• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

Speaking personally my only experiences in traditional RPGs where a failed Stealth roll does not mean you are automatically observed are ones that have explicit layered Stealth states like Pathfinder 2, Infinity and Conan 2d20. Doesn't mean people do not treat it differently, but I have not seen it in meatspace. I mean generally it's either a contested roll or the DC is set based on Perception/Awareness of the people you are sneaking past. In the worst case scenario each NPC gets to make a roll with no action cost.

Other than 4e skill challenges that is.

This is a good point.

Even in 4e (the “indie D&D” laden with its FF and SwC in SCs and its abundance of Damage/Effect on a Miss in combat), if you’re in combat and your Stealth Check fails? It’s full on binary task resolution. You’re seen. Now deal with the “you’re seen and you can’t deploy whatever stealth effect you were hoping to deploy (be it getting to there unseen or gank).”

A game engine (or a segment of a game engine) where granular/zoomed in Task Resolution is the means of action resolution , and where it isn’t built with robust tools/pressure points for complication handling, is pretty much going to default (and sensibly so) to binary pass/fail ganestates.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Why not both?

I mean, neither tradition nor inertia seems as though it would need to be more about macro-culture than minor, and I get the sense this is over more than one edition of D&D, possibly in games not-D&D--though "not-D&D" may not be dispositive, here, if we're talking about games with similar authority structures.

Could be in certain cases for sure.

It’s just that in D&D, we’ve got several decades of macro-culture and Padawan-Master tradition that carries with it enormous inertia and potentially social cost/payoff for deviating from/acquiescing to orthodoxy.

For micro-cultures to accrete around a paradigm and “infect” the collective disposition of people there needs to (a) be vectors/proximity and (b) social cost/payoff.

That becomes a lot more difficult with new stuff and a distributed collective because time and proximity are issues.

My personal anecdote above is all about that macro culture and Padawan-Master relationship.

My surmise from the 2.5 years I engaged with 5e culture on ENWorld (fall 2014- summer 2017) is that it was ENWorlds micro-culture sharply reflecting the stock D&D culture in the wild.

But stuff may have changed in the last 4 years with all of the Critical Role stuff and streaming. I could easily see a sort of Neo-Trad/Streaming/Voyeur/Twitter “drift” of 5e culture if that is what you’re envisioning? You’ve got endless vectors for “collision” because of “virtual proximity” via social media platforms and oh boy has a social cost/payoff culture emerged on the internet. So if that is your surmise, then yeah...maybe these last 4 years has created an entirely new Zeitgeist that I’m relatively detached from.
 

Could be in certain cases for sure.

It’s just that in D&D, we’ve got several decades of macro-culture and Padawan-Master tradition that carries with it enormous inertia and potentially social cost/payoff for deviating from/acquiescing to orthodoxy.

But stuff may have changed in the last 4 years with all of the Critical Role stuff and streaming. I could easily see a sort of Neo-Trad/Streaming/Voyeur/Twitter “drift” of 5e culture if that is what you’re envisioning? You’ve got endless vectors for “collision” because of “virtual proximity” and oh boy has a social cost/payoff culture emerged on the internet. So if that is your surmise, then yeah...maybe these last 4 years has created an entirely new Zeitgeist that I’m relatively detached from.
It seems plausible (maybe probable) that all the streaming available has shifted the Zeitgeist. I just told people I was running 5E, and I don't feel as though I'm doing things wildly differently from how you're running DW (given the differences in how the games work, and the fact I wrote the setting myself) and I don't think anyone has been ... surprised by how the games work around the table (meaning, no one thought the game wasn't D&D). Now, I don't care much for watching livestreams, but I've also run stuff other than D&D, and I have a pretty firm idea of how I want the game and table to work.
 

