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

[prabe]

I didn't know that 5e D&D has a Chef feat until you mentioned it. I just Googled it and learned that, in addition to the WIS boost you mentioned, it gives a way of healing hp, a way of granting temp hp, and proficiency in cooking utensils.

It doesn't seem to tell us anything about whether or not the character should do better in a cooking competition than another character without the feat. That would be something the GM would just have to decide, I guess.

I promise I was more laughing at the idea of "Chef" being a Feat than I was at you for not knowing something so specific about a game you do not play. I should have copy-pasted it into my post; I apologize.

I agree that if a cooking competition of some sort emerges from play in a 5E game, it would be up to the DM to figure out how to run it. One can either look at it as the game doesn't have specific rules for it, so there's no support; or one can look at it as there's a framework to base adjudication on, so there's plenty of support. It should not surprise you that I lean toward the latter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As one example...the simple fact that it has rules for stealth supports heist stories. Again if you don't see that as support (whether minimal or not is a matter of discussion) there's nothing for us to really talk about concerning this.

It doesn't have "rules" for stealth. It says "the GM will tell you how stealth works." This isn't support, it's an offer to the GM to create ad hoc processes for their table.

If you bought a product, say a bike, and it said that wheels are whatever you attach to the bike, you wouldn't say it has support, you'd be blasting it for being useless. Now, this is because we expect bikes to have tires that work, whereas decades of training has taught us that RPGs are better if left up to the GM. It's a difference in expectation for what makes a product, but that expectation doesn't mean "up to the GM" is actually support.

 

[Imaro]

or one can look at it as there's a framework to base adjudication on, so there's plenty of support. It should not surprise you that I lean toward the latter.

This... so much this. Thank you for saying it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't say one roll... I asked if the heist could end like this. It was the result that other posters were claiming just didn't happen in BitD

I don't think there's a single poster that has any experience with Blades that would say that a heist cannot end in abject shambles. Some of the most fun moments of play can occur here.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think there's a single poster that has any experience with Blades that would say that a heist cannot end in abject shambles. Some of the most fun moments of play can occur here.

@Hussar Maybe you can clarify your stance for us??

 

[Imaro]

It doesn't have "rules" for stealth. It says "the GM will tell you how stealth works." This isn't support, it's an offer to the GM to create ad hoc processes for their table.

If you bought a product, say a bike, and it said that wheels are whatever you attach to the bike, you wouldn't say it has support, you'd be blasting it for being useless. Now, this is because we expect bikes to have tires that work, whereas decades of training has taught us that RPGs are better if left up to the GM. It's a difference in expectation for what makes a product, but that expectation doesn't mean "up to the GM" is actually support.

This is why us discussing this won't amount to anything.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I promise I was more laughing at the idea of "Chef" being a Feat than I was at you for not knowing something so specific about a game you do not play. I should have copy-pasted it into my post; I apologize.

I agree that if a cooking competition of some sort emerges from play in a 5E game, it would be up to the DM to figure out how to run it. One can either look at it as the game doesn't have specific rules for it, so there's no support; or one can look at it as there's a framework to base adjudication on, so there's plenty of support. It should not surprise you that I lean toward the latter.

The "framework" is experience, though, not support by the rule system. It's you're years or decades of experience that provide to you a good fallback for how to fairly ad hoc adjudicate such things. The actual rules of 5e provide none of this -- they don't provide any suggestions on how to adjudicate such things as cooking challenges. Heck, they run away from how to adjudicate stealth! The point of 5e is to do exactly this, though -- to allow you to use your experience with the loose stack of tools that 5e scattered about in a reasonable way. This is, though, entirely idiosyncratic, and is so by design. 5e is a successful design because of this, but that doesn't mean it provides support so much as puts it on the GMs.

 

[loverdrive]

In BitD, all resolution is on a d6. On a 6, you succeed--you get exactly what you want. On a 4-5, you get success with a complication (or a partial success)--you get what you want, but the GM brings something into the fiction that makes your live more complicated (meaning, eventually, it will make your life worse). On a 1-3, you fail--your life gets worse.

