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

 

[Thomas Shey]

When asking if D&D is 90% combat, the only reasonable answer that has broad application between games seems to be, "Sometimes." With that being true, the majority of this thread becomes people that can't see the forest for the treants.

Again, this is only true if the discussion is "How is the game used?" rather than "How is the game designed?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get what you're saying, I simply don't believe that the game should operate on the assumption that the DM might be a jerk and incorporate rules to limit them. It's bad faith design.

As I've noted before, it doesn't require the GM to be a jerk for some ability to rein them in to be desirable. A hell of a lot more people have bad judgment, at least some of the time, than bad intentions.

 

[Oofta]

Again, this is only true if the discussion is "How is the game used?" rather than "How is the game designed?"

If the game was only about combat, the books would be about half the size. No need to describe the culture of dwarves or dragons if they're only about combat after all. All that text in the DMG on world building? Traits, ideals, bonds, flaws? Bah. Toss em!

I looked through things and to me, the books are about 50/50 combat and non combat. That includes the MM because every monster has text, most of which (outside of lair actions) has little or nothing to do with resolving combat. Of course you could always claim that the only reason we have a chapter on the multiverse in the DMG is because it's really about combat, well I'll just disagree.

The game is what people make it. I guess if you've already decided the game only cares about is combat then nothing anyone can say will change that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the game was only about combat, the books would be about half the size. No need to describe the culture of dwarves or dragons if they're only about combat after all. All that text in the DMG on world building? Traits, ideals, bonds, flaws? Bah. Toss em!

Does not follow, actually. I've got one game that is very much about combat, to the degree it expects that to be the focal point of most of most sessions--but it still has a bunch of setting material because it gives those combats context. There are plenty of wargames that provide a pretty fair chunk of setting info, at least the parts that are relevant on the scale the game is set.

But that's still not the question: the question is "What are the rules about?" That's where the game system design is. A game is about more than simply its rules design, but when asking the question about whether its good for a purpose, that's not what you're asking. Because absolutely none of that background material or even a lot of the GM advice may be relevant to that other usage at all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I get what you're saying, I simply don't believe that the game should operate on the assumption that the DM might be a jerk and incorporate rules to limit them. It's bad faith design.

Great! I'm a personal fan of not making rules to prevent jerks and wouldn't like rules that are there for that purpose.

But take what @hawkeyefan just presented and substitute in an error in understanding of the situation between the player and the GM. The player has one conception of the fiction, the GM a slightly different one, such that when that action is declared there's now a mismatch in expectations. If everything is hidden and up to the GM, and the GM's conception is more negative than the players, then we can easily achieve a situation that looks exactly like the GM being a jerk from the perspective of the player ("I rolled well and still failed? He must want me to fail!") when it's honest play on all sides. If DC and process is transparent, then this gets caught when the player announces and the GM assigns a DC and outcome space incongruent with the player's understanding of the situation. Even if we allow for hidden information as an input only on the GM side, over time this still prevents more accidental mismatches in expectations even if a specific instance might just be the GM saying "yup, we're 100% the same for the current situation as far as your character knows." That, even, does a lot of work in this space.

 

[Cadence]

Great! I'm a personal fan of not making rules to prevent jerks and wouldn't like rules that are there for that purpose.

But take what @hawkeyefan just presented and substitute in an error in understanding of the situation between the player and the GM. The player has one conception of the fiction, the GM a slightly different one, such that when that action is declared there's now a mismatch in expectations. If everything is hidden and up to the GM, and the GM's conception is more negative than the players, then we can easily achieve a situation that looks exactly like the GM being a jerk from the perspective of the player ("I rolled well and still failed? He must want me to fail!") when it's honest play on all sides. If DC and process is transparent, then this gets caught when the player announces and the GM assigns a DC and outcome space incongruent with the player's understanding of the situation.

How does this work, for example, for a PC trying to kick down what looks like a standard wooden door that's locked -- when the door has something stopping it from being opened that the character wouldn't know about (multiple metal bars, something magical, it's fake and there's a stone wall on the other side)? Similar for trying to climb something with magical slipperiness, to enchant someone who isn't actually sentient, to charge a horse across something that's been undermined, all where the PC wouldn't know. Does the DM give them the difficulty that it would look like to the player?

