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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not Umbran, but I'll give it a shot. One of the more intricate sets of rules for social influence is in Exalted 3e, where social influence centers around Intimacies (thing a person cares about or believes). Every social roll either affects an Intimacy (strengthening or weakening it, or creating/destroying it altogether) or uses an Intimacy to persuade someone. In other words, you can't just use social influence to tell someone "Do X", you need to say "Do X because Y." Intimacies come in different strengths, and the stronger the intimacy the bigger the bonus or penalty to the social influence roll is. So if the person you're trying to persuade to support your rebellion has a minor intimacy of "Hate (our overlords)" and a major intimacy of "Don't rock the boat", you will get a small bonus for one and a moderate penalty for the other. Opposing intimacies generally have a larger impact than aligned ones – so if the target has one major intimacy opposing your will and one major intimacy aligning with it, you will take a net small penalty.

If you're trying to give someone a new intimacy, the best you can normally do is a Minor one. In order to give someone a Major intimacy (or increase a Minor to Major), or reduce an intimacy from Major to Minor, that person needs to have a second Minor intimacy that supports the change. A similar limitation applies if you're trying to change an intimacy from Major to Defining or vice versa. In addition, if you're trying to strengthen an intimacy you need to use a stronger argument than whatever caused the intimacy to form in the first place.

Once someone has an intimacy, you can use it to Persuade them. The limits of persuasion depends on the strength of an intimacy: a Minor intimacy can get someone to do inconvenient things, a Major intimacy can get them to do serious and somewhat risky things, and a Defining intimacy can get them to do life-changing and really dangerous things.

You can also use social influence to Bargain (get someone to do something without a supporting intimacy by instead offering a bribe, prize, or something similar), Threaten (similar to Bargain, except you get someone to do something by promising to NOT do something bad in return), or Inspire (instill a strong emotion in the target, but the target determines how they act upon those emotions).

There are of course lots of complications to the rules in question. In all, the social rules take up about 10 pages, and that's just for mundane influence. This being Exalted, there are of course many, many ways to improve your social-fu with magic.

---------

Exalted's social rules are among the more complex I've seen. More common are some variant on rules I first encountered in the original TORG: NPCs have an attitude toward PCs, in the case of TORG divided into five steps: Loyal, Friendly, Neutral, Unfriendly, and Enemy. You can use the skill Charm to try to improve this attitude. There's also another skill, Persuade, which you use to get the target to do something for you. This is more difficult the more unfriendly the target is, and depending on the attitude there are limits to how far you can get the target to go. For example, with someone whose attitude is Neutral or worse, the best you can do is a Negotiated Success, meaning they'll do what you want but want something in exchange.

I think this is a great example of what I don’t want in RPGs. The complexity of D&D combat comes into play with the player character features, and is largely individual. The complexity of Exalted’s social rules is at the base/general rules level.

Well, I think there is a version of what you are talking about in AD&D. One through followers, which was based on charisma. And then through building domains and strongholds. So you can imagine a Gygaxian version of this which would be a chart linking charisma scores to percentile rolls that you make to determine how many new followers you attract modified by various things. And the another chart listing prices for stained glass and so forth.

Obviously by itself this is tedious, and not en vogue. The more interesting question would be how this (or any other) downtime activity actually matters in the game. If the focus of gameplay is the adventure, how does having all those followers and a temple benefit/hinder you? What mechanic do you use to represent that effect (if any)?

In Quest For Chevar (my WIP TTRPG), the building of relationships and organizations and gaining of influence is central to adventuring because you gain Contacts, and Favors, and can call on them to get help with various things, which either spends the Favor or puts strain on the Contact relationship.

In D&D, I use Group Patrons, and a lot of the rules from the Aquisitions Inc book, to tie PCs more strongly into th world around them, because these rules give them NPCs who they are responsible for or to, and who can help them in broadly defined ways.

To me, it being broadly defined is a strength.

I'm running a Detective D&D game. It's not even close to 90% combat. Probably a third of it is combat. Lots of investigation, clues, social situations, chases, research, etc. It can be done but you have to build around it and run it like a White Wolf game. Using Patrons and having the PCs run their own business goes a long way.

Absolute this.

Look, everyone has flat out stated that my question cannot be answered in 5e.

Who? Where?

It simply can't because there are no mechanics for it.

Specific mechanics for that extremely specific thing? No. But the downtime rules are right there. You can just…use them.

