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]

I have a thought on this. Before I share I want to point out that the example has the threat of physical confrontation hanging over it; because of that, it’s difficult to see it as entirely separated from combat. I realize that you’re just taking @Hussar ‘s example and running with it. Maybe you have another example that shows a robust encounter that has nothing to do with combat?

That may be helpful, because my first take on this is you’re describing a kind of loose “skill challenge” approach, where the initial failed check did not signal the end of the encounter or the shift into combat, but instead just changed the situation and allowed for continued ability checks. And that’s fine…seems like a reasonable way to approach it. But the actual books do very little to describe this kind of approach. There’s not an example of such in the rules. At best, you could take some comments from different parts of the text and cobble them together to support this take.

But this is largely the point…. the combat rules are, by comparison, hyper specific. Once a DM says “roll initiative” everyone at the table shifts into a more regimented game where they have very quantifiable resources and clear moves to make. Non-combat encounters are very fuzzy by comparison. In the example above did the player have any idea how the DM would approach the encounter?

In other words, did they know how the encounter would function at the mechanical level as well as they would have if they instead chose to attack the guard? If they attacked, they have a really good idea how things will go; the guard will have an AC and HP and an attack bonus and saving throw scores and all manner of statistics that may come into play. If the PC engages the guard without fighting? Far less specific. Basically it could be anything from how @Hussar depicted where the DM didn’t even require a roll, or maybe one roll would have been called for with a binary succeed/fail state, or a series of checks being needed to convince the guard, and so on.

Now, I think you and many others see this lack of specificity as a feature not a bug. And that’s fine. You take the very basic approach from the book and you do something more with it. Another DM may keep it incredibly simple, calling for rolls as infrequently as possible. That’s fine. However, those of us who have been arguing that D&D is more concerned with combat are citing this as the reason. The game has super detailed rules and processes to follow when in combat. Non-combat encounters are far less distinct to the point that two different groups could have wildly different approaches to them.

The focus on combat… the perceived “need” for such rules as many in this thread have pointed out… is a clear indicator of where the game is focused.




So I’m not quite sure I follow this; can you elaborate a bit? What is a “conversational rules system” versus a system with “conversational elements without using conversation to resolve the fictional events”?

What games are we talking about?

Okay, I don’t have the attention span to give this the attention it deserves, so I will respond fully later.

One quick point, is that the loosely defined nature you refer to in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph is the point. It’s the primary feature, not any kind of bug. And that is exactly the disconnect. If one sees it as a problem that the rules don’t tell the DM whether the situation should be 1 check for the whole interaction or a check for each step in the interaction, then you will pretty much inevitable experience the game differently than I and other who broadly disagree with you experience it.

Although, I will also say that the rules do actually lead to what I described, they just don’t explicitly say “here is how you make a scene mechanically complex via multiple checks”.

and I agree that 5e has garbage advice in the core books.

But the basic how to play in the PHB is all you need to get to what I described. The DM described the scene, the PC described an approach, DM determined chance of success and stakes following from the fiction, and asked for a check, PC rolled, failed, and the fiction moved forward differently than it would if they’d succeeded, leading to subsequent description, etc, continue the “play loop”.

 

[Oofta]

So I get that some people want more rules and guidance for social and exploration encounters. I don't, but to each there own.

What I don't get is this theory that you "aren't playing D&D unless you're following a rule". The only reason I can see people arguing this is because they want to say that D&D is 90% combat because most of the non-combat stuff doesn't have detailed rules. But that just seems like searching for justification for a preference for more more rules for the non-combat stuff.

Or maybe I'm just missing the point.

 

[HammerMan]

So I get that some people want more rules and guidance for social and exploration encounters. I don't, but to each there own.

I do want more (I mean I joke about a social combat system sometimes) but I really think we have the basics we just need a bit more. And Strixhaven is a HUGE leap forward.

take the romantic part out and having ways to spend downtime getting closer to NPCs that become good friends 'beloved' isn't even that unreasonable a term.

What I don't get is this theory that you "aren't playing D&D unless you're following a rule".