 

[Ovinomancer]

How does this work, for example, for a PC trying to kick down what looks like a standard wooden door that's locked -- when the door has something stopping it from being opened that the character wouldn't know about (multiple metal bars, something magical, it's fake and there's a stone wall on the other side)? Similar for trying to climb something with magical slipperiness, to enchant someone who isn't actually sentient, to charge a horse across something that's been undermined, all where the PC wouldn't know. Does the DM give them the difficulty that it would look like to the player?

No. The suggestion to make things transparent isn't "lie to the player." The door is handled pretty easily -- if nothing has been done to determine anything about the door prior to the kicking, the DC is the barred door DC. What about knowing this DC harms things? The PC is going to kick the door, and the outcome, no matter success or failure, will likely determine that this door is more than normally secured.

As for the cliff, why is magical slipperiness hidden information? I can't quite makes heads of the next one -- if something isn't sentient how did we get to a point where the player things enchanting it (I assume charm effects, here) is a thing to do? Regardless, that seems easy, the attempt fails because of improper target for the spell. Charging across a pit trap triggers a DEX save, usually, so...?

I give DCs openly in my D&D games. Have for years. No issues. Many fewer moments of mismatched understanding of what's going on because giving the DC openly when the player expects something else gets a "huh" and the opportunity to course correct right there (if warranted).

 

[Umbran]

So under some circumstances, dropping out can simply be a recognition that you're in the wrong group/

Sure.

But, how did you end up in the group? Why wasn't this recognized before you started? Wasn't there a failure in identifying the mismatch before play with this player began?

 

[Cadence]

No. The suggestion to make things transparent isn't "lie to the player." The door is handled pretty easily -- if nothing has been done to determine anything about the door prior to the kicking, the DC is the barred door DC. What about knowing this DC harms things? The PC is going to kick the door, and the outcome, no matter success or failure, will likely determine that this door is more than normally secured.

So, if it is actually well beyond normal barred DC, you tell them the enhanced DC? Maybe it makes a difference because the bad guy wants them to waste time on it to escape, and when you say DC 35 they take off around back to head them off?

As for the cliff, why is magical slipperiness hidden information?

It was a trap? It is invisible to the naked eye until they get part way up and put a hand on it? (Small chance of falling, and become aware it's probably much harder)?

I can't quite makes heads of the next one -- if something isn't sentient how did we get to a point where the player things enchanting it (I assume charm effects, here) is a thing to do?

Maybe its a lifelike construct?

Regardless, that seems easy, the attempt fails because of improper target for the spell. Charging across a pit trap triggers a DEX save, usually, so...?

Those both seem like what I would do. Just seeing where the limits of giving the players information was.

I give DCs openly in my D&D games. Have for years. No issues. Many fewer moments of mismatched understanding of what's going on because giving the DC openly when the player expects something else gets a "huh" and the opportunity to course correct right there (if warranted).

I guess I was confused about why the player would automatically assume the worst when the high roll failed, instead of wondering why it failed (like magically being held shut, being a construct, etc...). Or why they would be upset about the unexpectedly high difficulty but wouldn't also be just as upset about finding out it was a pit trap that was apparently too well hid for their passive perception.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If the game was only about combat, the books would be about half the size. No need to describe the culture of dwarves or dragons if they're only about combat after all. All that text in the DMG on world building? Traits, ideals, bonds, flaws? Bah. Toss em!

I looked through things and to me, the books are about 50/50 combat and non combat. That includes the MM because every monster has text, most of which (outside of lair actions) has little or nothing to do with resolving combat. Of course you could always claim that the only reason we have a chapter on the multiverse in the DMG is because it's really about combat, well I'll just disagree.

The game is what people make it. I guess if you've already decided the game only cares about is combat then nothing anyone can say will change that.

This.

I’ve seen folks claim that most of the rules pertain to combat, but haven’t seen any evidence to support that claim.