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

[Ovinomancer]

To expound on the issue with how stealth becomes being seen on a failed check, this is in part because 5e, and earlier editions that had such skills, put out stealth as an opposed check. You aren't contesting stealth against a DC set by the GM to achieve a goal, like some other skill checks in 5e (and based on the GM using this approach) but instead are directly competing against an NPC's skill rating for their "I see you" proficiency. As such, the rules themselves set up a contest between being not seen and being seen. An failure in a contested check is usually viewed as a win condition for the opposing side -- if you attempt to escape a grapple, for instance, failure means that the opponent gets what they want which is to maintain the grapple.

As such, stealth checks are set up by the way the systems works to have an obvious result -- that the opponent sees you on a failure. After all, that's what is arranged by the game, that you're trying to hide and this is opposed by the opponent trying to see you. After this, it's a matter of what happens when the opponent sees you? Quite often, raising the alarm is the usual result.

5e also doesn't really help if you try to make a soft move here, and say that the first failure just means the opponent notices something might be amiss. In this case, you can set up that the failure means the opposer hasn't clearly seen you, but has notice something suspicious. This appears opens up a larger set of scenarios, at first glance, but really doesn't do this because 5e lacks effective ways to deal with this. The atomic action resolution system of 5e - meaning you adjudicate the specific task rather than a broader intent - means that you can't effectively slip by the guard in this case using a different action. The rules don't support tossing a stone in a different directions to sneak past the guard while they go investigate that. Instead, you have a check to distract the guard with the stone, maybe a deception? Then a check to sneak, bounded by movement possibilities. Similarly, making an animal sound to convince the guard it was a non-hostile they caught wind of is another check that, on a success, results in a resetting of the situation, not a resolution of it. And, the combat engine prevents any stealth dealing with the investigating guard via violence. Not only is it highly unlikely that you can disable or kill the guard in one go, but you have the questions about whether or not you're rolling initiative for this, or if you're using the actual combat rules, and then there's the questions about whether this can even be accomplished stealthily at all.

5e's rule system functionally sets up the all or nothing stealth contests due to how they frame it as in opposition to the opponent's ability to spot you. 5e further has issues with resolving these scenes because it's resolution mechanics are atomic -- they deal only with a specific resolution of a physical task that is unconnected to anything outside that task (the mechanics, not however the GM frames the outcome). This results in really the only direct options for getting past guards to be stealth actions, as other attempts will usually just complicate the resolution and still will require a stealth action anyway. Combat is right out the window.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I mean, I think that bolded bit is kind of an interesting question. Obviously with third-party products we can rule that out, but with first-party ones? It seems to me that really, scenario design should capture how a game is supposed to function, in an ideal world, particularly with the early scenario/module products that are released as part of the line.

I guess the issue is that D&D has only limited examples of this actually happening. I'd argue that it did happen in very early 2E, oddly enough, with Taladas and the associated adventures, which made good use of 2E-specific stuff and were, imho, better-written for 2E than most stuff, but equally you have things like Terrible Trouble at Tragidore, which is packaged with the DM's screen, and likely the first adventure many people see, and it's total trashfire and doesn't feel like it was written with 2E in mind at all.

If you go outside D&D, you find examples that are, frankly, all over the road. I'm struggling to name names, but I know I've seen adventures for systems which were a revelation, like without which, I wouldn't have understood why that system was cool (so those did indicate how it was supposed to function), but I've also come across countless adventures which were really broad and barely seemed specific to the system/setting at all, and certainly didn't particularly show it off.

As @Thomas Shey noted though, often the adventures which really "show off" how a game is supposed to play aren't the first ones that come out - they're much later.

To expound on the issue with how stealth becomes being seen on a failed check, this is in part because 5e, and earlier editions that had such skills, put out stealth as an opposed check. You aren't contesting stealth against a DC set by the GM to achieve a goal, like some other skill checks in 5e (and based on the GM using this approach) but instead are directly competing against an NPC's skill rating for their "I see you" proficiency. As such, the rules themselves set up a contest between being not seen and being seen. An failure in a contested check is usually viewed as a win condition for the opposing side -- if you attempt to escape a grapple, for instance, failure means that the opponent gets what they want which is to maintain the grapple.

