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

 

[Ovinomancer]

So my question is... why on earth would you want to reduce your Roleplaying bits to die rolls and complicated mechanics? To me it seems every game that has developed "robust" social skill systems for the roleplaying aspects of the game has failed in the long term or been marginal. It hampers good roleplaying when everything is reduced to a die roll. I am not saying let's get all OSR grognard "skills drool" school on these matters, but when a beautifully RPed sequence gets.... decimated by a bad die roll, aren't you just reducing non-combat encounters to... combat? Exploration rules just reduce games down to board games, sometimes without a board, with a slog of a time keeping system that is usually hand waved by DMs. So while the mechanic may be "combat heavy" is the game itself really... combat heavy? Sounds more to me like people not being encouraged to try different ways to resolve encounters beyond smashing someone's face in with an axe.

I'm not sure I even understand your point. 5e has at least two levels of clear social interaction mechanics -- the ability check and proficiency system, and the social interaction rules in the DMG (yup, there are social interaction rules in the 5e DMG). These are used all the time to direct and constrain roleplaying in most of the games described here -- a CHA (deception) check made to see if an NPC believes a lie, a WIS (Insight) check to glean some information from whatever shady character the PCs are dealing with, etc. So, it can't be that your statement is about any mechanics in the "roleplaying" section.

But, that aside, if every game that has robust social systems fails in the long term, you really need to address quite a few long running and quite successful games -- PbtA, FATE, Cortex, Burning Wheel and it's derivatives, Forged in the Dark, etc. I mean, you might not have heard of these, but they are, after D&D and CoC, a huge part of the rest of the market. Certainly influential and successful, and certainly without failing in the long run because they have stronger systematization of social skills.

 

[jdrakeh]

The game mechanics in the books, mostly yes.

The game as people actually play it at the table, mostly no.

Came here to say exactly this. The rules are almost exclusively combat focused but I've never played in a D&D group that didn't also make room for non-combat roleplay (for some reason, masquerade balls loom large).

 

[Ovinomancer]

In the 5e PHB, the basic rules for combat (pp. 189-198) are only moderately longer and more detailed than the basic rules for exploration and social interaction (pp. 181-187)*. What you get for combat is a structure for taking turns, rules for movement, and a menu of actions. Some of the menu have sub-menu options (for attacks and casting a spell). Exploration rules could/should also have procedures for turns, movement, and a menu of actions. Social interaction sort of has a menu in the form of Cha skills. Let's say you played 5e without classes (and thus without magic); combat would not be that much more involved than any other phase of the game.

When you add the classes back in, now you have a ton of ways for (mechanically) expressing your character, most of which are done in combat. (fwiw, I don't think it's the predictability/agency so much as it is the chance for expression. there's arguably less agency in combat, since your actions are already so defined). Similarly, the way, say, a beholder conveys its beholder-ness at the table is not just through being described as a being with many tentacle eyes, but using the powers associated with those eyes.

* I suppose you could add the rules for casting a spell to the former, but then the rules around ability checks might go into the latter

This is just comparing pages under specific headings. However, if you look at the majority of the information in the character classes, it's aimed towards combat. If you look at the spells, vast majority is aimed at combat. Look to the feats -- most are aimed at combat. The basic method of recharge in the game -- rests -- center on assumptions based on combat (how many and how tough). The majority of the pieces of the entire game work towards or directly support combat. It's not just the heading "combat". Meanwhile, the majority of the rules for the social and exploration pillars exists under those heading and in the abilities section of the book, with a smattering in spells and slightly more in the character classes and feats.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

with a few lines thrown in almost as an afterthought about milestones or XP from exploration or social encounters.

Could look at it differently, and see that basically every adventure uses milestone leveling.

All 10 pages of it...? There's more page count spent on rolling personality traits.

Yeah, I also started counting combat vs non-combat:
spells
feats
proficiencies (tool, languages, and instrument proficiencies, surely outnumber weapon and armor proficiencies)
skills (Athletics, Stealth, and Perception being the only arguably “combat skills”),
Class features,

And tbh so far I’m not seeing a strong majority being primarily about combat. H

 

[Malmuria]

This is just comparing pages under specific headings. However, if you look at the majority of the information in the character classes, it's aimed towards combat. If you look at the spells, vast majority is aimed at combat. Look to the feats -- most are aimed at combat. The basic method of recharge in the game -- rests -- center on assumptions based on combat (how many and how tough). The majority of the pieces of the entire game work towards or directly support combat. It's not just the heading "combat". Meanwhile, the majority of the rules for the social and exploration pillars exists under those heading and in the abilities section of the book, with a smattering in spells and slightly more in the character classes and feats.

I agree, which is why I bring up the point about separating out the basic resolution system for combat vs all the specific character abilities, spells, and monster abilities. The basic resolution system is pretty simple. But the design of the game carves out exceptions and special cases in the form of abilities and spells. The design could do something similar with exploration and social, and they do to a certain extent (e.g. bard and ranger abilities, some spells), but for the most part they choose to add more and more combat abilities.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree, which is why I bring up the point about separating out the basic resolution system for combat vs all the specific character abilities, spells, and monster abilities. The basic resolution system is pretty simple. But the design of the game carves out exceptions and special cases in the form of abilities and spells. The design could do something similar with exploration and social, and they do to a certain extent (e.g. bard and ranger abilities, some spells), but for the most part they choose to add more and more combat abilities.

