D&D 5E Is D&D 90% Combat?

In response to Cubicle 7’s announcement that their next Doctor Who role playing game would be powered by D&D 5E, there was a vehement (and in some places toxic) backlash on social media. While that backlash has several dimensions, one element of it is a claim that D&D is mainly about combat.

Head of D&D Ray Winninger disagreed (with snark!), tweeting "Woke up this morning to Twitter assuring me that [D&D] is "ninety percent combat." I must be playing (and designing) it wrong." WotC's Dan Dillon also said "So guess we're gonna recall all those Wild Beyond the Witchlight books and rework them into combat slogs, yeah? Since we did it wrong."

So, is D&D 90% combat?



And in other news, attacking C7 designers for making games is not OK.

D&D 5E - Doctors & Daleks - Cubicle 7 Brings Doctor Who to D&D 5E

Cubicle 7 -- makers of the official Doctor Who roleplaying game -- has announced that the Doctor will officially be coming to 5E soon under the name Doctors and Daleks. There are no dates or details yet, over than that the Doctors and Daleks Player's Guide will launch 'soon'. A NEW COMPANION...

www.enworld.org

 

[Manbearcat]

Then you need to explain, because I simply can't see what else social mechanics can bring to the game.

I mean, "skill challenge". The clue is right there in the name. It's turning a social situation into a competitive situation.

And I have to say, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to play that way. You seem to be the one who thinks a competitive rather than social game is somehow lesser.

Did you get a chance to look at my play excerpt upthread of a Dogs in the Vineyard social scene I GMed? It’s located here for you to take a look if you missed it.

I’m going to answer your question using the ethics of “competitive integrity.” Now at first glance your instinct might be “but Manbearcat…you’re supporting exactly what I’m saying! That can only mean that you’re interests lie in a social pillar where winning and losing is the point of play!”

I can understand that thought, but it’s a misapprehension of one of, if not the, foundational aspects of the ethics of competitive integrity in any arena but specifically in TTRPGs. What it means for that particular excerpt that I’ve linked above is the following:

I, as GM, and my players know with certitude that (a) this particular change in gamestate and (b) the attendant nature of this PC and this NPC and (c) the related trajectory of play driven by this moment is not the product of one participant’s (the GM’s) deployment of their unique capacity as mediator of the fiction and the gamestate. Put another way, this allows both party’s (player and GM) to “play to the hilt” and simultaneously find out what happens and find out who both of these characters are and what comes next (rather than outright deciding it/dictating it).

Now within the above you should not surmise “he’s saying that all freeform social interaction is the product of assymetrival power relationships and GM Force (the GM subverting a player’s thematic, strategic, tactical input into play and asserting their own interests in its place).” The above does not say that. What it says is that looming prospect is taken wholly off the table…and that has a very particular impact on the cognitive workspace of both player and GM in their orientation to this moment of play and play overall.

That is the impact of competitive integrity here. And this is where someone says “but just trust your GM!”. Trust does not do the work of assured competitive integrity (the impact outlined above). Trust is vulnerable to humans having a singular moment of failure which could be either malign or simply user error…and not define them as a GM or person…literally every other moment of their GMing could be “trustworthy.” Humans are fallible, we make mistakes of ethic and both cognitive horsepower; it happens to everyone full stop. That is why perspective, understanding, and forgiveness/redemption are so essential to human social systems.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Did you get a chance to look at my play excerpt upthread of a Dogs in the Vineyard social scene I GMed? It’s located here for you to take a look if you missed it.

I’m going to answer your question using the ethics of “competitive integrity.” Now at first glance your instinct might be “but Manbearcat…you’re supporting exactly what I’m saying! That can only mean that you’re interests lie in a social pillar where winning and losing is the point of play!”

I can understand that thought, but it’s a misapprehension of one of, if not the, foundational aspects of the ethics of competitive integrity in any arena but specifically in TTRPGs. What it means for that particular excerpt that I’ve linked above is the following:

I, as GM, and my players know with certitude that (a) this particular change in gamestate and (b) the attendant nature of this PC and this NPC and (c) the related trajectory of play driven by this moment is not the product of one participant’s (the GM’s) deployment of their unique capacity as mediator of the fiction and the gamestate. Put another way, this allows both party’s (player and GM) to “play to the hilt” and simultaneously find out what happens and find out who both of these characters are and what comes next (rather than outright deciding it/dictating it).

Now within the above you should not surmise “he’s saying that all freeform social interaction is the product of assymetrival power relationships and GM Force (the GM subverting a player’s thematic, strategic, tactical input into play and asserting their own interests in its place).” The above does not say that. What it says is that looming prospect is taken wholly off the table…and that has a very particular impact on the cognitive workspace of both player and GM in their orientation to this moment of play and play overall.

