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

[cbwjm]

Most people don't need to do all of that for their table, and that is what we are talking about. Personally when we house rule we don't do steps 2-5. We:

1. Identify the issue.
2. Come up with a rule or guide to resolve the issue
3. Play the game.

Now, if #2 doesn't work (for whatever reason) we change it or drop it.

This is exactly what I do. I've added things, run it, decided it wasn't quite good enough so I changed it or came up with something totally different, sometimes I've just completely dropped a change because I felt it just wasn't working. That's what I love about RPGs, I'm able to easily modify or create something new and keep building upon it until I get something that works. Sometimes the work is sort of done for me in an earlier edition or a totally different RPG from DnD that I'm able to lift and modify to fit what I need.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. That’s the point of that example, that “play Blades” is useless advice for someone wanted to make their next adventure within a campaign a heist, and it amounts to threadcrapping when given in a thread asking for Advice on their D&D game.

Sure and I agreed with you on that. But your comments have gone beyond that point. You’ve claimed that D&D can be modified to be just as good at thing X as a “bespoke” game that’s been designed to specifically be about X.

But the ask isn’t for advice to play Aliens. It’s for advice to play a fantasy adventure game that will feature similar themes and elements. The thread isn’t about times when someone asks for advice about playing an aliens game in general.

What ask? This thread is not a request for help with D&D in any way. It’s a versus comparison between D&D and other games with a more specific focus.

So if we’re going to compare them, then I’d say the advantage of a specific game is that it’s going to really deliver on its area of focus.

I’d ask if you agree, but then you went on to say:

Now that I know what you mean, I agree that 5e has light exploration and social rules. I don’t agree with your statements that this means D&D 5e doesn’t do social or exploration gameplay as well as games with very codified mechanics for those gameplay aspects.

This is where you do the thing you say you’re not doing. “D&D does just as well or better with less”.

I think that’s a poor assessment and that’s what my comments have been about.

 

[Campbell]

Two points...

1. Any game where the GM is given rule zero can very easily, regardless of player character power or level be a horror game.
2. By this logic Exalted would do bad as a horror game and yet there is strong support for horror and horrific things in the world of Exalted even with the PC's playing Wuxia Demi-Gods

Exalted Third Edition is one of my very favorite games. I think it has pretty poor support for horror gaming. Light horror themes can work, but much of the way the game works is counterproductive to horror gaming. Like D&D you can utilize horror themes as a spice, but it does not really work well as a main ingredient.

 

[Hussar]

This baffles me though. We run a low magic D&D campaign (lvl 15 now) and it is incredible easy for us (that less than 1 page of house rules thing - some which really have nothing to do with low magic). I think 5e is, out of the box, the easiest version of D&D to play low magic. It is baked into the system even. Heck, it would be easy to run a no magic campaign in 5e.

My only guess is that we have different ideas of what "low magic" means. To me it means a setting where magic and magic items are very, very rare. Any chance you would clarify what it means to you?

My criteria for low magic:

1. In a given encounter, there might, might be a single spell cast TOTAL, by both sides. Most encounters will be resolved with zero spells.
2. Few if any "special effects" required. No flying, teleportation, giant balls of flame, lightning bolts from nowhere, that sort of thing on any sort of regular basis.
3. The entire group might have a single magic item and certainly less than one magic item each, barring one shot items.
4. The setting does not feature high magic elements - a city might have a single high level caster and anything smaller than that almost won't.

That should generally cover it.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Re: the advice thing, and taking offense at someone not appreciating your advice to not do a thing because you tried it and it didn’t work for you. It’s gain about how you give the advice. If you tell someone that your experience is that it doesn’t work in D&D, and either leave it at that or describe why it didn’t work, without just telling them “D&D cant do that play something else”, they probably won’t take offense. They also probably won’t change their mind about running horror in D&D, but going the other way won’t make them change their kind either. They will be aware of some of the pitfalls that they need to plan for, though, which is helpful.
/snip

Funny that we're supposed to take you at your word, no questions asked when you claim that you CAN do X in D&D and do it easily, to the point where suggesting another system is somehow off limits, but, when I claim that I (ME, not you, not anyone else, ME) CAN'T do X in D&D, I must somehow "prove" that I couldn't do it and suggest that yeah, another system would be better, or that, since I've tried to do it for years and failed and never seen any successful attempt at doing it over the years, I consider it something that D&D can't do, that's "offensive".

I mean, I've given two examples in this thread - company scale combat and low magic - that I've tried to do repeatedly for years and it's failed every time. I've looked at all sorts of rules to bolt on and it's still failed. So, yeah, if anyone asks me how to do these two things in 5e, I'm going to say that 5e doesn't do them worth a damn and you'd be far better off looking to other systems that CAN do these things out of the box.