I disagree. Look at the structure of combat versus pretty much everything else -- combat keeps numbers for bonuses tightly in check (no expertise, for example). It takes place over multiple die rolls, with each roll being somewhat consequential but not really generating new fictional states (hitting something with your sword has the consequence of reducing it's hitpoints, but fictionally it's still the same state unless you kill it). This allows exceptions and large impact ability to have meaning and heft without swamping the combat because of those multiple rolls. I can cast a spell and induce a fictional change, or nova an ability and seriously degrade hitpoints, but this doesn't swamp the combat game.

Now, look to the social or exploration games -- these are paper thing, usually putting lots of serious stakes into a single roll. Here, abilities that except out have massive impacts. Spells in this space tend to obviate challenges rather than become resource to muster to solve them in incremental ways. Building out a game where these kinds of challenges operate over multiple rolls so that the exception based effects can feel both weighty and yet not swamp the system is tough. Ultimately, you need to be doing multiple multi-roll challenges to get the system to level out. That's hard to balance out, and would likely involve what most in this thread are arguing against -- much more tightly constrained systems operating in the exploration and social pillars.

 

[teitan]

I'm not sure I even understand your point. 5e has at least two levels of clear social interaction mechanics -- the ability check and proficiency system, and the social interaction rules in the DMG (yup, there are social interaction rules in the 5e DMG). These are used all the time to direct and constrain roleplaying in most of the games described here -- a CHA (deception) check made to see if an NPC believes a lie, a WIS (Insight) check to glean some information from whatever shady character the PCs are dealing with, etc. So, it can't be that your statement is about any mechanics in the "roleplaying" section.

But, that aside, if every game that has robust social systems fails in the long term, you really need to address quite a few long running and quite successful games -- PbtA, FATE, Cortex, Burning Wheel and it's derivatives, Forged in the Dark, etc. I mean, you might not have heard of these, but they are, after D&D and CoC, a huge part of the rest of the market. Certainly influential and successful, and certainly without failing in the long run because they have stronger systematization of social skills.

Oh I have heard of them but they're what I would see as Marginal unlike Call of Cthulhu, Vampire, Shadowrun etc. which are more long running. If you didn't get my point that's cool though. We can end that discussion here because I really can't go on about it. That's all I have to say on it really, the migraine (real migraine, not a personal jab meant at all) is too big to get into detail because it's beside the point of... Combat is a more complex concept that is more needed in spiffy details than how to roll some dice to see if my words swayed the town guard to not sound the alarm thus skewing the perception of D&D as a combat oriented game when almost every game out there of consequence also has spiffy combat rules taking up large chunks of the books.

 

[teitan]

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.

I was about to post the same thing. Not edited, not scripted. Just professional.

 

[Aldarc]

When someone on the internet said that D&D is 90% combat is there any chance that was intentional hyperbole rather than a conclusion based on careful study and data?

IMHO, this is one reason why I find the idea it gratuitous for the D&D lead to dunk on this sort of low-hanging fruit against Twitter nobodies. It's looking for an easy win on a vague technicality rather than address the underlying sentiment behind the statement. And I don't even see why it was necessary for WotC management to get so aggressively defensive of their 800 lb. Gorilla against such a hyperbolic claim in the first place.

Even if D&D was "90 percent combat" would that stop 5e from being a fun game? Would that make the 800 lb. gorilla any less dominant in the TTRPG jungle?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh I have heard of them but they're what I would see as Marginal unlike Call of Cthulhu, Vampire, Shadowrun etc. which are more long running. If you didn't get my point that's cool though. We can end that discussion here because I really can't go on about it. That's all I have to say on it really, the migraine is too big to get into detail because it's beside the point of... Combat is a more complex concept that is more needed in spiffy details than how to roll some dice to see if my words swayed the town guard to not sound the alarm thus skewing the perception of D&D as a combat oriented game when almost every game out there of consequence also has spiffy combat rules taking up large chunks of the books.

Sure, if you say you can't make a case, we can drop it. I disagree soundly with your assertion, and am willing to engage in why. Simply put, combat isn't special -- 5e didn't dedicate so much design space to combat because it requires it, but rather because the designers decided to make that important to 5e. Other games, even games that meet your arbitrary age threshold (seriously, you've discounted a game I listed that's almost 20 years old as not old enough to count), have do this. Prince Valiant, released in 1989 (before Vampire and contemporary with FASA Shadowrun), does this well. So, no, combat isn't a required special thing that demands more rules that other areas of potential play.

ETA: let me say that I run and play 5e, like it, and will continue to do so. I approach 5e to play the game it lays out and don't really expect it to do other things well or at all. Not a single thing wrong with that. I don't play Monopoly to have a Risk experience, either.