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

[Hussar]

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.

Yup, guess I just have to be a better DM. It's so easy for you. It must be very nice being that good of a DM. I can only aspire to the heights to which you have reached.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, but D&D has always been, and 5e STILL IS based on a specific process of play, which is a limiting factor on what it can do. Games like PbtA derived games, or BitD, or other types like FATE based games, or SotC based games FUNDAMENTALLY work in a different way which D&D cannot emulate (and vice versa) simply by having a few alternative rules added. I mean, yes, alternate rules for plot points and a few things like that DO provide SOME limited alteration in process. However, so much is baked into the DNA of the game that really significantly changing it is not going to fly. 4e already did that, and only in a MILD way (unless you squint a bit and read the rules in a certain dim light) and look at the reaction.

To be fair, the discussion is about running the game, not publishing the game.

The OP asserted that D&D is very flexible and can better handle being extended to some unspecified set of things that are usually done with other games than most of those other games would handle doing what D&D does.

This isn’t the case. D&D is able to satisfyingly for many groups, do things like heists and horror. That’s the whole claim.

At least that seems to be the way I would read it. I mean, obviously, if BitD for example could do heroic fantasy scenarios almost as well as D&D can, then one would not talk about D&D being an exceptionally flexible game. And while I think we have established that there are certainly ways to do a 'heist' in both games, BitD is the game which excels at heist play, just as D&D excels at heroic fantasy. In EACH CASE they have specific tones and sub-genre of these genre that they do. I'm not entirely convinced though that BitD couldn't be reframed as 'dungeon crawls' and such about as easily as D&D (5e) could be reframed to do something equally close to BitD's genre.

I mean, I'm not personally that much of an authority on BitD. So other people can hash that out, but I think realistically I'd have to see both hacks to judge which is the 'better take' on the other game.

Yeah the whole thing of tying make one game do another game is just an idea that has become part of the thread over time. The premise is that D&D can do heists or horror or fairy tales or whatever else, and that some of those would benefit from borrowing mechanics and play procedures and such from other games that are built for that genre.

I think there's also the (common on the internet) issue of two different conversations on the same premise:

1. Can you run a heist in DnD?

A few people here seem to be arguing that this isn't possible, but I might be misreading them. But if you post on, say, Reddit, you will absolutely get a response telling you that not only is it impossible but that the only reason anyone could disagree is because they are too narrow-minded to consider other games. This is true no matter how you phrase the question - if the word "heist" appears in the OP, someone will tell you BitD is the only possible way to play such a game.

2. If you want a heist-centered game, which is better?

Ya know, I don't think anyone here has actually argued that DnD is better, although there's a lot of argument about the degree of difference, which is probably not worth talking about online, because of how subjective it is.

This.

But, as @Manbearcat pointed out in the post previous to yours, you really need some sort of Win/Loss conditions and/or 'pressure points'/'teeth' to work on in order to 'make it go'. This is what I mean by process of play. This stuff ALSO, pretty much, leans on the concept that players are fundamentally participants in deciding what the fiction is. Maybe indirectly, or maybe not. 4e is a bit weak there, it has a few bits, but DW/PbtA games are pretty strong in this department, albeit more by how they explain the play process than by hard mechanics. BitD is even further in this continuum with the players having explicit points of input directly into the narrative and content of the fiction.

It is perfectly valid to have consequences and “teeth” be decided outside the game’s mechanical structure.

Also, I would like to point out, that a structured win/loss fail forward type of structure is NOT incompatible with flexibility. I mean, lets just ignore SotC or many FATE and BW implementations, but look right at 4e. DMG2 contains EXTENSIVE examples, amounting to 1000's of words, along with much explanation, of how to work a Skill Challenge into a mini-game. The SC system in and of itself is quite flexible to start with, since you can go from simple Complexity 1 SCs all the way up to Complexity 5. Yes, the core rules are the same in both cases, but they can work quite differently in practice. A C1 challenge can easily depict a single simple linear scenario for example. A C5 challenge is much more of a complex setup that will likely work through various scenes. Given the sorts of 'subsystem' kind of stuff that DMG2 shows, you can pretty much tool up an SC almost any way you want. Heck, 4e does not mandate them anyway, so you can simply ignore that part of the game and you still have an entire skill system, with pressure points, which you can leverage.

