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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hrm. I wonder how modules flat out stating, in module after module going all the way back to Keep on the Borderlands, that encounters immediately raise the alarm if they spot the PC’s doesn’t count as evidence.

I mean, even in 5e modules, the module clearly states the alarmis raised if the baddies see the pc’s such as The Final Enemy from GoS. Apparently WotC doesn’t know the 5e rules.

We’ve got two clear examples from 5e modules now. Anyone have any examples from 5e modules where the opposite is true and failure by the PC’s is advised by the module not to raise the alarm/result in catastrophic failure?

And just to add in this sidebar about the G series. I did mention the A series as well. Which is specifically called out as an infiltration adventure. Why aren’t we talking about that? Focusing on only one part of the argument because maybe I misspoke about a single point does look a lot like a concession that the larger point is true and an inability to counter it.

Lets not get too focused on just one type of scenario and basically one skill.

I think it is safe to say that there are different sorts of scenarios and different skills which are more or less vulnerable to this. Physical type "test of skill" type skills clearly fall into the category of 'vulnerable to failure generating a complete mission fail'. Those kind of failures are most often and most naturally seen as things like falling, dropping something, making noise, being spotted, etc. Some may, in some situations, color as "you tried, you failed, zero progress" which could be blocking, or not only if some provision was made to go some alternate way (magic often being the alternate, though letting the next best bonus PC try is a solid option).

When you get into knowledge skills then you have a bit different set of scenarios. They're much more naturally going to lead to something akin to FF. You make the Investigation check, you might just not find any clue and be blocked, and I'd say this is ONE common scenario, but the other is you simply have to proceed with less information. You don't know if there's a back entrance to the dragon's lair, oh well...

Then there are the ones that typically gain you advantages of some sort, like maybe you want to build a trap, you might fail, OK you just gotta live with that.

Now, any of these could turn out to be catastrophic if your scenario depends 100% on it, or at least blocking. It sure would be much nicer if the system would contextualize these checks in such a way that the narrative naturally progressed in a you're in some more trouble than before kind of way. That is ALWAYS going to be the technique that gets you the best results, overall, except in a very very small set of cases. I don't buy that people are getting 'freedom' by not having a system that produces successful games. IMHO if you go back to all really successful groups and campaigns, you will find these techniques, in some fashion, made the table process work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, not even slightly. I'm actually bewildered you think the likes of GURPS, World of Darkness, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and Warhammer are "indie" games.

I didn’t say they were.

I personally find the only limitation is finding players who are willing to try other systems. Many are willing, some are not, and some won't try D&D in the first place.

Like, I still haven't found a group willing to play Geist, and I know a FATE group that hates D&D.

I think you misunderstood my post.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, never underestimate module writers having the same disorder we've been talking about; if they're in the habit of doing it that way, whether the rules suggest it now or not might not change anything.

As we've noted, there's often a lag between how rules are written and how people actually write to what the intended play is, and sometimes that lag can be long.

I think it is much simpler. Module writers are under different pressures than GMs. If you write a module you want to write something that has all usable material. The simplest way to do that is a map and a key where you follow the map from 1 to 2 to 3... to 50, and there's a big boss fight at 49. And, as I've said before, a lot of the audience wants that. Yet there's a certain impetus to some sort of consistent logic within that sequence, so when you write up the guard shack at 10, you clearly have to assume that the procedure is to raise a general alarm when someone unauthorized and hostile, the PCs, shows up. Its up to the GM what to do about that. They can simply fudge it so the alarm never goes off (or maybe the players are clever enough to spell their way to that result). Alternately some GMs will just blow the whole caper right there. Later they can devise some alternate path, or in some cases a module writer will suggest or even write in one.

Modules are mass market products, they are not designed for you, Mr Sophisticated GM. They are written for Joe Beer & Pretzels DM, who will not grok your techniques and isn't really going to read the DMG anyway, certainly not carefully.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No actually. G1-3, which are all pretty much 3 iterations of the same scenario, are basically totally unworkable adventures in D&D as written, unless you adopt a completely ridiculous approach to running the giants. Even if you assume the giant leaders are massively incompetent, stupid, and lazy, they would still easily obliterate any infiltrating party using even the most obvious and basic tactics. The adventures 'work' only if you basically just turn them into ludicrous static dungeon crawls where each room full of giants stands around and awaits its individual turn to be wiped out.

Yeah or into the war crime my party did, but that relied on a specific party comp and burning consumables they'd been gathering for their entire adventuring career. I think guerrilla approaches could also work but they do seem to rely on the giants being pretty dumb - of course Hill Giants are very dumb in 1E/2E (Int 5-7 - indeed it's somewhat surprising they've even managed to construct this steading and so on), but the others aren't.

 

[Campbell]

@KainGuru

A game is more than just a collection of mechanics. It is also includes how we are meant to orient ourselves to those mechanics, distribution of authority (and responsibility) amongst the participants, shared expectations, reward systems, etc.

On the mechanical front what is left out is often as critical as what is included. A substantial part of what makes Blades in the Dark good for capers in my opinion are things it does not include. Stuff like map and key resolution, action economies, initiative, a detailed combat system, etc. Many D&D GMs will talk about the rules not getting in the way. In the case of running a caper that feels suitably cinematic I find D&D's rules (and attendant expectations of play) often get in the way in my experience.

