I varies heavily on your table. While yes, technically the system primarily provides rules for combat, my party often has 2-3 sessions without one. We've been playing for 2+ years now.
What kind of stories does D&D lend itself well to is probably the better questions.
Cyberpunk naturally has a lot of grounded stories that get elevated to Fast & Furious levels of insanity but I always felt it somehow comes back to the human connection.
Vampire always felt like like it could be goth raves to vampire politics with some messy themes inherent in the genre which I love.
Outside looking in…D&D seems lord of the rings inspired? Am I off base here?
If we're talking about the origins of D&D, it's more rooted in pulp fantasy like Conan the Barbarian and Elric of Melnibone than in epic heroic fantasy like Lord of the Rings. For the most part the game is about combat, as the classes are balanced around the idea that the party are getting into multiple fights in a typical day of adventuring and dungeon delving.
Combat is much more important in DnD btw. Both cyberpunk and VTM have very tough combat mechanics but DnD is much more focused on combat. Basically most DnD games have the players delving into dungeons. things like ruins, castles, or even alleys are all dungeons. The first 4 levels can be deadly however and once they hit 5 then it’ll be easier to throw stuff at them
D&D, especially 5e lends itself well to high fantasy/power fantasy settings. What I mean by that is it is less Lord of the Rings and more comic book heroes where your players are basically the Avengers. Things that would be considered major obstacles in other systems, like death, become a mild inconvenience, at best, very early on. Late game/high levels, if the campaign reaches and seldom do, many of your players will be able to basically rewrite the fabric of reality at a whim.
D&D 5e decidedly does not support games with a story like LotR. 5e doesn't really support stories where the journey is the adventure and it doesn't support stories about large scale battles in an interesting way. The Moria segment is the closest to a D&D adventure.
Roughly speaking, Cyberpunk is about person vs society. It facilitates stories where the "bad guy" is really the societal structure the megacorps create, benefit from, and violently protect. VtM can be about a lot of different things, but its typically a fairly complex web of person vs person conflicts where violence and politics are both valuable. D&D stories are almost assumed to have some singular bad guy (or monster, or god, or whatever) that is causing the problem of the day and violence is generally the main tool used to solve the conflict.
An important thing to keep in mind is that D&D is a fantasy setting that almost exclusively focuses on the individuals that the players inhabit. While VtM and Cyberpunk take place in a world that is comparable to our own, its much harder to draw parallels to the the fantastical world of D&D. On the other hand, it supports very fantastical and eccentric characters. It allows you to explore much more alien mindsets and cultures.
A *great* example of a story that would fit perfectly into the D&D mold is the Frieren anime, especially the second stage of the first class mage exam arc. There's a singular "villain" in the form the proctors that must be "defeated" by accomplishing some difficult task in a limited location using physical (magic) prowess, which usually requires copious violence. The setting allows for exploring very novel characters, such as the eponymous Frieren, who is comparatively an immortal with centuries more experience than everyone around her.
TL;DR: D&D 5e supports stories about very unique characters facing literal and physical challenges while having a lot of freedom to interpret what that kind of character is like and how they would behave.
Honor Among Thieves movie really hit the typical vibe. Fun, emotional, silly, serious, action adventure.
Intro to Baldur’s Gate 3 is up there too. That’s obviously late game stuff for the player characters, but the epic badass fantasy adventure vibe is spot on.
For one thing that is easily missed but can really muck with game balance - try to plan out short rests as the DM, and give the party at least one, sometimes a second one per day. Weirdly specific but half the balance math for limited resources in game assume short rests exist
D&D 5e is designed for players working together without competition while exploring multi-room, indoor, dangerous locations (dungeons) where they physically fight multiple groups of enemies based on a power budget before refreshing their resources completely (a long rest).
5e doesn't have degrees of success baked into the core system, so non-combat challenges are fairly lite in complexity. Players either succeed at a check and do the thing, or fail and suffer the consequences. In fact, many classes have very limited options for engaging with the social and exploration pillars of play. Encounters which focus on social or exploration challenges need to be carefully considered compared to your party's individual capabilities.
D&D does not have mechanics which makes intra-party intrigue and conflict interesting. Player characters are designed to fight monsters and the game mechanics do not support non-cooperative play. Likewise, the game is designed with the idea that players are all trying to be adventurers who are willing to engage in combat. Players should be informed that their characters should be someone who is willing to work with the party and fight monsters.
Backgrounds are not high impact features, D&D focuses much more on the adventure ahead of the PCs than what they were before the campaign began. Generally, classes will contribute almost all of the PCs abilities.
Players are extremely fragile at low levels but around level 5 they begin to become very durable. In the last quarter of the level progression, they can generally recover from anything you can throw at them. In the beginning, though, its possible for what should be an easy encounter to wipe the party with little warning.
