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

[Ovinomancer]

Completely false. I have literally criticized 5e in this thread.

You also said that suggesting other ganes is offensive. When people personalize things, it's quite often offensive to them for someone else to point out something they themselves say. Like with family: I can talk about my mom hiwever I want but if ypu do it it's offensive. So, yeah, no credit for offering some occasional criticism and then sticking to the overall point that recommendations for non-5e games is offensive.

Calling people liars because you disagree with them is pretty low. The heist adventure is an example because I’ve seen it happen multiple times since Dragon Heist came out and folks were bummed that it isn’t a heist.

Quote where I called you a liar, please? I said that the frequency of occurance between to two is radically different. However, it is not unexpected that the only response to my post is to try and make it an attack on you so everything else can be dismissed.

 

[Manbearcat]

What this conversation is missing (so far as I can tell) is analysis/breakdown in terms of both (i) system and (ii) the structured conversation of play) for some/all of the following:

(a) What does (FP) functional play (in terms of what play feels like, what it reliably produces, how it gets there with respect to Skilled Play and the distribution of volition at the table) look like in a heist scenario and how is that achieved?

(b) What does FP look like in a dungeon delve scenario and how is that achieved?

(c) What does FP look like in a journey/chase scenario and how is that achieved?

(d) What does FP look like in a city-building scenario and how is that achieved?

(e) What does FP look like in a social conflict scenario and how is that achieved?

(f) What does FP look like in a mystery/investigation scenario and how is that achieved?

(g) What does FP look like in a combat scenario and how is that achieved?

(h) What does FP look like in an incite a revolt/revolution scenario and how is that achieved?

(i) What does FP look like in an engage a supernatural power (exorcism/summons and binding) scenario and how is that achieved?

I'm sure there are others, but those are the most beefy/pervasive among TTRPGs.

I haven't read the thread, just looked through some of it and its not clear to me precisely what the discussion is supposed to be about. What can stock 5e handle? How do you try to integrate other stuff with 5e (so it handles more stuff or handles stuff better)? What can 5e not integrate (whether that means coherently or without it becoming fiddly or table-time/pacing punitive)? However, if the answer to all of the above (a) - (i) is something like "it doesn't much matter because any/all systems and conversation structure will/can/should lead to roughly the same type of aspirational play", then there isn't much to have in the way of discussion about how to facilitate certain sorts of play less or more via different design/play principles and techniques deployed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You also said that suggesting other ganes is offensive

No, I didn’t.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, here’s the thing.

The fact that a type of play doesn’t make sense to you in D&D 5e, or that it didn’t work for your group, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work in D&D . It just means that it doesn’t work for your group.

Telling someone, without any explanation or reasoning, that D&D doesn’t do a thing that they’re asking for advice to do in D&D, is dismissive and rude. It isn’t advice, it’s threadcrapping.

Telling someone that it hasn’t worked for you, or asking them what they want from a horror D&D adventure or heist D&D adventure or whatever, that sort of thing, is advice. Very useful advice.

It’s “D&D 5e doesn’t do naval combat. It won’t work. You’re better off finding a naval game.” Vs “Naval combat hasn’t ever worked for my group, because XYZ.”

Because the first is just false, because it’s an absolute statement. The second is obviously true, and useful advice.

You don’t know what will or won’t work for the person asking for advice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, I didn’t.

My bad, but I'm glad we've now conclusively established that you agree suggesting a different game is not offensive. Or was this some silly rhetorical trick about exact wording or making the other oer3son dig through lots of backposts? You do agree that it's not offensive, right?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, here’s the thing.

The fact that a type of play doesn’t make sense to you in D&D 5e, or that it didn’t work for your group, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work in D&D . It just means that it doesn’t work for your group.

Telling someone, without any explanation or reasoning, that D&D doesn’t do a thing that they’re asking for advice to do in D&D, is dismissive and rude. It isn’t advice, it’s threadcrapping.

Telling someone that it hasn’t worked for you, or asking them what they want from a horror D&D adventure or heist D&D adventure or whatever, that sort of thing, is advice. Very useful advice.

It’s “D&D 5e doesn’t do naval combat. It won’t work. You’re better off finding a naval game.” Vs “Naval combat hasn’t ever worked for my group, because XYZ.”

Because the first is just false, because it’s an absolute statement. The second is obviously true, and useful advice.

You don’t know what will or won’t work for the person asking for advice.

See, this just reads as demanding everyone start from your point of view. That's it's bad to skip to the punchline without detailed explanation to a rigor you set if the position differs from yours. It's a strange thing to demand, and comes across as insisting people honor your predilictions while giving you permission to dismiss theirs. Thing is, this is a discussion forum -- not everyone is posting from the same place. This kind of gatekeeping, and it is a mild gatekeeping of the purity of group kind, is much more harmful if embraced than you having to roll your eyes and scroll past a post or four. I'm here to discuss ganes, seek advice, and interact with different viewpoints. I do not wish your brand of purity controls on the discussion. I want people to suggest other games. I'm still playing 5e despite occasionally having to confront such suggestions, and, heck, even after making such suggestions myself. I don't need a safe space from suggestions of other games.

In short, you're suggesting everyone just agree with you, and, if you don't, a detailed list of why you don't must be provided. Nah.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is a quick thought based on a very recent, personal anecdote.

