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

[Thomas Shey]

From my perspective support means just that. The game helping you to do a thing better than you could do otherwise. I mean we can do anything completely freeform.

I think there's a more complex problem as to whether one considers "This game has a generic resolution mechanic that is applied universally or a limited number of same" and whether that translates into "support" or not. I think you can have at least three situations, and which one translates into "support" is going to vary considerably:

1. "Rulings not rules" games (i.e. OD&D). These are almost tautological and usually useless to talk about, because people really wedded to the idea that this is a virtue are going to consider mechanical support anywhere from irrelevant to actively hostile to what they want in many places.
2. The general-mechanics games I refer to above (from true universal-resolution systems where specific mechanics at best have attached secondary rules (Fuzion), to games that have a very limited number of resolution methods that are presumed to be exhaustive with the only question being what to apply, again sometimes with secondary rules (original RuneQuest).
3. Games that are focused on specific sorts of processes, or at least have extensive subsystems to deal with such processes.

The argument that goes back and forth tends to be whether there's a significant difference between the first and second of these, and the second and third. Some people consider the first and second essentially the same, as they both require GM intervention to resolve matters outside the extent mechanics, whereas there seems quite a difference between just new applications of an extent mechanic and either creating one out of whole cloth or just ad-hoc resolution to others. Whether this translates into "support" is thus a bit in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Of course medium matters, and that's why flashbacks will look and be handled differently between books, film and television, comic serials, and TTRPGs.

I think, however, you need to ask the question whether in the latter they're desirable at all. They may seem core to the sort of subgenre at hand to some people, but that can't be simply taken as a given.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Upfront: I no longer play 5E due to finding other systems that fit my preferences better, but I am currently playing in an AiME campaign, which fixes some of the issues I have with the system.

As somebody who started their RPG journey with D&D 3.5, I've been house ruling D&D almost as long as I've been playing it, and have drifted back and forth between perspectives on 'D&D vs other systems". I find D20 systems relatively easy to mod compared to other systems, but I believe that has more to do with my familiarity with the system and extensive house-ruling history than any innate aspect of D&D being easier to modify. For me, the moment I fully converted over to preferring other systems is when I realized that the end result of my changes were closer to other systems than the system I started with. At that point, it's less headache for both myself and my players to just use the other system.

I think a lot of people are in a similar boat to myself, and that drives a lot of the "just use system X instead" in the various "How do I do X in D&D 5E?" threads, because we're applying our own perspectives, and from our experiences, RPGs became easier and more fun once we made the leap. But that's not necessarily true of other people. Yeah, sure, there's definitely some people who 'ride-or-die' for D&D who would probably be a lot happier playing a system that more closely matches their preferences, but others are perfectly happy in their selection, and just want help making something work in the system of their choice.

It's something that comes up a lot with D&D because for a lot of people, D&D is literally the only system they've ever tried, or even heard of. I do have to echo that I've never seen someone tell others to switch systems mid-campaign, although I'd be shocked if it hasn't happened. I do think it's valid to recommend a system that you think might better suit the requestor's preferences when they're asking about starting a new campaign, though if it were me, I'd probably phrase it in the sense of "System X does this well, I'd look there for inspiration". Then the requestor can choose on their own if they want to crib from the other system, switch over entirely, or ignore it.

 

[billd91]

I can't think of anything @Hussar has said that might lead to you asking for clarification. He said here "What don't we have in a heist movie/story? The protagonists' plan fails five minutes into the heist because that guard rolled a decent spot check and noticed the invisible fighter clanking past in his armor."

That's not at all the same as the heist not ending in failure in the end. If, five minutes into the heist, the guard notices the fighter in plate armour (plate armour being a minor wtf in Blades) then Blades gives you guidance that the situation gets worse. There are actual tools and mechanics in Blades for how much worse things get and what will commence is a plate-spinning exercise as the PCs get into a more dangerous spot and get more stressed as they start to deal with this obnoxiously alert guard.

