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]

I experienced the opposite. My players went hunting the XP. It drove all their decisions in mechanical ways. They never acted as they thought the character would act or pursued lines that made sense to the story. They often would waste time on trivial pursuits because it meant more XP. They thought that if its included by the GM, it must be necessary.

When I went to milestone, the players took a more adventure overview look at things. They started following leads that made sense for their characters. They stopped going on tangents that made little sense. They became more focused on achieving goals of both the character and the story. They forgot all about XP and felt more free than they ever did playing before.

Its true, as GM, I decide the milestone. Though, its usually quite obvious to the players. The adventure has goals and as long as the players are working towards that goal they will achieve it. Its entirely up to them how they get there.

They did exactly what I said, actually, not the opposite. Because the incentive was moved from "earn XP by killing monsters" to "earn XP by doing what the GM wants" they changed their behavior. Incentive structures are important. I mean, what if you offered milestones for killing monsters -- would they have changed? Unlikely. Instead you offered milestones for advancing for achieving story goals, and made those goals things that aligned with their characters. You moved the incentives, play changed. Exactly what I was talking about.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I experienced the opposite. My players went hunting the XP. It drove all their decisions in mechanical ways. They never acted as they thought the character would act or pursued lines that made sense to the story. They often would waste time on trivial pursuits because it meant more XP. They thought that if its included by the GM, it must be necessary.

When I went to milestone, the players took a more adventure overview look at things. They started following leads that made sense for their characters. They stopped going on tangents that made little sense. They became more focused on achieving goals of both the character and the story. They forgot all about XP and felt more free than they ever did playing before.

Its true, as GM, I decide the milestone. Though, its usually quite obvious to the players. The adventure has goals and as long as the players are working towards that goal they will achieve it. Its entirely up to them how they get there.

I generally don't think that having players pursue XP is a bad thing. But that means that XP should be rewarded for things you want to see the players doing. So, in the event they're doing something solely for XP and it's something you'd rather they not be doing, then that's a problem. There's a mismatch of desired behavior and rewarded behavior.

My group has been using a milestone-style leveling since the 2e days. I say mielstone-style rather than milestone because I don't think there's typically a specific event tied to the level up; it's not usually a case of "kill this villain, go up a level" or "save this princess, go up a level". It's usually more about the number of sessions that have passed, and our desired pace of progression.

I'd really prefer to have an actual XP system in place, if I'm honest though. I think there's something that's lost when you do milestone leveling or similar takes. I think it's good when a player can track things and look at their progress in a tangible way. I play several other games where XP is involved, and I wouldn't change a thing.

It's just that D&D's default XP system is overwrought. XP rewards are bloated, and the numbers get ridiculously large pretty quickly. To say nothing for CR and encounter XP and all that.

I'd love it if D&D came up with some compromise between their traditional XP system and milestone XP. Something that actually can be considered a system, but which is actually easily managed at the table, and on a character sheet. It should be as easy as tracking arrows or any other resource.

 

[payn]

They did exactly what I said, actually, not the opposite. Because the incentive was moved from "earn XP by killing monsters" to "earn XP by doing what the GM wants" they changed their behavior. Incentive structures are important. I mean, what if you offered milestones for killing monsters -- would they have changed? Unlikely. Instead you offered milestones for advancing for achieving story goals, and made those goals things that aligned with their characters. You moved the incentives, play changed. Exactly what I was talking about.

I dont understand the problematic part. Why players don't seem to have agency in this?

 

[payn]

I generally don't think that having players pursue XP is a bad thing. But that means that XP should be rewarded for things you want to see the players doing. So, in the event they're doing something solely for XP and it's something you'd rather they not be doing, then that's a problem. There's a mismatch of desired behavior and rewarded behavior.

My group has been using a milestone-style leveling since the 2e days. I say mielstone-style rather than milestone because I don't think there's typically a specific event tied to the level up; it's not usually a case of "kill this villain, go up a level" or "save this princess, go up a level". It's usually more about the number of sessions that have passed, and our desired pace of progression.

I'd really prefer to have an actual XP system in place, if I'm honest though. I think there's something that's lost when you do milestone leveling or similar takes. I think it's good when a player can track things and look at their progress in a tangible way. I play several other games where XP is involved, and I wouldn't change a thing.