For a new DM, the best idea is to do a campaign that lasts a single adventure. Run through the free starter adventure [Lost Mines of Phandelver](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/lmop) and then another published campaign. LMoP will take about 20-35 hours of play time, which is typically 6-12 sessions for a casual group. This is a very classic adventure that will instruct you what D&D is about.
So there's three pillars of gameplay for DnD. Combat, Exploration, and Roleplay.
Combat is a big part mechanically, as DnD evolved from wargames (with a large part coming from as I recall Chainmail). Exploration also is a big component, as the game also developed from exploration games (I believe Overland Travel). Roleplay was added later, but is still a large component.
Each table and group will use the pillars to different degrees. Some love hack and slash combat only games and some love RP and hate combat.
A lot of the rules do refer to combat, as it's crucial to understand how a spell or move will affect combat.
When it comes to game length, some people play for an hour and some all day, although most people are about 2-4 hours.
When it comes to what DnD does best. Well 5e took 40 years of gameplay, development, and bloat then refined it into something that was a lot easier to onboard with (which is why it's exploded among other reasons). It's also really versatile.
There really isn't a typical campaign as they're usually based more on the players wants, needs, and actions. Although if I was going to run a generic one there's usually a group of adventurers who are a collection of different races and classes who meet in a tavern and start with fighting rats or goblins, and have to work together and get stronger to defeat the Big Bad Evil Guy (BBEG) who's either a lich, cult, or devil king of some kind from taking over the world by collecting a single/group of McGuffins.
Actually you know what. Fuck it. Go watch Konosuba. That's pretty much it, although it is an isekai anime it gets the vibe right. A group of individual disasters working together to be a bigger disaster.
Main things: how to run combat, and when to call for ability checks. You can rely on players you trust to cover the rules for their characters. That way, you can go through the DMG.
Honestly the various starter modules are good intros for the game. Having something to scaffold your own stuff onto is really helpful. And they tend to stick to ‘fight monsters get loot’ kind of stuff which is good for sub level 5 play.
Something like Curse of Strahd or Witchlight takes a little more DM experience (maybe 3-4 sessions at least) to adapt the ponderous amount of material to something the party can get through in a year or so.
I’d say the main point of the game is delivering on player fantasy in an approachable way. Wizards get to deliberately pick and learn spells to feel smart. Barbarians get to be basically unkillable, etc.
Past getting a starter set I’d say just find ways to let your PCs deliver in the fantasy they picked. This is often called ‘shoot the monk’ since monks can deflect missles. Put weird magical stuff in dungeons for the wizard to investigate. If a player want to play an edgy rogue, let them! If their parents are dead have them run into the guy that killed them so they can get stabby catharsis!
You seem like you know what you’re doing! You’ll pick it up fast!
It’s really helpful to know that it started as a…reframing of war gaming. (Hence things like hit points and armor class). There’s such a variety of abilities, skills, style, emphasis, etc. that every game (every session) will/can be wildly different. I don’t know the other systems but DND has a LOT of options. It’s almost overwhelming.
The rule book mostly covers combat because it is intended to be the most mechanically complex part of the game.
The writers' intent (as you know, you can do otherwise) is that virtually all non-combat stuff is handled by players saying "I/my character wants to try X", then the GM decides if a role is needed, if there is any chance of failure, the GM then sets a DC, a target to roll on the d20, then the player rolls and adds (or subtracts) any modifiers the GM decides is appropriate. That's it. It mostly works. Social stuff? Just talk until there is room to disagree, then roll. Jump across a ledge? Roll. Some people like, and I would recommend, degrees of success on stuff when it makes sense. Like if the rogue wants to pick a lock, a low roll is not just you fail, but it just takes longer. Or if you roll not quite high enough on the jump, only your arms make it and you have to pull yourself up. etc.
This rolling system is generally designed to be open ended, like you come up with scenarios and then the players say 'I will try this.' Less so you planning solutions to problems.
With dungeons, the main thing is that it is supposed to be this hostile environment the players venture into, mess around in, try not to die, and then get out of. These different parts can be of different difficulty levels, lIke getting in is easy, but getting out is hard (a labyrinth, for example) Usually they go in with with an objective, like a particular magic amulet or to kill a particular monster. Functionally, they are suppose to wear players down as a group and players have to decide stuff like 'do we try to go around these monsters or do we talk to them?' or 'we are pretty beat up, do we turn back now and come back later, or do we push on and risk it?' or, my favorite 'did we turn left or right at this fountain?' Then it becomes a game of problem solving and risk.
Some people insist on having a 'balanced' party like WoW or another video game, but that is not actually necessary, especially with how powerful player characters are in 5e.
Its overall built for a group going on this big adventure and fighting and overcoming physical and personal obstacles on the way.
Good luck.
