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]

Certainly the DM has a harder job than the players - that's why I view those session 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 I 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.

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.

I'm confused, here, and I think that you're looking at a finished product and saying that the finish doesn't have conflicts -- it did the job wanted -- and ignoring what went into it. I'd be absolutely gobsmacked if, while running a game, you didn't make many, many choices where you weighed applying a rule or just stating an outcome. Where if a rule was applied, you judged how to apply it (what DC to set, what outcome space is available to what roll). This is a large amount of mental effort to place on the D&D GM -- you are, effectively, the resolution engine with only some tools available (outside of combat) to help resolve things and the need to balance so many things that might pull in different directions at all times.

Let's look at a simple toy example -- a player has declared an action to try to manipulate an NPC. Here you have to look at the fiction and determine if this action aligns, how it aligns, what things might come of it that align. You have to look at the rules: are there rules that govern this; do you choose to use them or just narrate; if you choose to use them which do you use; what DC do you assign; what outcomes are possible on what results; how does all of this align with the fiction and the GM goals for this scene? You have to look at your prep: did you have prep notes that impact this action? You have to look at your plans: did you have story outcomes this interaction needs to serve and does this action impact them and how? And you have to look at players: what will the resolution of this action mean for the players and their enjoyment of the game? Do I have space to enforce my story here and delay player for the moment because it will lead to more fun later? Do I need to adhere to the rules to enable player fun?

That's all for a single point in play!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm confused, here, and I think that you're looking at a finished product and saying that the finish doesn't have conflicts -- it did the job wanted -- and ignoring what went into it. I'd be absolutely gobsmacked if, while running a game, you didn't make many, many choices where you weighed applying a rule or just stating an outcome. Where if a rule was applied, you judged how to apply it (what DC to set, what outcome space is available to what roll). This is a large amount of mental effort to place on the D&D GM -- you are, effectively, the resolution engine with only some tools available (outside of combat) to help resolve things and the need to balance so many things that might pull in different directions at all times.

Let's look at a simple toy example -- a player has declared an action to try to manipulate an NPC. Here you have to look at the fiction and determine if this action aligns, how it aligns, what things might come of it that align. You have to look at the rules: are there rules that govern this; do you choose to use them or just narrate; if you choose to use them which do you use; what DC do you assign; what outcomes are possible on what results; how does all of this align with the fiction and the GM goals for this scene? You have to look at your prep: did you have prep notes that impact this action? You have to look at your plans: did you have story outcomes this interaction needs to serve and does this action impact them and how? And you have to look at players: what will the resolution of this action mean for the players and their enjoyment of the game? Do I have space to enforce my story here and delay player for the moment because it will lead to more fun later? Do I need to adhere to the rules to enable player fun?

That's all for a single point in play!

I think you are overthinking it. I guess I DM by instinct. Or use the Force. Or something.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

Tool focus: Alchemist's Tools.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you are overthinking it. I guess I DM by instinct. Or use the Force. Or something.

We do lots of complex things every day. That we drive a car daily, for instance, and don't much think about it doesn't meant that there's not a lot of things that go into driving or that it's not a fiendishly complex task or that there's not a constant struggle between boredom, vigilance, and aggression that takes place at any given moment of driving. If you want to get better at driving, like really good, it's not just about practicing what you already do, but deconstructing what driving is, how it's done, and where you want to make changes. Talk to a professional driver about this kind of thing. But, for day to day normal driving, you can absolutely be incurious about how you manage this complex task.

That you are no longer curious about the hows and whats and whys when you do a thing doesn't really mean that it lacks these things, or that looking at them is not valuable. And, if incurious, one wonders why you're engaging the topic?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We do lots of complex things every day. That we drive a car daily, for instance, and don't much think about it doesn't meant that there's not a lot of things that go into driving or that it's not a fiendishly complex task or that there's not a constant struggle between boredom, vigilance, and aggression that takes place at any given moment of driving. If you want to get better at driving, like really good, it's not just about practicing what you already do, but deconstructing what driving is, how it's done, and where you want to make changes. Talk to a professional driver about this kind of thing. But, for day to day normal driving, you can absolutely be incurious about how you manage this complex task.

That you are no longer curious about the hows and whats and whys when you do a thing doesn't really mean that it lacks these things, or that looking at them is not valuable. And, if incurious, one wonders why you're engaging the topic?

If you start thinking to hard about driving, or walking, or breathing, it suddenly becomes difficult, when it previously was easy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you start thinking to hard about driving, or walking, or breathing, it suddenly becomes difficult, when it previously was easy.

Interesting. I've actually had occasion to think about breathing, how I breathe, and ways to change how I breathe to improve performance at other thing. At no point did I find breathing to become more difficult. I also have had to think about driving, as I took a job that required driving and had to pass a much more stringent driving test than you do to get a license, which included a lot of thinking on things that usually aren't thought about while driving. And, I recently very badly broke my leg, so I very much had to think about walking, and learning to walk again, and how I walk and need to monitor my pace and step and stride. I learned things during this process that I still use and correct now that I'm mobile again.

You are asserting that thinking on a thing is pointless and cannot ever have benefit. Again, one wonders why you participate in a discussion forum about how games play.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Let's try a sports analogy, even if I do hate sport:

Suppose you are playing a friendly game of soccer, and are not counting goals. Should you apply the Off Side rule?

The answer is, it doesn't matter, since you are not counting goals it doesn't matter if a goal was scored. Not a Competition means there is no pressure on the referee to make a "correct" decision. Any decision will do.

Now, you might say "why would I play in such a game, it sounds boring?" Which is fine, you are free to play a competitive game if you wish.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You are asserting that thinking on a thing is pointless and cannot ever have benefit.

Not always, but too much thinking can certainly sometimes have a negative impact, at least in my experience.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not always, but too much thinking can certainly sometimes have a negative impact, at least in my experience.

You've yet to show any way that this thinking has any negative impacts. Unless you're suggesting that my games are less fun because I've thought about them, or that they don't work better for me because I've put thought into the hows, whats, and whys of my running and constantly re-evaluate? I mean, sure, you can say this, but is it at all useful to do so?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You've yet to show any way that this thinking has any negative impacts. Unless you're suggesting that my games are less fun because I've thought about them, or that they don't work better for me because I've put thought into the hows, whats, and whys of my running and constantly re-evaluate? I mean, sure, you can say this, but is it at all useful to do so?

I don't know about your games, I only know about my games.