As such, stealth checks are set up by the way the systems works to have an obvious result -- that the opponent sees you on a failure. After all, that's what is arranged by the game, that you're trying to hide and this is opposed by the opponent trying to see you. After this, it's a matter of what happens when the opponent sees you? Quite often, raising the alarm is the usual result.

5e also doesn't really help if you try to make a soft move here, and say that the first failure just means the opponent notices something might be amiss. In this case, you can set up that the failure means the opposer hasn't clearly seen you, but has notice something suspicious. This appears opens up a larger set of scenarios, at first glance, but really doesn't do this because 5e lacks effective ways to deal with this. The atomic action resolution system of 5e - meaning you adjudicate the specific task rather than a broader intent - means that you can't effectively slip by the guard in this case using a different action. The rules don't support tossing a stone in a different directions to sneak past the guard while they go investigate that. Instead, you have a check to distract the guard with the stone, maybe a deception? Then a check to sneak, bounded by movement possibilities. Similarly, making an animal sound to convince the guard it was a non-hostile they caught wind of is another check that, on a success, results in a resetting of the situation, not a resolution of it. And, the combat engine prevents any stealth dealing with the investigating guard via violence. Not only is it highly unlikely that you can disable or kill the guard in one go, but you have the questions about whether or not you're rolling initiative for this, or if you're using the actual combat rules, and then there's the questions about whether this can even be accomplished stealthily at all.

5e's rule system functionally sets up the all or nothing stealth contests due to how they frame it as in opposition to the opponent's ability to spot you. 5e further has issues with resolving these scenes because it's resolution mechanics are atomic -- they deal only with a specific resolution of a physical task that is unconnected to anything outside that task (the mechanics, not however the GM frames the outcome). This results in really the only direct options for getting past guards to be stealth actions, as other attempts will usually just complicate the resolution and still will require a stealth action anyway. Combat is right out the window.

Whilst I think this still allows for a lot situations which aren't people immediately running for the alarm or screaming for help or w/e (esp. if the PC isn't some crouching black-clad rogue with weapon-black on his shortsword going "Err.... um..." in front of some guard), I think this is well-argued. It doesn't necessarily support a broad catastrophist view but specifically re: stealth checks, it certainly supports the notion that stealth failure when you're potentially w/in sight of someone means simply "You've been seen" and all attendant consequences that flow from that (which will depend on the scenario, DM, and so on).

Re: throwing the stone, I think you'd only roll Deception or w/e if there was a meaningful chance of failure (which for most PCs throwing a stone in a general direction I don't think there would be). I think most DMs would just apply Advantage to the Stealth check if you can up with something like that. In 3E, which was even more atomic than 5E, you'd probably have to make an attack roll amongst other things to throw the stone correctly.

 

[KainGuru]

To expound on the issue with how stealth becomes being seen on a failed check, this is in part because 5e, and earlier editions that had such skills, put out stealth as an opposed check. You aren't contesting stealth against a DC set by the GM to achieve a goal, like some other skill checks in 5e (and based on the GM using this approach) but instead are directly competing against an NPC's skill rating for their "I see you" proficiency. As such, the rules themselves set up a contest between being not seen and being seen. An failure in a contested check is usually viewed as a win condition for the opposing side -- if you attempt to escape a grapple, for instance, failure means that the opponent gets what they want which is to maintain the grapple.

As such, stealth checks are set up by the way the systems works to have an obvious result -- that the opponent sees you on a failure. After all, that's what is arranged by the game, that you're trying to hide and this is opposed by the opponent trying to see you. After this, it's a matter of what happens when the opponent sees you? Quite often, raising the alarm is the usual result.

