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

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm not sure what system that blurb cane from earlier.... but... .Why would those be in a rule to "seduce manipulate bluff fast talk or lie to someone" rather than ones that cover things like disposition & situational factors? "go along with you" could even be a mechanical term from the system.

It's PbtA, which doesn't care about task difficulty or situational factors. And I should have learned by now not to engage in discussions about it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

These two co-existing positions have always struck me as very very strange. Either it is this odd belief that GMs are inherently savants and players lean toward inherently being derps (and, this strikes me as very plausible, GMs historically love the social cache/identity that this provides them among their TTRPG peers) or its just not been thought through very well.

As is often the case, there is at least one additional option.

The stuff that you list as part of the cognitive workload for DMs just doesn’t actually use that much cognitive bandwidth, but the stuff people push back against for player options does.

I’ve never encountered a GM that mentioned the competing imperatives you list as part of their cognitive workload. I have met dozens of players to have the fun sucked right out of them by having to remember 13 different “buttons” thier character can push, each with its own cost/benefit analysis and contexts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's PbtA, which doesn't care about task difficulty or situational factors. And I should have learned by now not to engage in discussions about it.

It's entirely predicated on situation and difficulty. You can't get to the point of even making this move if it doesn't make sense in the fiction of play. And the move doesn't suggest that you've achieved your full goal, but perhaps only a step towards it -- there may be more needed.

 

[Greg Benage]

The difference is that you're coming at this from the point of view of these things must be known to the GM ahead of time so that the GM can make decisions.

No, I'm coming from the point of view that the GM should know these things (or be able to make a judgment) so the players can make meaningful decisions. As a player, I don't want an NPC to "become gullible" because I rolled well on a skill check. I want to be able to find out if an NPC is gullible or not so I can choose a clever approach to my social manipulation. I could care less about giving the GM a reason to "make decisions."

 

[Greg Benage]

And with that, I really am going to bow out. PbtA is cool; it's just not my kind of cool.

 

[Manbearcat]

Is the person gullible? Wary? Stubborn? Do they trust me or do they think I'm a manipulative bastard, based on past experience? What am I trying to convince them of? And so and so on.

Threats and Cast (consequential NPCs and their cohorts) in Apocalypse World have tags that will tell you their essential nature/dramatic needs, a place on the Threat Map that will tell you how they relate to other Threats, a few moves (here we'll know if they're gullible or wary or stubborn and what that looks like in the fiction when they act upon it; this would be what is called a GM Soft Move), and stakes questions that you (the GM) wonder about (will x happen to y if n?) but do not actively resolve (you disclaim decision-making and roll dice to find out what happens if the PCs don't intersect with this stuff and it matters to play).

So yes, an Apocalypse World GM will have all the necessary (low but chunky prep) dramatic stuff to handle social situations.

If we're dealing with a consequential NPC, then the GM will make moves to represent their suite of traits. A player won't just go in and make a Seduce or Manipulate move and that is that. The GM will make a Soft Move with the NPC > player will have to respond to that with a basic move or a playbook move (basically defend against that Soft Move); the player might Read a Person/Sitch and then use that info to Do Something Under Fire and parry the "social attack" that the GM has made with their NPC Soft Move > this will either possibly open up the player going on the offense with a Seduce or Manipulate move or it will go pear-shaped and we've got other problems or escalation or it will be a further complicated success where the player gets some of what they want but at a cost.

So yes, there is NPC stuff that is consequential that will guide the social scene to that point. Yes, the NPC will actively advocate for their interests and act on their essential nature/dramatic needs.

But, ultimately, if in fact we arrive at the possibility of a Seduce or Manipulate move, that means either (a) all of that fiction and gamestate movement via mechanical resolution has taken place prior to open up the Seduce or Manipulate move or (b) we're dealing with an inconsequential NPC in which the PC has the upper hand to start with.

 

[Manbearcat]

As is often the case, there is at least one additional option.

The stuff that you list as part of the cognitive workload for DMs just doesn’t actually use that much cognitive bandwidth, but the stuff people push back against for player options does.

I’ve never encountered a GM that mentioned the competing imperatives you list as part of their cognitive workload. I have met dozens of players to have the fun sucked right out of them by having to remember 13 different “buttons” thier character can push, each with its own cost/benefit analysis and contexts.

You've met one now! < this guy >

 

[Manbearcat]

Manbearcat I generally agree with your posts but I found your latest post's comparison not hitting the mark.

Can we just unpack this paragraph please.


Can you give me an example of huge setting canon that is prevalent in 5e that wasn't in 4e that would require the increased cognitive workspace?


So a DM deciding a DC for a skill check for an action declared which is strictly not listed plainly in the book. This never happened in 4e? Are you saying players never thought beyond their power cards?


Monsters of 5e are complex as opposed to 4e? Maybe I dunno, but I doubt any sane DM would be designing 5e monsters during play. People generally wing it.


For those that actually use it, and not wing it in similar fashion to how many of us did with rules from earlier editions - those kind of DMs would usually pre-plan the session and the necessary encounter budgets.
Remember your opposition in this thread are people who like to wing/roleplay out the social challenges. I'd hazard they likely throw monsters that make sense and not sit down and work out encounter budgets with a calculator during play.

I just do not see the head-space that you think is necessary for all this or even to compare it to issues that particular set of the player-base experienced with 4e player option bloat.

Have I misunderstood your point?

Bit pressed for time so can't answer your post in full. I see some folks already answered in my stead (and I agree with their posts). Is that sufficient or would you like me to come back to this later (maybe tonight if I can) and respond with my own words?

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, I'm coming from the point of view that the GM should know these things (or be able to make a judgment) so the players can make meaningful decisions. As a player, I don't want an NPC to "become gullible" because I rolled well on a skill check. I want to be able to find out if an NPC is gullible or not so I can choose a clever approach to my social manipulation. I could care less about giving the GM a reason to "make decisions."

This seems to be what you told me was wrong -- that the GM knows these things ahead of time so that they can makes decisions on what happens when the players declare actions. Nothing you said here actually refutes that, despite your opening. That's not surprising, as it's the normal model for how games like D&D run -- it's certainly how I run D&D.

The NPC doesn't become gullible, though. We might find out this NPC is gullible, but that could only happen if it was a legitimate question about the NPC. If already shown to not be gullible, then they won't be gullible. This is pretty straightforward. Instead of gullible, we might find a different reason the NPC agrees to whatever on a 10+ result. One that will fit with the established fiction. What this move absolutely says, though, is that the GM cannot block the action with an autofail or with a directed resolution. If the players are in a fictional situation where such a move is indicated, then the GM has to acknowledge that they cannot block it because they think the NPC should react a certain way. Which means that the GM shouldn't be holding secret ideas about the NPC with the plan to use those things in the direction of play. And I say direction, because this is absolutely what is happening when the GM has secret notes about an NPC that direct the outcome of player actions -- you are directing the resolution because you know that X result is not available but the players do not.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You've met one now! < this guy >

Fair enough. I’m curious what exactly is the cognitive process that makes those into things you actively track during play.