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]

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.

Ah, yes, this old canard. Tell me, do you expect that no matter what your character does, the GM will make sure it comes out all right because that's the goal of this "cooperative" game? The cooperative part of the game is that we're all here to experience an excited bit of play by pretending to be other people. The ideal formulation of the GM's job is to provide honest antagonism to the characters. The players' job is to try and overcome this and win through to achieve their character's goals. You're trying to claim that it's all happy roses, but it's not. If the GM is both the source of the antagonism AND the only one with say on how that antagonism resolves, then the players HAVE to play towards the GM -- to "manipulate" the GM into resolving things in the characters' favor.

I'd like to see the construct you're proposing, where it's all cooperative. Can you sketch that out for us -- maybe show how a group of goblins presented as hostile works out for the players if they decide to fingerpaint sunny landscapes on the walls to convince the goblins to be nice? What's the cooperative result here -- how does the the GM cooperate with the players to see how this works out?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sigh. D&D is whatever the IP holder says it is. D&D is whatever the people playing it say it is. I'm so over gatekeeping.

Exactly. And the holders of the D&D IP have determined through their actions in designing the rules and printing the books that D&D is not Fiasco. That's not gatekeeping, that's pointing out something that should be obvious.

D&D is not Fiasco. Never has been, never will be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ah, yes, this old canard. Tell me, do you expect that no matter what your character does, the GM will make sure it comes out all right because that's the goal of this "cooperative" game? The cooperative part of the game is that we're all here to experience an excited bit of play by pretending to be other people. The ideal formulation of the GM's job is to provide honest antagonism to the characters. The players' job is to try and overcome this and win through to achieve their character's goals. You're trying to claim that it's all happy roses, but it's not. If the GM is both the source of the antagonism AND the only one with say on how that antagonism resolves, then the players HAVE to play towards the GM -- to "manipulate" the GM into resolving things in the characters' favor.

I'd like to see the construct you're proposing, where it's all cooperative. Can you sketch that out for us -- maybe show how a group of goblins presented as hostile works out for the players if they decide to fingerpaint sunny landscapes on the walls to convince the goblins to be nice? What's the cooperative result here -- how does the the GM cooperate with the players to see how this works out?

It's impossible to explain without any common points of reference. I'm just glad I don't live in your world.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Yes, this is true in 5e. It's not the only approach. It's not even the approach that D&D has used before. And it's not even the approach that the WotC adventure books use -- they tell the GM the DC for lots of things. In fact, some of these other systems developed as a response to your last statement -- they intentionally constrained the GM to use clear to everyone inputs into the mechanics and made sure that outcomes are also clear. This still leaves huge room for the GM to have inputs -- both in what challenges are about and what failures look like, but also makes it 100% clear where all of these things are coming from and submits it to table review.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

It absolutely IS! If the resolution mechanic is "GM Says" then being unhappy when that mechanic changes how it works because the GM changes, then it very much is all about the mechanic. That was the anecdote -- something that worked with GM A doesn't work with GM B, and the problem is that the mechanic throws it's hands up and says "GM Says." That's entirely the mechanic -- my skilled play is not longer skilled play if the GM changes. This means that skilled play in a GM Says only system is entirely dependent on skill with the GM, not the game.

 

[overgeeked]

Exactly. And the holders of the D&D IP have determined through their actions in designing the rules and printing the books that D&D is not Fiasco. That's not gatekeeping, that's pointing out something that should be obvious.

D&D is not Fiasco. Never has been, never will be.

It hasn’t been. But if the IP holders declare it so, then it is. And if that’s how people use the D&D game, then it is. Most absolutes tend to be gatekeeping statements. “That’s not D&D” is gatekeeping.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It hasn’t been. But if the IP holders declare it so, then it is. And if that’s how people use the D&D game, then it is. Most absolutes tend to be gatekeeping statements. “That’s not D&D” is gatekeeping.

Well, until your gate actually comes into existence, I'm not going to worry too much about how we define it. I have no problem being called the gatekeeper of a non-existent gate. Feel free to call me the President of a country that doesn't exist yet either, I'll take that as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's impossible to explain without any common points of reference. I'm just glad I don't live in your world.

Oh, but you do. I was making your arguments 7 to 8 years ago on these very boards -- feel free to go look if you're curious. I totally get where you're coming from. It's hard to look at what you've always known as the only real way (because it's all you've experienced) and 1) see it clearly for what it is and 2) realize that there are other ways of doing things. Whether or not you like other ways is very much up to you -- they're just other ways. I'm not trying to get you to like other things. I am pointing out that your arguments don't hold the water you think they do, that other ways exist and don't have the problems you're attributing to them. They have problems, just not those problems. It's like if someone has only every known how to play Monopoly, and tries to talk about Risk, then goes online to make arguments that Risk is stupid game because how can you buy property if there's no bank! People that know Risk know it's not without it's detractions, but that this isn't even one that's a concern -- Risk isn't about buying properties. You state that mechanics that work on social situations are uniformly bad because they constrain player options and that trusting in one person to determine outcomes is the only good approach. I've played those other games, you're not correct at all. Now, when I run 5e, you better believe that I, as GM, get and make those calls. That's what 5e demands, so that's how I play it.

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t know about it being odd. I’ve seen it happen in games in which I have been invited to play as well.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Parmandur]

Right, its not odd at all. Back in Pathfinder classic, Paizo introduced traits. They were flavor packed half feats to try and inject some RP into characters. Most folks ignored after session zero. The bonds, ideals flaws, traits thing is very similar in that I haven't seen any group use it. This kind of thing is more common than folks like to admit.

Well, conversely, taking them seriously and using then is probably more common than folks want to admit. With tens of millions of people playing the game, a lot of different playstyles are out there, and most of us are unlikely to encounter them all.