It's 100% DM fiat. Which is fine if that's what you want, but, it does demonstrate pretty clearly that the game of D&D is mostly about combat.

How does it demonstrate that, exactly? There are more rules for non-combat than for combat.

 

[Staffan]

I think this is a great example of what I don’t want in RPGs. The complexity of D&D combat comes into play with the player character features, and is largely individual. The complexity of Exalted’s social rules is at the base/general rules level.

And that's fine (although it doesn't seem the rules are super complicated in practice: roll to change a person's mind or get them to do something, with some stuff about what's possible in what situations). There are, of course, many many special abilities that alter how things work. Exalted 3 is a very complex game, too complex for my tastes. I get the feeling that the design process went something like this:

• So it's a problem in earlier editions that there are like 80 Melee charms (cool semi-magical things you can do) and maybe 5 Sail charms.
• That's because there are complex rules about combat, meaning there's lots of design space for charms to do something mechanically interesting. But Sail doesn't have that level of rules complexity, so there's no design space for cool and awesome charms.
• Solution: make the rules for traveling more complex, add some naval combat, and thus make room for more Sail charms!

And then repeat that process for all the other areas of the game until the whole thing is an unwieldy mess.

 

[Aldarc]

Coming at this topic from a different angle...

If someone were to say that Marvel Cinematic Universe films are "90 percent action scenes," but then Kevin Feige issued a statement about how he must be creating the Marvel movies wrong, both statements are essentially talking past each other.

One could easily rebuke the "90 percent criticism" by surveying films and trying to measure the relative length of screen time that actions take up in a superhero movie (e.g., Captain America: Winter Soldier, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Black Panther, Deadpool, etc.) or some other action movie (e.g., Rambo II, Predator, Die Hard, etc.). And it may be that after all is said and done that action scenes only take up 20-30 percent of the actual screen time. But would that person have rebuked the underlying point? Does statistically demonstrating that action sequences only consume ~20 percent of a given Marvel film's run time mean that it isn't an action film? I would say not. Many people are going to these action films to see the primary character or cast of characters throw down and kick butt. The exceptions to those expectations don’t disprove the trend.

However, it is also important to recognize that action movies - and one can see this in Marvel films well - use action-conflict as a source of drama. The stakes of conflict, both internal and external, are played out through action-based dramatic conflict. A viewer more or less expects that the climax of a Marvel film will involve the characters in a heated round or two of super-powered fisticuffs against the antagonist. The dramatic tension of these films build up towards action sequences that resolve that dramatic tension.

Likewise, Critical Role may have episodes that are light in combat and high in social drama or interactions but it still ends with a giant brawl against Thanos er… Vecna.

In D&D combat is an extension of roleplaying. Let me repeat myself. Combat in D&D is a valid expression and extension of dramatic roleplaying. However, at the end of the day, D&D is still a game about fantasy action-adventure.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Likewise, Critical Role may have episodes that are light in combat and high in social drama or interactions but it still ends with a giant brawl against Thanos er… Vecna.

In D&D combat is an extension of roleplaying. Let me repeat myself. Combat in D&D is a valid expression and extension of dramatic roleplaying. However, at the end of the day, D&D is still a game about fantasy action-adventure.

A good analysis. The boss fight seems quite essential. And if you look from this angle, the assertion of 90% combat in D&D seems about right. While there are games that are successful if you don't do any combat at all (shadow run), in d&d at some point you find the demon/monster behind all this and kick their butt once and for all.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Semi-tangent, but has anyone played Godbound? I'm really interested in how it handles this kind of domain-type play, or at least how it claims to.

Godbound is actually an excellent example of a rules structure for the current discussion. I have not played nearly as much of it as I would like to, but from what I've seen the rules do an excellent job of representing the struggles and decisions involved in running a church. Granted, the rules wouldn't be a perfect port, since the focus is different (you ARE the god in question, and a good portion of the focus is not just on growing your church but deciding how you want to be worshiped). My only real complaint is that it's still stuck to the D&D six attribute model, which feels absolutely vestigial. Though I understand why Crawford went that route.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, this was noodling through my brain, and it made me giggle.

DM (playing as the cleric's head of church): Your character has been tasked by the angel of your faith to spread the word. You have traveled far and wide, done many great deeds, and brought great honor to our beloved faith. Tell me Brother Hussar, how goes your Mission?

Brother Hussar: Well, we freed that town from demonic influence and stopped the cult of nasty badness.

