• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

I also don't think D&D spellcasting is handled better than other RPGs... but most of them -are- combat-focused was the general thrust.

As for what D&D doesn't cover: Exploration-focused gameplay. Gameification of travel. Things of that nature.

Most of D&D travel is just presented as "Roll on a series of tables and describe the results and then run specific (usually combat) encounters based on the tables". Exploration isn't the game, it's just the place where the game tends to happen. It's got rules for getting lost, which is a nice start, but there's not a lot of stuff about what to do when you -are- lost except roll a fresh check to see if you -stay- lost. Unless you've got a Ranger in the party, in which case you never roll to get lost in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, random combat encounters are absolutely a core part of travel in a high fantasy setting. But most encounters are going to amount to "Here is monster, here is environment, here is current weather. Kill pls. You gain an XP!" A DM making a dungeon for exploration certainly has the option to put in skill challenges, but the direct result of many of them (Traps, pits, other physical obstacles) is still going to be lost hit points, lost spell slots, lost gear, and slightly less effectiveness for your next combat encounter because that's what the actual gameplay is mostly focused on. There's no game elements specifically -about- exploring in D&D.

Meanwhile LevelUp, for example, gameifies travel through the Journey System. It creates a separate resource-pool that the party relies on, spends, and replenishes during travel. It gives combat and non-combat encounters a way to interact with that resource pool that doesn't have to involve combat-effectiveness. It also adds a wealth of interesting activities to pursue while journeying that are specific to the journey in an interesting way. Like Befriending an animal as you travel through a region and getting an "Early Warning System" for danger out of it.

Bunch of worms infested the ship's stores? Best get to clearing them out and check the supplies to find out how bad it hit our "Travel Hit Points" and how much time we're now going to have to devote to replenishing our stocks during the journey. Storm struck? We'd best avoid the shoals and head to deeper water to avoid getting shipwrecked, adding to travel times.

It even adds an Exploration-System element to combat encounters, because those supplies are essential. Bandits attack you and the party on the road? They might not all try to fight or die when a few of them can sneak out of the woods to steal some of your supplies and run away.

Ultimately, of course, the system comes down to Fatigue, in the end, which plays into combat as the penalty for hitting 0 before a long rest... But it adds -so much- before it gets to that point that I can't even be mad at it.

I'm hoping there's similar social gameification coming... though I wrote up a Journey System alternative to gameify the gaining of wealth/prestige as a character in an urban campaign, because one doesn't exist, yet, and the Journey System is pretty adaptable to that purpose.
Hmm... this is interesting, so it's not that D&D doesn't handle exploration... it's that it doesn't handle it in the way (structured gamification of the process) that you prefer. Okay putting that aside for the moment let's see what 5e does actually address...

Gear for exploration
Overland Movement
Special Movement Types (including climbing, jumping, swimming & crawling)
Stealth while traveling
Noticing Threats (and the effect of movement on it)
Navigating
Tracking
Foraging
Falling
Suffocating
Vision and Light (including special types of vision)
Food (how much needed per day and consequences for not eating enough)
Water (how much needed per day and consequences for not drinking enough)
Damaging Objects
Social Interaction (Including NPC attitudes and how to change them)
Resting
Damage Types
Healing
Environmental Effects of the various Planes
Random Encounters (With advice they are not all combat based)
Hirelings
Dungeon Features (Doors & Hazards)
Travelling with a Montage Approach
Travelling with an Hour by Hour approach
Wilderness Features (Monuments, Ruins, Settlements, Strongholds & Weird Locales)
Wilderness Survival (Weather, Terrain)
Becoming Lost
Unusual Environments (UnderWater & The Sea)
Traps
A section on running Explorations

Honestly this is a pretty comprehensive list and is just from the core rulebooks. I get you may have a preference for codification but what is actually lacking here?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

When you are done making this personal, would you like to answer my question?


Do you believe that there are things that 5e can't do well? What are the limitations of hacking the gaming? What are the breaking points for D&D 5e when hacking the system or adding things to it? When would you not?