And it's possible that all these plates will come crashing to the ground and the heist ends in failure because of one obnoxiously alert guard. But the guard being obnoxiously alert at the five minute mark will only provide a complication. Dealing with the complication may bring down the heist at around the half hour mark - but it's not failed by the one single roll.

Honestly, I'm not seeing exactly why a heist in D&D would be completely failed by a single die roll just because a guard happens to hear the fighter clanking by either. It depends on how the DM and players handle the revelation that the fighter was heard - which doesn't seem that different from BitD. The specific mechanics will differ, but not the fact that something happens in the environment and the PCs/DM all have choices to make about what that means.

 

[Aldarc]

So it could blow up in your face at the end of the heist (and by blow up I mean end up in a battle, be arrested, etc.)... this was specifically called out by @Hussar as something that made D&D ill-suited for heist adventures but BitD (because it didn't happen) better... and I thought the post by @hawkeyefan was at least in some part backing this assertion up.

The characters are largely competent, but the GM is meant to be a fan of the PCs. This means that they are also responsible for presenting challenging situations for the PCs, offering Devil's Bargains, advancing consequence clocks, and following-through with consequences of the fiction.

EDIT: I'm really trying to get a handle on what type of heist stories BitD is designed for... what would be the quintessential BitD heist movie or show it emulates?

I don't dare say "quintessential," but I would propose Breaking Bad. You are a small gang of "hawkers" (i.e., vice dealers) who are slowly trying to improve and sell your wares and expand your turf. But as you expand, you increasingly attract heat from other gangs and law enforcement while also trying to deal with your own vices.

John Harper lists Narcos and The Wire for play Touchstones. Incidentally, he also lists Heat as a movie one.

I think, however, you need to ask the question whether in the latter they're desirable at all. They may seem core to the sort of subgenre at hand to some people, but that can't be simply taken as a given.

Of course.

 

[dave2008]

I stand by my comments, Dave. I think that D&D would do a huge disservice to the spirit of Ursula LeGuin's work and what her magic system was about. If you really wanna drag up old arguments, Dave, then I think joining Morrus by putting you on ignore may be a good call after all.

I am not trying to offend you. I think your idea that D&D doesn't do justice to Earthsea is valid, it just wasn't the question that was asked in that thread.

Also, the only reason I brought this up here is someone "liked" a comment of mine in that thread today and then I remember Ruin Explore asked if the scenario the OP in this thread commented on really happens. So it seemed entirely relevant to this thread to post it.

Sorry if providing this example for context in this thread is upsetting, that is not my intent. If you feel that warrants me going on your ignore list, so be it. I will miss your insight on these boards, but you must do what is best for you.

 

[Manbearcat]

1) Yes but you are not factoring in resources such as spells, magic items, class abilities, etc that will increase and even in certain instances guarantee success. You're assuming the use a of a specific skill in a specific way and that's not necessarily a given.



2) No but there are abilities like expertise, there are classes like the Bard who can give inspiration to other PC's, there are simple spells like Bless and guidance that increase the chances of whoever they are cast upon, there are feats



3) But this isn't necessary to run a good heist scenario. this is what I was worried about and why I clarified my position... it's not that I am asking how does BitD play... I am asking specifically what makes it a better choice for a heist scenario than D&D... You're contrasting gameplay but that in and of itself is just showing differences. Also doesn't the GM in BitD have final say on what the position and effect are?



4) Okay a few things you may not be aware of... in 5e, Invisibility is a 2nd level spell (and outside of invisibility there are spells like guidance that will also help). Why does every member of the party need to sprint across the bridge as opposed to say the invisible, expertise in stealth rogue while the others either provide distractions (throw something in the water to distract the half squid/half humans) act as lookouts for any other cult members that might be coming and so on?



5) Funnily enough, what you're describing here sounds more like the show Leverage than everyone being an expert in stealth and all sneaking into some place the same way. In Leverage one character is an expert in stealth while another is an expert in hacking another is a bruiser and so on. They aren't all able to slip in some where like a ghost and get out undetected.