But unlike both D&D and other PbtA games, in Blades you can resist the consequences (which, depending on where your game is on a sliding scale between Ocean's 11 and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, may be either negating it entirely or reducing it) and have an ability to make a complication into a benefit.

I think at this point you just profoundly don't want to understand the concept, because your objection here makes zero sense in the context of my post, which explained the point! At length! And you're acting like I didn't so either you didn't read it (which would be weird), or just don't want to engage with it, which is kind of funny and a bit sad. It's one thing to say "what works for you doesn't work for me" or something, but when I explained the point, and you're still saying "what's the point?!" and not even referencing what I said? That's on you mate. Feel free to re-read my earlier post to learn the point.

It's okay though, there are people who fundamentally don't get Torchbearer, for example, just cannot for the life of them figure out how that could possibly be fun. I pity them personally, but YMMV.

Maybe I didn't understand you. Let's start over with reviewing the options:

• We play a game, where at least one of the characters is a super-smart criminal mastermind -- so the fun part is discovering what the perfect plan was during the job itself. So, naturally, the players don't make elaborate plans and then use flashbacks extensively to spin what seemingly is a complication as just one more step in their elaborate plan.
• We play a game, where things will inevitably go south -- so the fun part is seeing the characters react and think on their feet. So, naturally, the players don't make elaborate plans (because what's the point of spending any significant time on a plan that you know will never work?) and deal with the complications as they arise.
• We play a game, where we play to find out, whether the plan actually works -- so the fun part is making this plan, and then see it in action... Which, I'd say, isn't going to work in any TTRPG. It's a cursed problem -- the person who is controlling the opposition knows the plan, after all, and one way or another this knowledge is going to influence their behaviour, which is just plain impossible -- every question, every action during casing and preparation is going to inevitably recontextualize something.

Option 3 is the only one where extensive planning is a good idea, but as I see it, it's either an option 2 or option 1 in disguise, or the actual gameplay happens during planing phase and execution is then irrelevant, or requires an iron will and a crapload of preparation from the GM side.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is why us discussing this won't amount to anything.

Because you can't support your position? I don't understand. It should be a simple request -- what structures exist in 5e to tell me, as a GM, how to run information gathering for a heist? What structures exist in 5e to tell me, as a player, what to expect and how I should expect information gathering to go? This is a simple point -- very narrow, yet critical to a number of types of play. Yet, none of this exists -- by design - because it's entirely left to the GM to detail this for their table however they want -- by design -- to get the kind of play the GM wants -- again, by design. This is a system built to enable the GM to create ad hoc approaches for their individual tables by not providing any support that might get in the way. This isn't support for this kind of play, though, it's the intentional absence of support to allow for GMs to create it themselves.

Can you run a heist in 5e? Abso-xxxxing-lutely. It can be brilliant, too. But, you're doing this entirely on your own and without having the rules tell you how it works. There is no support for it. There's also nothing you have to tear out of the way.

 

[prabe]

The "framework" is experience, though, not support by the rule system. It's you're years or decades of experience that provide to you a good fallback for how to fairly ad hoc adjudicate such things. The actual rules of 5e provide none of this -- they don't provide any suggestions on how to adjudicate such things as cooking challenges. Heck, they run away from how to adjudicate stealth! The point of 5e is to do exactly this, though -- to allow you to use your experience with the loose stack of tools that 5e scattered about in a reasonable way. This is, though, entirely idiosyncratic, and is so by design. 5e is a successful design because of this, but that doesn't mean it provides support so much as puts it on the GMs.

The rules for stealth and visibility are a bit of a proud nail, I agree.

Other than that, though, I look at the pages in the DMG early in the "Running the Game" chapter--especially the bits about "The Role of the Dice" and "Using Ability Scores" and I see a pretty sturdy open-ended framework for adjudicating stuff.

And I'd expect a cooking competition to be opposed ability checks, with tool proficiency in cook's utensils applicable. Wisdom if based on quality; Dexterity if based on speed; Intelligence if based on remembering or creating a recipe.