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

 

[Umbran]

But D&D isn't work, it's leisure. People do it for fun, not because they have to. Participants are free to contribute as much or little as they like, and if at any point they are not having fun they can drop out.

Leisure activities generally have elements of work in them - the things that aren't themselves fun, but you do to get to the fun bits. If you like throwing dinner parties, there's dish washing that has to happen, so to speak. But honestly, whether it is work or leisure isn't the relevant bit - the team is the relevant bit. You have a bunch of folks trying to do stuff together. Lack of integrity among them leads to problems.

"People are free to contribute as much or as little as they like," ignores a lot of human social dynamics that increase the effort required to contribute. Humans who aren't paying attention can introduce more work into the leisure activity.

And, "people can just drop out" is a dodge. People dropping out (for other than personal reasons external to the game) is a failure mode for an RPG, and a social group. Once someone's sitting down at the table to play, everyone's got some responsibility to help each other have fun. If someone drops because the game is that unfun, somewhere there was a failure to meet that responsibility.

Edit: rewrote a bit because I wasn't happy with how I said some things.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And, "people can just drop out" is a dodge. People dropping out (for other than personal reasons extrnal to the game) is a failure mode for an RPG, and a social group.

If the game is bad, then is should fail. Everyone dropping out is how it corrects for bad DMing. One or two people dropping in and out is something that has to happen. Everyone plays D&D differently, and the only way to find out if a group plays the way you like is to try it and see.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm pretty sure it does. Clue's in the name. If it's not a competition, it doesn't need to be "fair". There is no "winning" and there is no "losing" so ideas of "fairness" are irrelevant.

This is wrong. If I'm DMing and it's not a competition with no winners or losers, but I'm giving my wife 3x the magic items everyone else is getting, that's unfair. If I like death traps and every BBEG lair or cool item quested for has one, such that most characters won't see 5th level due to dying from death traps, that's unfair.

Fairness is very relevant in D&D, despite the players and DMs being non-adversarial and there being no winners or losers.

 

[Oofta]

The non-combat stuff is certainly meaningful irrespective of which side of the coin you fall on this.

Enworld posters regularly create threads on various ideas for social and exploration mechanics or how to improve the Inspiration, Bonds, Flaws, Ideals chassis. We constantly delve into possibilities of mechanising Alignment, PvP influencing, deconstructing and reforging the skill system. We have expanded Journey and Downtime rules from various published material including Level Up and 5e adjacent games. Numerous threads have opened up on how gold can be utilised/spent. Then there is Stronghold and Followers by Matt Colville and other similar material. We have entire debates about the benefits of low magic campaigns which allow the table to increase the importance of the exploration pillar and resource management aspect of the game. Etc.

What I'm trying to say through all this rambling above is:
Because of the importance and the way combat is defined in the game, the community (at least here) constantly strives to find a way to boost the other two pillars. IMO that would not be the case if combat didn't dominate the game the way it does.

People that post here are a fraction of a fraction of the people that play D&D so I don't think we're representative. I would assume that WOTC pays close attention to sales to what 3rd party products are selling and what voids they are attempting to fill. If they see some particular area that's not addressed they'll consider adding to the game. While I don't have the Strixhaven or the Wild Beyond the Witchlight book, it looks like they are experimenting with narrative and relationship heavy modules to see if there's any demand.

Any opinions or comments made on threads like these are just a tiny, tiny drop in a really large bucket. While WOTC seems to be looking at non-combat heavy material, it's more in the form of campaigns with focused rules specific to certain activities in those campaigns and no assumption of combat. Maybe that will change. But D&D is incredibly successful without it, so I think any additional rules people want added to the game will remain in the hands of 3PP.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is wrong. If I'm DMing and it's not a competition with no winners or losers, but I'm giving my wife 3x the magic items everyone else is getting, that's unfair. If I like death traps and every BBEG lair or cool item quested for has one, such that most characters won't see 5th level due to dying from death traps, that's unfair.

Fairness is very relevant in D&D, despite the players and DMs being non-adversarial and there being no winners or losers.

From my reading up on "competitive advantage", that is not what is meant by "fair" in that context.

 

[Aldarc]

The issue seems to be some people can't accept that not everyone plays D&D like they do.

One small problem with this assertion: you can't back up that this is how those "some people" play the game. A lot of discussion from said "some people" centers around the rules design rather than what things are at their respective table. Recognizing that removes the need for rude insinuations about other people.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One small problem with this assertion: you can't back up that this is how those "some people" play the game. A lot of discussion from said "some people" centers around the rules design rather than what things are at their respective table. Recognizing that removes the need for rude insinuations about other people.

Yup. I play 5e pretty much by the book and have extremely limited houserules. I haven't ported in any more robust social interaction mechanics, and I don't always used the provided social interaction mechanics in the DMG*. Why, then, would I make a case about it? Because that's how the game is designed, and I aim my play of 5e to engage what design is there. That looks much lighter on social interactions than other games I play because, well, that's how the game is designed to play. We don't play heavy, weighty social games with 5e. We play heroic, zero-to-hero games with 5e. So while I note and point out how 5e doesn't have robust social interaction, or anything at all with teeth towards character (except death), that's 100% fine, because I don't pick up 5e to get to those things -- I have plenty of other options that do that kind of play far better.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't see any of those as competing priorities.

My players find challenges fun, moderate encounters fun, and face stomping weak things one in a while to be fun. It's not a choice between, do I give them something fun or do I give them something to face stomp.

