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

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Are you telling me that it's wrong that I can be surprised by the outcomes from social mechanics? Because I am only speaking to my own experiences here nor I appreciate being condescended to about what roleplaying is about.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Are you telling me that it's wrong that I can be surprised by the outcomes from social mechanics?

No, I'm telling you that it is wrong to suggest that I cannot be surprised without using social mechanics, and to suggest that if I do not roll dice I am simply dictating the outcome.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Are you telling me that it's wrong that I can be surprised by the outcomes from social mechanics? Because I am only speaking to my own experiences here nor I appreciate being condescended to about what roleplaying is about.

It never ceases to amaze how little time it takes for people to start saying "well if you meant that part how I think you meant it then I'm not pleased", followed up by "no you misunderstand me", and "no sir it is you who misunderstands me".

Please guys neither of you is trying to be mean or rude or nasty or hurtful. People who are passionate about something and have definite opinions sometimes word things strongly.

Literally none of this post is explaining things either of you don't already know. But heck maybe it was worth saying.

 

[Aldarc]

No, I'm telling you that it is wrong to suggest that I cannot be surprised without using social mechanics, and to suggest that if I do not roll dice I am simply dictating the outcome.

Except I am not saying that. Through my use of "I can be surprised," I tried to make it clear that I am only speaking to my own sensibilities and perspective. I am not speaking about you or what surprises you as a GM. I am only speaking about me, myself, and I here, and I would personally appreciate it if you didn't talk past that point or try to misconstrue my argument into something else other than that.

Moreover, I am puzzled why this is the piece that you decided to nitpick and berate me over from my post rather than some of the sections that more directly addressed the point your inquiry.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Moreover, I am puzzled why this is the piece that you decided to nitpick

I'm happy to concede the rest as difference of opinion. However, this:

it also means that I can be surprised by the resolution of those outcomes rather than dictating or coercing them

clearly implies the negative: without social mechanics it is not possible to be surprised. This is false in fact, not opinion.

 

[Krachek]

Oh, absolutely. Sorry if I implied otherwise. It absolutely is a part of the game and deliberately so.

But, that choice does mean that the game is very focused on combat and not particularly focused on anything else.

Indeed DnD the game is not only focus on combat. And looking at the popularity of DnD the social part has important weight.

Why the asymmetric mechanics of combat vs social and exploration work and is popular is the fact to explore and question.
The few hint we have for the 2024 revision, don’t show that they will change social and exploration mechanics, they rather present new format of the monsters stat block.

having complex mechanics for combat and loose mechanics for social and exploration mechanics let the DM add a personal factor to the game. The Famous DM Fiat seem to be an important factor to have a satisfying experience playing DnD.

 

[Krachek]

If I choose to not put pepper in my mac and cheese, then it's perfectly fine for someone else to note that my mac and cheese lacks pepper, even though I deliberately chose to not include it. (I absolutely put pepper in my mac and cheese -- I'm not a barbarian!)

It is these loose mechanics for social and exploration that invite us to try pepper on Mac And cheese.
Combat rules are for preparing the meal, it need more precise and structured ways.
But for enjoying our food, we need to loosen things up!

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is these loose mechanics for social and exploration that invite us to try pepper on Mac And cheese.
Combat rules are for preparing the meal, it need more precise and structured ways.
But for enjoying our food, we need to loosen things up!

Cookbook: "This cookbook will not tell you how to cook, or prepare, meals for dinner, but we will tell you that dinner is an important part of the set of daily meals -- you should absolutely have dinner! But we're not giving you any ideas about dinner, you're on your own. Hopefully, you've had dinner before and so have some basis for figuring it out, or someone else can teach you how to make dinner, or perhaps you can watch some videos online about dinner, but there will be no discussion of dinner here."

Fans: "That Cookbook is just the best for making dinner!"

I don't get it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ummm because it is? It never occurred to you that was a completely valid attitude for someone to have?

Sure it's a valid attitude. I'm just confused as to why it's pushed by reference to blackguards as if that shows the value and worth of the concept. It's almost a reversed Poe's Law. At no point was "more guidelines than rules" used for a good outcome or worthy reason in those films. It was used to cheat and swindle. Seems odd to boldly use that comparison -- "we think that the lack of rules in D&D for various things is good because that means we can do whatever whenever just like these murderous fictional pirates did to cheat and swindle!" Surely that's not the attitude you want to put forward? I mean, even that's a valid attitude.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm happy to concede the rest as difference of opinion. However, this:

clearly implies the negative: without social mechanics it is not possible to be surprised. This is false in fact, not opinion.

It doesn't imply anything about you though nor does it state anything the experiences of other as a universal. It states that I, Aldarc, and Aldarc alone can be surprised by this. If you can't figure out that I am speaking solely for my personal experiences and no one else's, then there is no point at all at discussing this matter further.

Can I be surprised without social mechanics? Yes, sure. That's a banal point to concede. But I have personally found that social mechanics have contributed to my personal sense of surprise as part of playing to find out what happens.