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

 

[pemerton]

Any system that is not entirely in the hands of the players or run by a set of static unchanging (and transparent) rules can be subverted by the DM/GM/referee.

I don't think that this is true at all. (Unless static, unchanging and transparent is given a very broad interpretation.)

How would a GM go about subverting Burning Wheel? Or Apocalypse World? Or even Classic Traveller?

 

[Oofta]

I don't know where this notion of the "default" is coming from. Do you mean what is statistically typical? Then I think you're probably right. Do you mean what the game rules tell us? Then I think you're probably right for AD&D 2nd ed and 5e, only partially right for AD&D and B/X, and not especially right for 4e.

I don't think the default way to GM 4e, based on what the rulebooks say, is for the GM to draw on their knowledge of the world and the NPCs to tell the players what happens next without f*****g them over.

Judging from the two DMGs plus the PHB, I think the default way to GM 4e is that, whenever something interesting is at stake, either ask the players what they think is going on (ie let them fill in world details, PC backgrounds etc) or else to frame a skill challenge and see what comes out of it.

The PHB and DMG makes it pretty clear that the DM makes the final call although it is not the only way of running the game. I'm not going to bother with quotes. I'm also assuming 5E, but I don't remember it being that different in any version. My wife was going to burn our 4E books as a sacrificial offering* but instead we gave them away instead so I can't check those.

But every other version? It makes the role of the DM clear. They create the world, they're the referee, they say what happens as a result of the PC's actions.

*I kid a bit. But we were going to be moving and she didn't want to pay the $0.25 it would have cost to ship store them so we gave them to someone that wanted them.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think that this is true at all. (Unless static, unchanging and transparent is given a very broad interpretation.)

How would a GM go about subverting Burning Wheel? Or Apocalypse World? Or even Classic Traveller?

Every game that has been described that do not follow D&D's pattern of target values set by the DM that need to be hit that have been set by the DM have a way to automatically counter or overcome an obstacle. That to me is static.

Or there's just some magic formula I can't imagine.

 

[pemerton]

The PHB and DMG makes it pretty clear that the DM makes the final call although it is not the only way of running the game. I'm not going to bother with quotes. I'm also assuming 5E, but I don't remember it being that different in any version.

<snip>

But every other version? It makes the role of the DM clear. They create the world, they're the referee, they say what happens as a result of the PC's actions.

Moldvay Basic and Gygax's DMG assume that if that the GM has not written down a NPC's reaction in the dungeon key ahead of time, then the reaction table is used. Moldvay Basic states that if a player declare that their PCs looks for traps, or for secret doors, then a d6 is rolled and (depending on class) the number rolled cross-referenced against the dungeon key determines what the answer is. (This approach is also flagged in Gygax's DMG, but a different way of resolving searching for secret doors is also presented as an option.)

In those systems, (i) what the GM says is not unconstrained, and (ii) there are constraints other than just the GM extrapolating from the world that they have created.

As I posted, I think that 2nd ed AD&D is different in this respect, and 5e also though to be honest I know 2nd ed AD&D better.

 

[pemerton]

Every game that has been described that do not follow D&D's pattern of target values set by the DM that need to be hit that have been set by the DM have a way to automatically counter or overcome an obstacle. That to me is static.

I thought that one of the systems mentioned was Dogs in the Vineyard. It doesn't have a way to "automatically counter or overcome and obstacle". Nor does it have target values set by the GM.

Other examples I could mention: Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic (all checks are opposed, and all dice are rolled in the open); Apocalypse World and its offshoots (all rolls are resolved on the 6-, 7-9, 10+ pattern); Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller (obstacles are set either as specified in the rulebooks, or as extrapolated from those examples).

I don't see how any of these games is liable to being "subverted" by a GM. And nor do I see how they are "static" in ways that D&D is not. They just use different techniques.

Or there's just some magic formula I can't imagine.

None of these games is magic, and most are pretty easily available.

 

[Oofta]

Moldvay Basic and Gygax's DMG assume that if that the GM has not written down a NPC's reaction in the dungeon key ahead of time, then the reaction table is used. Moldvay Basic states that if a player declare that their PCs looks for traps, or for secret doors, then a d6 is rolled and (depending on class) the number rolled cross-referenced against the dungeon key determines what the answer is. (This approach is also flagged in Gygax's DMG, but a different way of resolving searching for secret doors is also presented as an option.)

