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

[Thomas Shey]

It's less about whether a universal d20 system based on the 5e engine is needed, but, rather, it's more a genuine surprise that it hasn't been designed or approached yet even by a 3pp.

I've certainly seen some 5e derived SF/modern games, but never engaged with either them or their source enough to tell how much of 5e's assumptions were peeled out. Ultramodern 5e comes to mind.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's far easier to adapt whatever setting a publisher has to 5e - make $$$ off the D&D locomotive - than design a system from the ground up and risk it not catching on. Probably why no one has done that.

Ultramodern 5 is a weird mix of parts 5e, 4e and 3e d20. I didn't like it. There is a redux version I know nothing about:

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

That was actually the one I was referring to above. Its got some interesting ideas in its setting conceits, but I can't say much about the mechanics otherwise (I'm not that big a fan of D&D derivative games in the first place, and even among those 5e is not near the top).

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's like a heist game for the people who like the idea of heists, but not the nitty-gritty. I guess we'd want the Torchbearer of fantasy heist games lol.

I think I'd characterize it who want that style of story's output, but not its input. The output interests them, but not the tedium of setting it up. Frankly, I'm often that way about investigations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are so many issues with that proposed Blades hack that I read. Some initial thoughts:

* D&D 5e doesn't remotely have the kind of authority distribution and transparency in action resolution that Blades possesses. This is for a number of reasons that don't just begin and end with "well, start asking questions and using answers in 5e just like in Blades!" You'd have to change the DC spread/complication paradigm (DC isn't Position...its not Effect...its not some amorphous combination of the two...they're conceptually different enough that you have an issue), you'd have to tighten up and stabilize the numbers (the maths between the two systems are different), you'd have to conceive of a functional and integrated Teamwork/Push/Devil's Bargain system, and you'd have to make table-facing the entire action resolution structure (the easiest part).

* The pressure points of the two games are entirely different (both in the breadth of them and in the potency of them). There is so many missing analogous pieces (Hit Points/HD are not even close to Stress and Fatigue isn't remotely Trauma and the suite of restoration abilities that PCs have for them in 5e immediately alters the play space and the moment to moment gamestate to a point that it a hack attempt looks unrecoverable...and that is just scratching the surface...how do you create a Coin > Get Stuff Done model that is stable and intuitable...what is the Heat analogue?).

* The incentive structures are entirely different. What is the carrot that equates to negotiating for Desperate Position so you can get xp? 1 Inspiration ain't it...and if you used that, the downstream effects are significant (you're suddenly exchanging the mechanics and incentive structures of Push/Devil's Bargain for the incentive structures of advancement that push the game toward "be bold and tempt fate"...that alone changes the nature of play and decision-points).


That is just scratching the surface. Int for Flashacks? That again rewards smarty-pants Wizards (D&D needs more of that!) and punishes martial characters that aren't F-Ms!


I think if I was actually trying to hack in something like Blades tech into 5e, the very first thing I would think of is "how can I stabilize + tune + integrate all the Help/Teamwork/DB stuff within the action resolution mechanics, make them table-facing, and give them teeth!"

Very first question. Tackle that and then you can get on with the rest (which doesn't just including changing stuff, but integrating it). Some initial thoughts I'd throw around:

* 1 Flashback per Score per PC.

* Somehow make Fatigue into Harm and make it very difficult to recover (the current D&D model makes it trivial to recover). Downtime Activities can recover it on a Clock w/ a Healer's help.

* Figure out and tightly tune the Coin > Get Assets/Get Stuff Done/Advance Level economy.

* Figure out how Heat + Wanted Level + Engagements works (what it is...what it does > Entanglements are basically Random Encounters, so there is that kindred part).

* X number of Stress per Score (not HP, not HD...it can't scale and it can't be restored in Score via all the various ways D&D PCs can) and if you Stress out in a Score, your PC is taken out and you add a Flaw that is like Blades Trauma (Cold, Haunted, Obsessed, et al) that the (a) has teeth and (b) the player and the GM can use the pressure point later as complications that earn xp.

