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

 

[Cadence]

The only game I play which is more combat-centric is Shadowrun.

I only made most of a character for it, but wasn't Phoenix Command really combat heavy? Twilight 2000?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not sure where I come down on agreement/disagreement with the various participants in this thread (some of which I typically agree with on most things TTRPGing, some of which I rarely agree).

So I'm going to walk myself through my thoughts on this, again, using Dogs in the Vineyard (as I did upthread). Here are the various lines of thoughts I have on this:

1) Dogs is not like D&D in that it has a unified resolution framework for every conflict type that a PC will engage with. Whether you're "just talking", or "physical, but not lethal" (this could be fist-fighting or breaking horses or navigating a terrain obstacle or a pursuit on foot or other), or "guns/lethal", its all the same conflict resolution framework. Its like Cortex+ or Fate or Mouse Guard/Torchbearer in this way. However, the two distinguishing characteristics are:

* "Escalation." If you're in a conflict with a person, you don't get to re-use dice from your various components of PC build. This means that the cognitive overhead a player is engaged with is very much attuned to questions like "(a) can I resolve this with minimal exposure?...and (b) if I can't and I have to escalate... what does that say about my character, (c) do I have enough 'gas left in the tank' to come out of this conflict achieving the goal I sought if I end up escalating, (d) and am I willing to fold if things turn against me?"

* "Fallout." As you move from "talking" > "physical" > "mortal" conflicts, the Fallout that your character will likely endure in the conflict will have an increased tendency to (i) by more potent and (ii) leave lasting marks on your character (eg permanent character change/attrition - physically, emotionally, relationship-wise, ethos-wise, self-perception).

This is a big deal in the exact same way that Kill Conflicts are a big deal in Torchbearer. The prospect of significant character change/attrition looms heavily. Its not "merely" like Moldvay Basic where "combat is a loss condition" because of the way it integrates with the overall attrition model for the entirety of a dungeon crawl. The stakes of escalating to guns (or starting at guns) in Dogs and engaging in a Kill Conflict in Torchbearer comes with a high frequency prospect of character attrition, or change, or death, or retirement. But in Dogs, like in Torchbearer, we (the players) may feel like there is "no choice" but to put our life on the line right now for this very thing. Part of that will be the fiction of this moment and what has led up to this moment. Part of that will be Traits and Relationships and your role as one of God's Watchdogs in Dogs in Dogs in the Vineyards and in Torchbearer its Nature, Belief, (Adventure) Goal, Creed and the general desperation of your character's integration with setting premise.

In Dogs and Torchbearer...the cost of a singular escalation to "guns" or engagement in a Kill Conflict will have a fair chance of reverberating evermore. Its not just "this decision" or this Town/Adventure. Its who you are (or who you're not) and what you leave behind after this moment is resolved.

2) Dogs' conflict resolution is tactically and strategically rewarding across the board. Its fun and very engaging (both thematically and from a skilled play perspective) managing PC traits, making decisions about when/how/if to muster them in dice pools and then leverage them. Its fun and very engaging to look downstream of "just talking" to the looming prospects of a horse chase or a gun-fight and think about the significant consequences of such things (and integrate that back into your management of your character's thematic build components which fuel your dice pools). Combat is not the only arena where its fun and engaging (tactically and strategically) from a game perspective. All types of conflict are fun with very weighty decisions.

3) The rulebook is not significantly invested in managing the extreme intricacies of one of the large sites of resolution of play like D&D is with its extremely intricate and integrated combat. No one would ever read Dogs' tome and come to the conclusion (the type of conclusion that would spawn 40 years of these exact conversations here, elsewhere, and in meat-space) of "wow, that game devotes a crazy amount of page space to x...this game must feature x as its primary site of play."

4) Dogs in the Vineyards absolutely features the looming specter of violence, and the attendant themes, in it as a work. Violence in "a wild west that never was" with "Gods watchdogs meting out justice, tending to the flock, rooting out sorcery, and maintaining the purity of The Faith" is an inescapable feature of play and of the rulebook that shows you how to play. Even if play doesn't feature it as a large percentage...it looms...and you feel it.