Incompatible? No. Of course not. However, 5e is more flexible out of combat than in combat, because it just provides the rules for adjudication, with multiple methods available, and a basic list of PC competencies and things that can be referenced (backgrounds and the like), and advice for using them. This leaves more room to add a flashback mechanic without running into some unexpected conflict later.

I think the point is, yes 5e's approach is a conscious design choice, but I am not sure I agree that it creates some great level of flexibility that other approaches inherently lack. I mean, PbtA and its 'playbooks' also seem pretty amazingly flexible.

I’m not sure of that either. I am sure that 5e is plenty flexible enough to do any genre that can intersect naturally with fantasy adventure, and reasonably confident that it can do most genres that can intersect at all with fantasy, with varying degrees of work, homebrew, and/or optional rules.

And I’m 100% sure of the advice portion of the premise of the thread.

I'm becoming increasingly confused. I say that the way you sneak past someone in 5e is to ask the GM how it works. You disagree, and then provide an extended example of the GM deciding how it works as if it isn't exactly what I've been saying. It's like there being a stealth proficiency in 5e means 5e provides support for sneaking past someone when, in reality, your example shows multiple moments the GM is making an ad hoc ruling to even get to a point where the stealth proficiency is involved.

Yeah my involvement in this argument with you is done, if you really cannot see what is different between what I described and what you claim about the game. I’m happy to discuss other stuff on the general thread topic with you, but this particular line of discussion is apparently a dead end.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I had a bonkers day at work where I was repeatedly kicked in the unmentionables, and for some reason I decided “Oh I should see how that D&D/Bespoke thread is going”.



Let me start by saying I want the word “heist” to die in a fire.

EDIT - the more I think about it, the more I find it interesting that BitD totally doesn't include the major genre element of betrayal/backstabbing/unreliable people within the crew. It's a good illustration of @Thomas Shey 's point re: excluding genre elements which don't work well for RPGs.

The first campaign I ever ran for Blades wound up with two PCs vying for control of the crew and the remainder taking sides.

It was classic crime fiction stuff.

Emphasis mine... While I don't necessarily disagree, I'm not sure having some weak spots in a party will be so detrimental that it will make for a bad heist adventure (Or can't be covered by another team member) and that having said weak spots isn't actually part of some subtypes of heist movies.

It’s just about the structures in place. Like the early D&D rules really supporrted dungeon delves. Because they had detailed rules about dungeon delves, rules which were integrated into the larger system with thought and care about how they’d interact with other rules components.

Also, I think this is more about prolonged play. I’m not denying you can do criminal caper type scenarios in D&D. I’m saying that of you want to focus on that kind of action over the course of play rather than one session, that’s the benefit of a “bespoke” game.

Which is kind of why it’s frustrating to hear “no one’s saying D&D does this better” because no one arguing for D&D is acknowledging any benefit whatsoever to a more focused game.

So honest question...what would be the benefit of a “bespoke” game compared to D&D? If there is one, I would expect that it’d probably sound like things I and others are saying, no? If there isn’t one, then it would seem that you are indeed saying D&D is always better.

So which is it? Or some third alternative?

There are group checks, aid actions, etc. in D&D. I might be missing the differences dues to lack of familiarity so let me know if Iam.

Well, they’re optional, for one. They’re also kind of minimally designed. And most of the other rules were not designed with these options in mind, so at times there can be some weird effects.

These all seem to ultimately be based around engendering more competency... that said too much competency and certainty does push hard against some types of heist films and books. So it may make it harder to run certain types of heist stories with BitD.

