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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Assuming that every activity that the game allows for is inherently fun, which isn't the case in reality.

Speak for your own game, you are not qualified to speak form mine.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But if the players did not have fun, does that then mean that they lost the game?

My argument would be, "if you are not having fun, why are you here?"

 

[Aldarc]

My argument would be, "if you are not having fun, why are you here?"

"Because you led me to believe that there was no outcome that does not lead to fun."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Because you led me to believe that there was no outcome that does not lead to fun."

"Then why do you keep coming back every week for six years?"

 

[loverdrive]

Speak for your own game, you are not qualified to speak form mine.

So... You're so good, that inherently frustrating stuff, like being TPKed in a random encounter because of mismanagement of risks, is still fun in your games? I must say, I'm jealous.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So... You're so good, that inherently frustrating stuff, like being TPKed in a random encounter because of mismanagement of risks, is still fun in your games? I must say, I'm jealous.

I'm so good that doesn't happen in my games.

Really, it's hard to permanently kill one PC in 5e, never mind a party. But since it's not a competition, it doesn't matter if a character dies. If you are the sort of player who throws there toys out of the pram if their character dies, then you are most welcome to leave.

 

[Aldarc]

"Then why do you keep coming back every week for six years?"

"I'm sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else. Do all players look alike to you?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks.

It sounds like making mountains out of molehills then. The "cognitive workspace" required to be a DM is only a fraction of that required to be a classroom teacher. Say 6/30 = 20%.

So it's not really a significant consideration. It's not showing off, lots of people can learn to be a classroom teacher, and DMing is a lot easier.

Ok. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that teaching is harder than GMing by a factor of 5. How does this address the points made that there are conflicting agendas that a GM has to juggle to run the game, and the D&D puts most of the weight for doing so on the GM?

Short and sweet evidence of this -- why would there be mention that GMs can ignore the rules to support fictional fidelity (by this I mean close adherence to the GM's conception of what makes sense in the fiction and the continuity of that fiction) if these things weren't ever in contention? This is just the most obvious and clearly stated conflict that can arise in a D&D game, it's not, by far, the only one.

Answering this by saying you prioritize fun is a valid answer, but it doesn't remove the point at all. Fun is had in many ways, sometimes by application of the rules, sometimes by making sure the setting fidelity is prioritized, sometimes fictional fidelity, etc. Fun is not a cut and dried response, especially since 'fun' can be served in many ways. So it doesn't really address or alleviate the mental overhead the GM has to shoulder in D&D games to provide 'fun.' I don't even have to define what 'fun' is to make this observation -- what's fun at your table can differ from mine and that's doesn't mean that the cognitive effort is less, just differently prioritized. I would be helpful to acknowledge that GMs have to juggle things and make choices between different priorities in the game, regardless of whether or not the overall goal is 'fun.' It's a hobby activity, the overall goal for everyone is 'fun.'

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ok. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that teaching is harder than GMing by a factor of 5. How does this address the points made that there are conflicting agendas that a GM has to juggle to run the game, and the D&D puts most of the weight for doing so on the GM?

Certainly the DM has a harder job than the players - that's why I view those sessions when I am just a player as a rest. And they have multiple tasks to handle simultaneously - something I am well used to doing in my work. However, I have never felt a conflicting agenda was one of them. I DM how I DM, and people can like it or lump it. Usually, they like it. If they lump it there are no hard feelings.

Short and sweet evidence of this -- why would there be mention that GMs can ignore the rules to support fictional fidelity (by this I mean close adherence to the GM's conception of what makes sense in the fiction and the continuity of that fiction) if these things weren't ever in contention? This is just the most obvious and clearly stated conflict that can arise in a D&D game, it's not, by far, the only one.

Answering this by saying you prioritize fun is a valid answer, but it doesn't remove the point at all. Fun is had in many ways, sometimes by application of the rules, sometimes by making sure the setting fidelity is prioritized, sometimes fictional fidelity, etc. Fun is not a cut and dried response, especially since 'fun' can be served in many ways. So it doesn't really address or alleviate the mental overhead the GM has to shoulder in D&D games to provide 'fun.' I don't even have to define what 'fun' is to make this observation -- what's fun at your table can differ from mine and that's doesn't mean that the cognitive effort is less, just differently prioritized. I would be helpful to acknowledge that GMs have to juggle things and make choices between different priorities in the game, regardless of whether or not the overall goal is 'fun.' It's a hobby activity, the overall goal for everyone is 'fun.'

The thing about D&D - I would say a major reason for it's success - is it has always been light on telling people how to play. Thus it becomes all things to all players. Thus the solution to the "fun" problem is not juggling hats, it making sure that the people in one group all have similar ideas of what constitutes fun, and there exists other groups with different ideas of fun.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Ace didn't have abilities that don't fit into a fairly mundane modern-setting skill system. Demolitions and Stealth are not a stretch.