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]

In game systems where one pillar/section/style of play is clearly defined and has detailed rules, but other sections of the game are left more freeform, you will almost always notice that the general mode of play drifts towards the detailed rules. This is because this is the place where the players have the most agency to determine outcomes according to a known and predictable (as in you can make predictions that are somewhat accurate, not that outcome was guaranteed) model. If you give a random section of players the choice between a fiat decision or one in which their play has direct and reasonable predictable input into the outcome, you'll see it skew the latter direction.

The WotC adventures are mostly combat because a) it's the only area predictable enough from a design perspective regarding players and 2) it's the only area predictable from a design perspective regarding GMs. The rest of 5e is almost literally "ask your GM" with the breadth of answers you'd expect from this. So, it's railroady line and combats.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I've always found it baffling that people seem to be almost proud of the fact that they play D&D and don't feature a lot of combat. Earlier in this thread, we saw claims of a single combat in three sessions and things like that.

Why on earth would you play D&D if that's your jam? In a game where the numbers are reversed - say 10% combat, 90% out of combat, you're basically ejecting three quarters of the game. You're not using most spells, most character abilities, and most of the rules. And, for that 90% out of combat, the rules are so basic that you might as well be free forming.

What are people doing to have that kind of ratio using D&D?

 

[FrogReaver]

I have to admit, I've always found it baffling that people seem to be almost proud of the fact that they play D&D and don't feature a lot of combat. Earlier in this thread, we saw claims of a single combat in three sessions and things like that.

Why on earth would you play D&D if that's your jam? In a game where the numbers are reversed - say 10% combat, 90% out of combat, you're basically ejecting three quarters of the game. You're not using most spells, most character abilities, and most of the rules. And, for that 90% out of combat, the rules are so basic that you might as well be free forming.

What are people doing to have that kind of ratio using D&D?

IMO. If you like combat even 10% of the time then you need rules for it. D&D rules are solid for combat while being fairly streamlined and D&D 5e mostly gets out of the way of the non-combat stuff making it easy to run that part as you desire.

I mean if someones got 5e working for them in the Out of Combat arena and likes combat sometimes, I think it still works great in that scenario. It's not a system i'd suggest to a new group of players that explicitly are looking for 10% combat and 90% out of combat. Alternatively if someones already spent the time in 5e system and gotten familiar enough to run and tweak things for an enjoyable game that way then I don't think I'd suggest they change systems.

 

[overgeeked]

Someone a few pages back used "Critical Role" as an example of 'typical' game play.

No, Critical Role was used for the numbers because it's the only real data point we have as there are maths nerds tracking their numbers. It was not suggested as an example of "typical" game play. I can say that because I'm the one who posted it. Unless you can quote a post saying it was used as an "example of typical game play".

Our own personal experiences can only allow for a certain sample size. I played with all MURDER HOBOES. That means every game I played with them, regardless of game, were COMBAT oriented. But that's not the same experience that any previous commenter may have had.

Play with brain dead Hippies, it's going to be about peace, love and flowers.

Play with brain dead murder hoboes, it's all about min/maxing your XP to get your levels quicker.

We can only truly quantify this by looking at the Pavlovian rewards that the game system offers. More often that not, DnD has, in no arguement, provided the MOST rewards based on combat and the spoils of combat.

Right. Game systems rewards the style of play the designers want to reinforce. In D&D XP and advancement are all about combat...with a few lines thrown in almost as an afterthought about milestones or XP from exploration or social encounters.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I have to admit, I've always found it baffling that people seem to be almost proud of the fact that they play D&D and don't feature a lot of combat. Earlier in this thread, we saw claims of a single combat in three sessions and things like that.

Why on earth would you play D&D if that's your jam? In a game where the numbers are reversed - say 10% combat, 90% out of combat, you're basically ejecting three quarters of the game. You're not using most spells, most character abilities, and most of the rules. And, for that 90% out of combat, the rules are so basic that you might as well be free forming.

What are people doing to have that kind of ratio using D&D?

That's easy to explain. You simply ignore vast amounts of the in-game rules! Ignoring rules is as D&D as race as clase, weapon speeds, and getting EXP for gold!

 

[Mistwell]

IMHO focusing on the whole 90% combat comment thing is redirecting the discussion from the real underlying frustrations behind the backlash...

When it comes to marketable RPG IP:

Does everything, Everything, really have to be converted to 5e D&D !?*

In my opinion, the backlash seen here is basically a "Is Nothing Sacred?" plea.

