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

[dave2008]

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

Please note 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.

Good point.

Personally I would think it would be better to not respond at all if the response to that question is "I wouldn't;" however, I have certainly poked my nose where it doesn't belong more than a time or two (which is basically what I did when I asked for clarification). So I can't really throw stones for that!

 

[Manbearcat]

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).

Would you please answer the question I wrote directly above about those two things in bold that are juxtaposed? It seems like your answer is "yes, they are different" (making an inference based on the above paragraph)?

I know your initial contention was "D&D can do heists." I know that is where you were going. But MY AIM in this conversation was to flesh out the "heists" space such that its not so profoundly nebulous a term such that anything can fall within it so we have absolutely no distinguishing characteristics.

I'm not interested in haggling over the word "heist" or ensuring that "heist" is exclusively in a proprietary relationship with Blades and D&D can go eff itself when it comes to heists (and I've run so much D&D as A-Team or X-Men where that its not even something I agree with)!

What I'm interested in is the distinguishing characteristsics of each game that answer the questions:

1) "what is happening in the gamestate"

2) "what is happening in the cognitive state of the players"

3) "what is happening in the shared imagined space."

And the answer to those questions will absolutely and significantly distinguish the A Team from other genres (in the way I've bolded the above) for many different reasons.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Its similar to why almost no superhero RPG adventure you ever see involves the heroes splitting up to handle multiple problems; unless (and perhaps not even then) the GM is capable of handling all the pieces in parallel, it produces a dynamic almost no one wants to deal with on a play level.

(There are, of course, exceptions to both but they're rare for reasons).

Weirdly I find that happens more often in Supers when I'm running it than almost any other genre except modern quasi-horror like WoD. I notice that in modern games the party gets split a lot more often than older ones - I think part of this is the ubiquity of communication devices, which make it vastly less of a hassle as you can keep everyone at the same table really easily and so on.

That said if you mean pre-written adventures, I don't think I've run a Supers one for decades, so yeah it may well be absent there.

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.

Definitely agree, D&D's magic system is hugely inappropriate to what LeGuin was doing on a really basic level, to the point where it's almost problematic to use it to represent it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

It was indeed me who asked.

Someone asked earlier how much is this really happening, is this an issue at all I can't really answer that question, but so far it has happened in every relevant thread I've looked at (which is 1 by the way)!

But this doesn't match what I asked.

What I asked was (I can go find the message if you want, but hope not to):

"Do people actually suggest changing systems MID-STREAM, i.e. in an existing campaign?"

I'm well aware that with campaigns that haven't started, or theoretical campaigns, people will suggest alternative systems, and I'm sorry but I'm never going to find that to be a problem unless it's a [+] thread about the OP's idea. Telling someone to change games mid-campaign was what you were mentioning though, and whilst that could be a real problem, I still haven't see any examples of that.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

If a 5e table is adopting the Fail Forward option (that is exclusively in the Basic PDF and not in the live text) and/or the Success w/ Complications module, yes, that fundamentally changes the nature of play.

I mean you and I (and others) had tons of conversations about 4e's use of Fail Forward and Success w/ Complications in Skill Challenges (and how certain folks...pretty sure you were included in that...thought that all sucked). So this area has been covered ad nauseum.

Folks who are using the indie resolution tools provided in the 5e Basic PDF (Fail Forward) and in the live game (Success w/ Complications) are going to have a dynamically different experience than those using binary pass/fail (you're sneaky/you're discovered). That shouldn't be controversial at all.

