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

 

[HammerMan]

I'd find it pretty unlikely that the default mode of a game based on the show wasn't at least something pretty close to the show.

except again what part of the show? I doubt the default assumes you play as the doctor... so once you introduce 1 new rogue timelord why not 3 working together?

 

[Greg Benage]

I'd be very curious to see you expand upon this. I look at this move and I see a clear fictional trigger (the PC does one of those things), and a mechanic (die roll), and outcomes that are clear or require further play (the 7-9 would require you to provide more proof/evidence). I'm not sure what you think needs GM judgement in here for resolution.

Is the person gullible? Wary? Stubborn? Do they trust me or do they think I'm a manipulative bastard, based on past experience? What am I trying to convince them of? And so and so on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is the person gullible? Wary? Stubborn? Do they trust me or do they think I'm a manipulative bastard, based on past experience? What am I trying to convince them of? And so and so on.

None of that matters. The move is the move. It clearly resolves the question. If they are convinced, the NPC may be gullible. If a 7-9 result is had, they may be wary. If a 6- stubborn. We're going to find out.

 

[Greg Benage]

None of that matters.

It does to me!

 

[Ovinomancer]

It does to me!

Then what you're saying isn't that the provided mechanic doesn't work, but rather that you prefer some other method. This is a common problem in these discussions -- posters often insert their preferences as factual statements about how games work.

 

[Greg Benage]

Then what you're saying isn't that the provided mechanic doesn't work, but rather that you prefer some other method. This is a common problem in these discussions -- posters often insert their preferences as factual statements about how games work.

Yes, I forgot to add the obligatory "In my opinion" or "According to my preferences" before I said the mechanic was "woefully inadequate" and "could use a GM to make a judgment or something." Thanks for pushing back on that.

Good grief.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I forgot to add the obligatory "In my opinion" or "According to my preferences" before I said the mechanic was "woefully inadequate" and "could use a GM to make a judgment or something." Thanks for pushing back on that.

Good grief.

Of course it was your opinion when you said it was inadequate, but that's not terribly enlightening. Was it your opinion because you misunderstood it? Was it your opinion because you really think it doesn't do what it says and is missing something? Is it your opinion that you don't like it and so are saying it's inadequate because it doesn't please you? If the first two, a discussion is in the offing. If the latter, as it appears to be, then your response doesn't seem to be trying to engage the discussion but rather shut it down by disclaiming that this is not what you like. So, yeah, a tad more detail seems to have been very helpful to identify how you wanted to engage the discussion. Or not engage.

 

[Greg Benage]

Holy smokes. In my opinion, it's woefully inadequate because, for me, according to my preferences, whether or not I can successfully manipulate someone depends in part on how easily manipulated they are, as well as a host of other situational factors.

 

[tetrasodium]

Holy smokes. In my opinion, it's woefully inadequate because, for me, according to my preferences, whether or not I can successfully manipulate someone depends in part on how easily manipulated they are, as well as a host of other situational factors.

I'm not sure what system that blurb cane from earlier.... but... .Why would those be in a rule to "seduce manipulate bluff fast talk or lie to someone" rather than ones that cover things like disposition & situational factors? "go along with you" could even be a mechanical term from the system.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Holy smokes. In my opinion, it's woefully inadequate because, for me, according to my preferences, whether or not I can successfully manipulate someone depends in part on how easily manipulated they are, as well as a host of other situational factors.

I agree. The move still works. The difference is that you're coming at this from the point of view of these things must be known to the GM ahead of time so that the GM can make decisions. This move doesn't enable the GM, it enables the fiction. Through it we find out how easily manipulated (or not) this NPC is. The issue isn't in the move, but in the conception of where we find out about this NPC.