Believe it or not, I don't get my knickers in a twist or hyper-defensive every time someone says D&D, my favorite games, or the games you listed can't do different genres well. I think it's important to acknowledge the strengths and limitations for every system that I'm using. If the only way you'll feel better about any perceived slights lobbed at D&D is that we knock other games down a few petty pegs as well, we can certainly talk about the weaknesses of these other games when it comes to genre emulation as well. Even if a game system can do other genres, which is a banal accomplishment to be sure, I'm not simply interested in whether they can do them, but I'm also interested in how they do it and the experiences that the system cultivates and accentuates within genre play.

Simply playing in a genre is easy. You could pick up D&D 5e and use it to play Jane Austen if you wanted. It won't necessarily emulate it well or support that experience well as written without first mechanical adjustments or the GM/players doing a lot of the heavy lifting of genre emulation themselves. Likewise, a post-apocalyptic game will feel different using Gamma World vs. Apocalypse World vs. Mutant Year Zero vs. Godless vs. Tiny Wastelands vs. Cypher System (e.g., Numenera), etc. because each of these systems will emphasize or deemphasize certain gameplay experiences, genre elements of post-apocalyptic sci-fi/fantasy, or GM/player responsibilities.

So I do hold others games to this core standard that I hold D&D. But I suppose it's easier to somehow paint the 800 lb. gorilla in the room as the victim of an unfair standard. People generally just overly sensitive when their pet game is the one under scrutiny, especially IME when it comes to D&D, about which people seem particularly touch about.
Emphasis mine... Don't do that. Your implication of my thoughts or motives in no way reflects what I was talking about. I asked about regulation to corebooks vs. supplements being in the mix.

EDIT: Actually I see a few more places where you try to passively imply my state of mind and /or motivations... again, don't do that.
 

@doctorbadwolf Oh, D&D can be pretty broad...

But it -excels- at the high fantasy morality play centered largely around combat!

Not just because of character alignments, which you can ignore or not, but NPC Alignments being both a narrative and combat function. Outsiders and Undead are often explicitly presented as -fundamentally- good or evil, which is reinforced by spellcasting effects, like the various spells, magic items, and class features that work based on the target's alignment.
I'd quibble that vanishingly few things in 5e put mechanical weight to alignment itself. Detect Evil and Good uses those terms, but what it actually shows is just unnatural creatures from other planes of existence. The point being, no houserules are required at all to play 5e sans any morality play dynamic.
He’s explained how it can do horror, how you can do Aliens with a dragon and an isolated location and a fear effect scale, and so on. Never once has he said something like “wow the stress dice and panic rules for Aliens are much more robust than the rules tweaks I made to D&D to pull off horror; if I wanted a prolonged campaign with those themes that would likely be a better choice.”
It wouldn't be a better choice, unless I wanted to run a prolonged campaign with those themes in the same kind of world as presented in that game, and without any of the themes that we play dnd for, like having greater agency to change things than we have IRL.
What is the difference between creating a set of completely new, non-suck naval combat rules for your D&D game from scratch, and copy-pasting the rules from a professionally designed non-suck naval combat game into your D&D game?
Considering I've advised both, I'm not sure where this question comes from.
They're not utterly -ignored-, obviously. But the system itself is just weak in those areas compared to many other systems.
That's a matter of preference. If I leave an area of the game rules light and easy to either modify or even ignore, because a lot of groups don't want that part of the play experience gamified, it's pretty strange to say that the game elements in question are weak. They're just not tuned to your preference.

I very strongly do not want to ever see gamified social rules in a DnD PHB. I'd be fine with them presented very clearly as optional rules in the DMG or a supplement, but I will not play a version of DnD that relies on stuff like "social combat mechanics" or the like. All social interaction needs in the average game is action/task resolution, and stats to determine how generally good everyone is at the broad primary aspects of social interaction.

The only weaknesses of the 5e social system are, IMO, lack of advice for stuff like allowing a fighter with the veteran background to leverage their background and knowledge of weaponry and warfare to treat with other veterans in spite of a low charisma or lack of training in social skills, and the lack of a solid pre-written system for 5e for skill challenges, and other ways to create success ladders in non-combat scenes. I can add those things, because I've played several games with such elements and can leverage that knowledge with my knowledge of how 5e works, but it sucks that a newer DM has to seek out advice to add that complexity, when it could have been laid out in the DMG as advice and/or optional rules.