I pretty much instantly allowed ancient dragons to use lair actions even if they are not in their lairs. My biggest complaint about 5e dragons is that they are very much the same. The lair actions are what make them feel different an unique.
Yeah, I don't honestly understand the thing with 'lair actions'. They belong as just basic statblock stuff. Either you are encountering it in the lair, or probably not encountering it at all. And if your story is set up so the encounter is somewhere else, then you still want that stuff. 4e used 'Terrain Powers', which are basically exactly the same thing, but because they are part of a given location they're a lot more flexible in practice. Not being tagged to the 'lair' specifically they become more like just a codified trick or something like that, but can also represent things like magical 'traps' and such (though there are ALSO traps, which overlap with them to a degree).
That is interesting, can you provide an example? I give mob/horde swarms lair actions, but I don't think that is what you are talking about.
Why wouldn't it basically be the same thing, I mean legendary actions and lair actions are all just 'actions', it hardly matters what they're called. Giving them to groups is cool. 4e had some monsters which coded that kind of thing into their stat blocks, but nothing more formal.
 


I expect that -even in a reality which drastically departs from our own- that the internal consistency of the story itself be mostly solid.
Right, and see what peeves me is the wearisomely repeated, but utterly without justification IME, song and dance about how somehow the ONLY WAY to achieve that is to remove all process in the way of the GM putting any arbitrary fiction in play, and attempting to have a 'rules system' that pretends to be a physics text book. It never worked. I mean, sure, many GMs who ran that game MADE fictions that had internal consistency, but with the right process, principles, and some mechanical support, you can ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT a game where failing to do so codes as a violation of 'proper play' and not simply as a poor GMing choice.
 

It seems plausible (maybe probable) that all the streaming available has shifted the Zeitgeist. I just told people I was running 5E, and I don't feel as though I'm doing things wildly differently from how you're running DW (given the differences in how the games work, and the fact I wrote the setting myself) and I don't think anyone has been ... surprised by how the games work around the table (meaning, no one thought the game wasn't D&D). Now, I don't care much for watching livestreams, but I've also run stuff other than D&D, and I have a pretty firm idea of how I want the game and table to work.

Could very well be.

I’d be curious to have some data and testimonials attached to that data (% of 5e GMs who are presently running SwC and why/when they started).

PBtA and the huge influx of indie games over the last decade (and their increasing acceptance) may have a hand to play as well.
 

Yeah, I don't honestly understand the thing with 'lair actions'. They belong as just basic statblock stuff. Either you are encountering it in the lair, or probably not encountering it at all. And if your story is set up so the encounter is somewhere else, then you still want that stuff. 4e used 'Terrain Powers', which are basically exactly the same thing, but because they are part of a given location they're a lot more flexible in practice. Not being tagged to the 'lair' specifically they become more like just a codified trick or something like that, but can also represent things like magical 'traps' and such (though there are ALSO traps, which overlap with them to a degree).

Why wouldn't it basically be the same thing, I mean legendary actions and lair actions are all just 'actions', it hardly matters what they're called. Giving them to groups is cool. 4e had some monsters which coded that kind of thing into their stat blocks, but nothing more formal.

Yeah. 4e’s ethos of “every battlefield is a lair” (with the rampant Forced Movement, incentivized tactical Movement, Auras, Control Effects, Hazards, Terrain variations, Stunting) is the way to make that happen.

But 5e clearly didn’t want that because it moved away from that by eliminating that outright or removing its robustness/pervasiveness and giving back only a semblance of it in actual Lair fights.

So the 5e model goes from the 4e “every battle is a big deal and here are two resources to incentivize pushing on (Prolific Encounter Powers and Milestones)” to the old school “a narrow few are a big deal while most are about quick (relatively speaking) resolution + managing workday resource attrition and controlling Rest Recharge.”
 

I disagree that a hill giant isn’t a threat to a vaguely prepared village.

Let’s work this out. A village would be like what? 10 households grouped together? So they have a population of slightly more than 100. Of course, most of these people are non-combatants (too old, too young or infirm). Let’s say 40 combatants altogether.
And I'm going to stop you right there. There's a difference between a combatant and a front line combatant. The ability to e.g. fire a crossbow doesn't require that much.
It’s an agrarian society, so most of these people will be in the fields (all sexes). A hill giant is 10’ tall, so they would probably first see him shortly before he crosses the tree line of the fields.
Let me stop you there. In 5e a hill giant is not just slightly bigger than an ogre. They're 16' tall according to the Monster Manual, and huge creatures rather than large. They're actual giants (and it's one of the 5e fluff changes I fully support).