* Saving Throw System is somehow Resistance Rolls where you can risk increased Stress to mitigate complications.

That is kind of the starting point. No D&D scaling of integral stuff. 1 Flashback per Score. Hit Points/HD aren't Stress. Somehow make Fatigue into Harm. Flaws are Trauma.

Lot of figuring out to do. But that is just the beginning. Then you have to tightly tune and integrate all the stuff.

This project feels like the "well 5e is basically 4e D&D because HD and Healing Surges!" that was/is thrown about. No. Not at all. But that is just the tip of the iceberg (navigating the reality that HDs and Healing Surges don't have the same immediate and longterm gamestate implications). Once you've got all the parts, you have to tightly tune and integrate everything.

The sort of "modular-based" + "just let the GM deploy the Triple F (Feel, Fiat, and Force) to get it to roughly hang together" thinking that undergirds 5e (and the overwhelming majority of the D&D hacking community) is extremely different than "holistic, integrated, tightly tuned design" where GM's aren't performing Fiat or Force and the extreme corner cases where they're deploying Feel its as tightly guided/constrained by the system as a game could be (upthread I mentioned Genre Hold 'Em conflict resolution...that is as corner case as it gets).

Very interesting thoughts.

I do want to say that, for myself, the point is never to actually port the mechanics of one game to another game. It’s just about genre, tone, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

It always depends what the intention is.

are you trying to do BitD in D&D, or are you trying to do heist in D&D by porting mechanics from BitD?

if I were to do the former, I’d rework D&D in a way you described. Since I was doing the second, I was happy with the results I achieved.

if I were posting a thread about taking inspiration from BitD to do heist in D&D, your advice/opinion would have been very helpful and welcome, even if I didn’t agree with it all.

i would have felt frustrated if you’d said “too hard, don’t do it, just play BitD” however... (to circle back to the OP)

Absolutely.

But let me propose an analogy that I'm confident is apt.

5e is basically a (pre-Aventador) Lamborghini. Its got the Lamborghini V12, its got the insane exhaust note, the look, and the "this machine wants to kill you" qualities that enthusiasts swear is the beating heart of Lambo. The actual driving characteristics are not remotely integrated to create a very tuned, very stable, very reproducible platform for the driver to experience. The driver is going to have to do a hell of a lot of work to make the machine "not kill them."

Blades in the Dark is the Porsche 911. The engine, the suspension, the gearbox, the responsiveness of the steering, the chassis, the downforce, the driving position (etc etc etc) is tightly integrated, tightly tuned to create a very_specific driving experience.

You can't switch out the engine because the Lambo enthusiasts will exclaim "LAMBORGHINI IS NOT A LAMBORGHINI WITHOUT A V12!" So maybe you switch out the gearbox. Oh no! All of these 2nd and 3rd order effects are now chaining! Oh well, that is basically "Lambo feel 101"; on the edge of disaster and the driver has to do everything possible to keep the thing not wound around a tree. That is the challenge, that is the joy of driving this car (running this game).

So that was my response to Imaro. Just switch out the gearbox (say you can perform Action Resolution in the past to perform a "Flashback" which subtly changes a complicated situation in the present...if you fail on your roll, now its even more complicated!). (a) You get to do "heist-ey" stuff by flashing back and saying "I did this cool thing", (b) there is risk/reward (you subtly further complicate or subtly mitigate a present complication), (c) its less laborious and less intrusive. I mean, you're never getting anything even in the same universe as the Porsche 911 driving experience (not even adjacent)...but again, that isn't even desirable for Lambo enthusiasts.

 

[dave2008]

I expect it would indeed be different than what you’re used to. I would recommend it even if only to try a game with a different approach than you’re used to.

