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

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps not, but they can be meaningfully compared in how much attention is paid to each when writing adventures, for example. How much of an official adventure is expected to involve combat? With only a couple exceptions, it's way more than 33%. And official adventures are how the designers tell you how to play the game, because those are the examples we're given.

The irony here is that people spent considerable time and effort comparing word count and page count to state, quite strongly, that this meant that D&D wasn't focused on combat. Yet, when we actually talk about page count or word count, apparently it doesn't matter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, that's true. If you can use any context you like so long as you ignore what the player says I suppose.

But, this pretty much proves my point. In OTHER SYSTEMS THAT ARE NOT FOCUSED ON COMBAT, and I'm going all caps here to be very very clear, I can answer my question pretty easily. In D&D, BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS FOCUSED ON COMBAT, I can't answer the question using the rules or, at the very least, I can't answer it as easily as I can in other systems.

I'm really not sure why this is a difficult point. My point was always to show that D&D, because it is combat focused, cannot answer questions as easily as systems which aren't so combat focused.

And, since all everyone has done since I posted my example is show how D&D can't actually answer my question, while at the same time, it being clearly shown that other systems can, I'd say my point stands.

Er, logical fault, here. A game can be combat focused AND able to answer your question -- the combat focus is not the cause here. Rather, the cause is about what the game cares about doing. D&D doesn't care about play that includes your question -- it's not the focus of any of it's bits. Other games do include it in their focus. It's about what the game intends to do with regard to feel and trope and genre, not at all about combat.

D&D doesn't care about the answer to that question (individual tables are, of course, able to care and try to figure it out themselves, but D&D doesn't provide anything). D&D does care quite a bit about questions regarding combat. Not violence in general (where it falls down a tad) but in combat. Caring about combat, though, is only tenuously related to why it doesn't care about recruiting followers to a PC's faith. It might care about both, it just doesn't.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, the stated design intention per Mike Mearls is that most fights will be over in two rounds, and rarely might go to 3 rounds. So 12-18 seconds in narrative time, and that can go very quickly in play time too.

And yet, I just spent over an hour resolving a fight with two Galeb Duhr against 5 7th level PC's. On a side note, that's the very first time I've used that monster in D&D and they are a ton of fun. Summoning rocks and whatnot made for a great fight. Five stars, highly recommended.

What? I never said I didn't like combat. I do. Heck, that's a big reason why I play D&D. D&D combat is a blast.

 

[Hussar]

Er, logical fault, here. A game can be combat focused AND able to answer your question -- the combat focus is not the cause here. Rather, the cause is about what the game cares about doing. D&D doesn't care about play that includes your question -- it's not the focus of any of it's bits. Other games do include it in their focus. It's about what the game intends to do with regard to feel and trope and genre, not at all about combat.

D&D doesn't care about the answer to that question (individual tables are, of course, able to care and try to figure it out themselves, but D&D doesn't provide anything). D&D does care quite a bit about questions regarding combat. Not violence in general (where it falls down a tad) but in combat. Caring about combat, though, is only tenuously related to why it doesn't care about recruiting followers to a PC's faith. It might care about both, it just doesn't.

Not really. If you don't like my example, pick anything else that is not combat related. If I want to convince the town to take up arms against that vampire in the castle, torches and pitchforks style mob, D&D really isn't going to help me much here. Whereas there are lots of other systems that will.

If I want to know how many times I have to stab a dragon with a dagger to kill it, D&D will answer me perfectly. If I want to know how to determine if that princess falls in love with the PC, D&D will not help me at all.

The point is, the system doesn't care. The system doesn't really care about anything that isn't combat related. It's not about what I want in the system (frankly, I don't really want a romance system in the game, but, I do know that they do exist in other games). It's about what the system can ACTUALLY do. When the system cannot answer questions about anything outside of combat, that's not a feature of that system. @Oofta keeps repeating that it's not there because we don't need it. That doesn't actually answer the point though. The point being the SYSTEM, is focused, incentivises and rewards combat to the point of virtually excluding anything else.

Heck, how much XP does my rogue get for picking a lock? If my rogue kills an orc, he gets better at lock picking. But, he picks a million locks and gets no better.

THAT'S how combat focused the game is.

 

[Parmandur]

And yet, I just spent over an hour resolving a fight with two Galeb Duhr against 5 7th level PC's. On a side note, that's the very first time I've used that monster in D&D and they are a ton of fun. Summoning rocks and whatnot made for a great fight. Five stars, highly recommended.

What? I never said I didn't like combat. I do. Heck, that's a big reason why I play D&D. D&D combat is a blast.

Of course you like combat, that's why you stretched that out so much to cover an hour. By the book, it could have gone faster if you wanted to, but yhe game offers you the freedom to do that. But it isn't necessary, either.