The exploration rules are poorly executed, however. I think most people agree on that. I don't think their premises are that bad, though some are off base, like whatever premise lead to rangers bypassing the need to roll for things. Again, I can add Journey rules from AIME, or with a little more work add the rules from The One Ring, and because I know my group they will suit us really well, and we have made really fun use of them in our Space Fantasy! games, adapting journey roles to ship roles, and adding a dynamic where when a hazard or complication arises that is relevant to a given role, the person filling that role "runs" the scene to resolve it. However, again, it sucks that a new DM would have to go online or to a more experienced DM they know in order to get any idea of how to get more out of exploration.
So if that’s the case, then what are you ever even asking for? Do you start threads like “How do I make my D&D game have a horror vibe?” Because you already seem to have all the answers on that....according to your posts in this thread, you can make D&D do anything, and easily.
The fact that I understand the system pretty well and can modify it pretty easily doesn't mean I can't benefit from other people's experience, what they've tried and whether it worked for them, and being pointed to mechanics in other games that can be borrowed without having to use the entire system they're from. It's...pretty straightforward.

Beyond that, the fact that this is easy for me, and I already know how to do it, doesn't mean that is the case for everyone who is asking for advice. That doesn't mean they should just abandon their plan and play a whole different game instead, and telling them that they are wrong to want to do the thing is a crappy way to engage with the discussion they've initiated.
But...but....forum posts are what he’s complaining about. If they carry no weight, then what’s the problem?

He can just dismiss the ones that aren’t convenient like you’re doing.
Seriously? Forum posts don't prove how common a play issue is. That...literally has nothing at all to do with whether or not a forum behavior is problematic.
For example, to evoke the Alien movies, you can just use a dragon and an isolated location and a race to a vehicle. Terms like “easily accomplished” and “not difficult” and “just as effective” have been used pretty regularly.
Except not. "Just as effective" is not a thing I've said. Making DnD run a story that is similar to Aliens, feature a monster that you cannot win a fight with, in a closed enviroment, and your friends getting killed left and right around you while the situation gets steadily worse and worse for you, all in a scenario where you had no reason to expect this sort of situation, is very doable in DnD 5e. It can benefit from, but does not require, additional mechanics.

If I wanted to play in the actual world of Aliens, and kill PCs on a spaceship with a xenomorph, I'd play the Alien RPG. Since what I want is to play a similar scenario in a fantasy context where the moving parts that can be used to get out alive and/or throw the monster out the proverbial airlock are more likely to be magical than technological, I'm going to use DnD and perhaps add some mechanics from the Alien RPG or other monster horror RPGs.
 

Emphasis mine... Don't do that. Your implication of my thoughts or motives in no way reflects what I was talking about. I asked about regulation to corebooks vs. supplements being in the mix.
In that case, my apologies. I will freely admit that I didn't catch that.
 

When you are done making this personal, would you like to answer my question?
Calling out your behavior toward me isn't making it personal. It's also ironic to acuse someone else of making it personal, considering the interaction that just played out between you and another poster in this thread.

Now, if you can reply to me and restate whatever question it is you want answered without being needlessly aggressive, accusatory, disparaging anyone, or implying motivations to make another poster you disagree with look bad, I'll happily try to answer the question.

If you can't, I'll just make sure we can't interact directly anymore, at least for a while, and move on.
 

Hmm... this is interesting, so it's not that D&D doesn't handle exploration... it's that it doesn't handle it in the way (structured gamification of the process) that you prefer. Okay putting that aside for the moment let's see what 5e does actually address...

Gear for exploration
Overland Movement
Special Movement Types (including climbing, jumping, swimming & crawling)
Stealth while traveling
Noticing Threats (and the effect of movement on it)
Navigating
Tracking
Foraging
Falling
Suffocating
Vision and Light (including special types of vision)
Food (how much needed per day and consequences for not eating enough)
Water (how much needed per day and consequences for not drinking enough)
Damaging Objects
Social Interaction (Including NPC attitudes and how to change them)
Resting
Damage Types
Healing
Environmental Effects of the various Planes
Random Encounters (With advice they are not all combat based)
Hirelings
Dungeon Features (Doors & Hazards)
Travelling with a Montage Approach
Travelling with an Hour by Hour approach
Wilderness Features (Monuments, Ruins, Settlements, Strongholds & Weird Locales)
Wilderness Survival (Weather, Terrain)
Becoming Lost
Unusual Environments (UnderWater & The Sea)
Traps
A section on running Explorations

Honestly this is a pretty comprehensive list and is just from the core rulebooks. I get you may have a preference for a codification but what is actually lacking here?
... Gameplay.