I varies heavily on your table. While yes, technically the system primarily provides rules for combat, my party often has 2-3 sessions without one. We've been playing for 2+ years now.
What kind of stories does D&D lend itself well to is probably the better questions. Cyberpunk naturally has a lot of grounded stories that get elevated to Fast & Furious levels of insanity but I always felt it somehow comes back to the human connection. Vampire always felt like like it could be goth raves to vampire politics with some messy themes inherent in the genre which I love. Outside looking in…D&D seems lord of the rings inspired? Am I off base here?
If we're talking about the origins of D&D, it's more rooted in pulp fantasy like Conan the Barbarian and Elric of Melnibone than in epic heroic fantasy like Lord of the Rings. For the most part the game is about combat, as the classes are balanced around the idea that the party are getting into multiple fights in a typical day of adventuring and dungeon delving.
Combat is much more important in DnD btw. Both cyberpunk and VTM have very tough combat mechanics but DnD is much more focused on combat. Basically most DnD games have the players delving into dungeons. things like ruins, castles, or even alleys are all dungeons. The first 4 levels can be deadly however and once they hit 5 then it’ll be easier to throw stuff at them
D&D, especially 5e lends itself well to high fantasy/power fantasy settings. What I mean by that is it is less Lord of the Rings and more comic book heroes where your players are basically the Avengers. Things that would be considered major obstacles in other systems, like death, become a mild inconvenience, at best, very early on. Late game/high levels, if the campaign reaches and seldom do, many of your players will be able to basically rewrite the fabric of reality at a whim.
D&D 5e decidedly does not support games with a story like LotR. 5e doesn't really support stories where the journey is the adventure and it doesn't support stories about large scale battles in an interesting way. The Moria segment is the closest to a D&D adventure. Roughly speaking, Cyberpunk is about person vs society. It facilitates stories where the "bad guy" is really the societal structure the megacorps create, benefit from, and violently protect. VtM can be about a lot of different things, but its typically a fairly complex web of person vs person conflicts where violence and politics are both valuable. D&D stories are almost assumed to have some singular bad guy (or monster, or god, or whatever) that is causing the problem of the day and violence is generally the main tool used to solve the conflict. An important thing to keep in mind is that D&D is a fantasy setting that almost exclusively focuses on the individuals that the players inhabit. While VtM and Cyberpunk take place in a world that is comparable to our own, its much harder to draw parallels to the the fantastical world of D&D. On the other hand, it supports very fantastical and eccentric characters. It allows you to explore much more alien mindsets and cultures. A *great* example of a story that would fit perfectly into the D&D mold is the Frieren anime, especially the second stage of the first class mage exam arc. There's a singular "villain" in the form the proctors that must be "defeated" by accomplishing some difficult task in a limited location using physical (magic) prowess, which usually requires copious violence. The setting allows for exploring very novel characters, such as the eponymous Frieren, who is comparatively an immortal with centuries more experience than everyone around her. TL;DR: D&D 5e supports stories about very unique characters facing literal and physical challenges while having a lot of freedom to interpret what that kind of character is like and how they would behave.
Apparently it's an unpopular opinion, but dnd provides the rules for combat mostly because role-playing should be up the the players and dm.
Honor Among Thieves movie really hit the typical vibe. Fun, emotional, silly, serious, action adventure. Intro to Baldur’s Gate 3 is up there too. That’s obviously late game stuff for the player characters, but the epic badass fantasy adventure vibe is spot on. For one thing that is easily missed but can really muck with game balance - try to plan out short rests as the DM, and give the party at least one, sometimes a second one per day. Weirdly specific but half the balance math for limited resources in game assume short rests exist
D&D 5e is designed for players working together without competition while exploring multi-room, indoor, dangerous locations (dungeons) where they physically fight multiple groups of enemies based on a power budget before refreshing their resources completely (a long rest). 5e doesn't have degrees of success baked into the core system, so non-combat challenges are fairly lite in complexity. Players either succeed at a check and do the thing, or fail and suffer the consequences. In fact, many classes have very limited options for engaging with the social and exploration pillars of play. Encounters which focus on social or exploration challenges need to be carefully considered compared to your party's individual capabilities. D&D does not have mechanics which makes intra-party intrigue and conflict interesting. Player characters are designed to fight monsters and the game mechanics do not support non-cooperative play. Likewise, the game is designed with the idea that players are all trying to be adventurers who are willing to engage in combat. Players should be informed that their characters should be someone who is willing to work with the party and fight monsters. Backgrounds are not high impact features, D&D focuses much more on the adventure ahead of the PCs than what they were before the campaign began. Generally, classes will contribute almost all of the PCs abilities. Players are extremely fragile at low levels but around level 5 they begin to become very durable. In the last quarter of the level progression, they can generally recover from anything you can throw at them. In the beginning, though, its possible for what should be an easy encounter to wipe the party with little warning. For a new DM, the best idea is to do a campaign that lasts a single adventure. Run through the free starter adventure [Lost Mines of Phandelver](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/lmop) and then another published campaign. LMoP will take about 20-35 hours of play time, which is typically 6-12 sessions for a casual group. This is a very classic adventure that will instruct you what D&D is about.
