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

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed DnD the game is not only focus on combat. And looking at the popularity of DnD the social part has important weight.

Why the asymmetric mechanics of combat vs social and exploration work and is popular is the fact to explore and question.
The few hint we have for the 2024 revision, don’t show that they will change social and exploration mechanics, they rather present new format of the monsters stat block.

having complex mechanics for combat and loose mechanics for social and exploration mechanics let the DM add a personal factor to the game. The Famous DM Fiat seem to be an important factor to have a satisfying experience playing DnD.

The mechanics that let spells and class features routinely ignore the exploration pillar certainly aren't loose.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've hit that now and then. Made chili for friends once and had someone get upset when I couldn't tell them exactly how I made it. Apparently "add spices until it smelled right" wasn't the answer she was looking for.

Perhaps D&D is good at social interaction, but bad at teaching social interaction?

 

[Eric V]

The Dev team have certainly the skill to develop complex social and exploration mechanics, they decide not to do so, so we can consider this as a part of the game to have free form minimalist social and exploration mechanics. It’s not of lack or a flaw but a deliberate choice.

Well, it's both a "lack" and a "choice."

 

[Oofta]

Alright, since explaining things from concepts didn't work, I'll try the time-tested, utterly failure-proof route of explanation by way of analogy! What could go wrong!

I'm sure you've played some kind of sport in your life where there was a referee.

Let us say that instead of that referee (1) exclusively being tasked with mediating teams/players as the stuff they do in the game intersects with the codified rules, lets say they also have the following jobs:

(2) Ensure a satisfying dramatic arc occurs in the game.

(3) Reward players for good effort in their play (which, effectively, means penalizing the other team despite the merits of that teams play of the game/sport).

So the referee isn't just mediating participant: rules collisions, they're also rewarding effort and manufacturing a dramatic arc onto play (that is definitionally at the discretion of the referee).

As a result of wearing all three of these hats (which might be at cross-purposes in any given moment of play), the participants of this hypothetical sporting event can't know for sure if the referee was using (1), (2), or (3) as the reasoning for calling a penalty or ignoring a penalty in this particular moment of play vs the next moment of play (and the moment of play after that and on and on).

Inevitably, this will lead to the players crying foul or at least thinking about crying foul.

It will also lead to the referee being in a position where they're juggling a lot of different (and often divergent) interests simultaneously...at their discretion.

Timmy worked really hard here so I'm not giving Jill the benefit of the call she should rightly get under other circumstances.

Man, this game is getting out of hand. Team x is up by 20? Lets start calling a bunch of fouls on Team x and get this game back within single digits.

Holy cow, what a play! And it was at the buzzer. But the player who made the play actually committed a foul so it shouldn't count...but man, what drama! I'm going to let it stand because it was just too incredible a climax.

The other thing it will lead to is a propensity for the referee to rarely (not never, but rarely) be surprised by play outcomes because, with so many responsibilities and such a disproportionately potent signature on play outcomes, their hands are overwhelmingly the one moving the planchette (oh, a Ouija analogy...an analogy within an anology...this is surely to go well!).

---

I'm sure this sucks much more than my other post and its "I disagree with the premise" and analogy picking apart time, but that is the best I got. If that doesn't do any work in explaining my position, then I'm tapping out talking to you and scruffy nerf herder about this thing I'm trying to communicate. I'll take my word salad with a side of "I'm a douche for the way I write" elsewhere.

I would just say that if you equate not having a set of simple transparent rules to unfair play and "winning and losing" that it's an issue with the DM, not the system or lack therein. The DM can always put their thumb on the scale unless the stakes and target goals are not set by the DM. That becomes a very different game.

As far as being surprised by the outcomes, I simply disagree. Players surprise me on a pretty regular basis. I do have to make a call on the spot of how to determine if they're going to succeed which will go from "it's not going to happen based on something the PCs don't know" to "Possible but slim" to "Yeah that makes sense it succeeds". I don't plan out scenarios, I plan out individuals, groups, trends and motivations. I've had entire potential story arcs I had roughly outlined changed because of things like this. It's one of the reasons I want flexibility.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Just upthread, Scruffy Nerf Herder said that folks here aren't trying to mean, rude, nasty, or hurtful.

Reading through this thread, though, it is not clear that he's correct in that assessment. So it is time for all of you to prove that he is right, and that you all mean well. Which means treating each other with respect.

If that's a challenge for you, it is probably time for you to take a break from this discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is how it plays out under every single dm I’ve ever had. Bar none. As far as I can tell, this is always how it plays out.

Heck I’ve seen modules where this is the default. The Final Enemy in Ghosts of Saltmarsh works exactly this way.

I find that extremely difficult to believe, but if true it would explain why your views on this stuff are so different from my own and those of every person I've ever gamed with.

I think it's more likely that we are communicating poorly, in some way, and what each of us is describing is not what is being read, though. You're really saying that you always see a single failed skill check in a stealth scene instantly alert the entire enemy force, instantly leading to combat with no way out but violence?

