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

[tetrasodium]

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 problem with the fail forward thing is that d&d lacks anything like fate's scene/location aspects or BiTD complications that exist as a described but not defined thing. If the players fail at something & start a fire in either of those games the gm can describe the fire in great detail & the players still have less certainty about it than d&d's "there is a fire covering this section of the room where these specific squares are". In past editions a gm could introduce things like a modifier on acp asf crit range crit mod etc as sort of a workaround that at least makes some relevant risk, but 5e lacks all of that too. The dmg mechanic is really only half the equation without hooks to attach to it to.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It does help you, by providing the tools to adjudicate play and then getting out of the way. This isn’t your preference, and that’s fine.

It doesn't provide the tools. Again, point out to me in the rulebook how I bribe a guard. The only answer is "ask your GM." That's not a tool, it's an invitation to make a tool up.

And this is fine! Jeez, I say this and it keeps being met with incredulity and hostility. This is the fundamental design goal of D&D -- it's exactly why you keep claiming that you can just add stuff to D&D to do whatever. The argument isn't that you can't, it's that the system doesn't help you do any of it -- that it's fundamentally thrown up it's hands and said that it's players are going to make it up on their own anyway, so why bother. I mean, they bothered in 3.x. They bothered to a different degree in 4e. They chose to go back to not bothering in 5e. This is a clear design choice, and not a bad one. Just one that means that 5e doesn't support a lot of things -- it just lets the GMs get on with it.

The dirty side of this is that GM fallacy I mentioned -- that it's considered a failing of a GM to not successfully hack 5e, and the answer is usually a form of "get gud." I mean, you saw that play out right here with @Hussar's low-magic issues and how @dave2008 responded to it -- first by saying how easy it is, then by providing rather simplified advice for doing so as if it was just that easy. There wasn't a moment of, "huh, yeah, I can see how that might be a challenge, maybe you are better off with a different system." Nope, 5e is the solution that needs to be defended, and failure to make 5e work is a failure of the user, not the system. Never the system. It's a weird sort of fetishization.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Letting the GM choose not to use the rules doesn't mean they don't exist though, there is objectively text in the rulebook designed to guide the GM in how to run each of these things. What would be the point to accepting only mandatory rules as 'canonical' beyond it being an avenue to transmute the system into not having that guidance for the sake of your argument?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Absolutely. Recommending another game as potential inspiration is great, as I’ve said repeatedly. Telling someone they just shouldn’t do the thing in D&D, or that D&D sucks at doing the thing, especially with no explanation, is rude and unhelpful.

no matter how many times I say that, certain people keep taking it to mean that I only like D&D and only want to ever hear about D&D and think that any advice that touches upon other games is bad.

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).

I hope you’re exclusively talking about a specific party makeup, here. Even then...you’d have to assume a lot of stuff for this to be true. Capers to one side, I’ve been playing in and running successful infiltrations for years in D&D, across 4 editions.

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.

Those are part of the D&D 5e rules, and thus can’t just be glossed over when challenging the notion that D&D can satisfying do heists.

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,

Then, well, you’re reading a different thread with a different OP.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It doesn't provide the tools. Again, point out to me in the rulebook how I bribe a guard. The only answer is "ask your GM." That's not a tool, it's an invitation to make a tool up.

And this is fine! Jeez, I say this and it keeps being met with incredulity and hostility. This is the fundamental design goal of D&D -- it's exactly why you keep claiming that you can just add stuff to D&D to do whatever. The argument isn't that you can't, it's that the system doesn't help you do any of it -- that it's fundamentally thrown up it's hands and said that it's players are going to make it up on their own anyway, so why bother. I mean, they bothered in 3.x. They bothered to a different degree in 4e. They chose to go back to not bothering in 5e. This is a clear design choice, and not a bad one. Just one that means that 5e doesn't support a lot of things -- it just lets the GMs get on with it.

The dirty side of this is that GM fallacy I mentioned -- that it's considered a failing of a GM to not successfully hack 5e, and the answer is usually a form of "get gud." I mean, you saw that play out right here with @Hussar's low-magic issues and how @dave2008 responded to it -- first by saying how easy it is, then by providing rather simplified advice for doing so as if it was just that easy. There wasn't a moment of, "huh, yeah, I can see how that might be a challenge, maybe you are better off with a different system." Nope, 5e is the solution that needs to be defended, and failure to make 5e work is a failure of the user, not the system. Never the system. It's a weird sort of fetishization.

In fact, money where my mouth, is, and just to make it harder, I'll use 5e exclusively:​

Persuasion:​

When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.

Deception:​

Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions. This deception can encompass everything from misleading others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie.


Social Interaction:
In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.

Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC’s attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC’s reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM’s discretion.

Pay attention to your skill proficiencies when thinking of how you want to interact with an NPC, and stack the deck in your favor by using an approach that relies on your best bonuses and skills. If the group needs to trick a guard into letting them into a castle, the rogue who is proficient in Deception is the best bet to lead the discussion. When negotiating for a hostage’s release, the cleric with Persuasion should do most of the talking.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You need to gather information? You would just use these rules to chat up someone who would have the information you need-- or perception if you want to go stake the place out, or whatever. The game also has rules for how the DM 'should' set the DC.

Moving off 5e... Gather Information - Actions - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database other 'DND games' give even more to work off of.

