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]

What do we do? Investigate mysteries, making alliance, exploring the world, shopping, talking in character about our plans. Attending balls, trying to escape said ball after we accidentally caused what will later only be known as "the incident", starting businesses without really intending to. The list goes on and includes bad jokes and puns while generally enjoying some time with friends.

What we do outside of combat is so varied we may roll a ton of dice or none at all. It's been like that in most of my games for the past couple decades.

As I said, I'd guess we're probably somewhere around 50/50 RP vs combat but it's not like I keep close track because I don't really care.

I rather like the mystery investigator idea. I could use that in my campaigns alot more.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which is exactly what they did with Adventures in Middle Earth.


Which is not how Adventures in Middle Earth felt. It really did feel like a variation on 5e, despite so much being altered.

I experienced this same sense with the original Mutants and Masterminds. Those rules were so elegant, so different from 3e, and yet so based at its core in 3e. They basically took the essence of 3e, and built a different game from that.

I mean, I am not asking people to just trust me that these designers know what they're doing. But, I am saying maybe some patience in waiting to see if they know what they're doing is called for before judging this project by preconceived notions about how this will work. Because there is precedent for an unexpected blending of the essence of a game with an entirely different path for that game which is both the same and different in unusual ways, with games like Adventures in Middle Earth and Mutants and Masterminds.

Adventures in Middle Earth is a really great comparison IMO.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

... CR is a filmed, edited audio-visual experience, most likely scripted to a certain point by people who are now ACTORS...,

According to the cast of CR, it is neither scripted nor edited.

Back way when it used to be streamed live. Is it no longer? :::Quick Google:::

Huh. I guess not. Goes to show it's been a while since I watched it!

@antiwesley : That very quick google showed that "Critical Role will continue to pre-record their episodes with Campaign 3 although they made it clear in the State of the Role video that the episodes will not be edited so fans will be able to enjoy all the chaos, hilarity, and emotional moments in each episode as they always have." Emphasis mine.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I will one up you, Vampire: The Masquerade. Lots of rules for combat, not intended to be a combat heavy game at all. Lots of Equipment, whole books of equipment and in detail combat rules as well. Even more in depth combat system than D&D, attack, defense, soak, damage categories like Bashing, Piercing etc. Different tracks to keep track of for how you are affected outside of combat. Not perceived of as a combat heavy game but just as in depth as D&D on those rules.

Right. Game systems rewards the style of play the designers want to reinforce. In D&D XP and advancement are all about combat...with a few lines thrown in almost as an afterthought about milestones or XP from exploration or social encounters.

No. Game systems reward the style of play that they end up rewarding. This is with luck the style of play the designers intended to reward - but (as with Vampire the Masquerade and combat) it is very easy to accidentally reward a play style you didn't intend to reward and end up with a "Superheroes with Fangs" game and getting the rewards right

Someone a few pages back used "Critical Role" as an example of 'typical' game play.
Believe that, and I've got some swampland in Florida or a Bridge in New York for you.

No one said it was an example of typical gameplay. But it is live gameplay that developed out of a homegame even if there are props, hair, and makeup. And no script. The shows are real - but all the players are professional voice actors with improv experience; comparing it to a home game is like comparing professional sportsmen playing a game of pick-up to an ordinary game

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Some sessions? Yes, 90%
Some sessions? No, 0%
All other sessions? Some where in between.

D&D (every edition) supported this quite well. Some editions better than others, but still. It's a tool box that has hammers and screwdrivers and other bits and bobs. So that sometimes you can bang the crap outta that nail and other times...

5e? No. it's not 90% about combat. I do think that the rules maybe sorta lean more heavily towards combat but, as others have stated, when it comes to life and death of a character, players want rules to try to keep the playing field level or tilted in their favor and they crave consistency. Which is why a great many RPGs (even ones aimed at minimal combat like CoC as previously mentioned) fill many of their pages with combat related things. Doesn't mean the game is meant for 90% combat.

 

[overgeeked]

I’ve only run 5E for a couple of years now. Between half a dozen groups of teens being introduced to the game, along with three or four experienced need groups, the binds, flaws, and ideals have been the one aspect my groups have universally leaned away from or ignored wholly.

I’ve had the same experience. Played since the playtest and never had a single group use them. The people who don’t want to roleplay ignore them. The people who really love to roleplay have a better idea of their character than the BIFTs can ever provide. I view them as useful for the transition phase between the two. Dipping into roleplaying after being a hardcore murder hobo or pure hack and slash player.

 

[cbwjm]

Definitely don't think it is 90% combat, but the game system I think does skew towards combat more than the other pillars. Just looking at the classes, many of the abilities are combat related so the perception is that the game is the same. Honestly, I'm not sure 5e is the best system for doctor who, I'd have gone with savage worlds instead, but the game may end up being an excellent and unique take on 5e's system. I am kind of curious how many people are clamouring for a doctor who RPG so I'm wondering how well it will sell.

 

[FrogReaver]

Definitely don't think it is 90% combat, but the game system I think does skew towards combat more than the other pillars. Just looking at the classes, many of the abilities are combat related so the perception is that the game is the same. Honestly, I'm not sure 5e is the best system for doctor who, I'd have gone with savage worlds instead, but the game may end up being an excellent and unique take on 5e's system. I am kind of curious how many people are clamouring for a doctor who RPG so I'm wondering how well it will sell.

IMO. Much better than otherwise since it's using the 5e system.

 

[cbwjm]

I’ve had the same experience. Played since the playtest and never had a single group use them. The people who don’t want to roleplay ignore them. The people who really love to roleplay have a greatly better idea of their character than the BIFTs can ever provide. I view them as useful for the transition phase between the two. Dipping into roleplaying after being a hardcore murder hobo or pure hack and slash player.

I don't even bother adding them to my PCs. Same with alignment, I just don't see it as worthwhile.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I have to admit, I've always found it baffling that people seem to be almost proud of the fact that they play D&D and don't feature a lot of combat. Earlier in this thread, we saw claims of a single combat in three sessions and things like that.

Why on earth would you play D&D if that's your jam? In a game where the numbers are reversed - say 10% combat, 90% out of combat, you're basically ejecting three quarters of the game. You're not using most spells, most character abilities, and most of the rules. And, for that 90% out of combat, the rules are so basic that you might as well be free forming.

What are people doing to have that kind of ratio using D&D?

One thing I've seen: I'm in a couple games with a lot of talking between action scenes. There's intra-party talking, talking to npcs, there's shopkeepers to interact with, there's patrons to apologize too because we made a huge mess...

I wouldn't say we're proud of it per se, but we're not annoyed by it (usually).

It's also worth noting these scenes happen with very few rolls - the occasional skill check but not too many. We only really need detailed rules for combat.