Hey, you bought 50ft of rope and 10ft of chain. Now... what are they used for?

"You can tie someone up with them!" okay... how? To what effect? These things are left vague as heck because D&D has never been particularly good at simulating the process of tying someone up and it's just more "Streamlined" to not have any specific gameplay functions involved beyond maybe "Restrained". They even got rid of 3e's "Use Rope" for a skill check to beat with Escape Artist (Also cut).

Essentially you wind up with a big ol' pile of legos, megablox, and kinex pieces to build your own stuff out of. Not all of them fit together, most of them barely have anything to do with each other, and even when there's significant overlap it's never really made clear how it should work together...

And ultimately they mostly wind up just being the random assemblage of pieces you put your GI Joes on top of while screaming "Pew Pew! I got you, Snake Eyes!"

I'd also like to point out that Falling, Damaging Objects, Resting, Damage Types (seriously?), Healing (Again, -seriously-?), Random Encounters, Hazards, and Traps are almost all focused entirely on the core HP/Damage combat system, not exploration or any exploration-centric systems.

I feel like listing off a large number of different headings to short segments and paragraph entries holds even less "Good Faith" than comparing page counts. Especially when you were the one who said "forget page counts"
 

That's not a game. It's just a hate crime. sagenod

At least FATAL gives us some funny stories about characters dying during character creation.
Well, in RaHoWa, a dozen or so of old ladies can scare PUREBLOOD ARYAN WARRIOR to death... Which, I'd say, is no less hilarious than rolling dish-sized areolas.

Before I engage further since we are moving into the realm of specifics... what exactly are you looking for in exploration for D&D... and just so you know I don't think page count is an accurate determiner for how well something is handled...since that would mean D&D actually handles magic and spells better than nearly any other rpg...
Number of pages, dedicated to something is a clear indicator of how important the designer feels that something is.

An important thing that is often forgot in threads like this: not having a mechanic for something is as, if not more, important to the overall feel of the game than, uhm, having mechanics for something else. The most important tool in the designer's arsenal is a chopping axe.

When you give the player a button, you also give an implicit promise that this button serves some purpose, that they should push it. When there's a Fighter that can beat the naughty word out of living and un-living things, the expectation is that there will be someone to beat the naughty word out of from. If instead of a Fighter there was, say, Knight with moves like Sing serenades, Joust and Dance... Yeah, we get a very different experience overall.

In other words forget page count... what doesn't D&D cover in the exploration sphere that you feel it should?
Well, something like pages X19 to X22 and X27 to X62 in D&D Expert Box Set. I don't own Basic one, but I suspect there are similar things there.

You know, exploration turns, wandering monsters, mapping, crawl procedures...
 

Calling out your behavior toward me isn't making it personal. It's also ironic to acuse someone else of making it personal, considering the interaction that just played out between you and another poster in this thread.
I admittedly misread the point Imaro was making. The two of us do not exactly have a history of pleasant social interactions in past discussions, so sometimes those old tensions boil back up to the surface.

Now, if you can reply to me and restate whatever question it is you want answered without being needlessly aggressive, accusatory, disparaging anyone, or implying motivations to make another poster you disagree with look bad, I'll happily try to answer the question.

If you can't, I'll just make sure we can't interact directly anymore, at least for a while, and move on.
If you can't extend the same courtesy without using this as an opportunity to make potshots, then it's probably best that you do put me on ignore.
 

I'd quibble that vanishingly few things in 5e put mechanical weight to alignment itself. Detect Evil and Good uses those terms, but what it actually shows is just unnatural creatures from other planes of existence. The point being, no houserules are required at all to play 5e sans any morality play dynamic.
It'd certainly true that you can -ignore- the game's mechanics and narrative to remove morality from the game's systems. And you could certainly try to block out the terms "Good" and "Evil" in various spells for the express intention of pretending it's more about whether a character is native to a specific plane of existence or not...

But those systems and aspects are a part of D&D that make it good at being that specific morality play. Whether you choose to use them or not.

That's a matter of preference. If I leave an area of the game rules light and easy to either modify or even ignore, because a lot of groups don't want that part of the play experience gamified, it's pretty strange to say that the game elements in question are weak. They're just not tuned to your preference.

