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

[Ruin Explorer]

by claiming they are mere setting elements despite how much the system is built to enable them

If that's what you thought I said I can see why you're very confused, because I definitely didn't lol oh well. "The environment" means "the environment", not "mere setting elements".

My point is your claim was that in D&D you have to "[ride] the rail passively until the crash happens", just because you don't have Deckers and Riggers, and it's obviously nonsense because you do have characters who can provide many of the same advantages, you just have to play like you're playing Shadowrun, not play like you're playing some D&D railroad adventure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. That has been part of my point at various points, but I recognize I haven't adequately communicated why. I'll get to that at the end, here.

I think this exagerates things a little. You aren't likely to get the same kind of tension of play, but it's certainly possible, and probably the reverse as well, though I've not tried that. The two are better suited to different foundation-level gameplay ideals, however. Absolutely.

Stuff like vulnerability, though, is a matter of scale and consequence. I think one of the big differences from 4e to 5e is that 4e is designed to do everything it's meant to be able to do out of the box without any tinkering or system mastery, while 5e is designed to work out of the box, but be able to do many different types of things with a bit of system familiarity and use of optional rules and homebrew/3pp additions. So, the vulnerability arguement, to me, applies to 4e vastly more than to 5e, because in 5e it is very normal, as far as I can tell, to houserule things like how easy resurrection is, how natural healing works, etc, and to use different encounter building guidelines than those provided in the book.

Sure. Again, the two have advantages and disadvantages. Some people want to customize their own computer, some people want to open the box and plug it in and be online 5 minutes later getting precisely the experience they came for without any need to dig into how the parts work beyond how to use them. Some people want something in between. Just as one example of the differences between the two.

My point has been, if you enjoy the basic gameplay framework of a game more than that of other games, and you want to add some genre convention mechanics onto that game rather than change to a very different gameplay framework just to get that genre feel, that is perfectly valid and shouldn't be treated as foolish or crazy or as if the person just doesn't know better.

I mean, we got people in this thread playing victim every time someone says that it's totally doable to play horror in dnd, while also advocating for telling people in advice threads that they don't know their own preferences and only want to play dnd because they don't know any better.

Except, and here's the crux of it, you aren't doing horror in 5e, you're just doing horror and happen to be using 5e. The kind of improv approach you seem to favor from the examples of your play you've provided makes it clear that you're more than happy to just make it up and use your GM's chair to make it happen. Which is great, by the way. The issue, though, is that it isn't 5e that has anything really to do with this, outside of the fact that it's a system that intentionally puts everything in the GM's hands, but you that does this. I think you'd be just fine making all of these claims in another system, provided it's at least similar in the way it puts things into the GM's hands. I also think that you'd find the constraints on the GM enforced by a PbtA game to be absolutely frustrating.

Which is, again, fine. The argument isn't that this isn't a great way to play -- clearly you and yours have fun, so it is a great way to play. The argument has been on whether this is a function of you and your table or the system. I'm saying it's you.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And which 5e has also solved. You preferred 4e's solution, I prefer 5e's.

I think the post I was replying to was pretty much stating that 5e undid 4e's solution, because the attack rules for weapons are all based on ability modifier, and its trivial for an ogre (for example) to employ STR on both ranged and melee attacks, so immobilizing it and standing back doesn't gain you anything (except maybe a slight decrease in damage because thrown weapons generally do less than big giant clubs). The other observation being spell casters can simply toss out save-based attack spells and avoid OAs, negating the 'get in his face to stop him casting' strategy (though it could still impose meaningful constraints on the caster's choices, depending).

So, I'm not sure what 5e's solution IS exactly...

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not even sure what this discussion is about anymore. It certainly doesn't help that the OP has me on ignore.

 

[loverdrive]

That 5e resolution discussion has reminded me of a little game we used to play to decide who is doing dishes after the session.

The perceived rules are very simple: I silently decide on a number between 1 and 10. Everyone else names their number between 1 and 10, whoever hit closest to my number does the dishes.

The actual rules were even simpler: they name a number and then whoever has pissed me off that day does the dishes.

 

[Manbearcat]

FWIW, I highly enjoy GURPS, so... Though, I would agree that it was a mistake on the part of 3.x because 3.x was trying to emulate what GURPS was doing while also adhering to the tenets of a d20 system and D&D style linear levels; the two design goals generally conflict.

Also, I think you're likely focusing on the wrong part. It's not that I expected 4E to be "real" in terms of the real world; I simply expected it to be "real" in the context of the story it was telling. Edit: ...or more accurately, at least attempt to be real in the context of the story the game was trying to tell me.

If it is established in the story that some demon or dragon is a terror to behold and the scourge of the world, it's a bit strange when that same creature struggles to perform tasks which are trivial to the PCs. The lore of the game didn't match up with what happened when the game was brought to the table.

Its difficult for me to parse how these statements above exist in concert.

If you're not trying to interpret a game's engine as "rules as physics (rules that govern the physical interactions of the shared imagined space)", how does the above make sense?

In 4e, a GM/player isn’t concerned about world collisions/interactions/physics that are irrelevant to the thematic story embedded in 4e; a Points of Light, World on Fire, Diablo meets Greek myth, where mythical heroes must overcome mythical challenges and take sides in mythical conflicts.

You're framing scenes that provoke and resolve those conflicts. That is the story of 4e; who the Character Themes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, Quests and conflict resolution create the trajectory of play and decide the outputs of the collisions of those themed conflicts.

You don't care whether Ancient Red Dragons are better or worse at weaving or crafting or picking pockets than the heroes. Because that stuff never sees table time/scene-time and is wholly irrelevant to play/the story of 4e!

