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

[Imaro]

Well, yeah, it is absolutely clear. Couldn't be clearer. Success means you get past. Failure means the alarm is raised. Seems pretty clear. Failure might mean the alarm is raised is less clear no?

No its not clear. How is the alarm raised, unless its instantaneous and on the guard at the time and he's within earshot of everyone else and etc. its not clear cut.... failure could be he investigates where he thought he heard a noise coming from... or that shadow out the corner of his eye that seemed to come from that dark corner of the hall.

 

[tetrasodium]

Don't have much time to post today but I can answer this pretty quickly... In all honesty I thought the majority of, if not all, DM's stated the DC before the roll, myself included. To the point where I'd find it odd to be in a game that did not. In nearly every streaming show I've seen they announce the DC... in the few games I've gotten to play in, the DM's announced the DC.. inmy games I announce the DC.

As for the fail and success state I as a DM make sure I'm clear on what the PC is trying to accomplish as opposed to just knowing their action to the point where I ask to have them state it if its not clear from the action statement. I also tell them what will happen if they fail if its not obvious. Now admittedly if I have more that two states in D&D I don't go through all of them with the player just success and failure, mainly because as a DM I tend to have to improvise those if the roll warrants it. I'll also readily admit I don't think this is something alot of DM's actually do... as opposed to staring the DC.

The usual process for me is...

Player 1: I try to get the guards attention by pretending to faint near him.
DM: Ok what exactly are you trying to do by fainting?
Player 1 : I'm trying to keep him from noticing our rogue from sneaking into the library he's stationed in front of.
DM: OK if you fail the guard will get a check to notice the rogue sneaking past. Give me either deception or perform versus a DC of 15
Player 1: rolls dice...

IME the DC being announced ahead of time is very much not the norm. Even "It's going to be hard" or whatever is not the norm. What was common back in the 3.x days is for a gm to go down the relevant list of bonus types & specific things in the bonus types/gms best friend relevant to a roll so a player could make some informed choices or maybestep back a bit so they can try to influence some of those things. That kind of behavior happens in fate as well where a gm might list off draw attention to or even just hint at the various aspects that are in play to potentially complicate a roll where they also basically added +2/-2 to the DC or did similar depending on the version.

 

[Hussar]

If you narrate a result that contradicts the outcome of a check, you're breaking the rules. If there's a success--whether from fiat or from a roll--and you don't know what the PC wants, you can't narrate that success until you find out what the PC wants.

But, here's the thing. The game NEVER TELLS YOU what a success means. That was the point of the three results outlined. They are all successes. They are all plausible and reasonable successes.

And, "finding out what the players want" isn't part of the process. That's something you've added in. Of course, the players want the most advantageous result. They want to advocate for their character. That's fair enough. But, where does the advice in 5e say that you, as DM, should be advocating on the side of the players every time they succeed? If you succeed at X, unless the rules are really clear (such as a climb check), any result is legitimate so long as it is a success.

 

[Hussar]

Don't have much time to post today but I can answer this pretty quickly... In all honesty I thought the majority of, if not all, DM's stated the DC before the roll, myself included. To the point where I'd find it odd to be in a game that did not. In nearly every streaming show I've seen they announce the DC... in the few games I've gotten to play in, the DM's announced the DC.. inmy games I announce the DC.

As for the fail and success state I as a DM make sure I'm clear on what the PC is trying to accomplish as opposed to just knowing their action to the point where I ask to have them state it if its not clear from the action statement. I also tell them what will happen if they fail if its not obvious. Now admittedly if I have more that two states in D&D I don't go through all of them with the player just success and failure, mainly because as a DM I tend to have to improvise those if the roll warrants it. I'll also readily admit I don't think this is something alot of DM's actually do... as opposed to staring the DC.

The usual process for me is...

