character design, crafting - basically everything. GURPS is a strong candidate for this sort of game (it has as many rules for customising a car as hitting someone with a sword), and other games down the years have gone really heavy on the simulationist "rules for everything" model. Burning Wheel is entirely non-simulationist, but still has plenty of rules for things that aren't combat (in fact its actual combat rules may be unsatisfying light depending on exactly what version you play).

If what you want is "low combat but with rules support" then I'd try FATE or something powered by the Apocalypse. If you want no combat rules at all then Shock! and Fiasco are good things to look at. Games in the third category (rules for everything) are often combat heavy (GURPS often is) but don't give combat rules emphasis in the same way.

[Kane0]

For me it would be better if there were a few more rules for social conflict (I am not sure I need more for character portrayal), because the ones in the DMG seem entirely focussed on trade / requests, and nothing much for building alliances, or commanding soldiers, or attracting followers, or fast-talking your way past a guard. I'd also like it if non spellcaster classes had more defined tools for exploration and social interaction than spell casters.

Sounds like excellent material to include in a future UA actually. I'd love me some extra stuff on how to handle that sort of thing.

Agreed with everything else you said too.

[Susano-wo]

I've never really run it like that. I'd say it's a fair split in most of my games maybe slightly leaning more "non-combat RP" than "Combat".

Certainly the non-combat parts of the game have much fewer and much more loosely defined rules but RP doesn't really demand rules. I've had as good a time playing total freeform with no system at all as I have systems that lay solid frameworks for resolving social situations or investigations. Characters do what they do and roll when they need to roll to do that. How well granularity defined the rolls are in any given system really has no bearing on the characters doing what they'd do. It just defines how much the system determines the outcomes more than subjective DM or player judgement.

Certainly "90%" combat is a fair, objective description of rule and page count dedication. However that statement just kind of tells you if the system supports RP in a way or with a style you enjoy or not. It doesn't tell you how much RP is possible/ideal/done in practice with the system.

Haven't read the thread but I'll basically echo this. A system can be built that can hinder RP, if there is a lot of crunch/versimilitude conflict, but the rules needed for RP are quite few, and how much or little you engage in largely depends on group style/preference, not on how many pages are devoted to RP

[MaxWilson]

Given how many discrete actions are defined that are only of use in combat, and the modal change you go through in combat to iniative and things being broken down into granular defined segments of time: Turns, Rounds I think it's really hard to equate the combat rules to a simple extension of the general rules. I think by most any measure combat is clearly it's own, different and special thing as compared to the portions of the system that are non-combat.

You don't have to go through a modal change for combat. One of the great benefits to AD&D-style/Speed Factor initiative is that non-combat and combat action declaration/resolution remain unified. You can easily have some characters doing combat stuff while others are simultaneously doing non-combat stuff, and you can seamlessly transition between combat and non-combat for each and every one of those characters.

[Mr.Moron]

You don't have to go through a modal change for combat. One of the great benefits to AD&D-style/Speed Factor initiative is that non-combat and combat action declaration/resolution remain unified. You can easily have some characters doing combat stuff while others are simultaneously doing non-combat stuff, and you can seamlessly transition between combat and non-combat for each and every one of those characters.

5e using the default rules has combat enter initiative. That mode change is part of the system. You don't use initiative while you're not in combat and do use it when you are in it. You could run things differently and use initiative say for a rousing baking session but that's not things work in the game as presented.

[Knaight]

I'll hunt around for a game. I'm always open to trying something new. :)

Take a look at Chronica Feudalis. I suspect it would be right up your alley.

[GloatingSwine]

Rulesets tend to be combat heavy because combat is where persistent consequences (like characters being wounded or dying) attend, and people like to feel like that those parts are handled as fairly as possible.

The consequences of non-combat interactions tend to be, at worst, some combat happening.

