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]

So, if it is actually well beyond normal barred DC, you tell them the enhanced DC? Maybe it makes a difference because the bad guy wants them to waste time on it to escape, and when you say DC 35 they take off around back to head them off?

Let's be clear here -- the PC has declared an action. The only way that this will normally be revokable is if the negotiation of the resolution reveals that there's a bad misunderstanding of the shared fiction -- that there's a mismatch of understanding. In the case you postulate, the PC goes to kick the door down and gets an unexpectedly high DC. A question to check if things were misunderstood says, no, we're on the page, there's nothing obvious about the door that reflects the high DC. The check is resolved -- if a success is had, then great, but they definitely get information that the door was more than it appeared and can investigate/ignore however they want. If they fail, the I'm a big believer in failure moving forwards, so they don't kick in the door but learn, given it didn't flex the was a door that could be kicked down but needs another hit would, that this door has something big-time up with it. The open DC helps establish fiction in this case -- it doesn't reveal secret information because that secret information should be revealed by trying to kick down the door!

I know that there's a large school of thought that says that all information should be hidden and only grudgingly revealed, but I'm not of that school (anymore) and don't design situations that rely on parsimonious release of information to do what they intend. I'm a big believer in design of challenge that isn't thwarted if I give the players my prep notes on it.

It was a trap? It is invisible to the naked eye until they get part way up and put a hand on it? (Small chance of falling, and become aware it's probably much harder)?

Sounds like a DEX save for a trap, then. Otherwise, if a PC is climbing and the issues starts after part of the climb, I would reveal the change as they go -- usually by describing how they reach for the next rock but it's unnaturally slippery and then what do you doing them. Honestly, though, I'm extremely unlikely to even present such a challenge where I'm hoping to gotcha players with an undetectable change in environment like this.

Maybe its a lifelike construct?

Then it fails -- incorrect target. No DC needed? Also, don't enchantments cause the target to save?

Those both seem like what I would do. Just seeing where the limits of giving the players information was.

I advocate for giving them everything, honestly, and not building encounters that rely on hidden information to function, but that aside, open DCs and transparent resolution processes don't require this much of a change. Even running WotC adventures I rarely need to completely rewrite a encounter because it conflicts with the idea of transparent resolution. I honestly can't think of an example. I mean, I rewrite these all the time, but usually for other reasons. Mostly because some of them are either pure railroads and/or have pixelbitching as a feature.

I guess I was confused about why the player would automatically assume the worst when the high roll failed, instead of wondering why it failed (like magically being held shut, being a construct, etc...). Or why they would be upset about the unexpectedly high difficulty but wouldn't also be just as upset about finding out it was a pit trap that was apparently too well hid for their passive perception.

They wouldn't, but they might. And if they might, how might we address that? Transparent resolution skips the possibility of that because you can clearly see how it's weighted, and if there appears to be a thumb on the scale, it's known and you can almost always determine why it was there from more play if it was legit. If it wasn't, it will stick out. Maybe not every time, but certainly over time.

 

[Cadence]

Let's be clear here -- the PC has declared an action. The only way that this will normally be revokable is if the negotiation of the resolution reveals that there's a bad misunderstanding of the shared fiction -- that there's a mismatch of understanding. In the case you postulate, the PC goes to kick the door down and gets an unexpectedly high DC. A question to check if things were misunderstood says, no, we're on the page, there's nothing obvious about the door that reflects the high DC. The check is resolved -- if a success is had, then great, but they definitely get information that the door was more than it appeared and can investigate/ignore however they want. If they fail, the I'm a big believer in failure moving forwards, so they don't kick in the door but learn, given it didn't flex the was a door that could be kicked down but needs another hit would, that this door has something big-time up with it. The open DC helps establish fiction in this case -- it doesn't reveal secret information because that secret information should be revealed by trying to kick down the door!

I know that there's a large school of thought that says that all information should be hidden and only grudgingly revealed, but I'm not of that school (anymore) and don't design situations that rely on parsimonious release of information to do what they intend. I'm a big believer in design of challenge that isn't thwarted if I give the players my prep notes on it.

