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 can't be. I'm not talking about your kind of game. I'm talking about mine and that is in fact what it means to my kind of game.

even then...how do you know without trying it?

The 5e rules. At no point is a player allowed to cheat. Anywhere in the entirety of 5e rules.

every rule is optional. So I don't see where opting out for a roll is a problem. You could have said that of 4e though.

Now you're just inventing stuff. Why would be who play the very real game of D&D for fun be wrong?

you keep popping up telling me I am wrong... not just in this thread. Think about that.

Holy False Equivalence Batman! Failing to speak the truth about a game error is not the same as failing to go out and stop bad guys. If I see a crime committed, though, I do have a moral obligation to tell the police what I saw.

Okay kind of good... this is game only (for the most part). although I also would not say anything if I saw someone stealing from shop rite. I would assume that if things are bad enough for someone to have to steal, it isn't my place to make a judgement.

infact my buddy who works at walmart HATEs that I think that way. I have heard him brag about stopping a woman from stealing formula (before it was in cased)... I am always in shock. I could understand "I stopped a kid from stealing a new game" (weather I agree or not) i can understand it... but I am 100% on Jon Vajon's side not Jovair.

I get that you don't get it.

and yet you dont explain. How it hurts. How it makes the game worse. Give an example (I do all the time) heck go back and take an example of mine and tell me how it (in theory) hurt some integrity (mine or the games)

 

[HammerMan]

One survey had 24% of people in the US willing to lie about under the table income. Another had 12% feeling it was ok to cheat on taxes.

wow... okay color me surprised.

edit @Maxperson if 24% of the country admits openly to breaking a law (way worse then a game rule) and 12% think it is okay... I am starting to think that people who think rules of games are sacrosanct may not hold the majority you think they do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

wow... okay color me suprised.

Right? I'm shocked it's as low as 12%!

 

[Cadence]

Because I think most of the time, the rules make the final call. The DM needs to step in when the rules are unclear, or there's some out of the ordinary factor that needs to be considered.

Does "most of the time" works for a lot of things discussed on ENWorld?

If the fudging die rolls happens rarely for the DM, if the cheating on a die roll doesn't happen often for the player, if the player doesn't use OOC knowledge too much, if the DM doesn't hack the usual rule too often, if someone didn't contribute to the snacks and soda one night, if someone missed a game without letting anyone know in advance, if the DM gave special treatment to one player... then it could be a nothing. But when it rises to the level of being noticed, and then is noticed a second time before the memory of the first occasion fades, then it feels like things can start coming off the rails.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm a bit surprised, @HammerMan, at your belief on one hand that it's perfectly normal and indeed encouraged for people to cheat for fun in things that don't actually benefit them, but that it's shocking to think that people might cheat when cheating actively does benefit them.

 

[HammerMan]

Right? I'm shocked it's as low as 12%!

12% that would admit it...

much like game rules (way less important) people will hide things that THEY think are wrong... that first PF game I chose my stats, everyone else swears they rolled (very high) naturally. The reason the DM okayed my "I just picked what I wanted" was becuse he knew he couldn't police people re rolling or fudging.

Heck the two (I do it cause they are generic enough) names I throw around on here 'Criting Jon' and '+1 floating Jimmy bless' would look you right in the eye and swear they never cheated.

 

[Cadence]

Right? I'm shocked it's as low as 12%!

I wonder what percent of people who lie on their taxes will admit on a survey that they're ok with lying on their taxes?

 

[Guest 7034872]

I disagree, to a point. The examples you gave about chess are playing chess while breaking the rules of chess. That means you're playing a game adjacent to chess. It's not far enough away to not call it chess, because that's a useful term and imparts a large amount of understanding. If I try to explain the game I'm playing outright, that's a long slog, but if I say I'm playing chess except for these things, then understand is much more quickly reached. The game played is certainly close enough to be informally called chess, but it would never be an officially rated game and participants would be well aware of the differences.

I'm afraid you're still not seeing Wittgenstein's point. I'll put it rhetorically first: What makes you think "chess" is in fact a fully defined concept?