I don't think many think that way... the problem is when people say they WANT a rule, people jump to house rules. I have house rules (in some editions it would fill it's own book, in some it would nee a second index card) I also have norms at my table... but those are work arounds for lacking rules. We want the new books (and editions) to require less house rules (someday it will be only 1 index card I hope)

The only reason I can see people arguing this is because they want to say that D&D is 90% combat because most of the non-combat stuff doesn't have detailed rules. But that just seems like searching for justification for a preference for more more rules for the non-combat stuff.

Or maybe I'm just missing the point.

it is presentation too.

If I took all the combat rules out of D&D but left everything else look at what would be left. Now do the same with Vampire, or Gurps. You will find percentage of rules remaining to be VERY different between the 3.

when the game was "Go to dungeon kill monsters get loot" that made sense. When the game was "lets play the leaders as characters from the war game" that made sense... but the game has changes theme and feel so much some of us just want the rules to catch up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have a thought on this. Before I share I want to point out that the example has the threat of physical confrontation hanging over it; because of that, it’s difficult to see it as entirely separated from combat. I realize that you’re just taking @Hussar ‘s example and running with it. Maybe you have another example that shows a robust encounter that has nothing to do with combat?

I disagree with the premise. By that reasoning, literally all scenarios where conflict is a possible outcome have "physical confrontation hanging over it", and thus can't be fully separated from combat, and literally every game ever written that doesn't forbid physical violence is entirely about combat.

So, I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'm guessing that you see the above differently.

That may be helpful, because my first take on this is you’re describing a kind of loose “skill challenge” approach, where the initial failed check did not signal the end of the encounter or the shift into combat, but instead just changed the situation and allowed for continued ability checks. And that’s fine…seems like a reasonable way to approach it. But the actual books do very little to describe this kind of approach. There’s not an example of such in the rules. At best, you could take some comments from different parts of the text and cobble them together to support this take.

I disagree. The basically description of how to play, in the PHB, does what I'm talking about. Not all situations need 1 check per specific thing being accomplished, but the rules not only describe play pretty much as I did upthread, though not in the same language, it also includes in it's (absurdly sparse and poorly thought out overall) advice in the DMG advice on not needing every roll to mean that the whole scene fails. You fail the deception check to just brush past and make the guard not want to question you, so the guard challenges you and you have to try more direct deception or persuasion or whatever.

The DM could frame the situation such that the logical next step is for the PC to describe their approach overall, and the DM to ask for 1 single roll for the whole scene, but the norm is 1 roll per significant action in a scene, not per "general task you're trying to accomplish in a scene".

But this is largely the point…. the combat rules are, by comparison, hyper specific. Once a DM says “roll initiative” everyone at the table shifts into a more regimented game where they have very quantifiable resources and clear moves to make. Non-combat encounters are very fuzzy by comparison. In the example above did the player have any idea how the DM would approach the encounter?

Sure. But no one has actually established a reason that this is a mark of importance or significance or "what the game is really about". Folks keep saying it is, but...you gotta know by this point that it's not some "obviously true" statement that requires no defending.

In other words, did they know how the encounter would function at the mechanical level as well as they would have if they instead chose to attack the guard? If they attacked, they have a really good idea how things will go; the guard will have an AC and HP and an attack bonus and saving throw scores and all manner of statistics that may come into play. If the PC engages the guard without fighting? Far less specific.

Yes. The mechanics are also more specified if you are doing crime as a downtime activity than if you are sneaking into the prince's palace to abscond with his goods as part of an adventure. The game changes depending on the type of thing being played out.

Basically it could be anything from how @Hussar depicted where the DM didn’t even require a roll, or maybe one roll would have been called for with a binary succeed/fail state, or a series of checks being needed to convince the guard, and so on.

Now, I think you and many others see this lack of specificity as a feature not a bug. And that’s fine. You take the very basic approach from the book and you do something more with it. Another DM may keep it incredibly simple, calling for rolls as infrequently as possible. That’s fine. However, those of us who have been arguing that D&D is more concerned with combat are citing this as the reason. The game has super detailed rules and processes to follow when in combat. Non-combat encounters are far less distinct to the point that two different groups could have wildly different approaches to them.