Sounds like a DEX save for a trap, then. Otherwise, if a PC is climbing and the issues starts after part of the climb, I would reveal the change as they go -- usually by describing how they reach for the next rock but it's unnaturally slippery and then what do you doing them. Honestly, though, I'm extremely unlikely to even present such a challenge where I'm hoping to gotcha players with an undetectable change in environment like this.

Then it fails -- incorrect target. No DC needed? Also, don't enchantments cause the target to save?

I advocate for giving them everything, honestly, and not building encounters that rely on hidden information to function, but that aside, open DCs and transparent resolution processes don't require this much of a change. Even running WotC adventures I rarely need to completely rewrite a encounter because it conflicts with the idea of transparent resolution. I honestly can't think of an example. I mean, I rewrite these all the time, but usually for other reasons. Mostly because some of them are either pure railroads and/or have pixelbitching as a feature.

They wouldn't, but they might. And if they might, how might we address that? Transparent resolution skips the possibility of that because you can clearly see how it's weighted, and if there appears to be a thumb on the scale, it's known and you can almost always determine why it was there from more play if it was legit. If it wasn't, it will stick out. Maybe not every time, but certainly over time.

Thank you! I get it now.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank you! I get it now.

Best result possible. Getting it, not agreeing, mind. Agreement is nice, but not really what I'm after.

 

[Oofta]

Does not follow, actually. I've got one game that is very much about combat, to the degree it expects that to be the focal point of most of most sessions--but it still has a bunch of setting material because it gives those combats context. There are plenty of wargames that provide a pretty fair chunk of setting info, at least the parts that are relevant on the scale the game is set.

But that's still not the question: the question is "What are the rules about?" That's where the game system design is. A game is about more than simply its rules design, but when asking the question about whether its good for a purpose, that's not what you're asking. Because absolutely none of that background material or even a lot of the GM advice may be relevant to that other usage at all.

I'm on repeat now. I don't need, nor do I want more rules for social aspects of the game. Everyone that has described systems simply wouldn't work for me which is one of the reasons I don't play them. If they were so amazing, if they worked for more people I don't think D&D wouldn't be the 800 pound gorilla that we have. Exploration? Not sure what you would add.

So it's just a preference. My games have a significant amount of combat but are not really about combat. I don't want more detailed rules, I think they could easily be detrimental to the game and I wouldn't use them even if we had them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure.

But, how did you end up in the group? Why wasn't this recognized before you started? Wasn't there a failure in identifying the mismatch before play with this player began?

Most likely. There's a great degree of lack of self-awareness about their own wants and how they may not match with other people, and communication in RPG groups is not, by all evidence, consistently very good. If both of those weren't true I suspect 75-90% of the problems with games wouldn't come up.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm on repeat now. I don't need, nor do I want more rules for social aspects of the game

Let's try this.

It doesn't matter what you want. It doesn't matter what I want.

It matters what the game system offers in the whole to the largest number of people. If people don't care about mechanical support for what they're doing any game system whatsoever or no game system at all will work. But a pretty fair number of people do care about that, and if you make a game about a topic that has little or no combat, and use a system where most of the mechanical support in in the game is for combat and closely related things, you've essentially offered them a wrench to use as a hammer.

. Everyone that has described systems simply wouldn't work for me which is one of the reasons I don't play them. If they were so amazing, if they worked for more people I don't think D&D wouldn't be the 800 pound gorilla that we have. Exploration? Not sure what you would add.

Or, alternatively, the vast majority of people spend most of their game killing orcs, and the system does a fine job of that. Neither you nor I know.

So it's just a preference. My games have a significant amount of combat but are not really about combat. I don't want more detailed rules, I think they could easily be detrimental to the game and I wouldn't use them even if we had them.

And again, its not about what either you or I want here. Its about what a given game system brings to the table for a given type of genre and setting. And the farther you get away from heavy action-adventure in a fantasy environment, the less any incarnation of D&D brings to that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This.

I’ve seen folks claim that most of the rules pertain to combat, but haven’t seen any evidence to support that claim.