That is the impact of competitive integrity here. And this is where someone says “but just trust your GM!”. Trust does not do the work of assured competitive integrity (the impact outlined above). Trust is vulnerable to humans having a singular moment of failure which could be either malign or simply user error…and not define them as a GM or person…literally every other moment of their GMing could be “trustworthy.” Humans are fallible, we make mistakes of ethic and both cognitive horsepower; it happens to everyone full stop. That is why perspective, understanding, and forgiveness/redemption are so essential to human social systems.

Sorry, this post is to intellectual for me, I don't understand.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Sorry, this post is to intellectual for me, I don't understand.

I think what he means in English is that when the player is given to understand by the DM that the DM has no intention to force things to go a certain way, during a particular social interaction, then things will be better somehow?

At least that's what he appears to mean by things like "both parties playing to the hilt" and "taking that looming prospect off the table". So I take it that a skill challenge is some kind of looming prospect and things just go better when the player doesn't have to worry about it?

 

[Manbearcat]

Sorry, this post is to intellectual for me, I don't understand.

Holy eff man. I wrote all of the above with earnestness and sincere attempt to bridge the gap and that is your response?

Could you at least do me the courtesy of pointing out what you don’t understand? Do you understand the ethics of competitive integrity (and the effect upon play) that I’ve laid out?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Holy eff man. I wrote all of the above with earnestness and sincere attempt to bridge the gap and that is your response?

I'm sorry, I'm being completely genuine, I don't understand what you have written.

Could you at least do me the courtesy of pointing out what you don’t understand? Do you understand the ethics of competitive integrity (and the effect upon play) that I’ve laid out?

No, I don't. I've never studied ethics and I have no idea what the phrase "competitive integrity" means.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Holy eff man. I wrote all of the above with earnestness and sincere attempt to bridge the gap and that is your response?

Could you at least do me the courtesy of pointing out what you don’t understand? Do you understand the ethics of competitive integrity (and the effect upon play) that I’ve laid out?

You really could have broken down a lot of it into reasonably accessible language. I'm all for enjoying the English language and lavishing our prose with expressive, flowery or technical vocabulary, but there's a time and a place for that and this is more of the time and place for clear communication and use of more commonly accepted vernacular.

I mean, your italicized paragraph would virtually come across as word salad to anyone without a fairly above average command of the English language.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean, your italicized paragraph would virtually come across as word salad to anyone without a fairly above average command of the English language.

I would say my command of English is well above average, but it still looks like word salad* to me. I'm usually the one who gets told off for using too many long words!

*I understood that reference.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

I would say my command of English is well above average, but it still looks like word salad* to me. I'm usually the one who gets told off for using too many long words!

*I understood that reference.

You're not wrong, but I'd rather not make a habit of wording things too strongly and negatively especially when I'm already looking critical towards whomever I'm addressing myself.

This isn't English Lit it's an internet forum, not everyone here even uses English as their first language so it's kind of common courtesy trying to make what you say accessible enough to read.

 

[Aldarc]

Then you need to explain, because I simply can't see what else social mechanics can bring to the game.

I mean, "skill challenge". The clue is right there in the name. It's turning a social situation into a competitive situation.

And I have to say, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to play that way.

For starters, since you are talking about skill challenges, not every social interaction with an NPC requires a skill challenge. The 4e DMG says that social scenes can be played out freeform or that sometimes a single check suffices. Skill challenges pertain to situations when there is a changing set of conditions that involve an uncertainty of outcomes. That won't be every social encounter. Moreover, skill challenges apply equally to the exploration pillar as well; however, I don't see similar accusations that skill challenges applied to exploration encounters is about wanting to "win."

It's possible you may be reading the idea of a "challenge" in terms of a binary win/lose scenario. Instead, it is better to think of skill challenges more akin to a question of uncertainty about a complex situation in the fiction. What is being challenged is not necessarily about winning/losing an encounter but, rather, the potential costs to the party: e.g., time, resources, opportunities, added complications, etc. But in so doing, we are also all learning something about the fiction of the game, because setting up a skill challenge also requires establishing the stakes at play in the fiction.

Also, we are not talking solely about skill challenges here. Social mechanics in many other TTRPGs are not necessarily about playing to "win." Like with many game mechanics, it's often as simple as serving a means to arbitrate an uncertainty of outcomes regarding the characters involved but it can also involve resolving how the fiction impacts/affects/changes your character. In the latter case, it's likely that the designers of these games see the absence of social mechanics as an implicit violation of the Czege Principle.

Moreover, as a DM it also means that I can be surprised by the resolution of those outcomes rather than dictating or coercing them.

TL;DR: Social mechanics add a means to mechanically resolve uncertain outcomes in the fiction.

You seem to be the one who thinks a competitive rather than social game is somehow lesser.

No. You are needlessly (1) making this personal and (2) gaslighting. Cut it out. Now.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Moreover, as a DM it also means that I can be surprised by the resolution of those outcomes rather than dictating or coercing them.

Now, this is definitely wrong. I do not need dice in order to be surprised by the outcome. Not only players might surprise me by what they say, but NPCs I am controlling might also surprise me. That's what roleplaying is about - you put yourself into the mind of the character, and say what they say, not what you would say.