But you’re right...not every game is for every group. It may not be a good fit for you and your players.



it’s just about what the games are designed to do. In Overwatch, for example, there are two teams and they basically duke it out. There are characters who have stealth abilities and the like, but all of those are in service to eliminating the opposition.

Other games have stealth and similar elements as the primary purpose. The game world is designed with this in mind, and actively promotes that kind of play.

So this comparison is about game design, and how games are designed will promote specific experiences.

So D&D primarily promotes combat. Look at how combat works and how many options each of the classes has for how they engage with combat. There are class abilities like Fighting Styles and there are Feats like Sharpshooter and there are spells like Fireball and Spirit Guardians.....and so on. Just tons and tons of options for what to do in a fight.

But what about what to do in a conversation? When you’re trying to convince someone of something? Or if you’re trying to infiltrate a location? In these areas, almost all those options vanish, and you’re left with a couple of applicable skills, and a handful of feats, and a few spells.

Instead of a combat with all kinds of decision points and lots of options for each character to deploy, and likely dozens of rolls, an infiltration will likely consist of a couple of skill checks, and maybe a spell cast. And most likely this will fall on one person because most parties in D&D are not optimized for stealth across the board.

It’s just a matter of design.

Now, if your D&D game only requires this kind of stuff upon occasion, then you can likely get by. But if your D&D game is going to focus on this kind of stuff, then you may not.



While I personally want to see more people trying more games beyond D&D, ultimately you should use the game that would be the most fun for you and your group.

I look at other games still, but actually playing them, not so much. My RPG experimental stage was in the 80s, I've found my groove now (mostly, I still may branch out now and again with the right group).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Looking at this from a slightly different angle, I've actually found D&D isn't the game or genre where I've most often seen a rules/subject conflict, nor seen "system matters" illustrated so obviously.

Supers is.

[Much snippage]

I think how much that's true depends on how much you think medium matters. You can talk about supers as a genre, but the truth is, it varies considerably from medium to medium, and how much of that one tolerates (or expects) is going to color your views. Champions is an old basic design at this point, and does not always do as good a job of representing the genre in some areas as it could, certainly, but I'd suggest two things here:

1. You're a bit underestimating how many genre assumptions are baked into the system. Even when not building characters specifically to deal with it, it is notable that it is a system that is much, much easier to knock people out than kill them, for example, and that's very much a supers (especially Silver/Bronze Age) supers assumption, to the degree it stands out pretty starkly in other genres the system is used for, even with optional rules to reduce it; and

2. The degree to which people expect a RPG experience to strongly map to its more native media forms varies considerably; this is likely why you have a number of supers games that come later which don't match up as well in your view, because they were designed assuming some native genre elements were not wanted by the players. In fact, I'd argue the ongoing evolution of games in the genre is a process of iterating toward what people perceive as the market's desires here (along with some games that stake out particular levels of this and just decide that's where they're going to stand and the hell with it, but I think a game like M&M shows an attempt to push certain things closer to the native genre in some areas while consciously avoiding doing so in others).

Or, put another way, while Champions is clearly not what everyone wants here, neither was MSH, and that was just as true about people with strong histories with the genre as not. It turns much more on how they expect a genre to be adapted to the medium of RPGs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The degree to which people expect a RPG experience to strongly map to its more native media forms varies considerably; this is likely why you have a number of supers games that come later which don't match up as well in your view, because they were designed assuming some native genre elements were not wanted by the players. In fact, I'd argue the ongoing evolution of games in the genre is a process of iterating toward what people perceive as the market's desires here (along with some games that stake out particular levels of this and just decide that's where they're going to stand and the hell with it, but I think a game like M&M shows an attempt to push certain things closer to the native genre in some areas while consciously avoiding doing so in others).

I think the problem I have with this is that you're presupposing a level of design consciousness that hasn't been present reliably in RPGs pre-2010 (though it becomes increasingly common since the early 1990s).

