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

 

[jmartkdr2]

I feel that DnD is a roleplaying game with a combat minigame attached, but said minigame is the main appeal. If you strip the combat minigame out, it's a pretty thin game and an okay-ish generic rpg. If you tacked on another fun minigame you could go far with it.

The only mechanism that really gets in the way of non-combat DnD is hit points; they're very much tied to a pulp-action kind of experience. Getting away from that mean you need to handle damage, injury stamina and plot armor differently. Not an impossible task, but the part where a lot of heartbreakers fail in my experience.

 

[tetrasodium]

Now, if you're looking for an aspect of the rules that is commonly ignored, it's bond/flaw/ideal. Even with the relatively small amount of rule material associated with noncombat activities, much of it isn't often used.

It's a three legged stool lacking one or two legs. If bob has a BIFT that he feels should help in a given situation he can make a case & hope to get concessions from the gm. If the gm feels that same BIFT should be a problem for bob there's literally nothing in the rules that the GM can do other than fiat a difficulty that bob MUST deal with or adjust DCs, there's no way for the gm to say "uh bob, wasn't your flaw that you always smell like rancid manure due to a curse you made up a few sessions back?... are you really the one to be taking point in these high tea negotiations with lady prissy fussy snootysnoot?" & push bob to play his character in interesting ways instead of spreadsheeting it with "I've got the highest charisma & took a shower". edit: another missing leg might be the incentive for alice to remember Bob's curse & compel herself into springing for the magic spa add on package at the swankiest hotel in town when they rolled into town hoping to lay low before the negotiations.

I also like systems that encourage you to fail rolls occasionally in the name of making a better story in the moment. I think of second edition of 7th Sea, where you can choose to fail rolls and there's some benefit to it

Me too & it is the kind of thing that goes with my example above. In a game like fate bob would be encouraged to lean into his character's strengths & weaknesses proactively. He might say "I'm really the party's face, but I think this is probably a self compel... maybe alice should take point in these negotiations because of my curse" while gesturing for a fate point from the hopefully agreeable gm.

 

[FrogReaver]

I feel that DnD is a roleplaying game with a combat minigame attached, but said minigame is the main appeal. If you strip the combat minigame out, it's a pretty thin game and an okay-ish generic rpg. If you tacked on another fun minigame you could go far with it.

The only mechanism that really gets in the way of non-combat DnD is hit points; they're very much tied to a pulp-action kind of experience. Getting away from that mean you need to handle damage, injury stamina and plot armor differently. Not an impossible task, but the part where a lot of heartbreakers fail in my experience.

Well, The rare of HP scaling is the hard one to get around IMO. HP itself would be just fine otherwise.

 

[Lyxen]

I feel that DnD is a roleplaying game with a combat minigame attached, but said minigame is the main appeal.

For me, that was exactly what 4e was. The combat minigame was actually really good, but it was a mini game. With 5e, I have no discontinuity between the various phases, and it feels much more like a total roleplaying game to me where my projection in the game world is not interrupted by formalism.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Have a look at "The Role of Dice" in the 5e DMG and in particular "Ignoring the dice". We play mostly that way, reserving the dice rolls for when there is something to be gained by being more random.

Or if you can't decide if a roll is necessary or not, you can just grant advantage as a DM. That is usually halfway between a roll and an auto success.

 

[Scott Christian]

Now, if you're looking for an aspect of the rules that is commonly ignored, it's bond/flaw/ideal. Even with the relatively small amount of rule material associated with noncombat activities, much of it isn't often used.

This right here!