Wait, what?

 

[Umbran]

I'm on repeat now. I don't need, nor do I want more rules for social aspects of the game.

Mod Note:

Yeah.

So, perhaps you have not noticed, but a pattern has developed. Every time the topic of social rules comes up, you come in with this same point, and wind up repeating yourself, and lots of folks, including yourself, seem to become aggravated. Posts get reported, and the acrimony of the boards goes up.

It may be time for you to consider the possibility that how you engage with this topic is less than constructive.

 

[Oofta]

Let's try this.

It doesn't matter what you want. It doesn't matter what I want.

It matters what the game system offers in the whole to the largest number of people. If people don't care about mechanical support for what they're doing any game system whatsoever or no game system at all will work. But a pretty fair number of people do care about that, and if you make a game about a topic that has little or no combat, and use a system where most of the mechanical support in in the game is for combat and closely related things, you've essentially offered them a wrench to use as a hammer.



Or, alternatively, the vast majority of people spend most of their game killing orcs, and the system does a fine job of that. Neither you nor I know.



And again, its not about what either you or I want here. Its about what a given game system brings to the table for a given type of genre and setting. And the farther you get away from heavy action-adventure in a fantasy environment, the less any incarnation of D&D brings to that.

Like I said above, they do seem to be experimenting a bit with Strixhaven and Wild Beyond the Witchlight, but what I don't see is a major overhaul of out of combat systems. While I haven't gotten the mods, it's mostly some campaign specific rules and story arcs that aren't combat heavy.

I don't think anybody knows the secret sauce that makes D&D as popular as it is. I get it. People want what they want even if I don't and if what I wrote made it sound otherwise, sorry. There's only so much that can be said on the topic though - creating more "crunch" for non-combat stuff in D&D without potentially souring the sauce so to speak would be difficult at best. I suspect anything more rules heavy will remain 3PP and house rules territory.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Like I said above, they do seem to be experimenting a bit with Strixhaven and Wild Beyond the Witchlight, but what I don't see is a major overhaul of out of combat systems. While I haven't gotten the mods, it's mostly some campaign specific rules and story arcs that aren't combat heavy.

I don't think anybody knows the secret sauce that makes D&D as popular as it is. I get it. People want what they want even if I don't and if what I wrote made it sound otherwise, sorry. There's only so much that can be said on the topic though - creating more "crunch" for non-combat stuff in D&D without potentially souring the sauce so to speak would be difficult at best. I suspect anything more rules heavy will remain 3PP and house rules territory.

I think a refresher about why this topic even came up might be in hand.

The report is that the new Dr. Who game is going to use a 5e engine.

A certain percentage of people were (in the hyperbolic way that people get about these things) going "What the hell is the point in using a game that's mostly about combat for a specific property who's known for having almost no combat?"

Now its easy to get fixated on the implication that D&D is "mostly about combat" as talking about the game-in-play, but as you note, for many people that's nonsensical, because the parts of the game they do other things in aren't things they feel like they need mechanics for, so the presence or lack of mechanics is either irrelevant (or, if like you, a virtue).

But that kind of dodges the question. Because mechanically, D&D mostly brings a combat engine and some things that aren't going to be ported over as-is anyway (specifics of classes, magic system, monsters) anyway.

So when someone pretty much acknowledges that the game doesn't do much other things mechanically (as you have), the fact they consider that a virtue is not an argument against the point. Its essentially an acknowledgment of it. Because if you don't care about the combat system (because its a very minor element of the type of game to use it for) and are going to discard a bunch of other elements that are completely inappropriate, what you've got left is a pretty so-so skill system and--what?

The proper conclusion is that the reason to use the system is a combination of familiarity/popularity and public visibility, because it becomes hard to see what else the port is bringing to the table that is actually useful for the end purpose.

The fact you are perfectly happy with it for its current purpose doesn't really change that.

(Note: I'm aware some others in this thread have argued that, in fact, there are more useful other mechanics in other areas than this implies. This is specifically directed at the "Who needs anything for the areas outside what it covers in terms of mechanics" respondants.)