One of my Blades games features a Crew of Grifters. Because of this, there is some Rounders type conflict that is happening.

Because of this, I've had to iterate two different versions of Genre Hold 'Em from Blades in the Dark's action and conflict resolution architecture. The first iteration was ok. The second iteration was better than the first.

However, unequivocally, I can say the following:

* Blades in the Dark's action/conflict resolution machinery is not built around being able to reliably produce the sort of Skilled Play (even in the abstract) of a game of Texas Hold 'Em.

* Even making Genre Hold 'Em work is extremely difficult (but doable).

* Dogs in the Vineyard's conflict resolution architecture is fundamentally better in all ways for both (a) reproducing the Skilled Play priority (even though not close to approaching 1 : 1) of Texas Hold 'Em and (b) producing the feel of Genre Hold 'Em.

* However, there is fundamentally NO WAY to reproduce this in Blades in the Dark because Dogs and Blades are extremely disparate systems at multiple, pivotal levels of system/PC build/fallout.

* FURTHER, because a conflict resolution system that produces the "tactically/strategically See and Raise until one side is out of gas/unwilling to risk anymore" aesthetic that is required for Texas Hold 'Em, THAT conflict resolution system (Dogs) will be fundamentally better for both (a) social conflict and (b) social conflict that escalates to physical conflict than an alternative (Blades).


Dogs does cards better than Blades. It just will. End of story.

Dogs does social conflict better than Blades. It just will. End of story.

Dogs does social conflict escalated to physical conflict better than Blades. It just will. End of story.


Everything else (even the knife/sword/gunfights)...Blades will be better than Dogs. It just will. End of story. But Dogs isn't trying to be the best combat emulator. Its trying to do a specific thing...and that specific thing it does tremendously.

 

[Campbell]

I think in general when evaluating whether or not you are using the best tool for the job you should look at overall trends rather than a single session (or even set of 2-3 sessions if it's a longer game). Also can x game do this is a pretty lousy thing to base your decision making process on. We are pretty capable of roleplaying out pretty much an sort of situation. It's more a question of how well the play processes and reward systems support the sort of play we are after.

The core game group I'm part of tends to play a lot of games that are pretty much character focused social crawls. We might see violence once every 3-4 sessions and usually that's separated by a lot of time in the fiction. Could we use D&D 5e for one of our fantasy games? Sure, but it would really offer no real support and not really incentivize any of the sorts of behavior we're looking for. Something like Exalted Third Edition, Burning Wheel, Ironsworn or even Conan 2d20 would probably be a much better fit.

I know from experience that modern iterations of D&D are really ill suited because I have tried to use them for character focused games on both sides of the screen. The focus on discrete limited use mostly combat oriented abilities, lack of a meaningful character driven reward system, no real framework for prepping this sort of game, quick recharge cycles, and no real stakes for social encounters all amount to the game mostly getting in our way and providing no real support.

Edit: Accidentally posted this before it was fully worked. Will finish my thoughts later.

 

[loverdrive]

Here is a quick thought based on a very recent, personal anecdote.

One of my Blades games features a Crew of Grifters. Because of this, there is some Rounders type conflict that is happening.

Because of this, I've had to iterate two different versions of Genre Hold 'Em from Blades in the Dark's action and conflict resolution architecture. The first iteration was ok. The second iteration was better than the first.

However, unequivocally, I can say the following:

* Blades in the Dark's action/conflict resolution machinery is not built around being able to reliably produce the sort of Skilled Play (even in the abstract) of a game of Texas Hold 'Em.

* Even making Genre Hold 'Em work is extremely difficult (but doable).

* Dogs in the Vineyard's conflict resolution architecture is fundamentally better in all ways for both (a) reproducing the Skilled Play priority (even though not close to approaching 1 : 1) of Texas Hold 'Em and (b) producing the feel of Genre Hold 'Em.

* However, there is fundamentally NO WAY to reproduce this in Blades in the Dark because Dogs and Blades are extremely disparate systems at multiple, pivotal levels of system/PC build/fallout.

* FURTHER, because a conflict resolution system that produces the "tactically/strategically See and Raise until one side is out of gas/unwilling to risk anymore" aesthetic that is required for Texas Hold 'Em, THAT conflict resolution system (Dogs) will be fundamentally better for both (a) social conflict and (b) social conflict that escalates to physical conflict than an alternative (Blades).


Dogs does cards better than Blades. It just will. End of story.

Dogs does social conflict better than Blades. It just will. End of story.

Dogs does social conflict escalated to physical conflict better than Blades. It just will. End of story.


Everything else (even the knife/sword/gunfights)...Blades will be better than Dogs. It just will. End of story. But Dogs isn't trying to be the best combat emulator. Its trying to do a specific thing...and that specific thing it does tremendously.

Oh my God stop making me want to hunt for a Dogs copy! I've already burned enough money on stuff this month, and it barely even started

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My bad, but I'm glad we've now conclusively established that you agree suggesting a different game is not offensive. Or was this some silly rhetorical trick about exact wording or making the other oer3son dig through lots of backposts? You do agree that it's not offensive, right?

Nuance, my dude. It exists.

As I’ve said from the start, giving advice that includes other games that do The Thing, without telling the asker that they’re wrong to want to do The Thing in D&D, is fine.

No explanation “Your premise is bad do this other thing.” Is not.