DM: Yes, Brother Hussar. Your deeds with your companions are the stuff of song and legend. You truly have done great things. But, umm, you were tasked by the Angel to spread the word as well. How did that go?

Brother Hussar: mumble mumble mumble

DM: Brother Hussar. Do not be modest. We look forward to your report.

Brother Hussar: Forty-seven gold pieces.

DM: I'm sorry Brother Hussar? I don't quite understand.

Brother Hussar: I made forty-seven gold pieces preaching the word to the masses.



-----

I guess that's sufficiently answering the question for some folks, apparently.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Heh, this was noodling through my brain, and it made me giggle.

DM (playing as the cleric's head of church): Your character has been tasked by the angel of your faith to spread the word. You have traveled far and wide, done many great deeds, and brought great honor to our beloved faith. Tell me Brother Hussar, how goes your Mission?

Brother Hussar: Well, we freed that town from demonic influence and stopped the cult of nasty badness.

DM: Yes, Brother Hussar. Your deeds with your companions are the stuff of song and legend. You truly have done great things. But, umm, you were tasked by the Angel to spread the word as well. How did that go?

Brother Hussar: mumble mumble mumble

DM: Brother Hussar. Do not be modest. We look forward to your report.

Brother Hussar: Forty-seven gold pieces.

DM: I'm sorry Brother Hussar? I don't quite understand.

Brother Hussar: I made forty-seven gold pieces preaching the word to the masses.



-----

I guess that's sufficiently answering the question for some folks, apparently.

You’ve completely missed, or are intentionally ignoring, the point that was made via the downtime rules example.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How does it demonstrate that, exactly? There are more rules for non-combat than for combat.

Are there actually more rules... or is it possible that it just takes more word and page count to explain the Exploration and Social rules than it does Combat?

A lot of the Combat rules are very standardized and condensed formatting allows for shrinking the amount of space you need to explain them for them to be understood. I mean every spell has the exact same spellblock chart at its top to condense and formalize a lot of info that otherwise would have to be repeated within the spells themselves over and over again (thus expanding the spell chapter's word and page count event further.) But if E&S don't have that type of standardization for their individual rules... then you might have to write lots and lots of words to get a single rule across and made clear. One Exploration rule might need several paragraphs to explain it, while one Combat rule might only need two sentences. If that kind of thing repeats itself throughout the books, the same number of rules for each pillar might have wildly different word and page counts.

I haven't bothered to actually count the number of actual individual rules the three pillars have (because I don't frankly care)... but simple word and page count does not necessarily accurately measure how many rules actually apply to them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Are there actually more rules... or is it possible that it just takes more word and page count to explain the Exploration and Social rules than it does Combat?

A lot of the Combat rules are very standardized and condensed formatting allows for shrinking the amount of space you need to explain them for them to be understood. I mean every spell has the exact same spellblock chart at its top to condense and formalize a lot of info that otherwise would have to be repeated within the spells themselves over and over again (thus expanding the spell chapter's word and page count event further.) But if E&S don't have that type of standardization for their individual rules... then you might have to write lots and lots of words to get a single rule across and made clear. One Exploration rule might need several paragraphs to explain it, while one Combat rule might only need two sentences. If that kind of thing repeats itself throughout the books, the same number of rules for each pillar might have wildly different word and page counts.

I haven't bothered to actually count the number of actual individual rules the three pillars have (because I don't frankly care)... but simple word and page count does not necessarily accurately measure how many rules actually apply to them.

You’ve taken what I said on a wild ride through a foreign land. Ie, on a wild tangent, having little if anything to do with why I said.

Who said anything about pagecount or word count. I spoke about the number of rules.

If you collect and count all the little bits of mechanics in the game, with “only or primarily useful in combat” in one column and “everything else” in another, the second column will be longer.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You’ve taken what I said on a wild ride through a foreign land. Ie, on a wild tangent, having little if anything to do with why I said.

Who said anything about pagecount or word count. I spoke about the number of rules.

If you collect and count all the little bits of mechanics in the game, with “only or primarily useful in combat” in one column and “everything else” in another, the second column will be longer.

Sorry. Whenever the question of number of rules was coming up it it seemed like was always the number of pages that was used as its proving point. "Combat only makes up 50% of the pages in the book" and so forth.

But if you've actually counted up every rule in the game for each pillar and gotten an accurate count of each them, then I missed your results. I'd be happy to see them if you'd care to share them again.