I very strongly do not want to ever see gamified social rules in a DnD PHB. I'd be fine with them presented very clearly as optional rules in the DMG or a supplement, but I will not play a version of DnD that relies on stuff like "social combat mechanics" or the like. All social interaction needs in the average game is action/task resolution, and stats to determine how generally good everyone is at the broad primary aspects of social interaction.

The only weaknesses of the 5e social system are, IMO, lack of advice for stuff like allowing a fighter with the veteran background to leverage their background and knowledge of weaponry and warfare to treat with other veterans in spite of a low charisma or lack of training in social skills, and the lack of a solid pre-written system for 5e for skill challenges, and other ways to create success ladders in non-combat scenes. I can add those things, because I've played several games with such elements and can leverage that knowledge with my knowledge of how 5e works, but it sucks that a newer DM has to seek out advice to add that complexity, when it could have been laid out in the DMG as advice and/or optional rules.

The exploration rules are poorly executed, however. I think most people agree on that. I don't think their premises are that bad, though some are off base, like whatever premise lead to rangers bypassing the need to roll for things. Again, I can add Journey rules from AIME, or with a little more work add the rules from The One Ring, and because I know my group they will suit us really well, and we have made really fun use of them in our Space Fantasy! games, adapting journey roles to ship roles, and adding a dynamic where when a hazard or complication arises that is relevant to a given role, the person filling that role "runs" the scene to resolve it. However, again, it sucks that a new DM would have to go online or to a more experienced DM they know in order to get any idea of how to get more out of exploration.
Nnnnno... not really a matter of preference. It's a matter of fact.

Whether you'd -like- those social and exploration systems to exist or not doesn't affect whether or not they exist. Which they don't.

Should they? I dunno. That's probably a matter of preference. But in the side-discussion that you're interjecting into here the question is whether they do or don't, and whether they're stronger or weaker than exists in other games.

And I think no one could argue in good faith that D&D's social and exploration pillar offerings are more strongly designed and gameified than they are in, say, LevelUp Advanced 5e. Or GURPS. Or Vampire: The Masquerade. Or various other games that have a strong systems-focus on social interaction often to the expense of combat.
 

... Gameplay.

Hey, you bought 50ft of rope and 10ft of chain. Now... what are they used for?

"You can tie someone up with them!" okay... how? To what effect? These things are left vague as heck because D&D has never been particularly good at simulating the process of tying someone up and it's just more "Streamlined" to not have any specific gameplay functions involved beyond maybe "Restrained". They even got rid of 3e's "Use Rope" for a skill check to beat with Escape Artist (Also cut).
Ok yeah we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this...I am never going to argue we need a "Use Rope" skill. Tying knots however is about knowing how to do it and it's an action so (attribute check)... so Int check (probably modified by survival but might be persuaded to let another skill sub in) the result of the check then sets the DC for someone to slip out of it? Seems simple enough.

Essentially you wind up with a big ol' pile of legos, megablox, and kinex pieces to build your own stuff out of. Not all of them fit together, most of them barely have anything to do with each other, and even when there's significant overlap it's never really made clear how it should work together...

See I prefer this approach to codification. I pick what I want to be a part of my game's particular exploration and let the rest fall by the wayside. Is it really unclear how things work when the game is taken as a whole?

And ultimately they mostly wind up just being the random assemblage of pieces you put your GI Joes on top of while screaming "Pew Pew! I got you, Snake Eyes!"

Or you could assemble it into a process that you continuously use in every game.

I'd also like to point out that Falling, Damaging Objects, Resting, Damage Types (seriously?), Healing (Again, -seriously-?), Random Encounters, Hazards, and Traps are almost all focused entirely on the core HP/Damage combat system, not exploration or any exploration-centric systems.

If I fall... get burned...run afoul of traps...am hurt in general due to weather or terrain...and so on it affects hit points, it applies a certain damage type (fire is a different type from acid) and healing becomes a part of it. How can you run exploration without these things? Especially in a world where a PC or NPC could easily have resistance or immunity to certain damage types?

I feel like listing off a large number of different headings to short segments and paragraph entries holds even less "Good Faith" than comparing page counts. Especially when you were the one who said "forget page counts"

This just isn't true... nearly everything I listed has mechanics that back it up in the DMG... look it up.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top