The focus on combat… the perceived “need” for such rules as many in this thread have pointed out… is a clear indicator of where the game is focused.

This is the actual sticking point many of us have with you and hussar and others. Because no, it is not a clear indicator of any such thing. You are still equating specificity with importance, but that is not the case.

Many gamers dislike, and have noticably less fun, speaking from experience playing in groups playing various games and seeing others experience this, when social interaction is heavily specified. Many of the same gamers dislike it just as much when combat is subjective at all. I've experienced it while designing a game where nothing in the game except character creation is as specified as 5e DnD, and there are roughly as many combat related, social related, exploration/investigation related, and mixed, skills.

So I’m not quite sure I follow this; can you elaborate a bit? What is a “conversational rules system” versus a system with “conversational elements without using conversation to resolve the fictional events”?

What games are we talking about?

In a pbta game (speaking generally), there is a conversation built into how using a move works, sure. The mechanics employ conversation as part of how they function. In 5e, there are parts of the game, or perhaps it's better to say, parts of the play loop, that simply are a conversation. There is no written out specific mechanic to determine how stubborn the guard is, or what level of stakes are required to need to employ hard mechanics, or whether combat is hanging over the situation from the guard's perspective. The mechanic is the conversation between the player and DM. That doesn't mean there are no rules for social interaction. It just means that social interaction runs on a model of existing only to resolve things that matter and have variable possible results. While the ability check rules are a toolkit for the DM to build that part of their DnD from, they are also a specific, defined, set of mechanics. It's just that part of those mechanics, is the conversation that happens in the play loop.


I've had players get angry at me as a DM for not holding them strictly to their specific speed in feet value is in a session of dnd where I'm running a chase, and thus using listed movement values as the starting point from which they can use skills and character abilities to get more out of their movement. Actually angry. A human adult yelled at me, in a situation where I was literally letting him do more than he could have normally.


Aside: I don't really debate specific examples, and that's for a reason. In my experience, no matter how well intentioned all participants are, they only ever accomplish the swift decline of the discussion's direct relevance to the original topic, and generally lead to the deterioration of the quality of discussion overall. Again IME, the "in the weeds" nitpicking behavior is next to inevitable, when you move from general principles to concrete examples. I have absolutely never seen this proven wrong on these forums, certainly. Maybe in person, with friends, because body language and tone and being able to see eachother's faces can soften some of the impulses that lead to that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One quick point, is that the loosely defined nature you refer to in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph is the point. It’s the primary feature, not any kind of bug. And that is exactly the disconnect. If one sees it as a problem that the rules don’t tell the DM whether the situation should be 1 check for the whole interaction or a check for each step in the interaction, then you will pretty much inevitable experience the game differently than I and other who broadly disagree with you experience it.

It's not whether it's a "problem" that the rules do that or whether I prefer they do that or something else. It's that the rules are not specific for social encounters but are super specific for combat encounters. I'm saying that there's a strong reason for that and it's that the game as designed and presented is simply not as concerned with social encounters as it is with combat encounters.

Whether that's a bad or good thing is entirely subjective and is beside my point.

Although, I will also say that the rules do actually lead to what I described, they just don’t explicitly say “here is how you make a scene mechanically complex via multiple checks”.

and I agree that 5e has garbage advice in the core books.

But the basic how to play in the PHB is all you need to get to what I described. The DM described the scene, the PC described an approach, DM determined chance of success and stakes following from the fiction, and asked for a check, PC rolled, failed, and the fiction moved forward differently than it would if they’d succeeded, leading to subsequent description, etc, continue the “play loop”.

The guidance, such as it is, in the 5E core books is awful. It's vague and unspecific and not backed by useful examples.

I don't think it's actually enough to do what you described. The basic loop, yes, that's understandable, even if it's still incomplete. Should DCs be openly shared by the DM to PCs? Always? Sometimes? Multiple methods that are described, with pros and cons for each? Nope.