6) Why would they defeat it with stealth alone as opposed to using all of the resources at their disposal? Again very few if any heist movies have the entire ensemble as masters of stealth. And what I see, in the case of 5e, is a narrowly defined set of actions and a DM whose DM'ing has been purposefully set up to push a particular outcome so it supports your scenario.

Numerically broke these out and worked up a big post, but I think I don't want to do this. The very first thing you did here was reverse field on your typical Fighter vs Wizard position (where you lament that everyone is using "Shrodinger's Spells" and "Shrodinger's Loadout" and "Shordinger's Adventuring Day" to explain how Wizards have the potency and breadth and staying power to defeat the overwhelming % of obstacles before them in contrast with a Fighter who does not) and used "Shrodinger's Builds" and "Shrodinger's Group Makeup" and "Shrodinger's Adventuring Day" to have all kinds of resources available to ensure a Stealth Score is enabled. And honestly, I don't even think you need to do that here.

What I wanted to do was discuss something concrete and focused so we could get somewhere (more on that below):

1) Zoom in on a singular obstacle. Your proposition put that initial obstacle as a stealth challenge; a MASSIVE cavern + scary bridge that is very adverse to balance/stealth + 2 active sentinels + 1 active sentinel as relic. The first challenge would be getting across the considerable length of that precarious bridge without being detected.

2) Discuss what defeating that initial stealth obstacle (long, precarious bridge that is stealth adverse with multiple sentinels), via stealth and trickery, would look like under normal circumstances (meaning...not novaing it and dumping a huge amount of resources in it...because there are possible obstacles before and a lot of obstacles left to contend with).

3) Examine the levers that can be used to ENSURE that if you instantiated exact scenario (say) 100 times that the defeating obstacle via stealth and trickery scenario could be pulled off at an extremely high % (say 90%).

4) Discuss the differences between the two games and how this would look. My contention is that this scenario in D&D would just not reproduce the "group as Spec Ops squad that is broadly capable of defeating stealth obstacles." Its not a group of broadly capable scoundrels who can all pretty much do Rogue stuff. A "Stealth Score" is not going to be a thing in D&D. That group is not going to break into that mansion > navigate the mansion > navigate the catacombs > get the relic > get back out...like they were never there. Its just not going to happen.

If they did somehow manage to make it through the mansion down to the catacombs without fully raising the alarm (and razing the mansion), this next bit is going to be full on niche protection. Its not going to go as I proposed above (which, I still hold 100 % that is the correct adjudication for each of those things). Its going to end up as "let the Rogue do it...lets buff him...lets stand back and support...Heavy Fighter...you aren't infantry...get your bow out and be artillery w/ your crappy Dex from the steps...Cleric/Bard, you're buff-guy w/ Bless...Wizard, you're Arcane deception guy - Invis the Rogue to lower the DC (and so you don't have to upcast it to spend your 4th level spell slot which gets all of us) or spend a nothingburger Cantrip for Int vs Save DC.

Then (Sneak * 3 for Invis Rogue vs DC 10 will defeat that obstacle automatically w/ probably a +10 or 11 check). Hopefully the Rogue's Passive Perception or Perception is good enough to figure out the relic is sentient before they pull the thing from the altar.

So it would look about like you would expect. Heavy Fighter hoping things go tits-up so they can actually fight things and be useful (and being frustrated they didn't choose a Dex/Bow build). Cleric relegated to buffer. Wizard doing awesome Wizardy stuff. Rogue being the star of the show.

This is just a totally different deal than a full-on, broadly capable Spec-Ops group where (a) you can defeat stealth obstacles with reliability AS A GROUP because (b) even heavy Fighters have the activatable resources and the ability to negotiate Position/Effect to be sneak-thiefs (or at least not be liabilities in the sneak-thief aspect of play) and (c) support characters are more than buffers in this situation and (d) arcane characters can both do their arcane shtick and sneak across the bridge.