It's just that D&D's default XP system is overwrought. XP rewards are bloated, and the numbers get ridiculously large pretty quickly. To say nothing for CR and encounter XP and all that.

I'd love it if D&D came up with some compromise between their traditional XP system and milestone XP. Something that actually can be considered a system, but which is actually easily managed at the table, and on a character sheet. It should be as easy as tracking arrows or any other resource.

Right, I think its important to remove the mechanic goal line entirely. That's what milestone did for my play. As long as there is a point that is tangible, it will effect play in a way I find unsatisfactory. YMMV.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have to admit, I've always found it baffling that people seem to be almost proud of the fact that they play D&D and don't feature a lot of combat. Earlier in this thread, we saw claims of a single combat in three sessions and things like that.

That's because the "role-play is superior to roll-play, which makes me superior for being a real role-player" mind-virus remains alive and well and endemic in the gaming population at large.

I don't believe for a minute that D&D (regardless of edition) is anywhere near 90% combat for most groups. (For example, I'd peg my own play-style at 10% tedious logistics, 75% tense exploration, 10% thrilling combat, 5% banal thespianism.) But is there still an attitude about it? Do people still look down on tactical combat as "empty" hack and slash? On gaining loot and levels as "empty" numbers-go-up? On any sort of character optimization as deplorable munchkinism? You can bet your bottom dollar they still do.

 

[Oofta]

Personally I've never cared much for the "reward players for doing what the DM wants them to do". I don't really care what my players do or do not do, the goal of the game is for all of us to have fun. I will draw some lines, I wouldn't enjoy running a game for evil characters so I just discuss that in our session 0. But in game? The players decide what the PCs will do and I do my best to enact that with consequences, obstacles and opportunities both good and bad.

So there will be in game rewards, but it will never be along the lines of gaining a level or XP. Nothing wrong with other approaches of course, I just want any carrots or sticks I present to be in-world so that the PCs make decisions that make sense for the PC without resorting to the metagame.

 

[payn]

That's because the "role-play is superior to roll-play, which makes me superior for being a real role-player" mind-virus remains alive and well and endemic in the gaming population at large.

I don't believe for a minute that D&D (regardless of edition) is anywhere near 90% combat for most groups. (For example, I'd peg my own play-style at 10% tedious logistics, 75% tense exploration, 10% thrilling combat, 5% banal thespianism.) But is there still an attitude about it? Do people still look down on tactical combat as "empty" hack and slash? On gaining loot and levels as "empty" numbers-go-up? On any sort of character optimization as deplorable munchkinism? You can bet your bottom dollar they still do.

There is nothing wrong with having preferences. Folks have trouble understanding its ok not to agree.

 

[tetrasodium]

There is nothing wrong with having preferences. Folks have trouble understanding its ok not to agree.

Sometimes preferences require mechanics to support them, often 5e left them out.

 

[payn]

Sometimes preferences require mechanics to support them, often 5e left them out.

Yeap, here is the golden nugget right here. The problem is everybody thinks D&D has to cater to their preferences. Its understandable because pre-internets its was play D&D or maybe, maaaaaybe find a group to play something else. This town our community lives in is just not big enough for alternatives. So, now folks have become accustomed to fighting over what the one big game should be. It's also why folks get hyper defensive of folks saying what D&D is, when they think it isnt.

Good news is that the internets are changing the land scape. Folks are able to find players and crowdfund stuff that otherwise wouldn't get made. Also, you have fine alternatives now like Pathfinder, OSR, etc... It's just not that important for D&D to be everything to everyone anymore. Its a good thing!

 

[Parmandur]

It's just that D&D's default XP system is overwrought. XP rewards are bloated, and the numbers get ridiculously large pretty quickly. To say nothing for CR and encounter XP and all that.

I'd love it if D&D came up with some compromise between their traditional XP system and milestone XP. Something that actually can be considered a system, but which is actually easily managed at the table, and on a character sheet. It should be as easy as tracking arrows or any other resource.

I mentioned it upthread, but I would point to the Dungeon Crawl Classics XP system as a balance between XP and milestones, by way if micro milestones (get 1-4 XP for getting through every room in a dungeon or social encounter...no matter the solution or path forwards).