The idea of multiple checks being needed to complete a task is barely suggested in the books, and never in any kind of formal way. There are a few suggestions of success with complication and the like, but these are minimal and never explained in detail, or backed by a useful example of play.

I think more often, folks will arrive at the "single ability check to determine success or failure" and stick with that.

So I get that some people want more rules and guidance for social and exploration encounters. I don't, but to each there own.

What I don't get is this theory that you "aren't playing D&D unless you're following a rule". The only reason I can see people arguing this is because they want to say that D&D is 90% combat because most of the non-combat stuff doesn't have detailed rules. But that just seems like searching for justification for a preference for more more rules for the non-combat stuff.

Or maybe I'm just missing the point.

Let me ask you a general question.... you see a copy of New Game X in the game store. How do you determine what the game might be about?

The name? The cover image? The description on the back of the book? Flipping through the book and looking at the art and the text itself? Is there anything else I may have missed?

Now, considering those factors..... take the PHB and what conclusion would you expect to draw?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not whether it's a "problem" that the rules do that or whether I prefer they do that or something else. It's that the rules are not specific for social encounters but are super specific for combat encounters. I'm saying that there's a strong reason for that and it's that the game as designed and presented is simply not as concerned with social encounters as it is with combat encounters.

Whether that's a bad or good thing is entirely subjective and is beside my point.




The guidance, such as it is, in the 5E core books is awful. It's vague and unspecific and not backed by useful examples.

I don't think it's actually enough to do what you described. The basic loop, yes, that's understandable, even if it's still incomplete. Should DCs be openly shared by the DM to PCs? Always? Sometimes? Multiple methods that are described, with pros and cons for each? Nope.

The idea of multiple checks being needed to complete a task is barely suggested in the books, and never in any kind of formal way. There are a few suggestions of success with complication and the like, but these are minimal and never explained in detail, or backed by a useful example of play.

I think more often, folks will arrive at the "single ability check to determine success or failure" and stick with that.

This is a misunderstanding. One has to remember that "task" and "action" are not the same thing. The basic play loop as described directly produces "1 check per significant action with variable consequences in a given scene".

To do otherwise, it would have to describe something like making a single stealth check to set up your disguise, sneak past outer guards, hide your darker outwear to be dressed in the disguise, act the part to get to the locked room, unlock it quietly without being seen, get what you need, and reverse that whole process to get back out and away.

What the play loop actually leads to, if followed even fairly loosely, is making a check for each of those actions within the scene as it unfolds, with potential complications should any of the checks fail.

Stuff like "fail forward" is just advice that some GMs need in order to be reminded that one servant recognizing that you don't belong doesn't mean that the entire castle is instantly alerted to your presence and intentions.

Again, it's a lack of solid advice, and of having too much of what advice they bothered to put in the core books in the DMG, which I would posit even most DMs don't actually read more than 5% of.

Let me ask you a general question.... you see a copy of New Game X in the game store. How do you determine what the game might be about?

The name? The cover image? The description on the back of the book? Flipping through the book and looking at the art and the text itself? Is there anything else I may have missed?

Most game's core books literally have text telling the reader what the game is intended to be about. This includes 5e.

Now, considering those factors..... take the PHB and what conclusion would you expect to draw?

Roleplaying as heroes going on adventures.

What sold me on switching to 5e rather than taking on the task of making my own 4.5e was exactly picking up the PHB (which is, IMO, the only actual core book in pretty much any edition that I've played, which is 2e on) and reading it, and seeing that it is designed to be about all three "pillars", that these pillars were considered on their own and in terms of how they relate, and that they weren't designed the same way in spite of differing needs and play dynamics, and the players didn't need to choose between them when taking abilities nearly as much as they did in the previous wotc editions.