And in terms of why I play D&D, combat is low on the list. If I want combat, I have video games that are more efficient.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm really not sure why this is a difficult point. My point was always to show that D&D, because it is combat focused, cannot answer questions as easily as systems which aren't so combat focused.

And, since all everyone has done since I posted my example is show how D&D can't actually answer my question, while at the same time, it being clearly shown that other systems can, I'd say my point stands.

5E, as written, provides the framework for the question to be answered at the table without prefab "rules." Rulings, not rules. That not a lack of focus, it is freedom.

 

[billd91]

Heck, how much XP does my rogue get for picking a lock? If my rogue kills an orc, he gets better at lock picking. But, he picks a million locks and gets no better.

THAT'S how combat focused the game is.

According to my DMG (I read them), I certainly can award non-combat challenges. If that lock picking event had meaningful consequences for failure, I should award XPs for it as if it were an encounter of X difficulty (easy, medium, hard, etc). If it's a milestone or a step to achieving a goal, I should also award XPs for it.
If I'm leveling the PCs up because of story pacing, then I'm not awarding XPs for those things... but I'm not awarding them for combat either.

 

[Hussar]

5E, as written, provides the framework for the question to be answered at the table without prefab "rules." Rulings, not rules. That not a lack of focus, it is freedom.

No, it really, really doesn't. And, as I said, it's been clearly shown that other systems DO.

But, this is getting too circular for me. We're obviously not going to agree on this. The fact that you think that I somehow "stretched out" the combat pretty much shows that we're not going to agree on anything. Maybe you never have combats that last an hour? I would love to know how you can resolve them so quickly, but, hey, more power to you.

To me, if I didn't like combat, why on earth would I play D&D?

 

[Hussar]

According to my DMG (I read them), I certainly can award non-combat challenges. If that lock picking event had meaningful consequences for failure, I should award XPs for it as if it were an encounter of X difficulty (easy, medium, hard, etc). If it's a milestone or a step to achieving a goal, I should also award XPs for it.
If I'm leveling the PCs up because of story pacing, then I'm not awarding XPs for those things... but I'm not awarding them for combat either.

How much?

How much XP? Give me an EXACT number, supported by the system. Because I can tell you exactly how much an orc is worth.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really. If you don't like my example, pick anything else that is not combat related. If I want to convince the town to take up arms against that vampire in the castle, torches and pitchforks style mob, D&D really isn't going to help me much here. Whereas there are lots of other systems that will.

If I want to know how many times I have to stab a dragon with a dagger to kill it, D&D will answer me perfectly. If I want to know how to determine if that princess falls in love with the PC, D&D will not help me at all.

The point is, the system doesn't care. The system doesn't really care about anything that isn't combat related. It's not about what I want in the system (frankly, I don't really want a romance system in the game, but, I do know that they do exist in other games). It's about what the system can ACTUALLY do. When the system cannot answer questions about anything outside of combat, that's not a feature of that system. @Oofta keeps repeating that it's not there because we don't need it. That doesn't actually answer the point though. The point being the SYSTEM, is focused, incentivises and rewards combat to the point of virtually excluding anything else.

Heck, how much XP does my rogue get for picking a lock? If my rogue kills an orc, he gets better at lock picking. But, he picks a million locks and gets no better.

THAT'S how combat focused the game is.

Again, you're mixing things up. D&D doesn't care about the answers to those questions, sure, and D&D does care a lot about combat. But this doesn't mean D&D doesn't care about anything that isn't combat or combat related. It does. It will answer some smattering of questions. It'll answer questions about whether or not you can convince the king to provide assistance to refugees, for instance. It'll answer question about if you can climb those cliffs over there. It'll answer questions about whether or not you can gather enough food to eat today while travelling in the wilderness. It's not only combat and the combat adjacent that D&D cares about, just mostly.

D&D not caring about those questions doesn't prove, at all, that it doesn't care about other questions. If I pick three random men from the population of the world, and none of them are over 5'8" tall, I can't say that 6' tall men don't exist. You're engaged in an extended hasty generalization.

There's a good point to note what D&D doesn't care about as a system -- where it leaves holes and expects that if a table cares, they'll figure it out themselves. There's a good point in noting that most of what D&D seems to care about is related to combat stuff. These are solid points that can be supported. But it could care about other things, the designers chose to not to (for various reasons, many good). Caring about combat, even quite a lot, doesn't prevent caring about other things. Various systems exist that care quite a lot about combat but could answer some or all of your questions at the same time -- they won't answer other questions, though.

Blades in the Dark doesn't really answer any questions about "how do I run a legit business?" It doesn't care to. It doesn't answer the questions "can I earn fame and treasure by clearing out a dungeon of monsters?" It doesn't care to. All games care about some things and not about others. Monopoly doesn't care how you might invade Australia., but Risk does. D&D has made some specific design choices to care about some things and not others. Perfectly fine. It's not all about combat though.