5) Dogs advancement scheme is combat-neutral. It doesn't move the needle one way or another. Advancement is about different questions.

---

So what I'm saying is, like anything, you can't just look at one thing. You can't just look at devoted page count, you can't just look at stakes, you can't just look at how the PC advancement scheme intersects with violence (or not) and therefore what the incentive structures around that are (or are not), you can't just look at intricacy and integration, you can't just look at fun tactical and strategic overhead (therefore a reward to engage in the play for the play itself), you can't just look at theme and the specter of violence.

You have to look at all of it and integrate it into a working model.

A game that integrates all of the below features is extremely different than that of Dogs in the Vineyard's integrated features around violence (and therefore the conclusion one naturally comes to is "one of these games is considerably more 'about combat' than the other"):

* Large page count devoted to the intricacy and integration of combat in rules, how other rules integrate with those rules, and how PC build works.

* Disproportionately rewarding combat from a game perspective (its tactically and strategically rewarding to play the combat minigame).

* Very low stakes for every individual combat and disproportionately low stacks (both in terms of now and as a permanent feature of character) across a large distribution of combats.

* The orthodox advancement scheme features combat as the primary means to that end.

* The pulp tropes and themes that play is based upon are preoccupied with violence as a frequent site of consequential gamestate movement/conflict resolution.

* One of the two most preferred PC archetypes in the game is literally named "Fighter" and the embedded premise of that character is that you're going to do a lot of fighting because that is overwhelmingly where you impact the gamestate (or that player is not going to get what they signed up for).

 

[Aldarc]

At the end of the day comparatively you would be hard pressed to find another roleplaying game more centered around combat (both strategy and tactics) then D&D-likes.

Based on past experience here, I suspect that if anyone did name a TTRPG more centered around combat than D&D, many of these same people defending against the "90 percent combat" criticism would likely rush to the defense of D&D by saying that D&D centers around combat more and better than that other TTRPG.

 

[HammerMan]

I forgot to address this, sorry.

Actually, the in-game time is usually shorter because, honestly, many times the PCs in the game really would be smarter than many of my players... (ouch, huh?) I am sorry to say it, because it isn't that they are not intelligent, but no player in my group really would have an INT, WIS, or CHA of 16 or better, but many of their characters do.

Come to think of it, none of us would have STR, DEX, or CON of 16 or better, either.

yeah I know alot of commoners... and if I ever meet the guy who rolled ME up, I would smash those dice and yell "Why THOSE dump stats"

 

[Oofta]

At the end of the day comparatively you would be hard pressed to find another roleplaying game more centered around combat (both strategy and tactics) then D&D-likes. That's not like a bad thing. It's just a thing. Every game has a focus. Sure you can drift any game somewhat, but at the end of the day we're talking about a game descended from a wargame built off attrition based combat. That's where D&D is strong.

That strength is a good thing by the way. Try running a D&D style Dungeon Crawl even in something like Conan 2d20, L5R 5e or Exalted 3e and see how little support the game provides you.

I think it's one of the reasons the game is as popular as it is. You can go from 30% combat to 90% with the same system. That seems to be what happens with my games anyway, sometimes we'll go a session or two with minimal combat and then we'll do a session or two that's mostly combat. I enjoy the changes of pace.

 

[HammerMan]

I think it's one of the reasons the game is as popular as it is. You can go from 30% combat to 90% with the same system.