A D&D5e: "All Your RPG's Are Us." Type of thing that some seem to be finding a bit tiresome.


* In case your wondering, the answer is: Yes. IP Licenses are expensive and these RPG companies are going to do everything they can to maximize their ROI. Because people like their D&D with different setting veneers.




Because every name IP adapted to D&D 5e rules has made sure they are Fully Compatible with the 5e rules set.

Classes, Levels, and Hit Point Bloat.

Every. Single. One.

Hit Point Bloat alone enforces a certain amount of D&D tier power creep.

It will be just another setting Veneer over the core 5e rules set.

Yes, it will have "special rules" for Dr. Whoish stuff, but fundamentally it will be D&D/5e Modern with time travel in an Old police phone booth.

On the bright side, it's likely the closest we'll get to an actual Spelljammer campaign book. So there is that...

Are you arguing Adventures in Middle-earth are "fully compatible with the 5e rules set" and was "just another setting veneer over the core 5e rules set?" You know, given that's the model for the topic we're discussing right now.

Before answering, if you have not played it or its been a while, you might glance at Lancelot's comment from back in 2018 concerning how little combat there is in that game - despite it being a "5e compatible" game.

 

[Oofta]

Someone a few pages back used "Critical Role" as an example of 'typical' game play.
Believe that, and I've got some swampland in Florida or a Bridge in New York for you.

CR is a filmed, edited audio-visual experience, most likely scripted to a certain point by people who are now ACTORS, ie people paid to provide entertainment. If CR wouldn't have multiple contributors/outlets, like official DnD supplements, comics, podcasts, etc.. I'd believe you.
Those shows are now about as real as beauty pageants, Lizard Lick Towing, Keeping up with the Kardashians, and Jerry Springer.

Our own personal experiences can only allow for a certain sample size. I played with all MURDER HOBOES. That means every game I played with them, regardless of game, were COMBAT oriented. But that's not the same experience that any previous commenter may have had.
Play with brain dead Hippies, it's going to be about peace, love and flowers.
Play with brain dead murder hoboes, it's all about min/maxing your XP to get your levels quicker.

KOTD, Order of the Stick, etc... most scenes feature combat more than anything else. for KODT, more character development occurs outside of the game table with the various stereotypes of gaming that Jolly features...

We can only truly quantify this by looking at the Pavlovian rewards that the game system offers. More often that not, DnD has, in no arguement, provided the MOST rewards based on combat and the spoils of combat.

According to the cast of CR, it is neither scripted nor edited. As far as it being representative, while I make no claims to being as polished or entertaining, it's not that different from my home game. We're probably more 50/50, but it depends on the session and where we are in the campaign.

For some people, leveling is not the most rewarding part of the game. For that matter I haven't used XP for several editions and no one misses it. Don't assume every table is like yours or that people play for the same reasons.

 

[teitan]

It’s been a very long time since I played Vampire, but when I did, it certainly did feature tons of combat.

Yeah but it's not supposed to ;-) Nor did the majority of the players at the time of it's height think of it that way. Combat was a SLOG. I played with 4 groups before I "lucked" into a group that was combat oriented... they were also diablerizing each other, constant screw jobs, it was like the worst episode of Rick & Morty but better while simultaneously worse. The book itself emphasized role playing and character as did the the published campaigns for it but the rules were pretty combat heavy.

 

[Parmandur]

I have to admit, I've always found it baffling that people seem to be almost proud of the fact that they play D&D and don't feature a lot of combat. Earlier in this thread, we saw claims of a single combat in three sessions and things like that.

Why on earth would you play D&D if that's your jam? In a game where the numbers are reversed - say 10% combat, 90% out of combat, you're basically ejecting three quarters of the game. You're not using most spells, most character abilities, and most of the rules. And, for that 90% out of combat, the rules are so basic that you might as well be free forming.

What are people doing to have that kind of ratio using D&D?

Drinking a lot and enjoying each other's company, in my experience.

 

[Parmandur]

According to the cast of CR, it is neither scripted nor edited. As far as it being representative, while I make no claims to being as polished or entertaining, it's not that different from my home game. We're probably more 50/50, but it depends on the session and where we are in the campaign.

For some people, leveling is not the most rewarding part of the game. For that matter I haven't used XP for several editions and no one misses it. Don't assume every table is like yours or that people play for the same reasons.

Yeah, their game seems normal in my experience.