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

 

[Malmuria]

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, it's not. Begging the question means that there's circular logic involved -- that the conclusion is assumed in the premise. What you mean is "This makes me think of a question."

Sorry, I usually let that slide, but for some reason I'm extra pet peevy today.

Yes! These are important questions. We should ask them. So, let's say you have answers to them -- how does this change how you would approach answering the question? You know why the question is being asked, and what the answers might mean, but the question wasn't about this, it was about how you actually answer the question! Which is part of the reason why the gold piece proxy doesn't do the job -- it doesn't answer the question.

You are going about it backwards. The gm can not be expected to adjudicate an undecided one off. Even if this was a fate game I'd need real details about your mechanical goal as a player before I could decide how to apply the rules to adjudicate

Spoiler: There's even a section in the rules that explains why you probably won't get specific numbers

Skills and Specific Measurements
Looking over the skill descriptions, you might notice that there are a few
places where we give an abstraction for something that in real life depends
on precise measurement. Physique and Resources are strong examples—
many people who are into strength training have some idea of how much
weight they can dead lift, and people spend specific amounts of money
from a finite pool when they buy things.
So how much can a character with Great (+4) Physique bench press? How
much can a character with Fair (+2) Resources spend before going broke?
The truth is, we have no idea, and we’re reluctant to pursue a specific
answer.
Though it may seem counter-intuitive, we find that creating minutiae
like that detracts from the verisimilitude of the game in play. As soon as
you establish a detail like, “Great Physique can dead lift a car for five sec-
onds,” then you’re cutting out a lot of the variability that real life allows.
Adrenaline and other factors allow people to reach beyond their normal
physical limits or fall short of them—you can’t factor every one of those
things in without having it take up a large amount of focus at the table.
It becomes a thing for people to discuss and even argue about, rather than
participating in the scene.
It’s also boring. If you decide that a Fair (+2) Resources can buy anything
that’s 200 gold pieces or less, then you’ve removed a great deal of potential
for tension and drama. Suddenly, every time you have a Resources-based
problem, it’s going to hinge on the question of whether or not the cost is
200 gold pieces, rather than whatever the point of the scene is. It also turns
everything into a simple pass/fail situation, which means you don’t really
have a good reason to roll the skill at all. And again, this is not realistic—
when people spend money, it’s not about the raw dollar amount as much as
it is a question of what someone can presently afford.
Remember, a skill roll is a narrative tool, meant to answer the following
question: “Can I solve X problem using Y means, right now?” When you
get an unexpected result, use your sense of realism and drama to explain and
justify it, using our guidelines above. “Oh, you failed that Resources roll to
bribe the guard? Guess you spent just a bit more at the tavern last night than
you thought... wait, why is your belt pouch gone? And who’s that shady
character walking a little too quickly just past the line of guards? Did he just
wink at you? That bastard... now what do you do?”

Your question lacks too many components from your end to rule on

 

[Ovinomancer]

You are going about it backwards. The gm can not be expected to adjudicate an undecided one off. Even if this was a fate game I'd need real details about your mechanical goal as a player before I could decide how to apply the rules to adjudicate
Your question lacks too many components from your end to rule on

Not really. IN D&D, we could adjudicate this in some arbitrary way, and determine what results equal X followers of Y kinds, and what results equal X+C followers of Y kinds, and X+2C and so on. The values for people don't really change how we're going to adjudicate the action -- what mechanic will be used.

In FATE, yes, you're going to create an asset, which doesn't need much more that a description that matches it's impact. But how we create that asset? I already know the how. The question asked wasn't about what, but how.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not really. IN D&D, we could adjudicate this in some arbitrary way, and determine what results equal X followers of Y kinds, and what results equal X+C followers of Y kinds, and X+2C and so on. The values for people don't really change how we're going to adjudicate the action -- what mechanic will be used.

In FATE, yes, you're going to create an asset, which doesn't need much more that a description that matches it's impact. But how we create that asset? I already know the how. The question asked wasn't about what, but how.

No we can't give you the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin until you can quantify some details about the angels & why the numbers matter. There are rules for what can be done with gold however so the "you earn X" given earlier is something there are enough known quantified components to make a ruling on given the effort put into gaining it.

There's a lot of holes in o5e worthy of disdain, but this is not one because you won't even provide the barest hint of detail about what is missing & are complaining that you can't get the results first

 

[Ovinomancer]

No we can't give you the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin until you can quantify some details about the angels & why the numbers matter. There are rules for what can be done with gold however so the "you earn X" given earlier is something there are enough known quantified components to make a ruling on given the effort put into gaining it.

Well, okay you're misusing angels on the head of a pin, too. Maybe leave off the colloquialisms for informal logical fallacies? I'm actually very good with the number and kind of followers attracted being very meaningful -- I've said as much already! No, I'm saying that we can discuss possible methods for determining this without quantifying the exact number because we can absolutely talk methods without specific outcomes.

I mean, let's say this is a game of FATE, and the player wants some pawns for the next fight -- so fervent followers willing to throw down, so they create an asset. We know what how to do this. Now, let's say that the player wants to create a longer term asset to be called in when having a dedicated following provides aid, so solid true believers with some political clout. We know how to do this as well, and the mechanics for doing so are the same. Outcome different, same mechanic. This is part of what makes FATE work. Same in Cortex, although there's some challenges around die size that need to be worked out by asking question, but the mechanic is the same.

