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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's funny - I'm running a 1-on-1 with my kid where I told them up front their character is going to be shipwrecked on a desert island (the Isle of Dread as it turns out) and they actually did create a character that trades combat potential in order to max the elements they think will be more wilderness survival oriented (they ended up building a druid/ranger multiclass - we're starting at 5th level). So far they've been going out of their way to avoid combat (though I will admit that 1-on-1 games are often quite different from full parties since you only have two player's preferences towards the game to worry about).

My players have a tendency to over-react to that sort of hint! Tell them they are playing Rime of the Frostmaiden and you get a bunch of rangers and survivalists, tell them it's haunted house in Ravenloft and you get a bunch of clerics and vampire slayers!

 

[Ovinomancer]

That is only an assumtion. My experience with a lot of other systems differs. The more free form, the more it is player skill vs character abilities.
In those systems, it often feels as you don´t have total control over your character´s actions outside combat. Somehow this is far more easily accepted in combat or when magic is involved.

Of course I don´t know every system out there and if there is a system that somhow solves the mentioned problem, I stand corrected. But I have played at least 10 different games and I always come back to D&D, because it more or less has the rules heaviness for combat/magic/noncombat that I prefer.

No, you're 100% right, here. The more that character doesn't matter to resolution, the more it's about the player's skill to navigate the GM. The fewer mechanics that constrain the GM, the more that player skill in getting the GM to agree to their wants is paramount. This can be as simple as understanding that the GM generally gives good information if the players poke things with 10' poles.

Bob will poke things with 10' poles and get better information and therefore do better in the game. Then Bob will congratulate Bobself on being very skilled at the game (because Bob does better) until Bob plays with a GM that doesn't particularly like 10' poles ("they're hacky") and Bob doesn't do well at all. Then Bob gets mad at this new GM because they are not like Bob's old GM, and Bob goes online to complain about how some GMs just suck.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, you're 100% right, here. The more that character doesn't matter to resolution, the more it's about the player's skill to navigate the GM. The fewer mechanics that constrain the GM, the more that player skill in getting the GM to agree to their wants is paramount. This can be as simple as understanding that the GM generally gives good information if the players poke things with 10' poles.

Bob will poke things with 10' poles and get better information and therefore do better in the game. Then Bob will congratulate Bobself on being very skilled at the game (because Bob does better) until Bob plays with a GM that doesn't particularly like 10' poles ("they're hacky") and Bob doesn't do well at all. Then Bob gets mad at this new GM because they are not like Bob's old GM, and Bob goes online to complain about how some GMs just suck.

I know you try to be sarcastic, but it rather sounds sad and I feel sorry for you, that this is your experience.

 

[Jer]

My players have a tendency to over-react to that sort of hint! Tell them they are playing Rime of the Frostmaiden and you get a bunch of rangers and survivalists, tell them it's haunted house in Ravenloft and you get a bunch of clerics and vampire slayers!

In my case I knew exactly what they would do - I told them the setup to see if they'd be interested and they immediately started thinking of what kind of character would be best for a "survival game". Got them excited to play the game in a different way and makes for a good reason why it's a solo game rather than a small group.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I know you try to be sarcastic, but it rather sounds sad and I feel sorry for you, that this is your experience.

It sounds like a very competitive attitude to a game which is about cooperation, not competition. "Bob" is trying to compete with the DM by "manipulating" them, they are competing with other players by trying to play "better" than them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I know you try to be sarcastic, but it rather sounds sad and I feel sorry for you, that this is your experience.

I'm not, it does, and it's not. I've seen it, though.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It sounds like a very competitive attitude to a game which is about cooperation, not competition. "Bob" is trying to compete with the DM by "manipulating" them, they are competing with other players by trying to play "better" than them.

Which in itself is a futile effort and no matter how "fair" the resolution mechanic seems, in the end, the DM always sets the DC. At least in 5e it is quite obvious if the DM just wants to mess around with you by always using way too high numbers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm not, it does, and it's not. I've seen it, though.

I have seen it too, but it was not the problem with the resolution mechanic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which in itself is a futile effort and no matter how "fair" the resolution mechanic seems, in the end, the DM always sets the DC. At least in 5e it is quite obvious if the DM just wants to mess around with you by always using way too high numbers.

Sure, I could send a Greater Starspawn Emissary to stomp them at level one! But where is the fun in that? My job as DM is to facilitate the players having fun, not compete with them.

 

[overgeeked]

Which in itself is a futile effort and no matter how "fair" the resolution mechanic seems, in the end, the DM always sets the DC. At least in 5e it is quite obvious if the DM just wants to mess around with you by always using way too high numbers.

The only way to be fair and impartial is to roll the DC. I’ve done 10 + 1d10 and base 15 with a Fate die, “–” DC10, blank DC15, “+” DC20. Then justified the DC after the roll. Describing the obstacle or task as surprisingly difficult based on appearances or surprisingly easy despite appearances to the contrary.