Well, not exactly. Scoundrels are capable, but they are going up against tougher threats. And although they have resources to mitigate consequences, they can never mitigate them all. Things might go well short term, but then a few Scores later and the ish has hit the fan.

And the PCs in Blades tend to have marks that show what they’ve been through. There are consequences that pile up in a way that D&D doesn’t support at all.

Their life is filled with danger, but they’re capable.

I think SC's as presented in the 4e DMG were...well... kind of garbage. They weren't explained well and they were mechanically broken (so it wasn't just a presentation issue the mechanics for them weren't good). And yes in DMG 2 they fixed them but come on...majority of gamers don't buy supplemental books. I actually use 4e essentials to supplement my 5e games at times but most pro-4e fans tend to look down on those books for... reasons. IMO WotC poisoned it's own well on that one with 4e and those who thought it was an intersting concept or had promise and who didn't pick up DMG 2 kind of did their own thing with them so I'm not surprised that there are people who have taken the concept and put it to good use.

How it went in 4E wasn’t really my point so much as a side observation.

The DMG has optional rules for people who want a little more depth to their skills... but one could also argue that BitD combat systm is kind of simplistic and it is probably a result of it using the same system as everything else.

I absolutely love the combat system in Blades. This is mostly because it is the default action resolution system, and I really like the Harm system compared to HP.

That being said, I have no problem saying that 5E has a lot more to offer combat. That’s very clearly true!

It doesn't seem like it would do something more grounded and gritty or where things fall apart without the players or the GM purposefully gimping themselves (and thus not really playing in the spirit of the game). What are your thoughts on that?

No not at all. The resources players have are different, and so Blades characters and D&D characters are resilient in different ways.

D&D is like the Justice League. Blades is more like Batman when he’s at home in Gotham.

Okay. Look at how I worded that part of my post. I am grouping them together. Not sure why you’re saying this as if in counter to my post.

Because I had already mentioned hit points. You then said hit points and hit dice, as if these were separate things. I then said they’re so connected as to be the same thing, so not sure why you’d bother mentioning them.

But it’s okay.

 

[Hussar]

This feels like a Jerk Fallacy argument - a dm can choose to run a total power trip, disregard the fun of the players, and ignore all the text in the books, therefore DnD has no rules.

Is there any mechanism in any roleplaying game that prevents someone from running the game in bad faith? What about any other game, for that matter?

There have been extensive threads on these boards which have argued that players absolutely cannot initiate any skill check. The rules of 5e D&D do not permit players to do so. They can ask the DM if they can do something, and then the DM tells them what check to make, if the DM decides if that check is necessary or not.

At no point under the rules of 5e, do the players have the opportunity to tell the DM anything. At best, the player can ask if they can attempt something.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

These two posts sum up the mystery of this thread for me.

As I understand them, the 5e rules for resolving any conflict (other than combat) say The GM decides whether or not a check is called for. If the GM calls for a check, the GM decides what proficiency (if any) might be relevant. If a check fails, the GM decides what happens. If a check succeeds, the GM decides what happens.

Upthread I mentioned a cooking competition. The GM could decide to call for a check, or not. Using WIS, or DEX, or INT, or even CON if many dishes are to be prepared over hours or days. If calling for a check, proficiency in culinary utensils may help. Though at 1st level a good stat bonus may well match or even surpass this bonus, which itself will be very modest relative to the spread of possible d20 results. If the roll for character A beats that for character B, that still leaves it open that the GM decides the judge likes (say) B's mediocre flan to A's excellent pie, because the GM can decide that the judge just doesn't like pie.

I think when someone says that BitD handles heists better than 5e, they're looking at the structure and consequent constraints that it establishes for all these things. I think that this is at least a good part of what @Campbell has in mind when he posts that



I see the same thing in posts like these:

The fact the DM can choose from several options how to adjudicate a thing, does not mean the game has no rules for the thing. It pretty much means the opposite of that.