[Knaight]

Rulesets tend to be combat heavy because combat is where persistent consequences (like characters being wounded or dying) attend, and people like to feel like that those parts are handled as fairly as possible.

The consequences of non-combat interactions tend to be, at worst, some combat happening.

This depends on the game. For instance, the examples seen in REIGN for social interactions frequently involve things like a failed social scene getting the nation the PCs are tied to embroiled in a war over the objections of the PCs. While that could be characterized as "some combat happening", that's a bit of an understatement.

[mephnick]

The consequences of non-combat interactions tend to be, at worst, some combat happening.

Only in D&D clones.

Printed mechanics determine what the system does well and what its goals are. There are plenty of systems where the mechanics are focused on role-play and character interaction. Everyone saying "You don't need mechanics to role-plaaayyy" are missing my point. D&D does not want you to role-play, it wants you to fight. The system virtually ensures this. That's all I'm saying. To say that D&D allows you to "role-play" (whatever that means to you) as well as any other system is just...no.

[Talya]

I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread using the word "roleplaying" in a whole lot of different ways, without elucidating what they actually mean (sorry to use you as an example Talya, plenty of others have done the same.)

So for example here you are using "roleplaying" to mean "social interactions" (i.e. something distinct from exploration, or combat), while others use it to mean "playing your character's personality", or "describing your actions", or "talking". It is a classic define your terms sort of issue, and different meanings of 'roleplay' imply different answers. In exactly the same way some people are taking the question to be "how much of a session's time is spent on non-combat" and others are reading it as "how many of the rule-book mechanics are not combat related".

So if we define roleplaying as "describing what your character does" then the answer is that D&D is 100% roleplay, just like any other game, but that different sorts of roleplay intersect with the rules more or less often. So for example a rule pops up every time I say "I hit it" but not every time I say "I look inside it" or "I talk to it".

On the other hand if we say roleplaying is "non-combat activities" or "social interaction", then we can see that while we may well spend 50% or more of a session on these activities (whatever percentage your table happens to like) a much smaller percentage of the rules are devoted to these things. So there are 2 social interaction rules for example (make a charisma check to change someone's attitude and make an insight check to discover their motives) and a slightly larger number of general non-combat rules (a fair number for travel, less for other things).

Similarly lots of people are saying "I can roleplay without needing some rules" (where roleplay usually means "representing my character's personality"), but that's basically an acknowledgement that, unlike GURPS, FATE, WoD and a myriad of other games (heck even the new Lone Wolf game has personality traits with defined mechanical effects), there aren't rules attached to these things in D&D (other than Inspiration). If you are answering the "how much time" question then clearly D&D can be *full* of this sort of roleplaying, but if you are looking at rules percentage then it isn't.

Finally you have a totally different question : would D&D be better (or is some other game better) because it does give such things equal rule time? e.g. do you portray your character better in GURPS because your major personality traits have more rules attached? Do you have better social conflicts in FATE because there are combat equivalent rules for it?

My own answers would be: D&D has lots of social interaction and character portrayal in practice (at least 50% of my sessions), but few rules to support them. For me it would be better if there were a few more rules for social conflict (I am not sure I need more for character portrayal), because the ones in the DMG seem entirely focussed on trade / requests, and nothing much for building alliances, or commanding soldiers, or attracting followers, or fast-talking your way past a guard. I'd also like it if non spellcaster classes had more defined tools for exploration and social interaction than spell casters.

It's not so much that one isn't roleplaying during a fight where the rules are involved, it's that the more rules there are for something, the more inclined one is to let the rules substitute for roleplaying. After all, the rules are essentially dictating some of your actions for you in many cases. Even in the aforementioned white wolf games, where you get bonus dice for detailed descriptions of what you're doing within the rules, the rules provide the framework and you just fill in the detail. In d&d, the rules even provide most of the detail of your combat actions. This is neither good nor bad; it certainly reflects the game's origin as a tactical board game. So while one can certainly roleplay within combat, it is no surprise that people make a division between roleplaying and "rollplaying." It's certainly true that one is more free to roleplay their character the less the rules dictate, but it's also true that the rules can be very useful for a roleplayer in providing a framework within which they can operate, knowing what is possible and what isn't.