Like the "not wanted" genre elements and "perceive as the markets desires". I think the vast majority of Supers RPG or Supers expansion designs over gaming history were way more naive than this. By naive, I mean, the designers weren't even thinking about those things. They weren't considering and rejecting stuff, they just weren't thinking beyond simple representational design. That's the big issue with a lot of Supers designs. They concentrate very hard on finding ways to "represent" a huge range of superpowers within a system, but they don't think "maybe the system itself is what needs to change". The system is seen as a constant in these games, and even when it does change, it's not typically due to a perceived need to make the game work better for a genre, it's usually to correct some sort of numerical exploit, or slightly streamline some particularly clunky mechanic.

The market is complicit in a sense that relatively few players were asking for more, but the idea that designers thought "Well, we could make this more like the actual genre, but no-one wants that!" falls flat to me, because there's no evidence that's actually going on with these designs.

And I think supporting my argument is that post-2005 the number of games taking the "here's a system, let's just use it for Supers regardless of whether it makes sense" declines increasingly steeply. Fewer and fewer Supers RPGs don't work pretty well at representing comics and movies. They may do so with some pretty wacky mechanics, but they tend to produce games that look like comics/movies, which a lot of earlier systems totally did not - or, as I pointed out, ironically looked like deconstructions of superhero stuff, like The Boys. Stuff like HERO/Champions is still around but it's not going to be the system of choice for anyone looking for a superhero RPG now, just something people already familiar with that like.

(I do agree that HERO did make it easy to knock people out - that seemed to be the one real concession to genre, and a conscious design element. It got in because so many supers had no-killing codes, and it's really obvious if an NPC is dead or not, so even in the naive design era, they took that into account.)

I think I'd characterize it who want that style of story's output, but not its input. The output interests them, but not the tedium of setting it up. Frankly, I'm often that way about investigations.

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not just output, but also vibe/style. With heists it's particularly obvious, because they want the Oceans 11 or the like, but without the planning, just the actual heist sequence. I don't think that's really just "output", because it's also the process. It's more like procedural vs drama. Some people want to do most of the thing, maybe not in minute detail, but they want to do it in order, have one thing lead to the next, and so on. Others just want the dramatic bits. Neither is inherently superior/inferior but they are supported by different rules approaches.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the problem I have with this is that you're presupposing a level of design consciousness that hasn't been present reliably in RPGs pre-2010 (though it becomes increasingly common since the early 1990s).

That may be, but I know a number of designers of supers games personally (its been kind of my jam for many years, though not as much these days) and I can say with certainty that degree of design consciousness is absolutely present in people like Steve Kenson, Chris Rutkowsky and Leonard Pimentel. So at least in the discussion at hand, I'm confident saying its well distributed among modern designers. I know they think about these things (how to balance game and genre issues), because I've seen them talk about them.

Now the "iterating toward the market desire" part of my post is my perception of this; almost no one in RPG design is going to outright say they're doing that, or probably even think of it that way, but I maintain that's still what's going on.

The market is complicit in a sense that relatively few players were asking for more, but the idea that designers thought "Well, we could make this more like the actual genre, but no-one wants that!" falls flat to me, because there's no evidence that's actually going on with these designs.

I've seen at least one of the designers I mentioned say exactly that.

And I think supporting my argument is that post-2005 the number of games taking the "here's a system, let's just use it for Supers regardless of whether it makes sense" declines increasingly steeply. Fewer and fewer Supers RPGs don't work pretty well at representing comics and movies. They may do so with some pretty wacky mechanics, but they tend to produce games that look like comics/movies, which a lot of earlier systems totally did not - or, as I pointed out, ironically looked like deconstructions of superhero stuff, like The Boys. Stuff like HERO/Champions is still around but it's not going to be the system of choice for anyone looking for a superhero RPG now, just something people already familiar with that like.