5e also doesn't really help if you try to make a soft move here, and say that the first failure just means the opponent notices something might be amiss. In this case, you can set up that the failure means the opposer hasn't clearly seen you, but has notice something suspicious. This appears opens up a larger set of scenarios, at first glance, but really doesn't do this because 5e lacks effective ways to deal with this. The atomic action resolution system of 5e - meaning you adjudicate the specific task rather than a broader intent - means that you can't effectively slip by the guard in this case using a different action. The rules don't support tossing a stone in a different directions to sneak past the guard while they go investigate that. Instead, you have a check to distract the guard with the stone, maybe a deception? Then a check to sneak, bounded by movement possibilities. Similarly, making an animal sound to convince the guard it was a non-hostile they caught wind of is another check that, on a success, results in a resetting of the situation, not a resolution of it. And, the combat engine prevents any stealth dealing with the investigating guard via violence. Not only is it highly unlikely that you can disable or kill the guard in one go, but you have the questions about whether or not you're rolling initiative for this, or if you're using the actual combat rules, and then there's the questions about whether this can even be accomplished stealthily at all.

5e's rule system functionally sets up the all or nothing stealth contests due to how they frame it as in opposition to the opponent's ability to spot you. 5e further has issues with resolving these scenes because it's resolution mechanics are atomic -- they deal only with a specific resolution of a physical task that is unconnected to anything outside that task (the mechanics, not however the GM frames the outcome). This results in really the only direct options for getting past guards to be stealth actions, as other attempts will usually just complicate the resolution and still will require a stealth action anyway. Combat is right out the window.

I agree, but I also see it as failure in the presentation of the rulings- everything you said that could mitigate a stealth condition could be considered if the DM were given more explicit agency to adjudicate such things on the fly. The DM is, in the fine print, given that agency but there is an unfortunate truth that many DM's don't read that - or know how to do it - that plus an all too common expectation of a certain codified style of play. Commonsense should prevail over any ruleset - absolutely something should happen if a PC tosses a stone to distract the guard: that's where the DM has real agency to make real world sense of abstract mechanics rather than be hemmed in by a ruleset.

The one strength of RPGs is that every table is different, ones experience of The Game can, and should, vary wildly across different tables and groups.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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 ?)

This is a weird take to me. Ignoring how a designer intends the game to work leads directly to getting poor results from the game. Sometimes you get lucky, because a game operates in ways a designer may not have intended, but usually this is why people have issues with games and seek advice. You just have to look to the number of threads about resting/hp/ability rechage/deadliness of 5e to see this problem -- people are not playing according to the designer's intended mode of challenge and so are having problems and are seeking solutions. Most of them blame the game for this, and not their deviation from the design intent. The idea that how a designer built a game can be a strangle on how a table exerts itself is similarly just weird. I mean, if I want to play Risk, I'm not going to pick up Monopoly and say to anyone that tells me that I should get a game designed to do Risk that they're limiting my fundamental agency as a boardgamer! That's ridiculous. Instead, this argument reads like someone that assumes that there's really only one kind of RPG, just with different flavors (and I believe you made this argument above) and so it doesn't matter what RPG you pick up, you can just flavor it however you want. In that construction, your argument makes some sense, but this construction is one that's very limited and not terribly experienced with what other RPGs actually offer. It's not just a difference in flavor, there are games that have fundamentally different approaches to play.

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

Again, this seems confused. Celebrity culture is where people good at thing A are listened to about things that aren't thing A. An example would be caring what shampoo Tom Hanks used because he's a famous actor. In that sense, yes, Tom Hanks is no better than anyone else as far as selecting a shampoo, so his opinion shouldn't matter. However, if I wanted some knowledge and advice on how to act, then Tom Hanks is absolutely someone I should listen to. We aren't talking about getting game designers opinions on shampoo, but on the very games they've designed. That's not celebrity culture, is asking the people with relevant experience and a track record of success at that thing to talk about that thing. Kind of how you would talk to a doctor about medical stuff, a scientist about things in their specialty, and an engineer about things in their specialty. I absolutely want to hear from game designers about how they think the games they've made work, and about how other games work, because they've shown they have enough insight into that topic that they're successful. I don't have to agree with them, but dismissing them as I would Tom Hank's opinion on shampoo (Buy it because I do!) is just silly.