Player 1: I try to get the guards attention by pretending to faint near him.
DM: Ok what exactly are you trying to do by fainting?
Player 1 : I'm trying to keep him from noticing our rogue from sneaking into the library he's stationed in front of.
DM: OK if you fail the guard will get a check to notice the rogue sneaking past. Give me either deception or perform versus a DC of 15
Player 1: rolls dice...

Now, can you show me where you were told to do this? Because, I can show you a lot of threads from this board alone that would never, ever do it that way.

Paging @iserith. If you would care to weigh in here on this? I know that we disagree on how to run skills, but, AIR, you wouldn't do it this way either.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This leaves out the possibility that @Hussar's experience is the expected one and it's just the rest of us who are really lucky.

I will note that, in most editions of DnD having a party that's good at heists/capers/whatever (stealthy, social, lots of skills and utility spells) is usually in opposition to having a party optimized for combat. 5e is the exception, with it's range of charisma classes (that synergize really well) and dex-based AC being nearly as good as armor-based AC, so stealthy paladins aren't an odd duck anymore.

I don't really buy it though. And the only time I've seen someone claim a DM I knew was like that, I'd played with them, and it was just bollocks. Personal experience is always going to be limited, but there's nothing in D&D directing or guiding you to making failures universally catastrophic, and I'd argue 5E specifically words things in such a way that they probably shouldn't be. Of course the counter-issue is that very, very few people running 5E actually read/internalize the guidance.

So I maintain that it's really odd that he's never played with a DM who thought otherwise, and that (unless I missed a post) he thinks D&D ought to work in the "catastrophist" way.

I have come across catastrophist D&D DMs, but like two, ever. The big issue is really the d20 mechanic combined with the binary pass/fail, because it makes apparently unmitigated failures so common relative to games like Shadowrun. One of the "catastrophist" DMs I'm thinking of, in WoD games, you'd fail, but unless every die was a fail, he'd treat it as a sort of "soft failure". Whereas in D&D he did treat any failure as total failure. Ironically using "critical fails" on 1 probably helps out here, because the DM has to allocate mind-space to what would happen if you rolled a 1, so normal failures are probably less bad in such a game.

As for "in opposition", what editions are you thinking of?

OD&D and AD&D, that's clearly not true. Because you couldn't really "invest" in that stuff, you pretty much were fixed in terms of what you could do, and the spells available had utility across all kinds of situation. 3E, it's definitely possible to argue that it's true, so that's absolutely right for you. 4E it's absolutely not true, because even if you "optimize for stealth/social/utility", you're still a total badass in combat. 5E I would argue that the actual effectiveness difference is likely to be extremely small, and all the spellcasters will be relatively flexible, but you're agreeing with that.

So 5E isn't the odd one on out. 4E is even most like that than 5E. OD&D and AD&D you just can't really do that.

3.XE is the odd one out. Because that's the only edition where what you say is true.

 

[Hussar]

and that (unless I missed a post) he thinks D&D ought to work in the "catastrophist" way.

I still have zero idea where you are getting this from. "Ought"? Nope. It shouldn't work this way. It does because there is like, ZERO advice suggesting that it shouldn't. But, I'll get back to that in a second.

/snip

OD&D and AD&D, that's clearly not true. Because you couldn't really "invest" in that stuff, you pretty much were fixed in terms of what you could do, and the spells available had utility across all kinds of situation. 3E, it's definitely possible to argue that it's true, so that's absolutely right for you. 4E it's absolutely not true, because even if you "optimize for stealth/social/utility", you're still a total badass in combat. 5E I would argue that the actual effectiveness difference is likely to be extremely small, and all the spellcasters will be relatively flexible, but you're agreeing with that.

So 5E isn't the odd one on out. 4E is even most like that than 5E. OD&D and AD&D you just can't really do that.

3.XE is the odd one out. Because that's the only edition where what you say is true.

Bree Yark was introduced into D&D, what, forty years ago? Look at the modules of the era. You will see, time and again, language similar to, "If the PC's are seen, the monsters attack, while one at the back raises the alarm". This is hardly unusual.