I have seen people who generally only play their characters one way, jump on boar with this, and it completely expanded their viewpoint of their roleplaying experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a three legged stool lacking one or two legs. If bob has a BIFT that he feels should help in a given situation he can make a case & hope to get concessions from the gm. If the gm feels that same BIFT should be a problem for bob there's literally nothing in the rules that the GM can do other than fiat a difficulty that bob MUST deal with or adjust DCs, there's no way for the gm to say "uh bob, wasn't your flaw that you always smell like rancid manure due to a curse you made up a few sessions back?... are you really the one to be taking point in these high tea negotiations with lady prissy fussy snootysnoot?" & push bob to play his character in interesting ways instead of spreadsheeting it with "I've got the highest charisma & took a shower". edit: another missing leg might be the incentive for alice to remember Bob's curse & compel herself into springing for the magic spa add on package at the swankiest hotel in town when they rolled into town hoping to lay low before the negotiations.

Me too & it is the kind of thing that goes with my example above. In a game like fate bob would be encouraged to lean into his character's strengths & weaknesses proactively. He might say "I'm really the party's face, but I think this is probably a self compel... maybe alice should take point in these negotiations because of my curse" while gesturing for a fate point from the hopefully agreeable gm.

Fate is mechanically nearly as far from D&D as you can get. What many people seem to be advocating is a complete redesign of the system. I know that it's unpopular to say that something wouldn't be D&D, but that wouldn't be D&D (to me), regardless of what's on the cover. I really wish people would just try out other games once in a while. There's so much cool stuff out there.

 

[MGibster]

I think the impression that D&D might be 90% combat might be rooted less in the rules and more in the published adventures, though. They tend to put a lot of emphasis on that pillar. I play in a game where the DM does not do theater of the mind, the book is rarely deviated from (other than a homebrew magic item here or there), and tactics are a high priority.

I'm one of those weirdos who believes the rules of a game have a very strong influence on how its played. With D&D, we're looking at a game designed so that every character class is useful in combat. We can quibble about whether or not one class is inferior or overpowered compared to another, but each class is designed to fight and has a lot of rules to support that.

While every character class is designed to fight, not all of them are designed for social interactions. A Fighter's primary attributes are Strength and Constitution which doesn't help with any of the social skills aside from, well, hell, it doesn't even help with Intimidation these days. And the Fighter doesn't have access to many social skills other than Insight, which, again, isn't helped by their primary attributes Str or Con. (Though Backgrounds certainly add a bit more versatility when it comes to accessible skills for all classes including the Fighter.)

When it comes to social interactions, some classes are clearly superior to the Fighter. Those classes with Charisma as their main attribute are clearly better at social interactions than the Fighter. Those classes with access to a variety of skills and a lot of skill points are also better at social interactions than the Fighter. They're also better at doing a variety of things outside of combat when compared to the Fighter.

I'm not going to defend the 90% combat statement. But it seems clear to me that D&D places a huge emphasis on combat. As the rules are written, it's one area where every character has been designed to contribute to. If I wanted to run a game heavy on role playing emphasizing social interactions then D&D would not be my first choice. And I'm saying that as someone who likes D&D.

 

[Lyxen]

Or if you can't decide if a roll is necessary or not, you can just grant advantage as a DM. That is usually halfway between a roll and an auto success.

On this topic, I'm listening to this sage advice, and I really like the way JC described embracing the randomness of the d20 as a way to initiate a chain reaction of unpredictability from the explanations about really great or poor dice rolls.

 

[el-remmen]

Now, if you're looking for an aspect of the rules that is commonly ignored, it's bond/flaw/ideal. Even with the relatively small amount of rule material associated with noncombat activities, much of it isn't often used.

I can attest to this, given that I have been running a 5E game for over 2 years now and no one's bond/flaw/ideal has been mentioned even once - heck, I am not even sure the players chose any when they made their characters!

I blame myself (if blame is even necessary) because while we are all new to 5E, most of the players are new to D&D in general to some degree and when we started up this game, I didn't read through that part just assuming it was as optional and tangential as "secondary skills" were in the earlier editions or whatever. Honestly, I don't think it has mattered at all - because to varying degrees the characters' backgrounds, pasts, and personalities have all come into play because of my default DMing style.