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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let's retrace the steps to this point and then take my comment in context. Not that I think just because something is popular makes it better than something that is not popular. I think...I hope....we all know that's not true.

Here's the string of posts that have led us here:










So no, I don't think that it's a leap to say that D&D being D&D doesn't really mean anything in this context. It's essentially "tie goes to D&D" or "D&D is best because D&D", which I think is silly.

But that isn’t what is happening, above. D&D’s “vibe”, what @Parmandur refers to as its ineffable D&Dness, is part of what has made it the biggest game by such an enormous margin.

It is a strength of the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

D&D has a certain way of adjudicating actions outside of combat. The details ha e changed across Editions, a few more than others. But the general trend line has been of a particular sort of improvisational freedom, that has that D&D feel. I've played 2E (retroactively, after 3E), 3.x, 4E, and 5E, and most of the way we played at the table stayed the same.

Yep. D&D has always been a conversation, and 5e does that aspect of dnd better than any other wotc edition and that is a big part of why it’s so big.

 

[Malmuria]

It's not a mechanic per se, but I think the class and race thematization helps players, especially new players, ground themselves in a character and enables freeform rp. There have been a number of times at the table that a new player will go, "I'm a druid, so I do X" or "I'm a barbarian, I do Y." So in that sense there are certain dnd-isms, influenced by fantasy more generally, that provide guardrails for freeform rp. The ability score and skill system does just enough to reinforce those archetypes (so that the bard is a reliably good face, or the wizard good at knowing about magic-y things, for example).

 

[Parmandur]

This is fine, for you, but it's already established that BIFTs are a major divergence between how you play at your table and a large section of everyone else. Given the general trends in discussion, very few tables use BIFTs regularly, if at all. So the claim that you've always played the game the same way regardless of the rather large differences in how out-of-combat things have works across your listed editions is really just saying that you're playing your game of D&D and don't really care much what the editions say about playing. You already know how you want to play D&D, so you just borrow off those bits that you like from current edition, fill in from past edition those things you want to keep, and do your own thing for the rest. This is perfectly fine, but it's a mistake to call this the same D&D as everyone else, or even 5e as it's presented in by the rulebooks.

I mean, the 5e DMG has pretty decent rules for adjudicating social interaction with NPCs -- do you use these rules?

The "general trends in discussion"? Have some qctual numbers to back that up...?

The 5E rules do a good job of getting out of the way, and give solid guidance, yes.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not a mechanic per se, but I think the class and race thematization helps players, especially new players, ground themselves in a character and enables freeform rp. There have been a number of times at the table that a new player will go, "I'm a druid, so I do X" or "I'm a barbarian, I do Y." So in that sense there are certain dnd-isms, influenced by fantasy more generally, that provide guardrails for freeform rp. The ability score and skill system does just enough to reinforce those archetypes (so that the bard is a reliably good face, or the wizard good at knowing about magic-y things, for example).

Yes, same with the Backgrounds in 5E. They offer meaty hooks for improvising action and setting expectations.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not a mechanic per se, but I think the class and race thematization helps players, especially new players, ground themselves in a character and enables freeform rp. There have been a number of times at the table that a new player will go, "I'm a druid, so I do X" or "I'm a barbarian, I do Y." So in that sense there are certain dnd-isms, influenced by fantasy more generally, that provide guardrails for freeform rp. The ability score and skill system does just enough to reinforce those archetypes (so that the bard is a reliably good face, or the wizard good at knowing about magic-y things, for example).

Yeeesss.... but this isn't at all unique to D&D, nor it is better enabled by D&Disms over other things. Other RPGs have archetypes as well, some very well done, and easy touchstones to RPG from. It's not a unique feature, nor does D&D have the ability to claim it does it best. I dunno who does it best, seems a silly question when we're looking for archetype hooks to hang characterization on.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeeesss.... but this isn't at all unique to D&D, nor it is better enabled by D&Disms over other things. Other RPGs have archetypes as well, some very well done, and easy touchstones to RPG from. It's not a unique feature, nor does D&D have the ability to claim it does it best. I dunno who does it best, seems a silly question when we're looking for archetype hooks to hang characterization on.

Yew, and multiple sports involve running. So what? Roleplsying is roleplaying, running is running.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The "general trends in discussion"? Have some qctual numbers to back that up...?

The 5E rules do a good job of getting out of the way, and give solid guidance, yes.

Oh, gosh, multiple people in this thread have said the same thing I just did, but you want a survey from me? Does it need to be a vetted instrument? How do you feel about the usefulness of Likert scales?

So, given your last I'm going to guess that you do not use the Social Interaction rules from the DMG (they aren't presented as optional, by the way). I find that interesting, as they are the only mechanic in the game aside from Inspiration that refer to BIFTs. Granted not on the PC side but on the NPC side.

In general, when people saying things like "the rules do a good job of getting out of the way," they generally mean "I find it easy to ignore rules when it suits me." I rarely ever see it used to mean "I use these rules all the time, but they aren't onerous at all." If I'm incorrect, I'd love to hear some anecdotes about how you've used the social interaction rules in a smooth and easy way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But that isn’t what is happening, above. D&D’s “vibe”, what @Parmandur refers to as its ineffable D&Dness, is part of what has made it the biggest game by such an enormous margin.

It is a strength of the game.

It may be, opinions vary. @Parmandur seems to think so, and that's cool. I like it, but I don't think the non-combat resolution is all that great, nor do I think the game as designed is all that clear about how it's intended to work. Different groups will find their way to handle things, and that's all great.

I don't care one bit about the margin, though. I don't think D&D is the biggest name in RPGs solely, or maybe even mostly, because of its mechanics. As was mentioned, there are games that handle out of combat resolution the same as D&D. So when comparing them, saying "but they are not D&D" doesn't mean anything about the quality of non-combat resolution, or any other element that may be discussed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yew, and multiple sports involve running. So what? Roleplsying is roleplaying, running is running.

I've found quite often roleplaying is not roleplaying. For instance, if I only every refer to my character in the 3rd person, can I be said to be roleplaying? The answer for some is no. The answer for me is absolutely yes. Some people think that attempting to play act is critical to roleplaying. I find it entertaining, but not necessary for good roleplaying. For me, the crux of roleplaying is honest advocacy for the character's needs, wants, and goals. The rest is set dressing. What's your opinion on what roleplaying is?