Heck, I just took a look at Ghosts of Saltmarsh - The Final Enemy. Now, here is the stated goal of the module:

the town council of Saltmarsh once again needs heroes- those accomplished enough to infiltrate the REDACTED stronghold and return with knowledge that will bring about the downfall of the final enemy.

So, right up front we have an infiltration scenario. The advice continues:

COMBAT NOT REQUIRED

The characters are considered an elite team that can bring back the needed information. They will likely need to fight some of the REDACTED, but must remain quiet as often as possible to avoid becoming overwhelmed. If they can achieve the mission goals without combat, they're playing smart and well. The intent is to get the players to think tactically and avoid unnecessary fights against a superior foe. Reward the characters' efforts to move past areas filled with REDACTED undetected, but do not hesitate to have the REDACTED react if the characters behave carelessly.

So, what should happen if the PC's are detected? Well, the module does offer some advice:

The primary (and presumed) entrance is the above water gates. ((Note, there are other entrances, we'l talk about those later)). Here's the relevant advice.

As long as the characters approach the doors quietly, they do not alert the guards beyond. Tampering with the doors will alert the guards, who demand (in REDACTED) to know who is trying to enter.
The guards can be tricked into opening the doors, but since REDACTED intelligence is high. this will not be an easy task. A character who can communicate with the REDACTED, and who makes a successful DC 18 Charisma (Deception or Persuasion) check. convinces the guards to open the doors for the party.

Note, absolutely no advice on how to adjudicate a failure. However, if the PC's do open the door, then:

Once the characters are inside, read the following:
You see a bare, spartan room. Ahead, a short corridor off the room ends in a closed bronze gate. To your left, a sin- gle stone bench runs along the east wall. To your right on the opposite wall hangs a large metal gong; a short metal bar leans against the wall below it.
Several REDACTED glare at you as they move to attack.

Guess what, the entire main level gets alerted by that big metal gong and, really, there is zero chance of you stopping it unless you can somehow kill 9 REDACTED in a single round before any of them can raise the alarm.

But, wait, there are other entrances for enterprising PC's. Now, one of them is the main gates, so, that's a non-starter right off the bat. But the other one is more inviting. It's an abandoned tunnel. Great. First encounter is 3 REDACTED who immediately attack if they become aware of the PC's - no chance of talking to them or bluffing them or bribing them. And 90 feet away through a double door are 45 REDACTED. Granted, there's no chance of the mass hearing due to an ongoing arena fight they are watching, but, that's a move and a double move away for our 3 immediately attacking guards.

So, all in all the odds of success of infiltration are very low. Now, the writers of the adventure knew that, so, they have spaced out encounters far enough that it's entirely plausible that the party will simply murder their way in, do what they're supposed to do, and then murder their way out.

But, again, a single mistake by the party, which is frankly inevitable, results in the entire place being alerted. Fail that Persuasion check above? What is supposed to happen? There's no advice, but, REDACTED are quite intelligent, and very much on a war footing, so, it's not implausible that they would raise an alarm or open the door to look outside while someone is ready to raise the alarm. Go in through the underwater entrances? You're not wounded at this point, so the frenzy sidebar forcing REDACTED to attack won't apply and it will become very apparent very quickly that the PC'S are dangerous. REDACTED are militant, organized and on a war footing, getting ready to attack Saltmarsh. It's not like they're "lazy bullies" of guards (note, how offensive is that stereotype? Sorry, but as someone who has served in uniform and stood guard duty more than a few times, being told that all guards are lazy or bullies is unbelievably disrespectful - talk about something that should be apologized for).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not like they're "lazy bullies" of guards (note, how offensive is that stereotype? Sorry, but as someone who has served in uniform and stood guard duty more than a few times, being told that all guards are lazy or bullies is unbelievably disrespectful - talk about something that should be apologized for).

Such a good post until you got here lol.

