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

 

[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 see, you're saying here that the play must differ quite a bit, but that's not necessarily true at all. A DM can say "okay I'll give my players NPCs that are easier to interact with" and then his scenario sets up a different outcome, even with vanilla rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

If the only thing you attribute to D&D is it's combat system then I can understand why you think D&D is 90% combat. Personally I think things like campaign settings such as Forgotten Realms and races like Githyanki are a big part of the games identity and the reason people play, it's in the D&DNA so to speak.

In the same way I'm sure there are people that want to play a Star Wars RPG to be a Jedi rather than anything to do with the rule system.

This is false.

Spoiler

Eberron for Savage Worlds

[SavageWorlds] Savage Forgotten Realms: A Fan Conversion - The Piazza

www.thepiazza.org.uk

Nothing prevents someone from using the setting with a different system & people have already done the heavy lifting.[/spoiler]

 

[Hussar]

This is false.

Spoiler

Eberron for Savage Worlds

[SavageWorlds] Savage Forgotten Realms: A Fan Conversion - The Piazza

www.thepiazza.org.uk

Nothing prevents someone from using the setting with a different system & people have already done the heavy lifting.[/spoiler]

Let's be fair here. They've Savage Worlds pretty much EVERY setting under the sun. It's one of the big draws for Savage Worlds.

So, the notion that we play a system for the setting seems really kinda weird to me. Then again, this is why I'd play Planescape using a different system but wouldn't even consider sitting at a D&D table that is set in Planescape.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Then again, this is why I'd play Planescape using a different system but wouldn't even consider sitting at a D&D table that is set in Planescape.

Sorry I can't comprehend the idea of Planescape (literal fantasy heroin) not being amazeballs, as usual. If they put a dress on it I'd marry that setting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The amount of posturing and hat tipping in this conversation...

All in good fun.

 

[Hussar]

View attachment 152740

Sorry I can't comprehend the idea of Planescape (literal fantasy heroin) not being amazeballs, as usual. If they put a dress on it I'd marry that setting.

I've long been a pretty strong not-fan of Planescape. As a setting, separated from D&D, it would be fun, but, in D&D? With 2e alignment? Or 3e? I just never liked it for a lengthy number of reasons, primarily though for the fact that Planescape became the default planar setup in D&D, choking off any creativity in service to a single setting.

I think it would be a great setting for Fate, for example. But, it just never worked for me in D&D.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Shadowrun is a fantastic example of a system that people play for the setting, despite multiple conversions of it existing for other systems.

An issue I frequently run into with D&D settings is that the mechanics of the system sometimes have difficulty reinforcing the themes of the setting. Dark Sun's gritty "the gods are dead, magic corrupts, and the world is a dying wasteland" themes are hard to communicate in a system where the characters are fantasy heroes who can trivialized survival with a few low ranked spells. Planescape's focus on examining different ideals falls apart in a system with a rigid alignment grid.
And it shouldn't need to be said, but the above is entirely my personal opinion. I know there's plenty of people who have played in those settings with D&D and enjoyed themselves. I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, just that the mechanics of the system feel like a poor fit for reinforcing the themes of the setting.

I converted Curse of Strahd to Shadow of the Demon Lord because the lower power level and horror mechanics baked into the system helped me reinforce the themes of the campaign much better than the 5E mechanics did. But I'm also playing in a Curse of Strahd campaign run by a friend in 5E and having a great time.

 

[Older Beholder]

Mum, can we get some D&D?
No, we have D&D at home.

D&D at home:

This is false.

Spoiler

Eberron for Savage Worlds

[SavageWorlds] Savage Forgotten Realms: A Fan Conversion - The Piazza

www.thepiazza.org.uk

Nothing prevents someone from using the setting with a different system & people have already done the heavy lifting.[/spoiler]

Here's Extremely Simple RPG. You have a character. Name your character. Describe a thing about them that's cool. During play, alternate with the other players to say what your character does and how it turns out. If one of the other players challenges your call, flip a coin. If you get a head, you get to say what happens. Otherwise, the other player gets to say what happens. If the action involved your character's cool thing, flip 2 coins.

Okay, stupid simple RPG there. And I can absolutely use it to play a Tortle, a Yuan-Ti, or a Githyanki. I can play any of these characters in the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, or Eberron.

 

[Oofta]

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?

See the Role of the Dice section in the DMG. Both are D&D and come down to group preference. There's no one true way to play the game, the rules form the foundation of the game we play it doesn't dictate every act or resolution. Board games can give instructions on how to resolve everything that can happen, RPGs cannot and 5E doesn't try.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Okay. That would be on you, as your description of what you actually did was:

<snip>
In neither of those cases did a real combat happen, the first was pure rp and the second was more rp than combat. So I look at people talking this way about D&D and I think wtf? Have people heard of variety? Who's running nothing but standard combat every time?

I was responding to what you said. I'll gladly respond to a more detailed account. Again, I don't care what DCs you picked or what monsters you used or if you homebrewed monsters -- those are legit GM inputs into the system that don't go to rules used. I'm not interested in picking apart an example as to whether or not it is how I would have done it. I'm looking at how play happened.