I read the 5e PHB and concluded that it was even less "about combat" than 4e actually was, and certainly vastly less about combat than detractors often claimed 4e was, that I could have PCs at my table that weren't built with combat in mind without having to adjust combat to not murder them instantly, and PCs built for combat wouldn't be useless outside of combat (except the fighter, who I still verbally trashed for several years as the worst designed aspect of 5e, often saying the game would be actively better if the class was simply removed), etc.

In short, I read it and concluded that it was about what it called 3 pillars of the game, and actually bothered to design those pillars differently, and in spite of the failures of many of the goals of the game, and other flaws I already saw, and my strong bias against it, I was sold on it by the time I was reading the (garbage) NPC stats in the back of the book.


aside seriously though, NPC design is probably the actual worst part of 5e (the fighter is at least easier to fix). It's always been bad, the new design barely improves it, and it seriously holds the system back.

Sure I can just give all the night hunters dark vision, improvise more reasonable skill and save numbers based on what they'd have with proficiency where appropriate and a decent score, and use my experience with other games to make their abilities more interesting, but...I really wish we'd gotten a vastly better MM. I know it couldn't have happened, but I wish they'd waited to put out the MM until a year after the PHB. Every time I look at pretty much any beast type NPC I roll my eyes. They're basically all garbage.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I disagree with the premise. By that reasoning, literally all scenarios where conflict is a possible outcome have "physical confrontation hanging over it", and thus can't be fully separated from combat, and literally every game ever written that doesn't forbid physical violence is entirely about combat.

So, I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'm guessing that you see the above differently.

No not at all. All I was saying is that any interaction with a guard has the implication of some sort of physical altercation as a potential outcome. The guy is guarding something, and is likely armed and/or authorized to keep people away. So, using an attempt to get passed a guard as an example is not the best idea since there is the possibility of violence as an inherent quality of the interaction. A different example may help more.

Aside: I don't really debate specific examples, and that's for a reason. In my experience, no matter how well intentioned all participants are, they only ever accomplish the swift decline of the discussion's direct relevance to the original topic, and generally lead to the deterioration of the quality of discussion overall. Again IME, the "in the weeds" nitpicking behavior is next to inevitable, when you move from general principles to concrete examples. I have absolutely never seen this proven wrong on these forums, certainly. Maybe in person, with friends, because body language and tone and being able to see eachother's faces can soften some of the impulses that lead to that.

I disagree quite a bit. I find these conversations to be as roundabout and at ties frustrating largely because of the lack of examples. Examples help provide specific processes and decisions and game elements that allow us to see them in action.

I can gladly share some examples from my D&D game where we rotate GMs, or my Blades in the Dark game that I play in, or the Spire game that I run. I actually think these three games each offer a different take on a game's focus, and how mechanics support what play is meant to be about.

I'd do that, but if you don't think it would offer anything to the discussion, then I won't bother.

Sure. But no one has actually established a reason that this is a mark of importance or significance or "what the game is really about". Folks keep saying it is, but...you gotta know by this point that it's not some "obviously true" statement that requires no defending.

Social rules are limp and barely existent, combat rules are robust and plentiful.

I don't know how that's not a pretty strong thesis or how it's not backed by plenty of evidence that's been shared, and which is readily apparent to anyone familiar with the game and the books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No not at all. All I was saying is that any interaction with a guard has the implication of some sort of physical altercation as a potential outcome. The guy is guarding something, and is likely armed and/or authorized to keep people away. So, using an attempt to get passed a guard as an example is not the best idea since there is the possibility of violence as an inherent quality of the interaction. A different example may help more.

Eh, if you want to use a different example, go ahead. I'm not worried about whether the hypothetical next scene is a fight, chase, stealth mission, or a rethink at the tavern about how to get enough rep in the city to get in on the prince's invitation*. I'm concerned with the scene being discussed.

I disagree quite a bit. I find these conversations to be as roundabout and at ties frustrating largely because of the lack of examples. Examples help provide specific processes and decisions and game elements that allow us to see them in action.

I can gladly share some examples from my D&D game where we rotate GMs, or my Blades in the Dark game that I play in, or the Spire game that I run. I actually think these three games each offer a different take on a game's focus, and how mechanics support what play is meant to be about.