100% agree.

with a slight rearrange of player/dm we can still from 'more combat then any other thing' to 'no combat for half the campagin' and it is still D&D. On the other hand most other systems we tried (and I can easly count double diggits we tried) you normally are combat or not combat... althougth I will shout out TORG... it too feels that way, and very diffrent then D&D (deadlands and as such savage world kinda tries the same)

 

[Ovinomancer]

100% agree.

with a slight rearrange of player/dm we can still from 'more combat then any other thing' to 'no combat for half the campagin' and it is still D&D. On the other hand most other systems we tried (and I can easly count double diggits we tried) you normally are combat or not combat... althougth I will shout out TORG... it too feels that way, and very diffrent then D&D (deadlands and as such savage world kinda tries the same)

What is one of these other systems and why are you only able to do combat with it? Which one can you not do combat with and why?

I mean, this is an assertion that this is so. @Oofta said it first, but there's no evidence this is true, either. There's many other mainstream systems that can vary the level of combat you do in game, and when you add in just using freeplay and GM Says as the resolution mechanic as has been often cited for D&D, any system whatsoever has this ability. This cannot be why D&D is so popular -- it's freely available to pretty much any system with the same caveats allowed for D&D.

 

[Oofta]

What is one of these other systems and why are you only able to do combat with it? Which one can you not do combat with and why?

I mean, this is an assertion that this is so. @Oofta said it first, but there's no evidence this is true, either. There's many other mainstream systems that can vary the level of combat you do in game, and when you add in just using freeplay and GM Says as the resolution mechanic as has been often cited for D&D, any system whatsoever has this ability. This cannot be why D&D is so popular -- it's freely available to pretty much any system with the same caveats allowed for D&D.

I never made any claims about other systems. Speaking from personal experience my game sessions the amount of combat varies dramatically.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What is one of these other systems and why are you only able to do combat with it? Which one can you not do combat with and why?

I mean, this is an assertion that this is so. @Oofta said it first, but there's no evidence this is true, either. There's many other mainstream systems that can vary the level of combat you do in game, and when you add in just using freeplay and GM Says as the resolution mechanic as has been often cited for D&D, any system whatsoever has this ability. This cannot be why D&D is so popular -- it's freely available to pretty much any system with the same caveats allowed for D&D.

One could argue that D&D is the only mainstream system.

 

[HammerMan]

What is one of these other systems and why are you only able to do combat with it? Which one can you not do combat with and why?

off the top of my heads doing ANYTHING in rifts is hard, but combat can last longer then a 4e fight, and be WAY more fiddly. I love the setting but hate the rules (I have 2 attacks, plus martial arts, and 3 other actions, but I can only take 1 action then have to wait until everyone takes 1 then I can take my next... but I can interrupt there action by sacrificing my next action....)
WoD (especially anything mortal) is great at social but terrible in a fight unless you REALLY like dark souls/hard mode 1 hit kills.

I can't remember the game, but the one where you are an ascended being and you use a deck of cards instead of dice (The world ended in 2000 and we are all living in hell...we just don't know it yet, is the concept and boy does it strike a nerve today) had great quick play exploration rules and some descent social rules... but fights pretty much came down to (not unlike 3e rocket tag) "If you have the right skill/key word you just need to draw a royal card or a number higher then 5 and you end the fight and win" and BOTH NPCs and PCs get those skill/key words at character creation

Mutants and Masterminds is close to D&D (it is a super hero D20) but it has the problem many point buys do (and maybe I should have included this in WoD) that you can't really tell how powerful your PCs are with out REALLY studding the numbers and it's way too easy to make an encounter (any type) too hard or too easy.

I mean, this is an assertion that this is so. @Oofta said it first, but there's no evidence this is true, either.

I don't think D&D is the only one (see TORG) but it is both the most well known, the front runner, the creator, AND is at least close to the best.

There's many other mainstream systems that can vary the level of combat you do in game, and when you add in just using freeplay and GM Says as the resolution mechanic as has been often cited for D&D, any system whatsoever has this ability. This cannot be why D&D is so popular -- it's freely available to pretty much any system with the same caveats allowed for D&D.

yes and no... like I have said before my group tried (end of 3e) to walk away from D&D and we found that no 1 system really grabed the same way...

TORG was the closest (and in some ways is BETTER then D&D...but it suffers from built in setting)