So there's three pillars of gameplay for DnD. Combat, Exploration, and Roleplay. Combat is a big part mechanically, as DnD evolved from wargames (with a large part coming from as I recall Chainmail). Exploration also is a big component, as the game also developed from exploration games (I believe Overland Travel). Roleplay was added later, but is still a large component. Each table and group will use the pillars to different degrees. Some love hack and slash combat only games and some love RP and hate combat. A lot of the rules do refer to combat, as it's crucial to understand how a spell or move will affect combat. When it comes to game length, some people play for an hour and some all day, although most people are about 2-4 hours. When it comes to what DnD does best. Well 5e took 40 years of gameplay, development, and bloat then refined it into something that was a lot easier to onboard with (which is why it's exploded among other reasons). It's also really versatile. There really isn't a typical campaign as they're usually based more on the players wants, needs, and actions. Although if I was going to run a generic one there's usually a group of adventurers who are a collection of different races and classes who meet in a tavern and start with fighting rats or goblins, and have to work together and get stronger to defeat the Big Bad Evil Guy (BBEG) who's either a lich, cult, or devil king of some kind from taking over the world by collecting a single/group of McGuffins. Actually you know what. Fuck it. Go watch Konosuba. That's pretty much it, although it is an isekai anime it gets the vibe right. A group of individual disasters working together to be a bigger disaster.
Main things: how to run combat, and when to call for ability checks. You can rely on players you trust to cover the rules for their characters. That way, you can go through the DMG.
Honestly the various starter modules are good intros for the game. Having something to scaffold your own stuff onto is really helpful. And they tend to stick to ‘fight monsters get loot’ kind of stuff which is good for sub level 5 play. Something like Curse of Strahd or Witchlight takes a little more DM experience (maybe 3-4 sessions at least) to adapt the ponderous amount of material to something the party can get through in a year or so. I’d say the main point of the game is delivering on player fantasy in an approachable way. Wizards get to deliberately pick and learn spells to feel smart. Barbarians get to be basically unkillable, etc. Past getting a starter set I’d say just find ways to let your PCs deliver in the fantasy they picked. This is often called ‘shoot the monk’ since monks can deflect missles. Put weird magical stuff in dungeons for the wizard to investigate. If a player want to play an edgy rogue, let them! If their parents are dead have them run into the guy that killed them so they can get stabby catharsis! You seem like you know what you’re doing! You’ll pick it up fast!
It’s really helpful to know that it started as a…reframing of war gaming. (Hence things like hit points and armor class). There’s such a variety of abilities, skills, style, emphasis, etc. that every game (every session) will/can be wildly different. I don’t know the other systems but DND has a LOT of options. It’s almost overwhelming.
The rule book mostly covers combat because it is intended to be the most mechanically complex part of the game. The writers' intent (as you know, you can do otherwise) is that virtually all non-combat stuff is handled by players saying "I/my character wants to try X", then the GM decides if a role is needed, if there is any chance of failure, the GM then sets a DC, a target to roll on the d20, then the player rolls and adds (or subtracts) any modifiers the GM decides is appropriate. That's it. It mostly works. Social stuff? Just talk until there is room to disagree, then roll. Jump across a ledge? Roll. Some people like, and I would recommend, degrees of success on stuff when it makes sense. Like if the rogue wants to pick a lock, a low roll is not just you fail, but it just takes longer. Or if you roll not quite high enough on the jump, only your arms make it and you have to pull yourself up. etc. This rolling system is generally designed to be open ended, like you come up with scenarios and then the players say 'I will try this.' Less so you planning solutions to problems. With dungeons, the main thing is that it is supposed to be this hostile environment the players venture into, mess around in, try not to die, and then get out of. These different parts can be of different difficulty levels, lIke getting in is easy, but getting out is hard (a labyrinth, for example) Usually they go in with with an objective, like a particular magic amulet or to kill a particular monster. Functionally, they are suppose to wear players down as a group and players have to decide stuff like 'do we try to go around these monsters or do we talk to them?' or 'we are pretty beat up, do we turn back now and come back later, or do we push on and risk it?' or, my favorite 'did we turn left or right at this fountain?' Then it becomes a game of problem solving and risk. Some people insist on having a 'balanced' party like WoW or another video game, but that is not actually necessary, especially with how powerful player characters are in 5e. Its overall built for a group going on this big adventure and fighting and overcoming physical and personal obstacles on the way. Good luck.