The skill system is an optional rule?

Lol right. And even if it is...that still means it is part of the game, and thus cannot be a thing the game lacks.

Yup, guess I just have to be a better DM. It's so easy for you. It must be very nice being that good of a DM. I can only aspire to the heights to which you have reached.

Good lord. None of what I said means anything like that, but keep flailing hyperbolically I guess.

Because I had already mentioned hit points. You then said hit points and hit dice, as if these were separate things. I then said they’re so connected as to be the same thing, so not sure why you’d bother mentioning them.

Edit: nvm. We both know what the other meant.

 

[Hussar]

But this is effectively just taking the heist and abstracting it one level without process sim details. You fail a stealth check in a skill challenge and it racks up a fail (narrating it how the group chooses) - as long as you end up with the requisite number of successes before fails - it's (some level of) a success. Contrast playing a heist scenario without the skill challenge, and you have a failed stealth check... that could still be redeemed by quickly neutralizing the guard by playing out how that's done. And it could still be a heist with (some level of) a success.

There are no skill challenges in 5e.

 

[billd91]

Sure, I can, as a GM with rule zero authority, sort of make anything happen. Still, what was the consequence in 5e of one failure in a process of many checks? It probably guided the fiction in a bit different path. This is about all that FF can do without more structure. I mean, basically you can make up an ad-hoc version of 4e's SC rules and say "well, lets see, I think if they fail 3 checks they probably opened the hornet's nest, but if they manage to succeed on 5 first, then I'll figure it was challenging enough." Why not just have the structure to start with? I've never understood why its lack gains us anything.

Ultimately, because the structure of success conditions was arbitrary and the math was bad. At best, as presented in the 4e DMG, it was a rough draft. I’m convinced that the SC structure works best as a measure of relative success\failure. The prisoner escape example in SWSE Galaxy of Intrigue was a much better example of what a SC could be - each failure peels away prisoners from the group lessening the degree of success.

 

[dave2008]

So I had a bonkers day at work where I was repeatedly kicked in the unmentionables, and for some reason I decided “Oh I should see how that D&D/Bespoke thread is going”.



Let me start by saying I want the word “heist” to die in a fire.

Yep

 

[dave2008]

Absolutely. People had a weirdly oppositional attitude to Skill Challenges, but because they make you roll multiple times, they help fight the major problem with high RNG linear-roll systems like D&D, and make investing in skills far more worthwhile.

I think this is an area that 5e could benefit from BitD's clocks system or the similar system in PF2e (VP system). And it is pretty easy to implement with skill checks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@hawkeyefan Im sorry. I have also had a terrible day, spending most of it in significant pain and unable to not work because 3 people are out on COVID leave.

That doesn’t excuse being rude, however.

I value your input, here and in other threads. I hope the rest of your day is relaxing and satisfying.

@Hussar I am very frustrated about our interaction in this thread, and because of that I have been completely unsympathetic to your response to my arguments here. Disagreeing with you about the nature of an argument isn’t an excuse to mock your response to it or to dismiss you as a result. Intentional or not, I caused you to feel belittled. I’m sorry for that.

I have never sought to imply that you or anyone else here is a bad DM. My argument has been and is that;

• The claim that heists cannot be done well in D&D 5e is false, and probably so. The proof is simply that not everyone has a hard time running them.
• My theory as to why the difference is that you and I (insofar as we represent to two sides of the debate) have such differing priorities and expectations of both the game in general and of heists (or horror, or naval combat, etc) specifically, that what works for one of us won’t work for the other.
• Following from that, I suggest that it is bad form to tell someone that they cannot do The Thing in D&D, without any reasoning or explanation. Not “justification of your experience”, but reasoning.
• I will note that most people are more likely to take advice seriously if it comes with some idea of the givers experience with what they’re giving advice on.