First off, we're not talking about the modern day. And historically, it's absolutely fair to say that, it's particularly fair pre-1700 or so. In fact, pre-1700, it's probably an understatement.

But I nearly put in a caveat saying "obviously this doesn't apply to modern-day or recent past soldiers who have to stand guard as part of their duties" (same for police who have to do that too). But I thought "Naaaah, no-one is actually going to think that it does, because obviously we're not talking modern-style soldiers in most D&D heists, we're talking 1300s to 1600s hired help and low-INT monstrous humanoids". Apparently I overestimated the audience's desire to read generously there, in a sense. I guess the old adage is true.

But yeah, I don't mean modern-day soldiers or police because I'm talking about a D&D setting, not, like, your local military base or bank or w/e. Actual soldiers don't have the "embarrassment" factor either, because it's more embarrassing to not follow protocol than it is to "cry wolf", so that yeah a level of discipline like, say, modern-day US soldiers would make a heist near-impossible unless it was pure deception of a kind that relied on the machine working itself.

If you're running D&D like the sort of guys hired to guard a counting house or whatever are disciplined and highly-trained US soldiers (which even pretty basic recruits are today), with an extremely well-developed set of protocols and methodologies, a perfect chain of command, and so on, well, I think obviously then it's going to be real tough for anyone going up against that. I wouldn't do that myself. They're people who've been hired to stand around all day and look threatening. It's likely they're from various backgrounds, not well-disciplined (few armies were, and they're not an army), that they probably don't have any espirt de corps, bored, not necessarily very bright, and to have picked a job which doesn't involve them doing much work, and likely does mean they get to push some people around (just not the rich ones).

Anyway, ignoring those shenanigans, I actually agree that adventure has pretty bad guidance. I don't agree that means you have to take a catastrophist approach because of how one adventure is written, nor that it demands a catastrophist approach, but it's bad guidance, I can't disagree.

 

[Hussar]

Sigh.

"One adventure". Yeah. This is the only adventure to ever give advice like that. It never appears in any other D&D adventure. Not like, say, Keep on the Borderlands (Bree Yark!), or Against the Giants, or the Slaver's Modules... or, virtually EVERY other module for D&D that features anything remotely resembling an infiltration plot line.

But, yeah, it's just one adventure.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sigh.

"One adventure". Yeah. This is the only adventure to ever give advice like that. It never appears in any other D&D adventure. Not like, say, Keep on the Borderlands (Bree Yark!), or Against the Giants, or the Slaver's Modules... or, virtually EVERY other module for D&D that features anything remotely resembling an infiltration plot line.

But, yeah, it's just one adventure.

I'm sorry I haven't read all the adventures lol

And with Against the Giants, my players pulled off a coup certainly on par with a heist, though definitely more resembling a war crime... (discussed in another thread). But that's not really infiltration, is it? Isn't it just about killing all the giants so they stop invading towns and literally eating people? I mean that's how I read it, but I last read it in like 1999 I admit. I mean, if "Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" is "infiltration" then I guess our definitions are so far apart that the definitions are probably the real issue.

 

[Hussar]

Yup, par for the course. I bring up four examples, you can nit-pick a single one and then claim to have refuted my point. G1 isn't an infiltration scenario? Really? You have an overwhelming force in the Steading. The PC's are given a place they can retreat to between forays (so long as they're careful). The whole point is to learn who is behind the giants as well as dealing a lesson to the giants. The party goes in on little cat feet, execute careful strikes and then fall back.

Sounds like an infiltration scenario to me. It's not meant as a frontal assault. It's not meant as diplomacy. And, if the group isn't careful about their strikes, they will be completely overwhelmed and squished. I'd call it a series of infiltrations.

Compare to say, Temple of Elemental Evil, where the point is exploration. Most encounters are straight up fights with little chance of things spilling over into other areas. Each section is generally isolated from its neighbors.


Yeah, it's best if we don't replay to each other any more. It's simply not worth it. Feel free to have the last word.