[Anonymouswizard]

For those saying 'you don't need rules to roleplay', I want to flip that back at you. You don't need rules more complex than skill checks to simulate combat. Just roll opposed weapon checks, like an art contest might be opposes art (specialty) checks.

[Mr.Moron]

For those saying 'you don't need rules to roleplay', I want to flip that back at you. You don't need rules more complex than skill checks to simulate combat. Just roll opposed weapon checks, like an art contest might be opposes art (specialty) checks.

You don't need any rules at all. Like anything, combat can be done entirely free form. Nothing in particular demands a rules of any kind. It's just matter of how many rules you want for what and why.

[Anonymouswizard]

You don't need any rules at all. Like anything, combat can be done entirely free form. Nothing in particular demands a rules of any kind. It's just matter of how many rules you want for what and why.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. People were saying 'you don't need rules for roleplay', so I thought I'd point out that, if you want, you can have rules for combat but condense them down to one line. I didn't want to go to free form because people would say 'but then you get cops and robbers', so I thought I'd show how you can have it as abstract as social encounters are normally modelled.

That isn't to say that I don't like having a good set of rules for martial combat, but I'd also like rules for mental combat (playing a game) or social combat (a debate, trying to persuade somebody, negotiations at the king's ball), because trying to free form them gives me a headache. No, I don't want 'loser must pay willpower or do what the winner says' social combat, I want social combat with tactics and positioning (say, alliances could be an aspect of 'social positioning'). Not 'this is a system for roleplaying', but 'this is a system for influencing NPCs'.

Because, honestly, I agree that roleplaying mechanics only work if everybody is on the same page, I just find that, from experience, they at least bring people onto the same chapter if not the same page.

[Tanarii]

Given that all of D&D effectively arose from one rule, roll an attack to see if you hit, that's a fair point.

In fact, D&D's roots absolutely are almost all combat rules, and it *does* show. Because it came out of wargaming. But as it evolved, exploration rules became paramount too, and they remain a large chunk of the rules even now. Social rules, and other non-combat aspects got added later. Such as non-weapon proficiency in 1e Wilderness/Dungeoneers Survival Guides, the precursor to skills/tools in 5e.

I think part of the problem may be perception: If you are moving from one room in a dungeon to another, you are exploring. If you are investigating a room in a dungeon, you are exploring. If you are traveling through the wilderness on a mission, you are exploring. If you're talking to a group of Kobold's instead of fighting them, that's social. If you are trying to get some allies to help you oppose the Kobold menace, or let you stay in their homestead for the night, that's social. Dungeons and Dragons is definitely rule-oriented to dungeon and wilderness adventures, but that doesn't mean by default it's a combat-heavy game. It can just as easy be exploration heavy or even social heavy.

Take LoTR. They explored the crap out of the world, and a few dungeons too. It had lots of social aspects, negotiating with various allies to get them to work together. And even occasionally with the enemies. And yes, there was plenty of combat too. D&D has rules to handle that kind of adventure. All aspects of it.

[Anonymouswizard]

Dungeons and Dragons is definitely rule-oriented to dungeon and wilderness adventures, but that doesn't mean by default it's a combat-heavy game. It can just as easy be exploration heavy or even social heavy.

Snipping to this to say: I know this, and have been concentrating on rules because of this. If group A has a lot of fun playing courtly intrigue with D&D 5e that's great, but maybe group B wants more mechanical support and so chooses Fate. Nothing is wrong with group A, D&D can do courtly intrigue, it's just not built to do so.

It's the difference between taking a chess board and trying to play risk (won't work), and taking Action Man and all his accessories and playing with him as a stay-at-home husband. The latter works and can be fun, even though it was not the intention, and that's D&D in social or investigative games.