Game design involves a lot of complex tradeoffs. Every thing you add has costs as well as benefits. Particular arrangements of mechanics often create tension with each other in play. Of course we should all personalize our games to fit the needs of the group (hopefully working in tandem as a group), but that's still an act of design and should be treated with the seriousness the act requires.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it is much simpler. Module writers are under different pressures than GMs. If you write a module you want to write something that has all usable material. The simplest way to do that is a map and a key where you follow the map from 1 to 2 to 3... to 50, and there's a big boss fight at 49. And, as I've said before, a lot of the audience wants that. Yet there's a certain impetus to some sort of consistent logic within that sequence, so when you write up the guard shack at 10, you clearly have to assume that the procedure is to raise a general alarm when someone unauthorized and hostile, the PCs, shows up. Its up to the GM what to do about that. They can simply fudge it so the alarm never goes off (or maybe the players are clever enough to spell their way to that result). Alternately some GMs will just blow the whole caper right there. Later they can devise some alternate path, or in some cases a module writer will suggest or even write in one.

Modules are mass market products, they are not designed for you, Mr Sophisticated GM. They are written for Joe Beer & Pretzels DM, who will not grok your techniques and isn't really going to read the DMG anyway, certainly not carefully.

That's an oversimplification of the problem. Yes module designers are under different pressures. Those pressures are not the same ones as a core rulebook intended to provide GM guidance & tools towards the goal of understanding the system & running the types of games & campaigns that GM buying it wants to run. The DMG optional rules are woefully incomplete both in terms of breadth as well as actually bring finished or arming a gm intending to use them with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions when deciding the resulting edge cases. THe DMG doesn't end the failure there though because it basically avoids providing a GM with the types of insight & knowledge generally only obtained through significant trial & error.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Modules are mass market products, they are not designed for you, Mr Sophisticated GM. They are written for Joe Beer & Pretzels DM, who will not grok your techniques and isn't really going to read the DMG anyway, certainly not carefully.

Well, never underestimate module writers having the same disorder we've been talking about; if they're in the habit of doing it that way, whether the rules suggest it now or not might not change anything.

I think it's pretty clear that both of these are true, sometimes separately, sometimes even in the same module.

Older modules, especially, there's often pretty clearly some sort of underlying approach that isn't present in the text and the module doesn't make a lot of sense w/o it. Modern modules are often written with a bit of a "just run it like we say, no-one will ask questions" approach. That latter does at least allow for you to give good advice - and you do see good advice in some modules (I'm thinking of some 3E APs really here but we have examples in this thread of similar stuff in other editions).

Of course sometimes official modules are just plain badly written, particularly if they're rushed, and miss out on a lot of advice/clarifications/things making even basic sense because of that. Much as I loved 4E, the initial WotC adventures felt rushed as hell and made so little sense that even taking a beer-and-pretzels approach they caused problems.

Just took a minute to read through the first dungeon in Phandelver. That is really well written and takes great care to allow ample opportunity for the party to be sneaky and stealthy and lots of examples of how failure isn’t catastrophic. If a fight breaks out there are plausible reasons why the fights don’t chain together.

Makes sense for 1st level characters who would be almost certainly wiped out if the baddies attacked en mass.

Very well done. No wonder this module rates so high.

However Cragmaw castle is a different story. If the party approaches the gates and fails at stealth, the alarm goes up. If the go to the other door, fail their lock picking attempt and break open the door, the alarm goes up.

There is no advice given for any other approaches.

So again, single failed checks= the alarm goes up and infiltration is off the table.

And note, no advice is given as to why encounters are spaced the way they are.

Just wanted to say this is really interesting and really good input on the subject as it uses specific examples, thank you for looking at this.

 

[Campbell]

I do think it's somewhat fair to criticize scenario designers for failing to capture the unique value their game brings or actively fighting against it. Here's looking at you (early) PF2 and D&D 4e. I don't think scenario design is indicative of how a game is supposed to function though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Man, last time I really paid attention to this never ending thread, we were talking about what D&D 5e can do, now we are not picking about what it is commonly used to do?

Why?

 

[KainGuru]

@KainGuru

A game is more than just a collection of mechanics. It is also includes how we are meant to orient ourselves to those mechanics, distribution of authority (and responsibility) amongst the participants, shared expectations, reward systems, etc.

On the mechanical front what is left out is often as critical as what is included. A substantial part of what makes Blades in the Dark good for capers in my opinion are things it does not include. Stuff like map and key resolution, action economies, initiative, a detailed combat system, etc. Many D&D GMs will talk about the rules not getting in the way. In the case of running a caper that feels suitably cinematic I find D&D's rules (and attendant expectations of play) often get in the way in my experience.

Game design involves a lot of complex tradeoffs. Every thing you add has costs as well as benefits. Particular arrangements of mechanics often create tension with each other in play. Of course we should all personalize our games to fit the needs of the group (hopefully working in tandem as a group), but that's still an act of design and should be treated with the seriousness the act requires.

But I believe that far too much weight is given to a designers intentions - the very thing that needs RPG's unique, as games, is this robbing individual tables of their agency to run a game in the manner that suits them. Never forget- it's just a game not high art. When anyone starts saying we should treat design intentions with seriousness I really think the world has got its priorities wrong. I treat my job with seriousness, because that's what it requires due to the nature of my job - I don't play games to be serious nb: that is distinct from playing games with a serious or dark theme. Provided everyone at the table is happy with the game as played I'm not going to ever worry if the games I'm playing are what the author intended, except if the game appears to be broken in someway (in which case have I misunderstood the game or has it been presented in an ambiguous manner requiring further editorial parsing ?)

It's like celebrity culture - far too much credence is given to people simply because they're famous or a game designer. They're no better or worse than any of us and their intentions are no more or no less noble than any of us