Now, if we're saying in 2021 that this stuff suddenly doesn't suck (like it sucked in 4e) and that we're going to go ahead and use it in 5e...the distinguishing questions between 5e and Blades would be:

• What are the pressure points to inflict complications with teeth in 5e vs Blades?
• Procedurally and principally, how do GM's inflict complications (breadth and potency) in 5e vs Blades?
• Can players marshal resources to outright resist complications in 5e or Blades?
• How do/can players marshal resources to overcome complications in 5e vs Blades?
• How do the two systems deal with Win/Loss Cons for overcoming "intra-heist" obstacles?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I can't guess why Magic Sword thinks 5e is easy to create ad hoc rulings for heists, but I can absolutely say it's because there's nothing there to interfere with doing so because 5e has no structure at all to bump into. I was trying to not put words in MS's mouth, not weaseling on the point that 5e lacks any support for heist play.

Is that sufficiently adamantium-mithril allow?

So I'm not sure how much the conversation moved on after this page, but to clarify since I think this thing about our posts deserves a proper answer from me, I think the subtle difference between our posts people were latching onto is your suggestion that the modification is possible because of an absence of rules, which isn't quite true.

In DND, there are canonical answers to those rules questions in the post you make below-- if you want to sneak past someone, you roll a stealth check; if you want to bribe the guard, you probably roll a diplomacy check. The difference between the two rulesets, and what makes 5e easier to 'adhoc' is that DND presents and structures its rules options as a toolkit instead of as an explicit procedure. BITD (which I've recently bought and been reading, it seems really fun) expects you to use its role procedure and has more elements of that hang off each other.

If you're playing BITD and the GM starts editing the procedure for how heists work for a different experience, the game itself is a little more hostile to that, because how it works is interrelated in a mechanical context-- if you don't use the flashbacks in favor of a 'full planning session' approach, it affects how stress plays out, which ties into the games other systems. If you don't use the engagement roll, then you're now coping with how that affects the footing system as well.

DND gives you solutions and tools to run heist stuff, like when I play Pathfinder 2e (which is my 'DND system' of choice) I could very reasonably just use the infiltration subsystem or if I'm playing 4e, it could just be a Skill Challenge (X Successes before Y Failures) (both of which are structured to guide the DM away from calling for too many checks), or I could run it off the cuff, as a series of stealth and deception checks (which is a challenge I would have to curate accordingly to keep the odds of success decent, I'd lean toward letting each category of obstacle be a check, rather than roll separately for each guard) which would be 5e's canonical answer.

The difference is that nothing says I have to run it any one of these ways, the system encourages me to pick one if it suits me, or make another, and it includes optional 'alternatives' if I want a more refined take sometimes, the Saltmarsh sailing rules are different than the default ones, for instance. Personally, I think 5e has a flaw in that it tries to be too rules lite, so it doesn't like to provide subsystems for stuff like this, but these other systems are DND games as well, and they demonstrate the reality of it. I'm not just benefitting from a lack of rules, I'm benefitting from an intentional choice of rules, the system goes out of its way to make itself resilient to modification for stuff like this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's worth noting that OPs original complaint was against tone-deaf advice. Which no one is in favor of.

If suggesting different games that have better support for a concept is going to be considered tone-deaf because it offends people that only every want to hear about D&D, then, well, I'm for this kind of tone-deaf advice.

Point in fact, this is a public board -- the OP is not the only one being served by post. Perhaps the OP doesn't care for the advice, but a reader might discover something they did not know and go on to learn some more games and/or have a good time. The idea that the OP is the only set of assumptions that matters is, to me, the more tone-deaf argument.

 

[Campbell]

5e has a set of play procedures. It's listed under How To Play on p. 6 of The Players' Handbook. We can choose collectively to break from that procedure, but we can do so while playing any game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So I'm not sure how much the conversation moved on after this page, but to clarify since I think this thing about our posts deserves a proper answer from me, I think the subtle difference between our posts people were latching onto is your suggestion that the modification is possible because of an absence of rules, which isn't quite true.

In DND, there are canonical answers to those rules questions in the post you make below-- if you want to sneak past someone, you roll a stealth check; if you want to bribe the guard, you probably roll a diplomacy check. The difference between the two rulesets, and what makes 5e easier to 'adhoc' is that DND presents and structures its rules options as a toolkit instead of as an explicit procedure. BITD (which I've recently bought and been reading, it seems really fun) expects you to use its role procedure and has more elements of that hang off each other.

