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

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Let’s take exploring a dungeon as an example. On the one hand, I agree that 5e could use and/or emphasize the more elaborated procedures from earlier editions (turns, encounter distance, light, traps, etc). Further, the stakes of failing to explore could be more clear (e.g. traps that are more than hp taxes, absence of light causing conditions, wandering monsters actually being something you want to avoid, party has to retreat). On the other hand, it’s a choice for them to make darkvision so common, or to make the light spell both a cantrip and more versatile than torches. Same with wilderness exploration: yes, there could be a better procedure, but the class abilities and spells could be powered down.

That being said, I think the audience wants combat to be the high stakes part of the game, and would prefer to handwave a lot of traditional exploration, which is fine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let’s take exploring a dungeon as an example. On the one hand, I agree that 5e could use and/or emphasize the more elaborated procedures from earlier editions (turns, encounter distance, light, traps, etc). Further, the stakes of failing to explore could be more clear (e.g. traps that are more than hp taxes, absence of light causing conditions, wandering monsters actually being something you want to avoid, party has to retreat). On the other hand, it’s a choice for them to make darkvision so common, or to make the light spell both a cantrip and more versatile than torches. Same with wilderness exploration: yes, there could be a better procedure, but the class abilities and spells could be powered down.

I'm not sure you quite took my point. Even earlier edition procedures for managing time and creating the resource management game around exploration of a dungeon doesn't quite get there -- although there is discussion to be had. I say this because your last line goes straight against the point I was making -- combat gives you space to have powerful and consequential abilities because they don't swamp the system. This is because the system requires so many iterations of it's loop that even deploying an ability that crushes a loop doesn't make the system collapse into full resolution (often). However, you mention decreasing the power and conseqeunce of non-combat abilities, but my point was that this is part of the problem already -- there's already a disparity in the power and consequence between combat and non-combat pillars so suggesting we get more out of non-combat by widening this gulf won't feel particularly good at the table. Meanwhile, there'd be strong resistance to increasing the depth of play in these pillars to combat or near-combat pillar play because no one really wants to see a system where you're making multiple rolls per PC to solve a exploration or social pillar challenge. It's not a matter of introducing a few more things, here, but rather that to get to near parity every trap would need 3 rounds of action to complete. The shift in play here would take the game far away from 5e.

That being said, I think the audience wants combat to be the high stakes part of the game, and would prefer to handwave a lot of traditional exploration, which is fine.

Forgive me for saying so, but this is pretty obviously true. Of course, one should maybe consider what kinds of selection pressure exists on RPG players because D&D is 1) combat focused and 2) most likely the only game in town.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nice attempt to make me the villain here. I am not implying anything about what is a lesser activity. You flat out stated that people engaging in these other TTRPG systems were roll-playing and not roleplaying, which is gatekeeping what is or isn't roleplaying. Have a nice day.

The more hard rules for social interaction you have, the more you limit the ability of players to resolve matters by in-character interaction. Just as having hard rules for combat limits the ability of players to resolve matters by hitting each other with wooden sticks. No one objects to not being referred to as a LARPer, I don't get your problem.

But I said nothing about players, only about systems.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The more hard rules for social interaction you have, the more you limit the ability of players to resolve matters by in-character interaction. Just as having hard rules for combat limits the ability of players to resolve matters by hitting each other with wooden sticks. No one objects to not being referred to as a LARPer, I don't get your problem.

But I said nothing about players, only about systems.

I'm confused by this statement. Currently, the method of resolving things in 5e is GM Says. Nothing happens unless the GM says it does. Can you convince the NPC to do the thing? GM Says. The reality of this is that the players have little ability to predict outcomes in any real way unless the GM tells them things to help, or unless they've become good at playing against that GM. The argument that any codification of such interaction, such that the players have a better and clearer understanding of how things can and will work reduces their options is odd to me. Sure, any over codification can stifle, but the current method can absolutely stifle if the GM's not terribly good or has a specific outcome they want. There's not less stifling of option or ability for the players!

A good resolution system needs to identify what's at stake, make the contest clear, and resolve the contest. Right now, 5e answers these questions the same way -- GM Says. It's explicit about this. You can do it differently and not resort to over codification. However, I'm not sure how you'd do it differently in 5e, or a 5e adjacent system. Too much in 5e is placed squarely and intentionally into GM Says.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm confused by this statement. Currently, the method of resolving things in 5e is GM Says. Nothing happens unless the GM says it does. Can you convince the NPC to do the thing? GM Says.

GM says based on what arguments the players make and how the make them. I.e. how they role play.

The reality of this is that the players have little ability to predict outcomes in any real way

Why should the players be able to predict the outcome in a social situation? I damn sure you can't in real life.

unless the GM tells them things to help, or unless they've become good at playing against that GM.

It's not a competition.

