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

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not only that, but it is likely safe to say that aren't "using D&D", except in the same sense that Mutants and Masterminds was "using D&D".

Replace the classes and subclasses. Replace the feats. Replace the races. Replace the skills. You still have a basic framework of a character with abilities, a class and subclass, a race, skills, hit dice and hit points (maybe - or you can change how damage works), proficiency modifier and stat modifier, and eventually feats. You have a basic idea how task resolution functions.

I'm far from sold that classes and subclasses a particularly useful in a wide temporal-span game either; either you set them up so broadly that its questionable what purpose they're serving, or they end up excluding concepts (a classic problem D&D has struggled with) to stay within those buckets. As you note, its also entirely unclear that the D&D hit point model works outside a combat intensive environment (or even within that when combat doesn't run to epic drag-out knock-downs).

That doesn't mean you can't start with something D&D-like and end up with a functional system for the purpose, but like M&M its going to look progressively less and less like its parent as you do so, and at that point claiming the relationship becomes more and more clearly just a marketing ploy.

 

[loverdrive]

Now, switching gears a bit.

OK, D&D 5E can handle social interactions. Cool! Does it make talking the most viable strategy?

I think, the easiest way to start scrutinizing the system is to ask: what kind of character you can't create? What capabilities the character is guaranteed to have? In 5E, you can't really create a non-combat character. Every character you can possibly create can fight, and fight reasonably well. But who you can create? A fighter with 8 CHA and no proficiency in anything other than grappling, shoving and sneaking.

Oh, also. I've been reading about "complicated social mechanics that will ruin the flow of the game", and it makes me wonder.... Is this:

complicated?

 

[Umbran]

I'm far from sold that classes and subclasses a particularly useful in a wide temporal-span game either; either you set them up so broadly that its questionable what purpose they're serving, or they end up excluding concepts (a classic problem D&D has struggled with) to stay within those buckets.

I don't actually forsee this as an issue, largely because Doctor Who presents a pretty constrained space for PCs - timelord, and companions. The companions are mostly contemporary humans who are there more for their personality and perspective than their skillsets or action/adventure abilities.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Now, switching gears a bit.

OK, D&D 5E can handle social interactions. Cool! Does it make talking the most viable strategy?

I think, the easiest way to start scrutinizing the system is to ask: what kind of character you can't create? What capabilities the character is guaranteed to have? In 5E, you can't really create a non-combat character. Every character you can possibly create can fight, and fight reasonably well.

But who you can create? A fighter with 8 CHA and no proficiency in anything other than grappling, shoving and sneaking.

I don't recall which non-core book it's in, but isn't there a sub-class of bard that's effectively a diplomat/spy? One of my players this weekend said something to this effect.

 

[HammerMan]

I don't actually forsee this as an issue, largely because Doctor Who presents a pretty constrained space for PCs - timelord, and companions. The companions are mostly contemporary humans who are there more for their personality and perspective than their skillsets or action/adventure abilities.

i see this alot, and where I understand wanting to replicate the show, I wonder if an option to have a war Tardis with 3-5 timelords in it in the middle of the time war changes that? or all 'companions' running more like a mix of sarha jane chronicals and tourch wood.

 

[loverdrive]

I don't recall which non-core book it's in, but isn't there a sub-class of bard that's effectively a diplomat/spy? One of my players this weekend said something to this effect.

Eloquence bard, while being a skillful orator, is also a reasonably competent warrior. They can still meaningfully contribute to combat in pretty much all situations.

Unlike a 8 CHA fighter, who can contribute to a social interaction only if all stars in the world align.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Eloquence bard, while being a skillful orator, is also a reasonably competent warrior. They can still meaningfully contribute to combat in pretty much all situations.

Unlike a 8 CHA fighter, who can contribute to a social interaction only if all stars in the world align.

Got it. Thanks!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, let's call this role of making sure the players are having fun the role of "Host".

Let's call the role of applying the rules and making rulings the role of "Referee".

Let's say there's a combat and things have been going poorly for the players. The dice aren't going their way, the GM has rolled a crit or two and done some real damage, and things are now looking grim. We're veering quickly toward TPK territory.

Do you start to steer things toward some kind of outcome you think may be considered more fun than a TPK? Does your role as Host start to kick in more than that of Referee? Do you not worry about that and instead let the dice fall where they may, and trust that although they may not find it fun, the players will accept a TPK as a result of play?

That's really all that's being talked about; the decision making process of the GM and all the different factors that come into it. The idea that there are no competing priorities is kind of bonkers. If not, then what is the GM even deciding?

Let me know if this is now clearer.



Well in the below bit, @Paul Farquhar indicates that anything more than a die roll will bring everyone at the table to a halt. Yet the GM of any RPG has a lot more to handle than just a die roll. How is it that the GM can perform under these conditions, but the players just shut down at anything more complex than being told to roll a die?

I think this kind of sums up the point rather well.

I have seen many, many players shut down after being asked to do anything more complicated than rolling a die. A lot of players just don't engage with even moderately complex rules. It's a real issue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't actually forsee this as an issue, largely because Doctor Who presents a pretty constrained space for PCs - timelord, and companions. The companions are mostly contemporary humans who are there more for their personality and perspective than their skillsets or action/adventure abilities.

I can't say I find the latter has been entirely an accurate description of a number of companions. Some of them have been admittedly nonfunctional sidekicks, but not all, and I'd be very surprised if too many people are going to be particularly prone to playing the former kind rather than, say, Ace.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have seen many, many players shut down after being asked to do anything more complicated than rolling a die. A lot of players just don't engage with even moderately complex rules. It's a real issue.

Yeah, this happens for certain people, and I think when it's the case, then it needs to be handled appropriately. Maybe it's a neurological or personality thing or maybe it's just indifference to anything but combat or certain other parts of the game, or some combination of those factors. I have a player who will often lock up if I give him an open ended "what do you do" kind of situation. I've learned that with him, I should present some options, and then prompt him; so something like "do you want to open the door, or continue down the hallway, or something else?" That helps put him in the right frame of mind to make a decision, very often not even one of the ones I've suggested.

However, I don't think that's indicative of any kind of norm. The idea that all players in a specific group would just shut down if they need to do more than roll a die.....that presenting the player with a decision would be disruptive to everyone at the table.... I just don't think that's common. I'd say if the entire table is like that, then something's gone wrong.

So, to bring it back to the original point made by @Manbearcat (who can correct me at length if I've misinterpreted), it seems odd that people who expect this response of players somehow also expect the DM to do ALL THE THINGS needed to make a game run. It hints at some hyper-heightened level of competency on the part of the DM and quite the opposite for the players, which is probably a bad starting point.