No, there are not canonical answers to these, except the core one -- the GM decides. There's nothing in the rules that says I get to make a stealth check -- the rules state that the GM will determine when stealth is appropriate. The Page 4 rules in the PHB outline a clear method of play -- the player states an action for their character, and then the GM decides. This broken down a bit, but it's the GM decides if it fails or succeeds automatically, or if it's uncertain (in the eyes of the GM). If uncertain, the GM can call for an ability check, for which the GM determines what ability is called for, and what proficiencies may apply. The GM determines the DC. Then, after all of this, the GM determines what happens next. There's absolutely NO answer anywhere in the 5e rules that sneaking past someone means you roll a stealth check, or that bribing a guard is a diplomacy check. Heck, this ignores that the rules actually do state it's an ability, so it would be a DEX or CHA check for those, if the GM decides.

This is making a claim that a thing exists that does not. And it's a good thing, because the vast majority of the flexibility of 5e is due to the fact that it does not codify these things.

If you're playing BITD and the GM starts editing the procedure for how heists work for a different experience, the game itself is a little more hostile to that, because how it works is interrelated in a mechanical context-- if you don't use the flashbacks in favor of a 'full planning session' approach, it affects how stress plays out, which ties into the games other systems. If you don't use the engagement roll, then you're now coping with how that affects the footing system as well.

Absolutely. I've been very clear that the tightly integrated nature of Blades means it's less useful to ignore or change parts of it's systems without a good bit of work. This is not being argued.

DND gives you solutions and tools to run heist stuff, like when I play Pathfinder 2e (which is my 'DND system' of choice) I could very reasonably just use the infiltration subsystem or if I'm playing 4e, it could just be a Skill Challenge (X Successes before Y Failures) (both of which are structured to guide the DM away from calling for too many checks), or I could run it off the cuff, as a series of stealth and deception checks (which is a challenge I would have to curate accordingly to keep the odds of success decent, I'd lean toward letting each category of obstacle be a check, rather than roll separately for each guard) which would be 5e's canonical answer.

D&D gives you no solutions, and no tools to run heist stuff. They leave it up to the GM to figure this out. Again, find me, in the rules, how I gather information on a mark -- there's nothing there. That's because this is unsupported -- meaning the rules do not help me do this. They don't hinder me, either -- they just do nothing. It's all up to the GM to do these things.

The difference is that nothing says I have to run it any one of these ways, the system encourages me to pick one if it suits me, or make another, and it includes optional 'alternatives' if I want a more refined take sometimes, the Saltmarsh sailing rules are different than the default ones, for instance. Personally, I think 5e has a flaw in that it tries to be too rules lite, so it doesn't like to provide subsystems for stuff like this, but these other systems are DND games as well, and they demonstrate the reality of it. I'm not just benefitting from a lack of rules, I'm benefitting from an intentional choice of rules, the system goes out of its way to make itself resilient to modification for stuff like this.

I mean... sigh. You claim there are tools and systems and solutions and canonical ways to do things, but then, here, accurately acknowledge that there's none of that -- you just do what you want as GM. And, there's nothing to pick from except things you've built up yourself over time -- the only "process" D&D provides is GM experience in hacking the system.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sometimes, I wonder if anyone has ever read through the 5e DMG, or if we all just hold on to our dog-eared copies of the 1e DMG (I LOVE YOU EFREET!).

After all, it does have everything from variant rules for plot points (which allow players to do things from creating fiction to becoming the DM), to sanity (with some stuff about horror), to variant rules for proficiencies/skills (how they would be based on your background and personality that you create, and perhaps class, instead of limited to certain skills), to rules for degrees of success and failure (and complications), to hero points.

And that's in one of the Core Three books! One of the things I have always loved about the game is the assumption that people will be changing and modifying the rules.