I just...really struggle to understand why you would play DnD after even a couple such sessions, much less years. I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[Aldarc]

I would just say that if you equate not having a set of simple transparent rules to unfair play and "winning and losing" that it's an issue with the DM, not the system or lack therein. The DM can always put their thumb on the scale unless the stakes and target goals are not set by the DM. That becomes a very different game.

Please pardon my blunt analogy, but if someone tried correcting me that my issue with autocratic government was with the person who happened to be king rather than the governing system that enables an unelected person of a certain bloodline to exercise autocratic power, I'm not sure how I would react to them. There could be an incredibly wise and benevolent king governing the nation, but I would still be opposed to autocracy. I would not want my grievances with the systemic issues in place reduced to personal hang-ups with the person who is charge.

It is not a matter of who is wearing the special boss hat rather than the fact that such a special boss hat exists in the first place. This is to say, we should be able to critique the governing systems in place surrounding the special boss hat without being told that if the right person for the job was wearing the special boss hat then everything would be hunky dory.

This is not to say that my analogy is perfectly analogous to the situation @Manbearcat discussed - I know it is not! - but I feel that it is mistaken to dismiss a critique of systemic rules issues surrounding the GM's role as amounting to "an issue with the DM, not the system...". I think that it is important to identify to how different TTRPG systems enable or constrain a DM's ability to exercise authority over the narrative outcomes. I don't think that this can or should be reduced to "an issue with the DM." Critiquing who is in the role is not the same as critiquing the authority of that role.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Please pardon my blunt analogy, but if someone tried correcting me that my issue with autocratic government was with the person who happened to be king rather than the governing system that enables an unelected person of a certain bloodline to exercise autocratic power, I'm not sure how I would react to them. There could be an incredibly wise and benevolent king governing the nation, but I would still be opposed to autocracy. I would not want my grievances with the systemic issues in place reduced to personal hang-ups with the person who is charge.

It is not a matter of who is wearing the special boss hat rather than the fact that such a special boss hat exists in the first place. This is to say, we should be able to critique the governing systems in place surrounding the special boss hat without being told that if the right person for the job was wearing the special boss hat then everything would be hunky dory.

This is not to say that my analogy is perfectly analogous to the situation @Manbearcat discussed - I know it is not! - but I feel that it is mistaken to dismiss a critique of systemic rules issues surrounding the GM's role as amounting to "an issue with the DM, not the system...". I think that it is important to identify to how different TTRPG systems enable or constrain a DM's ability to exercise authority over the narrative outcomes. I don't think that this can or should be reduced to "an issue with the DM." Critiquing who is in the role is not the same as critiquing the authority of that role.

This. Postulating a benevolent dictator does not address critiques of autocracy. Living under a benevolent dictator might be awesome -- maybe even better than any other system (for sake of argument), but that doesn't dispel a critique of autocratic governments.

 

[Oofta]

Please pardon my blunt analogy, but if someone tried correcting me that my issue with autocratic government was with the person who happened to be king rather than the governing system that enables an unelected person of a certain bloodline to exercise autocratic power, I'm not sure how I would react to them. There could be an incredibly wise and benevolent king governing the nation, but I would still be opposed to autocracy. I would not want my grievances with the systemic issues in place reduced to personal hang-ups with the person who is charge.

It is not a matter of who is wearing the special boss hat rather than the fact that such a special boss hat exists in the first place. This is to say, we should be able to critique the governing systems in place surrounding the special boss hat without being told that if the right person for the job was wearing the special boss hat then everything would be hunky dory.

This is not to say that my analogy is perfectly analogous to the situation @Manbearcat discussed - I know it is not! - but I feel that it is mistaken to dismiss a critique of systemic rules issues surrounding the GM's role as amounting to "an issue with the DM, not the system...". I think that it is important to identify to how different TTRPG systems enable or constrain a DM's ability to exercise authority over the narrative outcomes. I don't think that this can or should be reduced to "an issue with the DM." Critiquing who is in the role is not the same as critiquing the authority of that role.

By default the DM runs the game. They make the final call. That doesn't make them an autocrat, it just makes them the person with the most information about the world and the NPCs that inhabit it. I'm not dismissing anyone's views, I'm stating an opinion. I don't want transparent rules with full knowledge because it would take away a lot of the enjoyment of the game for me. When I play I want to poke, prod and discover the world the DM has set up. As a DM I want people to engage as characters because they can and do surprise me. An example of Dogs in the Vineyard was given and while it may be strategic and fun for some people, I wouldn't care for it. It would break my sense of immersion.

But if you don't have that kind of transparent system (which IMHO would include target numbers) then you have to rely on the DM. Even if the players had resources to expend but didn't know the targets the DM can always put their thumb on the scale. If everybody knows everything, it wouldn't be as fun for me. If the DM is using their authority as author of the scenario to f*** over the players, they're being a bad DM.

 

[Aldarc]

By default the DM runs the game. They make the final call. That doesn't make them an autocrat,

I think that you are missing the point that I was making, but no matter.