If you find that offensive somehow, that's more on you to be honest. You're dismissive of other people's experience while insisting that your experience must be taken into consideration. It's elitist and incredibly arrogant.

 

[dave2008]

My criteria for low magic:

1. In a given encounter, there might, might be a single spell cast TOTAL, by both sides. Most encounters will be resolved with zero spells.
2. Few if any "special effects" required. No flying, teleportation, giant balls of flame, lightning bolts from nowhere, that sort of thing on any sort of regular basis.
3. The entire group might have a single magic item and certainly less than one magic item each, barring one shot items.
4. The setting does not feature high magic elements - a city might have a single high level caster and anything smaller than that almost won't.

That should generally cover it.

OK, to me that is incredibly easy to do in 5e. You basically just have to take some options off the table, done. Where are you having the hang up?

 

[Hussar]

Probably because most posters are still arguing about the absolutes... D&D can't do this vs. D&D can't do this as well as...

I mean I find it kind of weird that posters are claiming D&D can't do horror and the next book coming out for it addresses and is a campaign setting exactly for that and if the previews are any indication one that deals with a variety of horror types in the game. @Hussar will probably be along shortly to ROTFLMAO us about how the new Ravenloft book also isn't 5e...

So, you're now comparing a specific book meant to be run SPECIFICALLY using ALL the elements of 5e D&D like Ravenloft, vs a "bespoke" setting book like AiME and claiming both are the same? Ok, well, by that criteria, fair enough.

But, it does ignore my point. My point was that there isn't a whole lot of difference between suggesting you run a different game and suggesting you go out and buy a 200+ page supplement in order to do X. If running horror in D&D requires a 200+ page supplement, I think it's pretty fair to say that D&D doesn't do horror particularly well.

 

[Hussar]

That's not fact. You've shown they have significantly more structured process for handling Exploration... that doesn't in turn mean more or better mechanics.

But, in the context of the thread, someone is unhappy with how D&D 5e handles Exploration, thus they've asked for help improving/changing the Exploration rules. No one who is perfectly content with the mechanics starts threads telling all and sundry how they are perfectly happy with the mechanics.

So, again, how is it insulting to point to another system which has more robust, more extensive mechanics for Exploration "offensive"? Our hypothetical person has already started the ball rolling by saying they don't like element X of D&D. Saying that another game handles element X better than D&D is simply a statement of fact.

I guess it all comes down to the "offensive" part of the OP. Why is suggesting a new game offensive?

 

[Hussar]

DnD has an explicit and detailed rules for chase,
but have never seen it in play, I understand better now, that when in need,
just to take a look and remind all these chase rules, the chase thrill is gone, like in the song.
So sadly more rules don’t equal better game experience.

I'll agree. 5e's chase rules are terrible.

So, if I wanted to run a chase, I wouldn't look to the mechanics in 5e for doing that, but, rather, start looking at how other systems do it. If chases are going to be a regular feature in my campaign, such as a campaign that centers around the PC's doing heists, or perhaps being bounty hunters, then I'd probably start looking for a new system, rather than D&D.

Again, I fail to see how suggesting a new system is a bad thing. It's always going to be so contextual.

 

[Hussar]

OK, to me that is incredibly easy to do in 5e. You basically just have to take some options off the table, done. Where are you having the hang up?

"Some" options?

You're left with 2 classes - fighter and rogue. That's it. The half caster classes mean that the game features repeated spell casting every single combat. How do I know? Because when I ran my Thule campaign, I allowed 1/2 casters like Rangers and monks, and every single encounter featured magic. Social encounters featured magic. Exploration encounters featured magic. Just like standard 5e, even with 1/2 casters, the PC's have a MOUNTAIN of magic available to them.

So, basically, I would have to strip out so much of the game, that it's just not worth it anymore. Anyone who wants to play a more tactically interesting game being restricted to fighters and rogues and 5e's ruleset is bored out of their minds because fighters and rogues in 5e do the same thing over and over and over again. They're the "simple" classes. That's their attraction. I've been told that repeatedly enough.

You want to do anything other than straight up attack in 5e with a fighter? Ok, well, there's no rules for it, so, now we're back to playing Calvinball. I want to sweep my sword through the sand and blind the three bandits in front of me. How do I adjudicate that action? 4e would be simple. 5e? There's no "maneuver" system in 5e. Which means I'd have to bolt that on or constantly have to make stuff up.

Heck, I want to throw my sword at someone, Conan style isn't handled by the system. Never minding the aforementioned chase rules.

So, yeah, it failed utterly to do what I wanted it to do. The players hated it because they found it unrelentingly boring as soon as dice started dropping.

If I were to do it again, 5e would be the last system I would try to use to run that style of game.

But, apparently, this is offensive to talk about because 5e can do everything and any failure must be entirely my fault and nothing to do with the system. So, I guess I'm just not as good a DM as the OP. C'est la vie.