I'd do that, but if you don't think it would offer anything to the discussion, then I won't bother.

I'd rather not see this discussion devolve into nitpicking eachother's examples, and as I've stated, I have never seen that not happen here, when the specific examples come out. Page upon page of arguing about a single word or phrase. Absolutely every time. No thanks.

Social rules are limp and barely existent, combat rules are robust and plentiful.

Social rules are broad, not "limp and barely existent". You keep mistaking your personal preference for something more than that.

As I have already said, 5e runs differently in different types of scenarios. This is an intentional design meant to make those scenarios feel differently and satisfy different "itches". The broadness of much of the game is a big part of why it's fairly easy to run a 5e game that shifts from one genre to another over the course of a single campaign.

I don't know how that's not a pretty strong thesis or how it's not backed by plenty of evidence that's been shared, and which is readily apparent to anyone familiar with the game and the books.

lol it's "readily apparent" to you, but you're making a mistake in thinking (or at least implying, here) that it's objectively true.


*ability checks with wisdom, intelligence, or charisma, using proficiencies from social skills, knowledge skills, and any tools that relate to a PC's ties to a faction that could be leveraged in this endeavor. eg, "I use my smith's tools proficiency because I know the workings of the Smith's Guild, and the personality of the local Fantasy Union Rep." Some people want this to be mechanized, with specific consequences for each of several results, all of which further complicate the PCs' lives because that fits The Genre. I, and many others, find such things to get in the way.

I truly don't understand why it's so hard for some folks to grasp that the above is a matter of preference.

 

[Hussar]

So I get that some people want more rules and guidance for social and exploration encounters. I don't, but to each there own.

What I don't get is this theory that you "aren't playing D&D unless you're following a rule". The only reason I can see people arguing this is because they want to say that D&D is 90% combat because most of the non-combat stuff doesn't have detailed rules. But that just seems like searching for justification for a preference for more more rules for the non-combat stuff.

Or maybe I'm just missing the point.

That's not what's being said. No one is saying you aren't playing D&D unless you are following a rule.

What is being said is that the absence of rules cannot be claimed as a strength of a system. Additionally, it's very hard to claim that a system focuses or supports things which it doesn't have rules for. You absolutely ARE playing D&D when you freeform your way through a social encounter because D&D as a system doesn't really provide any sort of framework to resolve things any other way. As @doctorbadwolf points out, in my guard example or his, there are three different, mutually exclusive resolutions - pure freeform; single check, pass/fail; extended series of checks - and they are all "playing D&D".

Which brings us around to the point of the thread. When you start combat, there aren't three different resolution methods. There's only one and it's extremely detailed. When you try a social encounter (regardless of the example) the rules are very vague. Now, you can claim that's a feature, fair enough. That's just personal preference. To be honest, in play, when playing D&D, I would obviously do the same as you or @doctorbadwolf - pick one of those three resolution methods that seems applicable at the time. But, in other systems, I would have concrete frameworks for resolving things.

Which, to me, means that those other systems are actually treating different pillars as being equal. If one pillar is a series of very formalized checks, and one pillar is vague, handwavey and mostly freeform, it's not unreasonable to say that the game is about the first pillar and not the second.

-------

Funny thing is, I was thinking about this thread and the psionics threads going on. Now, I am like @Oofta here about psionics. I do not want a full psionic system in the game that is separate from casting just like he doesn't want a social mechanics system. Fair enough. That's all personal preference. But, the difference is, I'd be fairly content if they brought out a completely separate psionic system. I'd treat it exactly like I have in every other edition - completely ignore it and not use it.

It baffles me why there is such resistance to adding a social mechanics module to D&D for those of us who would use it and those that want to keep the sort of standard D&D methods could keep doing that. I mean, if you like D&D's non-combat resolution mechanics, that means you're largely free-forming anyway. So, why would the existence of mechanics change anything for you?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is the lack of social rules due to freeform being the defacto method?

Or do the social rules relate to D&D like cabbage salad relates to a steak house?

And how can we tell the difference?