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

 

[FrogReaver]

Also they are wrong about D&D being 90% combat. It's actually 89.955% combat!

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

My personal belief is because the rule is dm-driven. It's incumbent on the dm to remember every pc's traits in the moment and reward them. In games where personality traits effectively impose themselves on gameplay, the player is the one who initiates, or both the player and gm can initiate.

This doesn't require a huge shift - just let players try to get advantage for doing something in-line with their BIFT or allow players to openly ask if they earned inspiration in the moment when they play out a flaw.

Of course, not everyone's going to like what that does tot he game, but it's the best way I know of to make BIFT matter.

 

[overgeeked]

That still does not equal to 90% combat before then.
Before that, maybe 90% of all premade encounters in adventure books were designed to be primarily resolved by combat.

Which means that you have to assume that the designers of the game are designing adventures almost exclusively for the combat pillar of the game when they believe that the game is not almost exclusively about combat, i.e. they’re bad designers. Good designers are not going to almost exclusively focus their adventures on only one of three equal pillars of play…to the point where having non-combat resolution is called out as a novelty. If they honestly thought their game wasn’t mostly about combat, they wouldn’t have produced X modules that focus almost exclusively on combat. That’s bad design.

I also admit, that a big part of the rules is written to resolve combat. That actually is a strength in my opinion.

And that’s the distinction I made in the first reply to the thread.

The game mechanics are mostly about combat.

The game as most often played is not.

 

[payn]

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.

It really needs more than one person to be on board. I played in a 5E campaign as a player. The GM seemed to care on day 1 and after totally forgot about it. I kept trying to play to ideals, bonds, flaws, and eventually I got comments like "we get it you character really likes books..." They were actively telling me to shut up about it...

Not saying this is typical, just an experience I've never mentioned before.

 

[Oofta]

I really, really, really hate the Roll playing Role playing thing. It is very insulting to the inarticulate. I have played at tables where the reliance on "roleplaying" as defined here has excluded the players that are not good at coming up with glib gab on the spot and the table and action is dominated by the charismatic players not the charismatic characters.
Roll playing is still Roleplaying, ok, can we agree on that.

That rant aside, you are correct. At least that skill challenges were an attempt at this. In hindsight, the biggest issue with skill challenges was that it was introduced in to a D&D where the culture had built up, where the idea that if one was untrained in the skill one could not attempt the thing (jump, use rope, I am looking at you again).
This would not be as bad in 5e where there are no skill checks, only ability checks and skills are areas where one can apply a proficiency bonus to an ability check.
5e could do with more explicit support to allow no standard abilities to skills. For example, a Barbarian using Con or Str for Intimidation.
The other issue, that a skill challenge needs some element that you can hang a narrative on the progression to of the challenge.
(like hit points do for combat)


Well I have no real problem with metagamey. I think that meta gaming has been in the DNA of D&D going all the way back to Gygaxian Skilled Play. YMMV

I don't think there is a perfect answer. Personally I want proficiency and ability scores to matter outside of combat. But I also want to balance it out and not reward just that.

So how I handle it is to have people explain what they're doing however they want. If it's a social situation, most of the time I want them to interact in first person, I enjoy it more. But if they're not comfortable with that, they can just tell me what argument they're trying to make. Either way I'll do my best to base the target DC (which will be adjusted and may go from automatic to virtually impossible) on the substance of what they say and anything else that may factor in such as interactions.

The problem with skill challenges as used was that there was none of that. The DCs were largely set in stone and nothing you said or did really mattered. Make a truly convincing case? At best you get two successes and someone else had to make further successes using a different skill.

If the decisions you make, if what your PCs say or do are meaningless and the only thing that matters is rolling a D20 and adding a modifier, it's roll playing. Now, maybe that's okay for some people. But in our games? Especially in LFR? Too often it was go around the table and the person with the highest modifier rolled. No creativity, no alternatives, just roll the dice and hope you get the requisite successes before exceeding the failure limit.

I'm not saying there's a perfect solution. I keep a list of what people are proficient at and try to throw situations where they're useful now and then. Whether it's setting up a scenario where the fighter has to lift the portcullis using athletics while the warlock tries to distract the guard or the wizard tries to decipher the arcane writings on a map while the monk uses their cartography skills to determine a precise location. Sometimes I'll use a skill challenge structure. But if someone comes up with a really cool solution, probably something I didn't think of, they just succeed. Maybe with a role, maybe not.

So my preference is to leave it more open with options as described in The Role of the Dice in the DMG so groups can do what makes sense for them.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Yes fate is almost as far from d&d as you can get, but the BIFTs are a d&d5e thing that would be getting oversold if they were called something like "merely vestigial". The blank(back) side of the character sheet has almost as much impact on gameplay as BIFTs because an artistically inclined player could draw a picture of their PC there to draw inspiration from & show off.

That d&d 5e mechanic known as the BIFTs however is almost a direct analog to Fate's high concept aspect/trouble aspect/character aspects & those fate character mechanics are a core component given as much if not more weight than d&d5e race/class choice. Comparing the two is not to say that d&d needs to be redesigned to support that, it just makes it easy to illustrate why BIFTs are a pointless & basically unused mechanic along with outlining areas that would need to be improved in order to change that. Personally I think that BIFTs are a travesty that should be excised from the game because their most common contribution at the table is "I'm a ROLE player not just a roll player and it's what my character would do [how dare you question my behavior you dirty roll player]" but if they must stay they should be improved to at least elevate them to a merely vestigial state.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't think there is a perfect answer. Personally I want proficiency and ability scores to matter outside of combat. But I also want to balance it out and not reward just that.

Indeed. And I want people to think like they are roleplaying inside the fantasy world, not gaming their stats, even if these matters.

