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

 

[Ovinomancer]

This isn't accounting for cases where a, b, and c are coming into play while x also has an influence, yet x doesn't somehow invalidate a through c just because x tweaks the way that a through c are applied.

Why wouldn't it? I didn't say that a, b, or c operated any differently when X was used than when X wasn't used -- the assumption here is that they did the same thing. X may be a wholesale replacement of a rule d, or just a modification of a, b, and/or c. You're assuming things that aren't being said and telling me I'm wrong because you've assumed my statement to be wrong.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Why wouldn't it? I didn't say that a, b, or c operated any differently when X was used than when X wasn't used -- the assumption here is that they did the same thing. X may be a wholesale replacement of a rule d, or just a modification of a, b, and/or c. You're assuming things that aren't being said and telling me I'm wrong because you've assumed my statement to be wrong.

Okay let's return to your original algebraic example:

Let's assume that we have game rules a, b, and c. And lets further assume we have houserule x. In a given multipart resolution, if the rules used are a and c, then we're not talking about using any house rules. If the resolution is a and x, even if it's a, b, c, and x, then we have a case where the outcome is not dependent on the rules of the game, but the rules of the game as modified by the houserule -- the outcome cannot be reached merely by use of the game rules because we expressly used a non-game rule!

So, no, this isn't a valid argument that shows one of my conclusions to be false. Complex resolutions that do not include houserules are distinguishable by the person doing the resolution from those that do.

You give an example of a multipart resolution where a and x come into play, then proceed to state "we have a case where the outcome is not dependent on the rules of the game", as if A also didn't come into play? How can it not be dependent on the rules if A is "one of the rules" and A did in fact influence the resolution? Is it cut and dry, clear to see, whether A or X had more influence either? What if A had more influence than X, would the conclusion still be "yeah well that resolution just came down to house rules in the end"?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I literally gave a concrete case already. Just because my "death knights" weren't death knights, my Undead language "isn't a language", and "the DC should have been higher", that doesn't somehow cancel out how I used ability checks, set DCs, used a language that a character can speak, in order to resolve the scenario. The former are homebrew the latter are just 5E, so you tell me where it became not 5E.

I didn't cite any of those things at all in my response to your play example. That was back on page 41 for me. Your response to me was to say that you don't bother to remember every fiddly rule, and that you didn't use the social interaction rules in the DMG because they weren't in the PHB. You also made numerous statement to 'just using RP' which I believe you described somewhere else as just going back and forth with the GM and the GM deciding if it worked or not? I'm not 100% on that last, and I'm not inclined to go searching, so please correct. What do you mean by "roleplaying?"

To address your above, monster stats and descriptions are fully in the GM's ability to modify and reflavor and don't really count as "house rules" unless you're discarding or reinventing how the mechanics work. Languages are entirely flavor. DCs are arbitrarily set, with the authority to do so afforded to the GM. I might disagree with a DC you select, but it's not a house rule to set a DC that differs from my opinions. So, none of the things you've listed trip anything about any of my arguments -- they are, as far as I'm concerned, mostly flavor and nothingburgers for the topic of resolutions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay let's return to your original algebraic example:



You give an example of a multipart resolution where a and x come into play, then proceed to state "we have a case where the outcome is not dependent on the rules of the game", as if A also didn't come into play? How can it not be dependent on the rules if A is "one of the rules" and A did in fact influence the resolution? Is it cut and dry, clear to see, whether A or X had more influence either? What if A had more influence than X, would the conclusion still be "yeah well that resolution just came down to house rules in the end"?

Unless X has no effect at all, the result from just A versus A with X will differ. That difference is what I'm pointing to. You seem to think that the difference must exceed some arbitrary threshold to be a difference? If so, I disagree.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

I didn't cite any of those things at all in my response to your play example. That was back on page 41 for me. Your response to me was to say that you don't bother to remember every fiddly rule, and that you didn't use the social interaction rules in the DMG because they weren't in the PHB. You also made numerous statement to 'just using RP' which I believe you described somewhere else as just going back and forth with the GM and the GM deciding if it worked or not? I'm not 100% on that last, and I'm not inclined to go searching, so please correct. What do you mean by "roleplaying?"

To address your above, monster stats and descriptions are fully in the GM's ability to modify and reflavor and don't really count as "house rules" unless you're discarding or reinventing how the mechanics work. Languages are entirely flavor. DCs are arbitrarily set, with the authority to do so afforded to the GM. I might disagree with a DC you select, but it's not a house rule to set a DC that differs from my opinions. So, none of the things you've listed trip anything about any of my arguments -- they are, as far as I'm concerned, mostly flavor and nothingburgers for the topic of resolutions.

I don't see what's so terribly complicated about it being the case that: some rules came into play, some didn't, and the lack of this or that rule coming into play, or a homebrew rule coming into play, didn't somehow determine the resolution all by it's lonesome. Other 5E mechanics, e.g. ability checks, DCs, languages, came into play.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Unless X has no effect at all, the result from just A versus A with X will differ. That difference is what I'm pointing to. You seem to think that the difference must exceed some arbitrary threshold to be a difference? If so, I disagree.

