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

[Manbearcat]

I think you mean shark people.

Kuo-toa (sp?) are fish people. (Also known to their detractors as "gogglers" on account of their bulbous fishy eyes.)

This community service announcement brought to you by pemerton.

Yeah, I saw that post by @hawkeyefan and I was all thinking to myself "what a disgusting aquatist...everything that has gills, fins, and scales is the same, huh?"

Someone cancel that guy before he spreads his oceanic hate.

 

[Hussar]

The problem, as I see it, is people just have very subjective memories. So, like people claiming that the G modules were infiltration missions, like actually viable ones. DMs either just run things in a ridiculous way (the other guards 40' away never hear the bloody melee, and the front gate guards mysteriously spend 4 rounds fighting before one makes a dash for the alarm bell). That is remembered as "you can get past this even if you fail some checks." Even if the party does NOT actually fail any, the memory is "well, maybe we could have and still made it" without actually testing that.

Beyond that, maybe you CAN get past, if you selected the right spells, because spells always solve everything. This is why D&D has gotten away with this stuff for decades, because the truth is Invisibility, Silence, Charm, Magic Missile, etc. is really the logical infiltration tactics. Relying on skills is just basically a 'spell saver', you can try it first, but make sure to be ready with the magic when it goes bad. 5e has made this MUCH more effective too, since you don't need to exactly memorize the precise spells you need in the precise quantity.

Can we PLEASE start talking about the forest and not the bleeding tree? Ok, ok, G series was a BAD example. How about the A series then? Or Keep on the Borderland? My point was, virtually every module since day one has the same reaction for guards - see the party, raise the alarm. The argument was that this was some bizarre corner case of DM's gone bad. My point was that it wasn't that at all. It was DM's who have played the game for years, and the advice by the game writers nearly every single time has been "see the party, raise the alarm".

So, no, it's not some bizarre interpretation that has been pulled out of the ether. It's based on how the writers of the game have presented the game FOR FORTY FREAKING YEARS.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. You've summed up my take quite well here.

But then you jump to this, which doesn't really fly. Both PCs and NPCs can fail in non-catastrophic ways. For example, reverse the situation: if a PC standing watch sees someone sneaking up on the party's camp does she wake everyone with a holler or does she maybe try to deal with it herself (maybe even via diplomacy!) and not disturb everyone's sleep or does she just wake one other person as a backup?

If it happens, I've never seen it. A player on watch that didn't wake the party when they saw something strange would be looking for a new group PDQ in any group I've ever seen. This ranks up there with "don't steal from the party" for stuff that you just don't ever do.

 

[Hussar]

Damned if I know. I didn't say anything about not providing guidance.

The point was that if there's guidance buried in a paragraph somewhere about what to do if the PCs fail a skill roll it's a bit of a hassle to actually crack open the book and read it at the table until you find it. (And it's not the sort of thing you're likely to remember from a read through). I suspect most GMs just adjudicate as they see fit.

Yet, funnily enough, every DM I've ever played with has been able to follow the advice in the module that states that if the party is seen, the alarm is raised. Doesn't seem too buried to me. Again, actually look at the modules. This isn't some advice buried in the appendix or something. This is pretty much always in the first paragraph of any encounter where alarms are a thing.

Yet, I've yet to see ANY module that says, "If the NPC's spot the PC's, they aren't sure what they see and head off to investigate." I've already provided two examples where seeing the party raises the alarm. Do you need me to quote more?

 

[KainGuru]

A lot of people say 'system matters' etc but if you disentangle the core mechanics from the narrative fluff this arguement begins to fail. To run a high romance or heist style game would require describing new narrative fluff to bolted onto the core mechanic - a good, real world and proven, example of this is Chaosiums BRP: it underpins CoC, RQ and Storm Bringer. When people say ' it can't be done' they're ignoring a very long history in the hobby of doing exactly that ... ADnD was reworked to fit Dark Sun.and Plane Scape, Spell Jammer, Birthright and others.

When people say 'it can't be done' I hear 'you cannot mess the coded narrative presented with a system because "reasons"' - so is home brewing/hacking a system not a thing?

 

[Manbearcat]

A lot of people say 'system matters' etc but if you disentangle the core mechanics from the narrative fluff this arguement begins to fail.

...so is home brewing/hacking a system not a thing?

How do the above two statements sit coherently together?

If "system doesn't matter", then why does anyone need to home brew/hack anything? To what end does the hacking/home brewing serve if unhacked game x is effectively the same as hacked game y (previously unhacked game x)? And what work is that "previously" doing in that parenthetical? Shouldn't they taxonomically both still be unhacked game x?