The argument that any codification of such interaction, such that the players have a better and clearer understanding of how things can and will work reduces their options is odd to me. Sure, any over codification can stifle, but the current method can absolutely stifle if the GM's not terribly good

Sure, it puts a lot of pressure on the DM, but that goes with the job. And there is nothing inherently wrong with more codified systems apart from limiting the ability of players and DMs who do have the appropriate RL skillset to use those skills.

or has a specific outcome they want.

Often a real life social situation can only ever go one way.

There's not less stifling of option or ability for the players!

A good resolution system needs to identify what's at stake, make the contest clear, and resolve the contest.

And that's gamification. Real world and fictional narrative social situations don't work that way.

 

[Iamoutofhere]

I’d say it’s roughly 75% combat (or maybe 73.7%). The game pulls play in that direction naturally. Check the page page count dedicated to combat encounters…all the magic weapons/armour, attacking/defensive spells, combat encounter rules…an entire book for monsters and opponents.

I am a reasonably creative player who doesn’t always dive in for murder simulation experience…and I once attempted to play a pacifist gnome wizard using mostly utility spells and cleverness. The DM ran a pretty standard game of D&D and let me tell you…it was sooooo hard to stay relevant in the game or to feel properly engaged. It highlighted how murderous and brutal the game actually is for the most part. Now, that’s okay and it can be a load of fun but to try and be all cool and hip and say the game isn’t that? Lol it is.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The DM ran a pretty standard game of D&D

What is that? I would say there is no such thing as "standard" D&D.

I once attempted to play a pacifist gnome wizard

Did you talk it over with your DM first? One of the roles of the DM it to adapt the content to suit the players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

GM says based on what arguments the players make and how the make them. I.e. how they role play.

No. GM says based on whatever criteria the GM wants to use. There's nothing that directs, constrains, or otherwise limits the GM's fiat here.

Why should the players be able to predict the outcome in a social situation? I damn sure you can't in real life.

Of course you can. If I go up to a person and insult them at the top of my lungs, I have a good idea what's likely to happen, and that's very different from greeting them nicely. I predict social outcomes daily when I interact with coworkers to move a project forward. Everyone does.

It's not a competition.

Of course it's not. Odd thing to say. Playing against the GM means that you know how Bob thinks when they GM and what they're likely to like or not like so you can get what you want by pitching your play towards Bob's likes and dislikes.

Sure, it puts a lot of pressure on the DM, but that goes with the job. And there is nothing inherently wrong with more codified systems apart from limiting the ability of players and DMs who do have the appropriate RL skillset to use those skills.

So, I play some of those games that have more codification in these spaces than 5e does (ie, not GM Says games). I don't notice any reduction in player freedoms to engage however they want. I do notice less freedom for the GM to direct things. Most mechanics don't limit players, they limit GMs.

But, to your point, I'm not sure game design should be pointed at only the experienced and skilled to make the game work well. That seems like an elitist argument -- a "get gud," if you will.

Often a real life social situation can only ever go one way.

And you opened with social outcomes being inherently unpredictable. Yes, of course, and any halfway decent system acknowledges this and doesn't force mechanics when the answer is obvious. If you know the kind beheads people that sleep with his queen, and you sleep with the queen and get caught, no amount of wheedling's gonna work -- this wasn't the challenge and you lost the stakes when you got caught. This argument is one I've seen quite often and assumes that you can just invoke the button push to win anytime you want, but that's a symptom of D&D (since late 2e and definitely 3e), not one universal to systems that have more rules for how to resolve non-combat things. Follow the fiction is usually the first pass filter for anything.

And that's gamification. Real world and fictional narrative social situations don't work that way.

They work by checking in with Bob and seeing what he says happens? That's more realistic and less gamey?

 

[teitan]

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.

Oh. no no, I made a case. We just disagree and that's fine. Dropping it implies your going to say cool and finish it. You did not. Have a nice day then.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No. GM says based on whatever criteria the GM wants to use. There's nothing that directs, constrains, or otherwise limits the GM's fiat here.

The same as the rest of the game. The DM say what monsters are in the room, how much gold is in the chest, how the trap works. The whole of D&D is a game of "DM Says". That's why you have a DM!

Of course you can. If I go up to a person and insult them at the top of my lungs, I have a good idea what's likely to happen,

No you don't. They might ignore you. They might call the police. They might thump you.

and that's very different from greeting them nicely.

They might still thump you if they are having a really bad day. People are inherently unpredictable.

I predict social outcomes daily when I interact with coworkers to move a project forward.

Then you work with robots.

Everyone does.

No, they don't.

But, to your point, I'm not sure game design should be pointed at only the experienced and skilled to make the game work well. That seems like an elitist argument -- a "get gud," if you will.

The same goes for tactical combat. My group has some great roleplayers who really suck at tactics. That's the nature of all sports and games, they are played at different levels. If I play tennis against Serina Williams I will get my ass kicked, but that doesn't mean the rules should be changed to limit Serina's skill. But the best way to "get gud" or at least get better, it by practice. And you don't get practice if you remove the element you aren't so good at from the game.