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

 

[Parmandur]

No, you clearly haven't. At this point I expect you'd argue that the Combat section of the PHB isn't actually about combat. Tschüss.

All 10 pages of it...? There's more page count spent on rolling personality traits.

 

[teitan]

So my question is... why on earth would you want to reduce your Roleplaying bits to die rolls and complicated mechanics? To me it seems every game that has developed "robust" social skill systems for the roleplaying aspects of the game has failed in the long term or been marginal. It hampers good roleplaying when everything is reduced to a die roll. I am not saying let's get all OSR grognard "skills drool" school on these matters, but when a beautifully RPed sequence gets.... decimated by a bad die roll, aren't you just reducing non-combat encounters to... combat? Exploration rules just reduce games down to board games, sometimes without a board, with a slog of a time keeping system that is usually hand waved by DMs. So while the mechanic may be "combat heavy" is the game itself really... combat heavy? Sounds more to me like people not being encouraged to try different ways to resolve encounters beyond smashing someone's face in with an axe.

 

[dytrrnikl]

Or maybe they could use their own system they developed for it and have been using for 10 years? Which they are.

The point wasn't 'what system would be best?', the point was 'they already use another system and people want 5E.

Apologies. I did understand that. I do agree they would be best sticking to the system they have been using. My OP had more to do with seeing it as a mistake to switch systems. I am a firm believer that the mechanics of an RPG should help emulate the genre of the game. Having played 5E and what I know of Doctor Who, 5E would be a mistake. I do see it as pandering to switch to 5E and not in a good way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, you clearly haven't. At this point I expect you'd argue that the Combat section of the PHB isn't actually about combat. Tschüss.

Ah, yes. Obviously that is comparable to arguing that spells aren’t primarily combat oriented, and that whole subsystems like ritual casting, downtime, and skills, are objectively primarily about non-combat, while spells, feats, and class features are much closer to an even split than to the wholly absurd claim that prompted this thread.

Totally the same thing. Meanwhile your replies to me have never managed to not contain snark and condescension.

But I’m the one not looking for a discussion. Sure thing.

 

[antiwesley]

I do see it as pandering to switch to 5E and not in a good way.

Ladies, Gents and creatures of all ages, we have a winner!
Their current system isn't selling as good as it should, so what better way to hook 'em than to provide their game in the form of the opiate of the masses? Does the job, leaves nothing but the scent of Brut!

See: "Feeding at the teat of 5e" by Wizards "Cash Cow" Otc.

 

[dytrrnikl]

Wow, everyone I've ever played 5E with has leaned into those hard.

"There's nothing I like more than a good mystery" from the Sage Background has been a long running injoke for my friends & family.

I’ve only run 5E for a couple of years now. Between half a dozen groups of teens being introduced to the game, along with three or four experienced need groups, the binds, flaws, and ideals have been the one aspect my groups have universally leaned away from or ignored wholly.

 

[FrogReaver]

So my question is... why on earth would you want to reduce your Roleplaying bits to die rolls and complicated mechanics? To me it seems every game that has developed "robust" social skill systems for the roleplaying aspects of the game has failed in the long term or been marginal.

I don't think I agree here. While I'm not well versed in other games, i think there's been many with more robust social skills systems that I would call successful.

It hampers good roleplaying when everything is reduced to a die roll. I am not saying let's get all OSR grognard "skills drool" school on these matters, but when a beautifully RPed sequence gets.... decimated by a bad die roll, aren't you just reducing non-combat encounters to... combat?

I'd say that in more robust systems, typically a bad skill check moves the story forward in some interesting way that still makes for a beautiful RP sequence.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that good roleplay is helped far more than hindered via the proper use of dice rolls. Sometimes the GM does call for one when it would have been better to just grant success. But that's not an issue with having die rolls to resolve uncertainty or die rolls being incorporated into whatever more robust skill system a game has.

Exploration rules just reduce games down to board games, sometimes without a board, with a slog of a time keeping system that is usually hand waved by DMs. So while the mechanic may be "combat heavy" is the game itself really... combat heavy? Sounds more to me like people not being encouraged to try different ways to resolve encounters beyond smashing someone's face in with an axe.

Some people just like to smash someone's face in with an axe. I'm pretty sure that's why my wife plays. I don't think it would matter whether she got xp for it or not. She just wants to RP a badass.

 

[Oofta]

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?

What do we do? Investigate mysteries, making alliance, exploring the world, shopping, talking in character about our plans. Attending balls, trying to escape said ball after we accidentally caused what will later only be known as "the incident", starting businesses without really intending to. The list goes on and includes bad jokes and puns while generally enjoying some time with friends.

What we do outside of combat is so varied we may roll a ton of dice or none at all. It's been like that in most of my games for the past couple decades.

As I said, I'd guess we're probably somewhere around 50/50 RP vs combat but it's not like I keep close track because I don't really care.

 

[Parmandur]

I’ve only run 5E for a couple of years now. Between half a dozen groups of teens being introduced to the game, along with three or four experienced need groups, the binds, flaws, and ideals have been the one aspect my groups have universally leaned away from or ignored wholly.

How odd.

 

[Mistwell]

That all sounds great. And makes sense for a middle-earth or any fantasy adventure.

But Dr Who? So you take the core rulebooks and you remove a) all classes b) all spells c) all magic items d) most of the feats e) 95% of the monsters

Which is exactly what they did with Adventures in Middle Earth.

Then you add in mechanics and random tables for a) tardis b) time travel c) space travel d) intergalactic politics e) aliens etc

So really you reuse stats and combat sequence and not much more, but you call it 5e just for marketing purposes, got it.

Which is not how Adventures in Middle Earth felt. It really did feel like a variation on 5e, despite so much being altered.

I experienced this same sense with the original Mutants and Masterminds. Those rules were so elegant, so different from 3e, and yet so based at its core in 3e. They basically took the essence of 3e, and built a different game from that.

I mean, I am not asking people to just trust me that these designers know what they're doing. But, I am saying maybe some patience in waiting to see if they know what they're doing is called for before judging this project by preconceived notions about how this will work. Because there is precedent for an unexpected blending of the essence of a game with an entirely different path for that game which is both the same and different in unusual ways, with games like Adventures in Middle Earth and Mutants and Masterminds.