What I really think is that there being "some difference", as we both agree there is some distance, doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution was a clear departure from the rules. It wasn't the kind of example where the DM would say "this isn't applicable to me because I use these rules and he doesn't" because the DM can clearly see "okay I might have accomplished something similar with a little different scenario, different monsters, but it still makes perfect sense even with the most vanilla application of rules that there are social and environmental solutions for encounters that players can make ability checks to try and succeed at".

The question was "is D&D 90% combat" and I posed that there are situations where players can do things like make social ability checks, use a language they have, to avoid combat. So the little noodly particulars mean that someone might not have worked that out the same way, used the same DCs, etc., but it's still easy to understand that the example is validly showing how things in the vanilla rules can be used to avoid combat.

The players didn't use a homebrew kind of action, the fact that languages are a thing isn't homebrew, that's 5E and that's the players and DM using 5E rules to resolve something happening during a 5E game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't see what's so terribly complicated about it being the case that: some rules came into play, some didn't, and the lack of this or that rule coming into play, or a homebrew rule coming into play, didn't somehow determine the resolution all by it's lonesome. Other 5E mechanics, e.g. ability checks, DCs, languages, came into play.

Okay. Let's posit an example. My character is trying to convince an NPC to do something. Let's say I'm trying to convince the Chamberlain to allow me an audience with the Duke. Is there any difference in play in the following examples?

A: By The Book. The GM assigns BIFTs to the Chamberlain. They describe the scene opening with the Chamberlain being indifferent to the PC. My PC greets the Chamberlain, and asks after their family. The GM asks for an Insight roll, and the PC succeeds, learning from the Chamberlain's reaction that their family is very important to them (ie, a Bond). The PC then leverages this and makes the ask to be allowed an audience with the Duke, pointing out that the matter is import and will aid young children and families if allowed. The GM calls for a CHA check at the DC for indifferent (15 IIRC) and allows advantage on the roll. The PC succeeds and is passed through to meet the Duke.

B: Wing It. The GM describes the scene opening with the Chamberlain. The GM decides the Chamberlain is mostly indifferent to the PC. The GM and PC go back and forth in a conversation, and the GM determines that the PC is suitably charming and allows the PC through to meet the Duke.

Is there a difference in play here?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I really think is that there being "some difference", as we both agree there is some distance, doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution was a clear departure from the rules. It wasn't the kind of example where the DM would say "this isn't applicable to me because I use these rules and he doesn't" because the DM can clearly see "okay I might have accomplished something similar with a little different scenario, different monsters, but it still makes perfect sense even with the most vanilla application of rules that there are social and environmental solutions for encounters that players can make ability checks to try and succeed at".

If there's a difference, then there's a departure from what would have happened with just the game rules. You're again seeking to introduce some arbitrary amount of difference where it can be claimed that there's no significant impact from the base rules when the house rule is used. For that, I'm really wondering why the house rule is being used at all! Further, the same outcome doesn't mean that the process isn't different, or that the play that generated the outcome isn't different! See my example of two different play examples above. The starting points and outcomes are identical, but the play differs quite a bit.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Okay. Let's posit an example. My character is trying to convince an NPC to do something. Let's say I'm trying to convince the Chamberlain to allow me an audience with the Duke. Is there any difference in play in the following examples?

A: By The Book. The GM assigns BIFTs to the Chamberlain. They describe the scene opening with the Chamberlain being indifferent to the PC. My PC greets the Chamberlain, and asks after their family. The GM asks for an Insight roll, and the PC succeeds, learning from the Chamberlain's reaction that their family is very important to them (ie, a Bond). The PC then leverages this and makes the ask to be allowed an audience with the Duke, pointing out that the matter is import and will aid young children and families if allowed. The GM calls for a CHA check at the DC for indifferent (15 IIRC) and allows advantage on the roll. The PC succeeds and is passed through to meet the Duke.

B: Wing It. The GM describes the scene opening with the Chamberlain. The GM decides the Chamberlain is mostly indifferent to the PC. The GM and PC go back and forth in a conversation, and the GM determines that the PC is suitably charming and allows the PC through to meet the Duke.

Is there a difference in play here?

Of course there's a difference in play. One used the rules and the other just plain didn't use rules and was "whatever we decide is fun RP happens". It is false your claim that "just winging it" actually describes how I handled the encounter in my own original example.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

If there's a difference, then there's a departure from what would have happened with just the game rules. You're again seeking to introduce some arbitrary amount of difference where it can be claimed that there's no significant impact from the base rules when the house rule is used. For that, I'm really wondering why the house rule is being used at all! Further, the same outcome doesn't mean that the process isn't different, or that the play that generated the outcome isn't different! See my example of two different play examples above. The starting points and outcomes are identical, but the play differs quite a bit.

You're not establishing why exactly it is that "if the outcome isn't exactly the same as it would have been given the vanilla rules, that means there's been a departure from really playing 5E", or defending that notion in light of how incredibly narrow it appears. So narrow that it's going to make it look like a No True Scotsman fallacy, and maybe no one is playing 5E then.