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

 

[payn]

Well, conversely, taking them seriously and using then is probably more common than folks want to admit. With tens of millions of people playing the game, a lot of different playstyles are out there, and most of us are unlikely to encounter them all.

To be fair, I never said it was "odd" that folks do use them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It absolutely IS! If the resolution mechanic is "GM Says" then being unhappy when that mechanic changes how it works because the GM changes, then it very much is all about the mechanic. That was the anecdote -- something that worked with GM A doesn't work with GM B, and the problem is that the mechanic throws it's hands up and says "GM Says." That's entirely the mechanic -- my skilled play is not longer skilled play if the GM changes. This means that skilled play in a GM Says only system is entirely dependent on skill with the GM, not the game.

No. I have not seen a system, that does not boils down to "DM decides".

Maybe if you use 4e, you could always use "level appropriate DCs" and still, the DM decides if it is easy, medium or difficult, how many rolls are necessary and so on.
If you have an adversary DM, there is nothing a player can do to "win". Some games make it more obvious that DM and Players are in an arms race, some not. Is it fun? No. But no system can save this group.

 

[Cruentus]

My players have a tendency to over-react to that sort of hint! Tell them they are playing Rime of the Frostmaiden and you get a bunch of rangers and survivalists, tell them it's haunted house in Ravenloft and you get a bunch of clerics and vampire slayers!

Exactly. I told my players we were doing a "more social/exploration" and "low magic" type of game set in a pseudo dark ages - they all created spellcasters and multiclassed spellcasters (charm, light, zone of truth, scry, etc.). Sigh. But I've definitely seen the specific over reaction you mentioned.

And @Jer, my son is running me through his first DMing experience, and his two adventures so far have been much less about combat, and more about the world, background, NPCs, and towns than fighting. I'm playing a Battlemaster but am 2nd level, and have focused more on how I interact with people, being generous (as a noble background should), and less on fighting everything. Though when I offered to run a game for him, he wanted to play a Necromancer and get Animate Dead.

He is also coming into this just learning the game, and the history of the game, and so has none of the baggage that I (and my peers do) around combat, etc.

 

[Parmandur]

To be fair, I never said it was "odd" that folks do use them.

The odd part to me was more that nobody across several years would want to engage with getting easy Inspiration, at a minimum.

 

[Jer]

And @Jer, my son is running me through his first DMing experience, and his two adventures so far have been much less about combat, and more about the world, background, NPCs, and towns than fighting. I'm playing a Battlemaster but am 2nd level, and have focused more on how I interact with people, being generous (as a noble background should), and less on fighting everything. Though when I offered to run a game for him, he wanted to play a Necromancer and get Animate Dead.

Mine went through a necromancer phase as well. I have a strong suspicion that THAT comes from Minecraft as much as anything else, at least for my kid

 

[payn]

The odd part to me was more that nobody across several years would want to engage with getting easy Inspiration, at a minimum.

Inspiration? Whats that?

 

[Cruentus]

It absolutely IS! If the resolution mechanic is "GM Says" then being unhappy when that mechanic changes how it works because the GM changes, then it very much is all about the mechanic. That was the anecdote -- something that worked with GM A doesn't work with GM B, and the problem is that the mechanic throws it's hands up and says "GM Says." That's entirely the mechanic -- my skilled play is not longer skilled play if the GM changes. This means that skilled play in a GM Says only system is entirely dependent on skill with the GM, not the game.

Right, which was my point about what players can control: Combat (their effectiveness, not the DM's approach to it). The game provides resolution mechanics for all kinds of things, but then sort of waves its hands at it, and offers the DM the ability to do what they want, or "rule" how they want.

Then we descend into how the players and the DM get along: is it cooperative storytelling where the players really aren't in any danger? Is it "DM Adversarial" where the players, in order to survive, need to outwit, and out-RAW the DM (usually some of my players default stance), etc.

But the books can't possibly go into every possible resolution, story hook, or way to approach "soft" mechanics like social and exploration. They're going to by default require the DM to interpret or assign DCs, or select appropriate skills, etc. And that's where the DM A versus DM B comes in.

I don't think there is an answer. I prefer more open ended structures. I have players that refuse to engage with stuff like FATE (not that I'm a fan) strictly because the DM can do whatever they want. A couple of my players want specific rules they can hold onto and manipulate, mostly to rein in the DM. LoL

 

[Parmandur]

Inspiration? Whats that?

Free money, basically.

 

[Jer]

The odd part to me was more that nobody across several years would want to engage with getting easy Inspiration, at a minimum.

The DMs I've run into at Origins over the years who don't seem to know that Inspiration is in the rules at all sometimes makes me quite sad.

 

[tetrasodium]

Right, which was my point about what players can control: Combat (their effectiveness, not the DM's approach to it). The game provides resolution mechanics for all kinds of things, but then sort of waves its hands at it, and offers the DM the ability to do what they want, or "rule" how they want.

Then we descend into how the players and the DM get along: is it cooperative storytelling where the players really aren't in any danger? Is it "DM Adversarial" where the players, in order to survive, need to outwit, and out-RAW the DM (usually some of my players default stance), etc.

But the books can't possibly go into every possible resolution, story hook, or way to approach "soft" mechanics like social and exploration. They're going to by default require the DM to interpret or assign DCs, or select appropriate skills, etc. And that's where the DM A versus DM B comes in.

I don't think there is an answer. I prefer more open ended structures. I have players that refuse to engage with stuff like FATE (not that I'm a fan) strictly because the DM can do whatever they want. A couple of my players want specific rules they can hold onto and manipulate, mostly to rein in the DM. LoL

The DM is actually far more restricted in fate than in d&d. They need to expend fate points to declare/invoke things just like players & they need to do those things within the boundaries of whatever relevant aspects are present.
edit: The GM's NPCs & the world itself is likewise just as constrained & vulnerable to compels as the players