​

 

[Manbearcat]

The problem with the fail forward thing is that d&d lacks anything like fate's scene/location aspects or BiTD complications that exist as a described but not defined thing. If the players fail at something & start a fire in either of those games the gm can describe the fire in great detail & the players still have less certainty about it than d&d's "there is a fire covering this section of the room where these specific squares are". In past editions a gm could introduce things like a modifier on acp asf crit range crit mod etc as sort of a workaround that at least makes some relevant risk, but 5e lacks all of that too. The dmg mechanic is really only half the equation without hooks to attach to it to.

Good post.

I definitely agree that Fail Forward that doesn't include (a) multiple, interesting pressure points (mechanically affecting the gamestate as well as changing the fiction adversely) and (b) well-structured and principled complication w/ teeth handling is absolutely a problem. This is the primary reason why I didn't love 13th Age's noncombat resolution system.

However, 4e's handling of it was extremely good because of the following:

* A Conflict Resolution Framework (the Skill Challenge - which is basically AW and Blade's Clocks) that establishes a Win/Loss Con thrives on Fail Forward and Success w/ Complications. Every micro-failure must be some iteration of Fail Forward because until the Loss Con has been achieved (and the conflict lost) while every micro-success must be some iteration of Success w/ Complication until the Win Con has been achieved (and the conflict won).

* 4e had sufficient pressure points (they weren't as robust as something like Blades or Dungeon World...but they were consequential enough to call "teeth") to mechanically affect the gamestate when a PC/Team endured a micro-failure in a Skill Challenge (therefore you're Failing Forward); Healing Surge or 25 % HPs (if you've got a nested combat), Disease/Condition Track (either an attack or moving down the line), Coin/Residiuum, Companion Character/Cohort, locked Encounter/Daily Power on a Magic Item/Boon/Vehicle until Long Rest, -2 forward, next move at Hard DC, new fictional positioning that locks out/winnows certain options (so PCs can't deploy their big guns).


So really, a good Conflict Resolution framework w/ WIn/Loss Cons and sufficiently robust Complications w/ Teeth will is what you need to make Fail Forward functionally and dynamically propel play. You don't have to have both, but they absolutely work in concert.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It doesn't provide the tools. Again, point out to me in the rulebook how I bribe a guard. The only answer is "ask your GM." That's not a tool, it's an invitation to make a tool up.

It literally does!

It doesn’t matter that you think it’s okay that it doesn’t, or whatever, you’re wrong about it not doing so.

How do you bribe a guard? You use the skill system, first describing how you approach the task, and depending on that description you either succeed, fail, or make an ability check to determine success or failure, including options for non-binary results. You can also use group checks, multiple checks taken together to determine overall results (this is all a skill challenge actually is. It’s multiple rolls to create a success ladder) and which can be with different stats and skills, or you can even use the framework of downtime activities. The game provides multiple options under a pretty clear (though sometimes poorly organized and explained) framework to resolve any task, rather than trying to make a specific rule for every possible task.

The point you either keep missing or keep ignoring is the second part of the statement. The statement is, “D&D provides a framework for adjudicating tasks, and then gets out of the way to let consequences speak for themselves, or allow the DM to employ optional or homebrewed rules if desired.”

That is not a lack, or an oversight, or a failure to model anything, it is an active decision to leave room rather than making everything under the sun require the group to reference the rules. Having the tools to figure out how to adjudicate and balance whatever you want to add to the game makes it easier to add things to the game. Not by accident or incidentally, but by design. It is a feature.

 

[Campbell]

I fully understand the good enough for government sentiment, but we have seen hashed out over this thread for last 3-4 pages is not a good enough for government work argument. We have seen people argue that D&D is in fact better at the things other games use as their selling points. That it is just good or better at what other games set out to do. I just do not get why there is so much resistance to the conceit that different games do different things well and should be valued for it even if those games are not to our individual tastes.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I guess the question is... does rule zero, which is also part of 5e's play procedures supersede those procedures. Also does BitD have a rule zero?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, for me, "you'd be better off playing a game that is made for that" usually rings hollow. What about you?

And I think that is pretty much the beginning and end of this topic right there

D&D does some things well, and it does other things less well, or simply doesn't offer any capability to do them at all. This is not simply a question of things like "we have no rules for simulating a character hacking a computer." THAT would be perfectly simple to add, and games like MA/GW, 4e GW, d20 Modern, etc. have all done so with ease. Instead the challenge here is more with process of play. D&D allocates roles at the table to different participants, and provides associated process for them to use. This is structured to provide a certain type of game, and not other types of game. These sorts of game design elements also permeate other aspects of game design. While you can certainly graft different things together, a design where specific processes are envisaged from the start will play better in many cases.

Beyond that, the concept of a power curve, PCs which level up from relatively weak to incredibly powerful really works well for the type of game it is. It won't necessarily work well with other types of game. For example most supers games don't really include a progression of character power, or at least not much of one. Likewise with most games which are set in more 'real world' types of settings, James Bond doesn't have 100 hit points, so to speak, or at least that mechanic doesn't capture the genre very well.

Obviously you COULD make games that use some elements of the d20/D&D rules to an extent to make other games. d20 in the 3e era was an attempt to do that. I'd note that most of the games which were written/ported to that core set of rules ended up not going far. A bunch of shops/designers dropped a d20 variation of their games, but in almost every case they went back to other mechanics. Maybe some of that was business decisions, but I think most of it reflects an inability to really get a generic set of rules like that to produce the desired game experience. Other 'general systems', d6, BRP, GURPS, have all run into the same pattern. Some games work well under them, but most are improved by using custom bespoke mechanics.