In those systems, (i) what the GM says is not unconstrained, and (ii) there are constraints other than just the GM extrapolating from the world that they have created.

As I posted, I think that 2nd ed AD&D is different in this respect, and 5e also though to be honest I know 2nd ed AD&D better.

Referring to rules that are nearly a half century old doesn't seem particularly relevant. The game has changed pretty significantly since then and very few people played that closely to the rules anyway. But if the DM hadn't decided the NPCs attitude ahead of time tells me that the DM is still in control. Beyond that, the oldest books I have anymore (I've lost my older books over time) make it quite clear that the DM has "an active hand" that extends to the rules and that the DM has the final say.

But I don't know what you're trying to get at. I could quote the PHB and DMG from several editions, they all make the same assumption. The DM makes the final call. Maybe you don't agree with that. Certainly any group can decide to ignore that advice just like anything else in the book. But it is still the default.

 

[Oofta]

I thought that one of the systems mentioned was Dogs in the Vineyard. It doesn't have a way to "automatically counter or overcome and obstacle". Nor does it have target values set by the GM.

Other examples I could mention: Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic (all checks are opposed, and all dice are rolled in the open); Apocalypse World and its offshoots (all rolls are resolved on the 6-, 7-9, 10+ pattern); Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller (obstacles are set either as specified in the rulebooks, or as extrapolated from those examples).

I don't see how any of these games is liable to being "subverted" by a GM. And nor do I see how they are "static" in ways that D&D is not. They just use different techniques.

None of these games is magic, and most are pretty easily available.

Since I've never played Dogs in the Vineyard, I can only go by the examples given. I understand different games work differently, I don't see how a game that operates in the same fashion as D&D could be completely fair.

If I'm wrong explain. Don't just throw out "I know better than you but won't bother to explain how it works" and expect any more responses from me. I don't see the point.

 

[HammerMan]

But I don't know what you're trying to get at. I could quote the PHB and DMG from several editions, they all make the same assumption. The DM makes the final call. Maybe you don't agree with that. Certainly any group can decide to ignore that advice just like anything else in the book. But it is still the default.

I have often on this board been told I am 'doing it wrong' by giving my players (who all have DM experience and none of the current ones started with 5e) as much control as I do... and I STILL agree in D&D the DM gets final veto power.

 

[Cadence]

I don't know where this notion of the "default" is coming from. Do you mean what is statistically typical? Then I think you're probably right. Do you mean what the game rules tell us? Then I think you're probably right for AD&D 2nd ed and 5e, only partially right for AD&D and B/X, and not especially right for 4e.

I don't think the default way to GM 4e, based on what the rulebooks say, is for the GM to draw on their knowledge of the world and the NPCs to tell the players what happens next without f*****g them over.

Judging from the two DMGs plus the PHB, I think the default way to GM 4e is that, whenever something interesting is at stake, either ask the players what they think is going on (ie let them fill in world details, PC backgrounds etc) or else to frame a skill challenge and see what comes out of it.

@Oofta here are some snippets from the 4e PhB and DMG. To me, it doesn't read by default as necessarily being different from how the other games run. It does do a nice job in various places of discussing different options for how a DM might run it (fudging, where you roll the dice, etc...).

From the PhB.

From the 4e DMG

 

[pemerton]

Holy smokes. In my opinion, it's woefully inadequate because, for me, according to my preferences, whether or not I can successfully manipulate someone depends in part on how easily manipulated they are, as well as a host of other situational factors.

Everyone agrees with this, ie, that how easily manipulated a person is depends on facts about them and the circumstances.

The Apocalypse World rule that @loverdrive quoted doesn't deny that. It is a technique used in the real world to work out what happens in an imagined world Obviously the result in the imagined world is an upshot of those things everyone agrees on. From the use of the real world process, we learn things about the imagined world.

Now if what you mean to say is that you want a technique that, in the real world, depends upon inputs that are determined by already-established features of the imagined world like what is a person's propensity to being manipulated (eg how strong is their will) or how conducive is the situation to manipulating the person (eg how much distraction is the person subject to), then fair enough.

But that's not what you said.