Now an example, followed by his claim. I'll use the example of colors, which works well because they're on a continuum, not discrete. Suppose someone calls a book "red;" are there in fact universally necessary and sufficient conditions for some object qualifying as "red?" Presumably something that's pink would not qualify, as there's a separate term for that (but I know some people who will call pink a species of red...). Okay, but how far away from pink does it have to get before it objectively belongs in the <red> category? Do you really think there's an actual answer to that??? Wittgenstein doesn't. Or how about if it's orange? We surely then would not call the book "red." But how reddish of an orange does it need to be before it does get called "red?" This isn't a question of, "Where's the line?" for Wittgenstein; it's a question of, "Is there a line?" His unequivocal answer is, "No."

Let's try another just in case it isn't yet fully clear: suppose someone says, "Bob sure is tall." Do you imagine there actually is a fully objective set of criteria for "tall" vs. "short" vs "middlin'?" I can assure you there isn't.

Do you see it now?

In life there's a certain personality that wants clear, definite, objective answers to all meaningful questions. Wittgenstein's claim is that in the end reality is always going to disappoint that sort of person.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm afraid you're still not seeing Wittgenstein's point. I'll put it rhetorically first: What makes you think "chess" is in fact a fully defined concept?

Now an example, followed by his claim. I'll use the example of colors, which works well because they're on a continuum, not discrete. Suppose someone calls a book "red;" are there in fact universally necessary and sufficient conditions for some object qualifying as "red?" Presumably something that's pink would not qualify, as there's a separate term for that (but I know some people who will call pink a species of red...). Okay, but how far away from pink does it have to get before it objectively belongs in the <red> category? Do you really think there's an actual answer to that??? Wittgenstein doesn't. Or how about if it's orange? We surely then would not call the book "red." But how reddish of an orange does it need to be before it does get called "red?" This isn't a question of, "Where's the line?" for Wittgenstein; it's a question of, "Is there a line?" His unequivocal answer is, "No."

Let's try another just in case it isn't yet fully clear: suppose someone says, "Bob sure is tall." Do you imagine there actually is a fully objective set of criteria for "tall" vs. "short" vs "middlin'?" I can assure you there isn't.

Do you see it now?

In life there's a certain personality that wants clear, definite, objective answers to all meaningful questions. Wittgenstein's claim is that in the end reality is always going to disappoint that sort of person.

Your post 1430 chess example where your better friend spots you a rook is a house rule, nobody is arguing against houserules. An example that was more comparable to someone deciding to bend the rules of d&d would be secretly flipping extra tile(s) while making a valid move in Go or Shogi & having your oponent not notice or not call you on cheating this time

 

[Maxperson]

you keep popping up telling me I am wrong... not just in this thread. Think about that.

You're projecting. I didn't tell you that you were wrong here. You asked a question and I tried to explain to you since you admitted you don't get it. Does my explanation apply to you? Clearly not. Are you doing it wrong for your game? Not if you guys are having fun. That doesn't make your version right for everyone or even most people.

Were I to allow cheating, I would be compromising my personal integrity and the integrity of the game that I run, and I'm not willing to do that.

although I also would not say anything if I saw someone stealing from shop rite.

I would.

I would assume that if things are bad enough for someone to have to steal, it isn't my place to make a judgement.

Nor would I. I would simply report it and the thief can explain to the cops and judge what his reasons are. They can make the judgment, because it is their place to do so.

It's my moral obligation to report what I observed, not make a judgment about it.

infact my buddy who works at walmart HATEs that I think that way. I have heard him brag about stopping a woman from stealing formula (before it was in cased)... I am always in shock. I could understand "I stopped a kid from stealing a new game" (weather I agree or not) i can understand it... but I am 100% on Jon Vajon's side not Jovair.

She's not entitled to steal. Period. People with the mindset that the poor should be allowed to steal from stores got 6 CVS stores closed because it got so bad. A bunch of poor people who needed jobs lost them because of those thieves. A bunch of people who used those local stores suddenly didn't have them to shop at any longer. The elderly who couldn't travel far and poor without vehicles got screwed.

and yet you dont explain. How it hurts. How it makes the game worse. Give an example (I do all the time) heck go back and take an example of mine and tell me how it (in theory) hurt some integrity (mine or the games)

It invalidates those who work within the rules like they are supposed to. You're spitting on me and the work I do to kill something within the rules, since you just declare you hit for max damage with each swing? Whether you view it as spitting on me(metaphorically) or not isn't relevant, that IS what you are doing to me in a game that I am playing in if you cheat. When I join a game, I have the reasonable expectation that the rules mean something and will be followed.