There is no mechanic for creating either of these in 5e. We're on our own -- the system doesn't even really provide a useful nearby mechanic to use. Rolling for money doesn't really help because we've just moved to having to ask a new question -- how does money represent people? We could maybe modify the social encounter rules -- thinking on this is might be a good idea -- but we're left with no real grasp on how to deal with scale. This is because 5e, and D&D in general, doesn't ever really consider scale.

So, if we set the question as "I want to have more followers to enhance the reputation and acceptance of my god," can we answer the question? We don't know how that would play out later, and D&D doesn't really give us a good way to represent scale and say "this is a small bonus" vs "this is a large bonus." We're left with nothing but arbitrary resolution.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, okay you're misusing angels on the head of a pin, too. Maybe leave off the colloquialisms for informal logical fallacies? I'm actually very good with the number and kind of followers attracted being very meaningful -- I've said as much already! No, I'm saying that we can discuss possible methods for determining this without quantifying the exact number because we can absolutely talk methods without specific outcomes.

I mean, let's say this is a game of FATE, and the player wants some pawns for the next fight -- so fervent followers willing to throw down, so they create an asset. We know what how to do this. Now, let's say that the player wants to create a longer term asset to be called in when having a dedicated following provides aid, so solid true believers with some political clout. We know how to do this as well, and the mechanics for doing so are the same. Outcome different, same mechanic. This is part of what makes FATE work. Same in Cortex, although there's some challenges around die size that need to be worked out by asking question, but the mechanic is the same.

There is no mechanic for creating either of these in 5e. We're on our own -- the system doesn't even really provide a useful nearby mechanic to use. Rolling for money doesn't really help because we've just moved to having to ask a new question -- how does money represent people? We could maybe modify the social encounter rules -- thinking on this is might be a good idea -- but we're left with no real grasp on how to deal with scale. This is because 5e, and D&D in general, doesn't ever really consider scale.

So, if we set the question as "I want to have more followers to enhance the reputation and acceptance of my god," can we answer the question? We don't know how that would play out later, and D&D doesn't really give us a good way to represent scale and say "this is a small bonus" vs "this is a large bonus." We're left with nothing but arbitrary resolution.

If a player comes to me asking me to create some kind of whole new rules structure like you are asking for and keeps demanding I give them raw numbers while avoiding providing the sort of details I tell them I need about their goals before we can have a discussion I'll just flat out tell them no in no uncertain terms.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If a player comes to me asking me to create some kind of whole new rules structure like you are asking for and keeps demanding I give them raw numbers while avoiding providing the sort of details I tell them I need about their goals before we can have a discussion I'll just flat out tell them no in no uncertain terms.

That's not the hypothetical. Imagine this is done, ypu know, and have tailored it. What mechanic would you use? If you're stuck, go with a low (small one time bonus), medium (moderate one time use or long term small), and large (large one time or moderate long term). Does this affect how you mechanically adjudicate preaching for a week? If so, how do you do it.

This rely feels like discussing trees instead of forests.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's not the hypothetical. Imagine this is done, ypu know, and have tailored it. What mechanic would you use? If you're stuck, go with a low (small one time bonus), medium (moderate one time use or long term small), and large (large one time or moderate long term). Does this affect how you mechanically adjudicate preaching for a week? If so, how do you do it.

This rely feels like discussing trees instead of forests.

This is my reply "I don't know why your old GM said he would allow you to do this but you are going to need to be happy with vague numbers for this until you can start giving me details on the things I asked". I would never allow it as you are wanting without asking the kind of questions I asked earlier.I'll work with a player to shape goals in acceptable ways but you already dismissed efforts and have made no effort.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is my reply "I don't know why your old GM said he would allow you to do this but you are going to need to be happy with vague numbers for this until you can start giving me details on the things I asked". I would never allow it as you are wanting without asking the kind of questions I asked earlier.I'll work with a player to shape goals in acceptable ways but you already dismissed efforts and have made no effort.

Ok. You get the numbers. How do you adjudicate it? If there are multiple ways you might deoending on those answers, what are those?

Are you really so concerned that the answer is gamebreaking? I think that has to be a D&Dism. I can list a number of games and point to the exact mechanic I'd use to resolve this regardless of the intent. For FATE, put together the pool and roll for result. For Blades, pick the action, set position and effect, roll or make a fortune roll. For PbtA, select the best move and roll 2d6+stat. Easy to find the nechanic I'd use, and all of these already have built in limits to scope or adjust for scope smoothly. I can answer the question in a number of systems. For5e, it seems, we can't even discuss a mechanic until it's clear this isn't a bad faith player trying to get one over on the GM? Why is it that bad faith seems the go to?

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok. You get the numbers. How do you adjudicate it? If there are multiple ways you might deoending on those answers, what are those?

Are you really so concerned that the answer is gamebreaking? I think that has to be a D&Dism. I can list a number of games and point to the exact mechanic I'd use to resolve this regardless of the intent. For FATE, put together the pool and roll for result. For Blades, pick the action, set position and effect, roll or make a fortune roll. For PbtA, select the best move and roll 2d6+stat. Easy to find the nechanic I'd use, and all of these already have built in limits to scope or adjust for scope smoothly. I can answer the question in a number of systems. For5e, it seems, we can't even discuss a mechanic until it's clear this isn't a bad faith player trying to get one over on the GM? Why is it that bad faith seems the go to?

What am I adjudicating? You are asking me to define a number for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin & giving the runaround when I ask why it's important