But part of that is there's been a growth of heavy genre representation in games in general--but I'll also note part of that is because people don't need to re explore the space of compromise systems because there's already plenty. But I'll note, for example, Prowlers and Paragons is still a compromise system (though closer to the heavy genre end than Champions) and its new edition just came out this year. So I think there's nothing to suggest that new games that ignore the liminal space prove anything other than a lot of new games (especially at the small press end) have moved away from the liminal space in most genres. That was pretty much going to be a thing as soon as Fate and PbtA games became at least semi-popular.

(I do agree that HERO did make it easy to knock people out - that seemed to be the one real concession to genre, and a conscious design element. It got in because so many supers had no-killing codes, and it's really obvious if an NPC is dead or not, so even in the naive design era, they took that into account.)

Its not the only place that's true, though; the amount of damage the high end strength does, things like how lifting and throwing are handled, the whole structure of the disadvantage system in general are signs of where it comes from. You can argue that its support of genre tends to focus on the concrete realities of the setting rather than the higher order genre conventions, and I'd agree, but even things like the assumptions that supers will have a higher Speed attribute than normal people are intended as genre supporting.

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not just output, but also vibe/style. With heists it's particularly obvious, because they want the Oceans 11 or the like, but without the planning, just the actual heist sequence. I don't think that's really just "output", because it's also the process. It's more like procedural vs drama. Some people want to do most of the thing, maybe not in minute detail, but they want to do it in order, have one thing lead to the next, and so on. Others just want the dramatic bits. Neither is inherently superior/inferior but they are supported by different rules approaches.

I think this assumes that everyone who wants the final result cares about things like what the flashback mechanic is representing though. I don't think that's at all a given.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I feel like from your posts you're in the "understands 5E has things it is better and worse at" group. It's perfectly fine to understand that and still use D&D - in fact I think people who do are the ones who will incorporate rules best.

See, to me, I think what's different now, in 2021, to say, 2005 or 1995, is that most modern TT RPGs "work".

That did not used to be true. Like, it used to be, there was a good chance, if you played an RPG, that it was a goddamn mess. That it had like big rules issues that easily came out in actual play. That still happens - just look at recent editions of Shadowrun lol - but it's a lot more rare. Almost all PtbA games "just work" for example. As do a lot of others.

So I don't really feel like 5E has a special advantage there except maybe in it's "weight class". D&D is either at the top of rules-medium, or the bottom of rules-heavy in weight of rules. And in that area, games which don't "work" are a lot more common. Indeed in rules-heavy games, not working very well is pretty common.

As for "easy to sit down and prep", I don't agree, again, except relative to weight class. I've played countless different RPGs over the years, DM'd dozens. 5E is not among those I'd describe as "easy to prep". 4E was drastically easier to prep (not going to argue this, I feel like I could demonstrate it as objective fact due to the way mechanics worked in 4E, but it'd be a boring few posts). 3E was harder to prep (but that's why 3E caused the rise of Paizo and their APs and so on). 2E was slightly easier or about the same. Something like Shadowrun, which is deep into "rules heavy" is basically harder to prep, often a lot harder. But majority of games out there now? I'd say they were a lot easier than 5E. Especially if you're looking at adding in further rules for genre simulation. I accept that you might not find that, but I think experience and a particular approach to prep may be the factors here (esp. if you didn't find 4E easier to prep).

I am not talking about 5E. I don't play 5E. I am talking about the basic conceits of D&D being very easy to prep for. And just based on my own experience, it is a lot easier to prep for D&D I think than say a genre game (and I love genre games, but there is something about D&D that is easy to plan). Obviously though this is subjective. People are going to have different experiences. All I know is sitting down to prep stuff like maps and dungeons, those are pretty easy things for me to do. And there is something fun about getting genre to fit those conceits.

On the system front. I think there have been plenty of games that worked over the years but that is a whole other discussion. My point was it was very easy to get people to people to play games that weren't D&D before d20. Since then I have had a much harder time finding people willing to play a not-D&D game. Not impossible but it is a hurdle many GMs will consider when choosing a system