Fortunately for the giant it's a hill giant, not a plains giant. Which means it can get relatively close.
The villagers are vaguely organized, so instead of attacking the giant right there with the implements they have, they rush back to the village.
The villagers are vaguely organised and they live in the sort of country a giant is likely to live in. However what the giant finds first isn't a farmer but a herdsman with a flock of sheep or goats. Part of the point of having herdsmen is the early warning they provide. And the herdsman always carries two things. The first is a sling, primarily for driving off wolves. The second is a horn (made of horn) so they can call for help or alert the village.

At this point most giants will be looking to steal a sheep or a goat, which I agree they can do relatively safely. And naughty word happens. Losing a goat every week or so to a giant is a problem, but it's not village-threatening.
The giant rushes after them, and due to his greater movement, probably kills s couple on the way there.
If the giant is particularly homicidal they get the shepherd/goat herd. But the horn has been sounded.
One villager goes to the centre of the village and rings a bell (vaguely organized) to warn everyone that there is a giant attack.
Already done unless the shepherd in particular was known for crying wolf. They heard that horn. And it got passed on. The warning's passing at almost the speed of sound.
The others go to their homes to grab what weapons they can find.
"What weapons they can find" - your village is a bunch of utterly clueless twits who leave their weapons buried under the junk? When they live in giant country?
While this is happening, the giant is rampaging through the village, killing people and destroying property.
Did he teleport? The giant has barely killed the shepherd by the time people are grabbing weapons.
Now most families are at home (ostensibly getting ready). They don’t have time to don armor (and none of them have armor anyway). A couple may have shortbows, but most of them have staves, clubs and hatchets (maybe a few scythes as well).
We're in hill country and the call has gone out for "giant". The weapons of choice are bows, slings, and javelins with hatchets as a last resort.
So, do they sally forth and attempt to kill the giant?
Of course not. They pepper that giant with sling-stones and a few arrows when it comes into sight. No ones grabbing staves or clubs. They don't want to get into range of that thing.
So you end up with 10 AC 10 commoners fighting a hill giant. A couple with ranged weapons, most with melee.
Almost all with ranged weapons. Slings are dirt cheap and in D&D count as simple weapons. If it's a particularly dangerous area most of them might have slings already on them.

If we assume half your "non-combatants" are Str 8 Dex 8 and have slings so can do damage that's still 30 slingstones that need 10 or more to hit (vs AC 11; +2 proficiency, -1 stat bonus); the non-combatants between them do an average of 28.5dpr at short range (accounting for crits) or 13.8 dpr at long range.

The giant lasts around 4 rounds against the non-combatant slingers if he closes to short range and 8 if he stays at long if they get to focus fire.
Maybe at the end the villagers prevail. I’m betting that you are going to end up with a lot of dead villagers even if they do.
Or around half the "non-combatants" take the giant down and only lose half a dozen. It is, of course, faster if you get the actual fighters involved.
And maybe the families of those dead villagers starve come winter because only the extremely young and the extremely old are left to run the farm.
Possibly the foolish ones that don't use slings and that rush down the throat of the giant rather than trying to shoot it from far away. Yes, villages that are that badly prepared and live in giant country might get wiped out. Of course so do the giants.
Now a town with walls and an organized militia probably wouldn’t be too much at risk from a single hill giant, but I would argue that this is as intended.
No walls and organised militia needed. Just proficiency with simple weapons and not doing anything stupid.
 

I think it may be fair to say that, at this point, D&D is almost its own sub-genre. It grew out of fantasy (as well as sci-fi and a few other things,) but it has grown into something which has its own tropes and genre conventions. I think part of this evidenced by discussions about rules and mechanical game structure I've seen, in which the debate about changing the rule becomes less about whether or not the rule should change than it becomes about whether or not such a change cause the game to be something that's "not D&D."

And, of course, to confuse the issue, D&D has had a big enough footprint long enough that its fed back into fiction (even avowedly non-D&D fiction) to some degree.

And yes, one of the more notable edition-war dialogs tends to turn on whether something is a bridge too far to be called D&D in some people's minds. This isn't unique to D&D and its derivatives, but because its had a long history and has had more variations than some other games with long ones, it tends to be a stronger effect (probably because its been more mechanically idiosyncratic than some in the first place, too).
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top