So how I handle it is to have people explain what they're doing however they want. If it's a social situation, most of the time I want them to interact in first person, I enjoy it more. But if they're not comfortable with that, they can just tell me what argument they're trying to make. Either way I'll do my best to base the target DC (which will be adjusted and may go from automatic to virtually impossible) on the substance of what they say and anything else that may factor in such as interactions.

Same with me, I would just add that I would, especially in the case of social situations, make sure that I take into account the player's social skills vs. his characters, for example a timid person doing his best to roleplay a charismatic character is not the same thing as a charismatic player trying to use his natural abilities to "override" his characters dumped charisma...

The problem with skill challenges as used was that there was none of that. The DCs were largely set in stone and nothing you said or did really mattered.

Even worse than that, it encouraged players to go hunting for their skills on the sheet to see which one would be applicable to the situation, rather than trying to think in character.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't think there is a perfect answer. Personally I want proficiency and ability scores to matter outside of combat. But I also want to balance it out and not reward just that.

So how I handle it is to have people explain what they're doing however they want. If it's a social situation, most of the time I want them to interact in first person, I enjoy it more. But if they're not comfortable with that, they can just tell me what argument they're trying to make. Either way I'll do my best to base the target DC (which will be adjusted and may go from automatic to virtually impossible) on the substance of what they say and anything else that may factor in such as interactions.

That is pretty much do with may be a bit less in character chatter as I am also not too hot at it but my current players do not seem very keen on it.

The problem with skill challenges as used was that there was none of that. The DCs were largely set in stone and nothing you said or did really mattered. Make a truly convincing case? At best you get two successes and someone else had to make further successes using a different skill.

If the decisions you make, if what your PCs say or do are meaningless and the only thing that matters is rolling a D20 and adding a modifier, it's roll playing. Now, maybe that's okay for some people. But in our games? Especially in LFR? Too often it was go around the table and the person with the highest modifier rolled. No creativity, no alternatives, just roll the dice and hope you get the requisite successes before exceeding the failure limit.

This is kind of what I felt about skill challenges, I think it should have been more a fail forward but with rising stakes type thing.
One thing I have found interesting is the study stuff in Strixhaven. It is a downtime for rerolls kind of thing. I could see it as a way to incorporate research/investigation in to the game better.

However, all that said, I am not sure D&D really needs a social conflict mechanic. Though I would be interested in any one that was developed. I think the mechanics we have are good enough but the DM advice could be better.

What I would like to see is a good journey mechanic. The current rules are a mess, the wilderness navigation DC table is arrant nonsense. A lot of the other are either too detailed or not detailed enough.
If people want to handwave encumbrance then the rules could be simplified to a well supplied group can travel x days, if they do not carry water and y days if they have to carry water, pack animals add +z days travel.
Foraging cost y time/x time travelled. Navigation is easy on well marked roads/trails, moderate on other terrain, hard on featureless (it all looks the same, dense forest/jungle) very hard on shifting terrain - wandering sand dunes, snow drifts. Modified by knowledge, time of year, weather, etc.
Hmmm.. I may be wondering off topic here.

I'm not saying there's a perfect solution. I keep a list of what people are proficient at and try to throw situations where they're useful now and then. Whether it's setting up a scenario where the fighter has to lift the portcullis using athletics while the warlock tries to distract the guard or the wizard tries to decipher the arcane writings on a map while the monk uses their cartography skills to determine a precise location. Sometimes I'll use a skill challenge structure. But if someone comes up with a really cool solution, probably something I didn't think of, they just succeed. Maybe with a role, maybe not.

So my preference is to leave it more open with options as described in The Role of the Dice in the DMG so groups can do what makes sense for them.

I do think more emphasis that these are ability check and allowing abilities to tread on the toes of the "skills" a little would be of the good.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

To Cubicle 7 folks: please try to ignore the negativity. I'm sad to say that there's often a congenital snarkiness in this community.
Like the Middle-earth D&D RPG, the Doctor Who D&D RPG sounds awesome.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That is pretty much do with may be a bit less in character chatter as I am also not too hot at it but my current players do not seem very keen on it.

This is kind of what I felt about skill challenges, I think it should have been more a fail forward but with rising stakes type thing.
One thing I have found interesting is the study stuff in Strixhaven. It is a downtime for rerolls kind of thing. I could see it as a way to incorporate research/investigation in to the game better.

However, all that said, I am not sure D&D really needs a social conflict mechanic. Though I would be interested in any one that was developed. I think the mechanics we have are good enough but the DM advice could be better.

Building on this with my own thoughts:

I don't think DnD needs or wants a social conflict mechanic per se. The rare social challenge scene would be a good example case for a generalized skill challenge system.

I do think DnD needs a generalized skill challenge system. I'm not enamored with the existing official options, but a good one would be very good to have.

What I would like to see is a good journey mechanic. The current rules are a mess, the wilderness navigation DC table is arrant nonsense. A lot of the other are either too detailed or not detailed enough.
If people want to handwave encumbrance then the rules could be simplified to a well supplied group can travel x days, if they do not carry water and y days if they have to carry water, pack animals add +z days travel.
Foraging cost y time/x time travelled. Navigation is easy on well marked roads/trails, moderate on other terrain, hard on featureless (it all looks the same, dense forest/jungle) very hard on shifting terrain - wandering sand dunes, snow drifts. Modified by knowledge, time of year, weather, etc.
Hmmm.. I may be wondering off topic here.

This is a much better example of a specific scene/challenge mechanic that should exist, at least as an option in the DMG or similar book. Journeys aren't just skill challenges any more than combats are.

I do think more emphasis that these are ability check and allowing abilities to tread on the toes of the "skills" a little would be of the good.