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

[Thomas Shey]

If you suggested this to either of my live groups, they'd mutiny. It's removing the part where they play the game and skipping to the part where they find out if they won, which would make any success hollow, to them.

Planning is the fun part, so skipping that would go over like a lead balloon.

And that's perfectly legit, but its the exact opposite of what some people want.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And that's perfectly legit, but its the exact opposite of what some people want.

Sure - but I was reacting to the idea that it's always the right move to skip planning.

Something can be both "not always true" and "sometimes true."

 

[prabe]

The problem is that I think you're missing that some people want the game to play out like certain elements have occurred without having to engage with those elements.

If I can draw a parallel, old school D&D often put a lot of emphasis on things like making sure you had all the right gear and mapping out the dungeon in detail. A lot of modern D&D players just find that all tedious and would prefer to abstract most of that out--but that doesn't mean they assume their characters aren't doing it, any more than they assume their characters don't sharpen their swords. They just don't want to deal with it themselves.

I get that. I genuinely do. The struck-out text bit was an attempt at humor. Mostly. The broader point was, literally--and I thought pretty clearly--play the scenario bits you enjoy playing, no choice is wrong.

 

[Thomas Shey]

[Deleted for clarity.]

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get that. I genuinely do. The struck-out text bit was an attempt at humor. Mostly. The broader point was, literally--and I thought pretty clearly--play the scenario bits you enjoy playing, no choice is wrong.

But the humorous bits kind of showed where the problem comes in. Not only do you need to get buy-in by the GM on playing only those parts, you need to get consensus on what that even means. As with most game rules, what the bespoke systems do is tell everyone "We're not going to do X; instead this mechanic will be what we represent that with." Without that you can potentially get a good result, but the assumption that will come out is, perhaps, a bit blithe.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure - but I was reacting to the idea that it's always the right move to skip planning.

Something can be both "not always true" and "sometimes true."

Fair enough. Its always easy for people to have tunnel vision where they've played with enough people who lean into a preference in some area where they think its given. Its been a problem with the hobby for decades, if not from the very start.

 

[prabe]

But the humorous bits kind of showed where the problem comes in. Not only do you need to get buy-in by the GM on playing only those parts, you need to get consensus on what that even means. As with most game rules, what the bespoke systems do is tell everyone "We're not going to do X; instead this mechanic will be what we represent that with." Without that you can potentially get a good result, but the assumption that will come out is, perhaps, a bit blithe.

If there was a blithe presumption (and I'll stipulate there might have been) it was that there'd be agreement around the table how they wanted to play the planned thing, before they chose a system to play it, or at least before the GM prepped it and possibly hacked rules to fit one approach or the other. I mean, if I was GMing (presuming something more-or-less conventional, like 5E) and saw something heist-shaped looming on the horizon, I'd ask the players which approach they preferred; then I'd try to prep and run it to what they'd asked for.

 

[dave2008]

Like, that thing alone makes it better for heists than D&D which encourages wasting time on useless naughty word.

No good sir, just no. That "useless bull..." is my favorite part!

 

[Thomas Shey]

If there was a blithe presumption (and I'll stipulate there might have been) it was that there'd be agreement around the table how they wanted to play the planned thing, before they chose a system to play it, or at least before the GM prepped it and possibly hacked rules to fit one approach or the other. I mean, if I was GMing (presuming something more-or-less conventional, like 5E) and saw something heist-shaped looming on the horizon, I'd ask the players which approach they preferred; then I'd try to prep and run it to what they'd asked for.

And that's fine. Some people are absolutely fine hacking their preferred rules set into whatever purpose they need, and don't feel anything else is needed. It still seems to be, to me, at best, using a Swiss army knife for things that would be better served by having a dedicated tool, and at worst, using a wrench as a hammer; in both cases it'll probably work but one can legitimately ask if its the best thing to be doing.

 

[prabe]

And that's fine. Some people are absolutely fine hacking their preferred rules set into whatever purpose they need, and don't feel anything else is needed. It still seems to be, to me, at best, using a Swiss army knife for things that would be better served by having a dedicated tool, and at worst, using a wrench as a hammer; in both cases it'll probably work but one can legitimately ask if its the best thing to be doing.

I don't really disagree. In my case, I picked a system (5E) and started a campaign, and ran the stories (and the kinds of stories) that emerged. I don't think I would be as happy running a system that narrows the range of the kinds of stories that can emerge--or, perhaps, I'm happy running the kinds of stories that can emerge from 5E. If I were setting out to run shorter campaigns with narrower ranges of possible stories, I probably wouldn't be running 5E.