AND, Blades won't develop rote power-plays (as above in the 5e example) to ensure success on stealth obstacle. Niche protection isn't a thing. Characters who reliably incompetent in Stealth or Deception or Social aren't a thing in Blades (like the significant bulk of Fighters in D&D will be...by design). Characters won't be sitting out Stealth Scores/obstacles. Characters will be helping on Engaging a Supernatural Power Score. This is because (a) the way the classes are constructed, (b) the way the action resolution mechanics work, (c) the way the conflict resolution mechanics work, (d) the broad resource structure of play (that isn't class-specific), and (e) the Act Now, Plan Later ethos and the Be Bold/Daring incentive structures that undergird play.

(a) - (e) creates a fundamentally different play experience of Spec Ops teams who are all broadly capable, who are all aggressive and bold, and who can reliably pull of Stealth Scores without engaging in combat...pull off Social Scores without engaging in combat...pull off Smuggling Scores without engaging in combat...pull of Short/Long Cons without engaging in combat...pull off Occult Scores (excorcism or summoning/binding etc) without engaging in combat.

D&D is basically Plan Now (to develop rote power plays and reduce risk as much as possible...preferably to 0) > Act Later "A Team" where discrete characters with focused niches do VERY specific things when "plans come together" (eg rote power plays inevitably develop) > all hell breaks loose > they fight their way out.

Its awesome. I love it.

But it is absolutely not the same thing as the sort of hyper-daring, seat-of-your-pants, Spec Ops Caper-fest which somehow holds together through scoundrel guile/skill/panache that Blades produces. Not remotely in its inputs. Not remotely in the cognitive space each player is occupying during play (wholly and from decision-point to decision-point). Not remotely in the dynamism and emergent nature of "OP CHOICE + OP APPROACH". Not in feel. And certainly not in outputs (outputs here meaning - we were victorious on this entire Score without detection and without body count...that happens in D&D at a rate so ridiculously low that its pointless to even discuss...and this is by design).

---

Can we at least agree the two bolded things juxtaposed in the above 3 paragraphs are not remotely the same?

They're not the same in conception of genre, not in design, not in execution, and not in what ultimately emerges out of play.

 

[Imaro]

Can we at least agree the two bolded things juxtaposed in the above 3 paragraphs are not remotely the same?

They're not the same in conception of genre, not in design, not in execution, and not in what ultimately emerges out of play.

At this point I'm not sure you understand what I was asking before, even though I tried to make sure it was clear. No one in this thread is claiming D&D plays like BitD (of course so far I've not been able to get a consensus on what types of heists BitD is actually emulating or promoting in it's play)...The question which was answered by @hawkeyefan was what does BitD do specifically to support heists. Now in turn I don't understand what the problem with running a heist using D&D is. Would it be the same gameplay as BitD, no that's a given but there are different types of heists and there's nothing inherent in D&D that fights against some of those types and for some types it would even be better (Heist play where the players enjoy intricately planning).

 

[Aldarc]

I am not trying to offend you. I think your idea that D&D doesn't do justice to Earthsea is valid, it just wasn't the question that was asked in that thread.

Also, the only reason I brought this up here is someone "liked" a comment of mine in that thread today and then I remember Ruin Explore asked if the scenario the OP commented on really happens. So it seemed entirely relevant to this thread to post it.

Sorry if providing this example for context in this thread is upsetting, that is not my intent. If you feel that warrants me going on your ignore list, so be it. I will miss your insight on these boards, but you must do what is best for you.

OP Q: How would you do X in D&D?
My A: I wouldn't.

Please not that I answered the OP. The proposal to one other RPG (i.e., Archipelago) only comes about when you ask me to expand my thoughts on why I feel that way.

 

[Dire Bare]

I am not trying to offend you. I think your idea that D&D doesn't do justice to Earthsea is valid, it just wasn't the question that was asked in that thread.

Also, the only reason I brought this up here is someone "liked" a comment of mine in that thread today and then I remember Ruin Explore asked if the scenario the OP in this thread commented on really happens. So it seemed entirely relevant to this thread to post it.

Sorry if providing this example for context in this thread is upsetting, that is not my intent. If you feel that warrants me going on your ignore list, so be it. I will miss your insight on these boards, but you must do what is best for you.

Seemed like a perfect example to me! I'll keep you off my ignore list Dave!