Conversely, it seems to me that what your quoted post above is saying is exactly "I expect game engines to be rules as physics that govern my orientation toward and interaction with the content of the shared imagined space (even the stuff that is never onscreen)."

 

[tetrasodium]

If that's what you thought I said I can see why you're very confused, because I definitely didn't lol oh well. "The environment" means "the environment", not "mere setting elements".

My point is your claim was that in D&D you have to "[ride] the rail passively until the crash happens", just because you don't have Deckers and Riggers, and it's obviously nonsense because you do have characters who can provide many of the same advantages, you just have to play like you're playing Shadowrun, not play like you're playing some D&D railroad adventure.

Vague nonspecific allusions hoping for some undefined edge case contrived situation that allows d&d to pretend it is on par with SR in this area don't support your position. again, I'm sure you can elaborate the rules players can draw upon if they want to change how things are on a collision towards failure of a plan to give them similar levels of influence as the shadowrun stuff I noted? As before feel free to dive into rules constructs baked into settings other than FR if it helps.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I gave facts, you gave opinions. Opinions are yours, facts are for everyone.

Now Dave, that's nonsense. I have clearly stated substantive observations about how things actually play and what the implications of the different rules are. Those aren't 'opinions'. They certainly aren't MERELY opinions. What 'facts' have you 'given' that are more substantive than that?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

lol methodology!

Since when did I become a college professor or something? That's pretty high-falutin'!

I'm pretty sure I just listed what was welling on DriveThru RPG right now. That's not really "methodology" unless I've been writing "thesis" with these posts and stuff lol. Thank you for fancifying me though! But I will say your "what I've seen played" is even less viable as evidence than listing stuff from DriveThru, because that's pure totally unsourced finest-quality anecdote.

lol! You're welcome I get you. I just mean, we don't know much about what people are playing. Maybe roll20 would be a better way to check that, but that's only another idea. I doubt there's any way to really know what is popular overall.

As for D&D, I think it'd be pretty easy to fix, but no-one has the balls to kill the recently-developed sacred cow of rolling a d20 for skills. There's no reason it shouldn't be something saner like 2d6 or 3d6 or 2d10, but good luck convincing people of that. Add in that and a few mechanics which enable players to assert fiction just a TINY bit more than they can (some of which have been mentioned in this thread) and you'd be in a much, much better place.

I don't actually have a problem with the d20. I think it is OK as long as it isn't coupled too much with straight bonuses. In my table game (HoML) we have a straight up rule, there is only (dis)Advantage, nothing else. Any situation that isn't substantial enough to warrant that, is too trivial to adjust on. That really fixes any problems, and overall speeds play too.

Totally agree re: Shadowrun and genre being why most games are played. But I think that also strongly applies to a lot of modern games, including some PtbA ones, which are overrated-as-hell because they're a specific genre. I'm looking at you, Monster of the Week and Urban Shadows (though Urban Shadows 2E may be good, I dunno). But Urban Shadows for sure was only as successful as it was because genre.

Oh, I don't disagree. What we would really need is not just sales figures, but customer satisfaction, or some proxy for it like replay value. Again, this might mean roll20 stats would be a good set to look at, but they may be biased towards certain types of games, I'm not sure. Some people also play in other online forums, so certain games may be more represented in some vs others, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

I never read the module,

Marauders of the Dune Sea is, truth be told, not that bad at all as the basis for almost a series of little adventures in a desert. There's a town piece, which the module wants to resolve as a single big 4e-style set-piece battle but which could easily become more involved and elaborate; then there's two travel/exploration pieces (through the desert then through the sandstorm) which can and IMO should also be made more elaborate; then a small dungeon the overly-linear interior design of which is the only part of the module that really needs some help.

so I am not sure of all the particulars of that SC. IMHO though, it isn't necessarily that bad. I mean, I would certainly make something like that into a Complexity 1 challenge if I was going to frame it the way you describe. Also, I'm not enamored by the "end up outside, try again" aspect. ANY good SC has to involve fictional situation changing, both during and as a result of, the challenge. I guess if the point was simply depletion of supplies, then OK, but if it was me I'd have the end result be you get to the center no matter what, and your supplies are depleted (creating later complications) on a failure. Something like that. Also I don't know what happens DURING the challenge, but it should definitely involve several obstacles and allow for various possible solutions (including ones unforeseen by the GM/Module author). Again, being Complexity 1, this doesn't have to be TOO elaborate.

Obviously you were interested in playing up the storm and getting through it as a major activity.

I certainly didn't want to reduce it down to just a few dice rolls.

That's fine too, and if I was wanting to do that, then I wouldn't run it as an SC, or I would put a lot more into said SC and it would probably be a Complexity 5 with a number of pieces to it. 4e says "skip to the interesting parts", but it doesn't really say what they are, except that they are 'encounters' and thus USUALLY use either the combat and/or SC system (puzzles are an exception, and traps are technically combat, but could play more like free-form or etc.).

Anyway, WotC, especially in early 4e, definitely wasn't too good at SC formulation. They are also hard to create in a module format, because they tie so much into the plot, and every group will mangle the imagined plot in various ways. So I found very few written SCs that were really reliably good. Most of those however WERE 'survival tests', but carefully written. Social situations can work, but they really need to generally be situated at the START of a module, or at the very penultimate point, otherwise its hard to end up with the situation being exactly what was imagined by the author.

Thing is, and maybe this is just me failing to grok 4e, but when a module suggests that some element within it be resolved as a skill challenge what that says to me is that the module author expects this to be an unimportant bit of the adventure with the die rolls for the SC in effect taking the place of some handwaving. Put another way, it's expecting very low granularity and level of detail in resolution, almost but not quite to the point of handwave it or skip it.