[JoeJ]

You don't need any rules at all. Like anything, combat can be done entirely free form. Nothing in particular demands a rules of any kind. It's just matter of how many rules you want for what and why.

I doubt that WotC would be able to convince people to pay for a game with no rules, though.

[Tanarii]

Snipping to this to say: I know this, and have been concentrating on rules because of this. If group A has a lot of fun playing courtly intrigue with D&D 5e that's great, but maybe group B wants more mechanical support and so chooses Fate. Nothing is wrong with group A, D&D can do courtly intrigue, it's just not built to do so.For sure. I realized by saying 'social heavy' I'm going to cause confusion. I don't mean social as in courtly intrigue. I mean social as in non-combat interactions with enemies and possibly allies.

I've played in games where 90% of time and encounters are exploration (scouting the enemy, searching for needed resources for the upcoming fight) and social (building alliances against the enemy, including enemies of my enemy), and only 10% combat. Effectively all fights were final showdowns. And the rules to do that kind of play are embedded in the game.

[Mr.Moron]

I doubt that WotC would be able to convince people to pay for a game with no rules, though.

I think they could. They have popular IPs. They might not want to put the word "Game" on the box exactly but books strictly full of fluff, descriptions of inhabitants & towns,wilderness areas and landmarks, descriptions of important people, important trade routes and goods, arts & maps would sell just fine. They'd certainly be an easy basis for an free form RPG as well as neat supplement to their crunchy RPG products.

[JoeJ]

Based on page count, you could argue that D&D is a spellcasting game with a little bit of combat, exploration, and social interaction tacked on. Spells are not usually cast on their own, however, but in some sort of context.

To get an idea of how much of the magic is focused on combat, I went through the spell list and counted up those spells that were basically useless in combat, those that were useful only in combat, and those that could be used both in and outside of combat. The categories are not absolutes, since clever players can always come up with a one-off use for any spell. In general, however, spells that only do somebody are pretty obviously combat spells, and those that can't be cast (or still in effect) at all during the time frame of a typical combat are obviously non-combat. Other spells required a some judgment calls, but mostly weren't that hard. Most spells had an obvious combat use, an obvious non-combat use, or both.

So here are my lists, divided into cantrips and spells of level 1+:

Cantrips (PHB): Acid Splash, Blade Ward, Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Poison Spray, Ray of Frost, Sacred Flame, Shillelagh, Shocking Grasp, Thorn Whip, True Strike, Vicious Mockery

Cantrips (EEPC): Frostbite, Magic Stone, Thunderclap

Cantrips (SCAG): Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Lightning Lure, Sword Burst