It's the same for death. I have set procedures for when I will and will not fudge dice for the players. I will fudge them only if A) they didn't make any bad decisions that led to the encounter or their position in the encounter, and B) the dice gods have taken a disliking to them and they're rolling 1s, 2s and 3s while I'm rolling 20s against them. I'm not going to kill a PC or TPK the group over extreme bad luck. Even then I will only fudge a bit to even up the odds. They could still die or TPK, but they will have a fighting chance. Coming back from the dead is rare in my game, so it's important for me not to let super bad luck be the cause of the loss of a PC.

Those procedures are set, though, so there's no competing priority there.

Yes, there is. You've just already made the decision. You've decided to not honor the dice when they produce extreme results. It's a perfectly fine decision to do so, but you're placing something above the idea of competitive integrity there; either player satisfaction or perhaps narrative integrity or something like that. You basically just posted a list of exceptions when you do so.

Everyone is satisfied or happy with the process, so it's in no way an issue. But that doesn't mean that there were competing priorities you had to consider and then choose between.

They arbitrate the rules. But not to be fair, because that has no meaning when there are no winners or losers.

If not to be fair, then why? If there's no competitive element here (and please get passed the idea of DM vs. Players....that's not what anyone is talking about) then what do the rules even matter? What's the DM even doing?

I don't see anyone stating that the DM should [edit] not have integrity and run the game fairly. But what does that mean? That's what I've been arguing. We're not playing a board game. If the DM makes decisions that are not controlled by the entire group, they can always tip things in their favor if they want.

Nobody ever seems to address that though or how more detailed rules would fix a perceived problem. There will always be bad DMs, you can't constrain them to the point of nonexistence.

There absolutely are processes you can do that will constrain DMs. Here's a couple of very basic ones that anyone can do.

All rolls are made in the open. All DCs are announced out loud for all to know prior to a roll.

What this does is it largely eliminates the DM's ability to fudge results. He can't roll behind a screen and then ignore what the dice say in favor of how he thinks things "should go". He can't change a player's roll to a failure or to a success on a whim. The results are there for all to see and cannot be denied.

You've mentioned that a DM can "put their thumb on the scale" and while there may always be some amount of risk of that happening, that doesn't mean that you can't do things to lessen it. Rules transparency is precisely about this.

And the non-combat rules of D&D leave themselves incredibly vulnerable to this kind of thing.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, there is. You've just already made the decision. You've decided to not honor the dice when they produce extreme results. It's a perfectly fine decision to do so, but you're placing something above the idea of competitive integrity there; either player satisfaction or perhaps narrative integrity or something like that. You basically just posted a list of exceptions when you do so.

Everyone is satisfied or happy with the process, so it's in no way an issue. But that doesn't mean that there were competing priorities you had to consider and then choose between.



If not to be fair, then why? If there's no competitive element here (and please get past the idea of DM vs. Players....that's not what anyone is talking about) then what do the rules even matter? What's the DM even doing?



There absolutely are processes you can do that will constrain DMs. Here's a couple of very basic ones that anyone can do.

All rolls are made in the open. All DCs are announced out loud for all to know prior to a roll.

What this does is it largely eliminates the DM's ability to fudge results. He can't roll behind a screen and then ignore what the dice say in favor of how he thinks things "should go". He can't change a player's roll to a failure or to a success on a whim. The results are there for all to see and cannot be denied.

You've mentioned that a DM can "put their thumb on the scale" and while there may always be some amount of risk of that happening, that doesn't mean that you can't do things to lessen it. Rules transparency is precisely about this.

And the non-combat rules of D&D leave themselves incredibly vulnerable to this kind of thing.

Fudging dice rolls may not be best practice (I can't remember the last time I did) but that's not a game rule. Same with letting people know the DC ahead of time. I don't for various reasons other than a general "it looks [easy/difficult, etc.]". But the DM always sets the DC. They can set it to 50 as easily as they can set it to 5. If it's a contest, there are even more variables.

 

[AnotherGuy]

People that post here are a fraction of a fraction of the people that play D&D so I don't think we're representative. I would assume that WOTC pays close attention to sales to what 3rd party products are selling and what voids they are attempting to fill. If they see some particular area that's not addressed they'll consider adding to the game. While I don't have the Strixhaven or the Wild Beyond the Witchlight book, it looks like they are experimenting with narrative and relationship heavy modules to see if there's any demand.

Any opinions or comments made on threads like these are just a tiny, tiny drop in a really large bucket. While WOTC seems to be looking at non-combat heavy material, it's more in the form of campaigns with focused rules specific to certain activities in those campaigns and no assumption of combat. Maybe that will change. But D&D is incredibly successful without it, so I think any additional rules people want added to the game will remain in the hands of 3PP.

Although there is nothing I strongly disagree with, my comment was an observation of Enworld's community behaviour and I suppose I personally put more stock into what is being done/said here, even it is a microcosm of D&D, because this is a burgeoning creative community of our hobby with various publishers, smaller forum leaders as well as superfans. I'm not so eager to discount the general desires of our community should we extrapolate our data points outwards to the broader fanbase. Maybe I'm wrong in this, but I don't feel so.
I can reasonably identify in which areas D&D is lacking as can others hence the reason why those 3pp kickstarters did so well.

I know next to nothing about Strixhaven or Wild Beyond the Witchlight - but they have certainly peaked my interest from what you've said.