 

[Don Durito]

 

[Hussar]

A lot of people say 'system matters' etc but if you disentangle the core mechanics from the narrative fluff this arguement begins to fail. To run a high romance or heist style game would require describing new narrative fluff to bolted onto the core mechanic - a good, real world and proven, example of this is Chaosiums BRP: it underpins CoC, RQ and Storm Bringer. When people say ' it can't be done' they're ignoring a very long history in the hobby of doing exactly that ... ADnD was reworked to fit Dark Sun.and Plane Scape, Spell Jammer, Birthright and others.

When people say 'it can't be done' I hear 'you cannot mess the coded narrative presented with a system because "reasons"' - so is home brewing/hacking a system not a thing?

Just to clarify.

No one is saying it is impossible to do these things in D&D. That would be demonstrably false since people HAVE done these things. The argument is, takes so many changes in combination with intangible elements linked to a given table that it is just not worth it. It is far easier just to play a different game if you want to do that kind of thing. Or, be very accepting of things that might not actually fit with whatever it is you are trying to do. So, take the current infiltration/heist discussion. Yes, you can do it in D&D. Does it work well out of the box? No. Are the changes that need to be made part of the system or are they linked to the individual tables or some combination of both? IMO, yes, in order to use D&D to do an infiltration scenario, the DM must be very willing to allow fail forward, must ignore the written advice in the rules and the modules, and institute practices (like stating the potential results before checks are made) that aren't even hinted at in the books.

 

[Aldarc]

Just to clarify.

No one is saying it is impossible to do these things in D&D. That would be demonstrably false since people HAVE done these things. The argument is, takes so many changes in combination with intangible elements linked to a given table that it is just not worth it. It is far easier just to play a different game if you want to do that kind of thing. Or, be very accepting of things that might not actually fit with whatever it is you are trying to do. So, take the current infiltration/heist discussion. Yes, you can do it in D&D. Does it work well out of the box? No. Are the changes that need to be made part of the system or are they linked to the individual tables or some combination of both? IMO, yes, in order to use D&D to do an infiltration scenario, the DM must be very willing to allow fail forward, must ignore the written advice in the rules and the modules, and institute practices (like stating the potential results before checks are made) that aren't even hinted at in the books.

I would add the obvious point that the "not worth it" point will vary between individuals and tables. But there's no telling where those points are for individuals when they ask the question "Can D&D do X?" This is why IMHO "no" or "yes, but..." or "consider playing Y instead" answers are valid and valuable responses even if they aren't directly what the OP asks.

Is it possible to use 5e D&D to make a low magic campaign? Most definitely, and people have done it. But there are fairly significant portions of the game (PC options, spell system, magic items, etc.) that you may have to ignore, which not everyone will find satisfactory. IMHO, if I wanted a low to lower magic game built on a D&D framework, then there is NO SHORTAGE of pre-made games that fit this niche so it's vastly easier (again IMO) to use a game built for this aesthetic than work on shaving the edges of a square peg to make it fit into a round hole.

 

[KainGuru]

I would also clarify that people using rules as 'rules' far too often, rather than as guidelines. Say you start a DnD game and, as the campaign progresses, the Players goals change or scenario develops that requires a change of tack - do you change systems to the requirements of this altered style of play or do, as suggested, fudge with the guidelines a bit to accommodate the change?. Any system has a core resolution mechanic, its a case of using that to inform adjudication. There is nothing to prevent one lifting mechanics from another system, that has 'rules' for thus variant play style, and using them with a given the likes of DnD eg: failing forward. The effort required issue is more emblamatic of the way DnD is marketed ... People have been convinced that 'offical' system tweaking is somehow 'better' than homebrewing - whi h is just good business practice for WoTC if they want to sell.products. However the needs of any given group are unique to that group - I shamelessly admit I lifted mechanics from the likes of Pendragon and others back in the day. There used to be a cottage industry of hacking the basic system to suit individual needs once a upon a time nb: claw law and arms law which gave birth to RoleMaster (which I personally didn't use or like much).

Nothing is black and white, it all depends.

The likes of Birthright came about to help address the very real fact of the time that there were campaigns that had been going for years and had progressed to a point where that sort of game became necessary. Even battlesystem was a growth of the ADnD needed because suddenly people wanted to have PC's command armies and not just dungeon delve anymore. The recent Candlekeep DnD supplement is a response to the desire for games that are mystery solvers than hack n slash. The game evolves, you can wait for an 'offical' supplement OR do it yourself. Either way it can be done - though the effort issue is the actual issue