Spells (PHB): Antilife Shell, Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar, Aura of Life, Aura of Purity, Bane, Banishing Smite, Banishment, Barkskin, Beacon of Hope, Bestow Curse, Blade Barrier, Bless, Blight, Blinding Smite, Blindness/Darkness, Blur, Branding Smite, Burning Hands, Call Lightning, Chain Lightning, Chromatic Orb, Circle of Death, Circle of Power, Cloud of Daggers, Cloudkill, Color Spray, Compelled Duel, Compulsion, Cone of Cold, Confusion, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley, Contagion, Cordon of Arrows, Counterspell, Crown of Madness, Crusader’s Mantle, Darkness, Death Ward, Delayed Blast Fireball, Destruction Wave, Dispel Evil and Good, Dissonant Whispers, Divine Favor, Divine Word, Earthquake, Elemental Weapon, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Evard’s Black Tentacles, Eyebite, False Life, Fear, Feeblemind, Finger of Death, Fire Shield, Fire Storm, Fireball, Flame Blade, Flame Strike, Flaming Sphere, Flesh to Stone, Fog Cloud, Forcecage, Foresight, Globe of Invulnerability, Grasping Vine, Grease, Guardian of Faith, Guiding Bolt, Hail of Thorns, Harm, Haste, Heat Metal, Hellish Rebuke, Heroism, Hex, Hold Monster, Hold Person, Holy Aura, Hunger of Hadar, Hunter’s Mark, Ice Storm, Imprisonment, Incendiary Cloud, Inflict Wounds, Insect Plague, Lightning Arrow, Lightning Bolt, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Maze, Melf’s Acid Arrow, Meteor Swarm, Mirror Image, Moonbeam, Mordenkainen’s Sword, Otiluke’s Freezing Sphere, Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere, Otto’s Irresistible Dance, Phantasmal Killer, Power Word Kill, Power Word Stun, Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Wall, Protection from Evil and Good, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Sickness, Sanctuary, Scorching Ray, Searing Smite, Shatter, Shield, Shield of Faith, Sleep, Sleet Storm, Slow, Spike Growth, Spirit Guardian, Spiritual Weapon, Staggering Smite, Stinking Cloud, Stoneskin, Storm of Vengeance, Sunbeam, Sunburst, Swift Quiver, Tasha’s Hideous Laughter, Thunderous Smite, Thunderwave, Tsunami, Vampiric Touch, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, Wall of Thorns, Warding Bond, Web, Weird, Wind Wall, Witch Bolt, Wrathful Smite

Spells (EEPC): Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting, Absorb Elements, Aganazzar’s Scorcher, Dust Devil, Earth Tremor, Earthbind, Elemental Bane, Erupting Earth, Flame Arrows, Ice Knife, Immolation, Investiture of Flame, Investiture of Ice, Maelstrom, Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp, Melf’s Minute Meteors, Primordial Ward, Pyrotechnics, Snilloc’s Snowball Storm, Storm Sphere, Tidal Wave, Vitriolic Sphere, Wall of Sand, Wall of Water, Warding Wind, Watery Sphere, Whirlwind



Cantrips (PHB): Dancing Lights, Druidcraft, Friends, Guidance, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy

Cantrips (EEPC): Shape Water


Spells (PHB): Alarm, Animal Messenger, Antipathy/Sympathy, Arcane Eye, Arcane Lock, Astral Projection, Augury, Awaken, Beast Sense, Clairvoyance, Clone, Commune, Commune with Nature, Comprehend Languages, Contact Other Plane, Continual Flame, Control Weather, Create Food and Water, Create or Destroy Water, Creation, Demiplane, Detect Evil and Good, Detect Magic, Detect Poison and Disease, Detect Thoughts, Disguise Self, Divination, Drawmij’s Instant Summons, Dream, Etherealness, Fabricate, Feign Death, Find the Path, Find Traps, Forbiddance, Gaseous Form, Gate, Geas, Gentle Repose, Glibness, Glyph of Warding, Guards and Wards, Hallow, Hallucinatory Terrain, Identify, Illusory Script, Knock, Legend Lore, Leomund’s Secret Chest, Leomund’s Tiny Hut, Locate Animals or Plants, Locate Creature, Locate Object, Magic Circle, Magic Mouth, Meld into Stone, Mirage Arcane, Modify Memory, Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion, Mordenkainen’s Private Sanctum, Move Earth, Nondetection, Nystul’s Magic Aura, Pass Without Trace, Passwall, Phantom Steed, Planar Binding, Prayer of Healing, Project Image, Purify Food and Drink, Raise Dead, Regenerate, Reincarnate, Remove Curse, Resurrection, Rope Trick, Scrying, See Invisibility, Seeming, Sending, Sequester, Speak with Animals, Speak with Dead, Stone Shape, Symbol, Telepathy, Teleport, Teleportation Circle, Tenser’s Floating Disk, Tongues, Transport via Plants, Tree Stride, True Resurrection, Unseen Servant, Water Breathing, Water Walk, Wind Walk, Word of Recall, Zone of Truth

Spells (EEPC): Skywrite



Cantrips (PHB): Fire Bolt, Produce Flame, Resistance, Spare the Dying

Cantrips (EEPC): Control Flames, Create Bonfire, Gust, Mold Earth


Spells (PHB): Aid, Alter Self, Animal Friendship, Animal Shapes, Animate Dead, Animate Objects, Antimagic Field, Arcane Gate, Aura of Vitality, Bigby’s Hand, Blink, Calm Emotions, Charm Person, Command, Conjure Animals, Conjure Celestial, Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Woodland Beings, Contingency, Control Water, Create Undead, Cure Wounds, Darkvision, Daylight, Dimension Door, Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, Dominate Beast, Dominate Monster, Dominate Person, Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, Enthrall, Expeditious Retreat, Faerie Fire, Feather Fall, Find Familiar, Find Steed, Fly, Freedom of Movement, Giant Insect, Greater Invisibility, Goodberry, Greater Restoration, Gust of Wind, Heal, Healing Word, Heroes’ Feast, Hypnotic Pattern, Invisibility, Jump, Lesser Restoration, Levitate, Longstrider, Magic Jar, Major Image, Mass Cure Wounds, Mass Heal, Mass Healing Word, Mass Suggestion, Mind Blank, Mislead, Misty Step Mordenkainen’s Faithful Hound, Phantasmal Force, Planar Ally, Plane Shift, Plant Growth, Polymorph, Power Word Heal, Programmed Illusion, Protection from Energy, Protection from Poison, Rary’s Telepathic Bond, Reverse Gravity, Revivify, Shapechange, Silence, Silent Image, Simulacrum, Speak with Plants, Spider Climb, Suggestion, Telekinesis, Time Stop, True Polymorph, True Seeing, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone, Wish

Spells (EEPC): Beast Bond, Bones of the Earth, Catapult, Control Winds, Investiture of Stone, Investiture of Wind, Transmute Rock


I don't expect everybody to necessarily agree with every single decision, but I doubt that the disagreements will change the numbers very much.

And those numbers are:

For the PHB:
Combat = 44.4% of cantrips (N=12) and 42.8% of spells (N=143).
Noncombat = 40.7% of cantrips (N=11) and 29.6% of spells (N=99).
Multi-Use = 14.8% of cantrips (N=4) and 27.5% of spells (N=92).

For the EEPC:
Combat = 37.5% of cantrips (N=3) and 77.1% of spells (N=27).
Noncombat = 12.5% of cantrips (N=1) and 2.9% of spells (N=1).
Multi-Use = 50.0% of cantrips (N=4) and 20.0% of spells (N=7).

For the SCAG:
Combat = 100% of cantrips (N=4). There are no spells.

Total from all sources:
Combat = 48.7% of cantrips (N=19) and 46.1% of spells (N=170).
Noncombat = 30.8% of cantrips (N=12) and 27.1% of spells (N=100).
Multi-Use = 20.5% of cantrips (N=8) and 26.8% of spells (N=99).

[KorvinStarmast]

This is neither good nor bad; it certainly reflects the game's origin as a tactical board game. Nice post, but I need to offer a correction:

The origin is not a tactical board game. I played a lot of those, made by Avalon Hill and others, in the 60's and 70's. (Afrika Corps, Panzer Blitz, Waterloo, D-Day, Gettysburg ... etc).

The origin of D&D was from a medieval miniatures war game played on a table top, or a sand table, or even on the floor. (Review Chainmail, 3rd edition, from which D&D evolved. It isn't a board game). I played Napoleonic and medieval miniatures when I was a teen, and only a few times after that. Also played a bit of micro armor. Those are table top (and even sand table) tactical games, not board games.

[joaber]

For someone who born in White Wolf, D&D is about combat. I wouldn't say 90%, but is pretty rare to see one entire session of 4 hours without a combat. Some adventure books of 4e was about 95% combat.

But the important part is, lots of combats isn't pejorative at all.