You seem like an honest poster, but you have some serious gaps in experience that are showing to anyone that has actually read up on game design and who has experimented with games that actually do it different from the set of games that is defined by strong GM decides mechanics, like D&D and to a lesser extent BRP (I believe you mentioned this upthread).

 

[Aldarc]

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

Precisely the reason why designer intentions matter to me is because I don't view TTRPGs as art, but, rather, as games. Designer intentions are valuable additional instructions and insights on how the game runs, what it's built to handle, and what sort of game experiences it's meant to cultivate. Furthermore, understanding what a designer intended doesn't rob me or my table of agency. It adds to it by making me more informed about the game, and I can better make rational and/or informed decisions about the game. Conversely, when designer's stated intentions do not align with how the game operates in praxis, then I can either make my own adjustments or abandon it for a game where the design intent and play align better. Moreover, none of this requires elevating the designer as some sort of celebrity. That I think greatly mistakes why people are attentive to designer intentions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree, but I also see it as failure in the presentation of the rulings- everything you said that could mitigate a stealth condition could be considered if the DM were given more explicit agency to adjudicate such things on the fly. The DM is, in the fine print, given that agency but there is an unfortunate truth that many DM's don't read that - or know how to do it - that plus an all too common expectation of a certain codified style of play. Commonsense should prevail over any ruleset - absolutely something should happen if a PC tosses a stone to distract the guard: that's where the DM has real agency to make real world sense of abstract mechanics rather than be hemmed in by a ruleset.

The one strength of RPGs is that every table is different, ones experience of The Game can, and should, vary wildly across different tables and groups.

Um, there are very few games that give the GM less encouragement to adjudicate things on the fly than 5e. It's directly stated in the opening few pages of the PHB, and throughout the DMG. I think what you're bemoaning is direct exhortation of the GM to just make it up as they go along. This is something 5e could not do, though, because it would very much alienate a good chunk of the playerbase.

As for your larger point, yes, this is an approach that you can take, but it's not a universal one. This is the kind of thing that game designers talk about, though. The problems that can occur with this approach are that the players become unable to adequately understand the risks/rewards of individual actions until and unless they become good predictors of how the GM thinks. Some players are less than thrilled by having to do this, and the results are very much dependent on the individual GM. You can have terrible results or good ones. It's pretty random, and so you can't really build a game on the idea that the GM can just make it up and doesn't need the rule support. 5e gets about as close as you can to this ideal, though, in the social pillar and exploration pillars. They make up for it by having a really strongly encoded combat pillar.

Other game systems do this pretty differently. Story Now games typically handle this kind of situation very well within their rulesets, because they operationalize how risk/reward works within the system, and have strong support for success/failure conditions leading to the next bit of play. They also tend to zoom out a bit, so that bypassing the guard is often a single check using a single resolution mechanic that's used for everything. The details of these games come not through a variable resolution mechanics, like 5e, but rather more in the way that they encode the risk/reward into the simple resolution mechanic. Each check is unique, because it's tightly tied to the current fiction, and not because of what the pluses and minus are.

 

[KainGuru]

This is a weird take to me. Ignoring how a designer intends the game to work leads directly to getting poor results from the game. Sometimes you get lucky, because a game operates in ways a designer may not have intended, but usually this is why people have issues with games and seek advice. You just have to look to the number of threads about resting/hp/ability rechage/deadliness of 5e to see this problem -- people are not playing according to the designer's intended mode of challenge and so are having problems and are seeking solutions. Most of them blame the game for this, and not their deviation from the design intent. The idea that how a designer built a game can be a strangle on how a table exerts itself is similarly just weird. I mean, if I want to play Risk, I'm not going to pick up Monopoly and say to anyone that tells me that I should get a game designed to do Risk that they're limiting my fundamental agency as a boardgamer! That's ridiculous. Instead, this argument reads like someone that assumes that there's really only one kind of RPG, just with different flavors (and I believe you made this argument above) and so it doesn't matter what RPG you pick up, you can just flavor it however you want. In that construction, your argument makes some sense, but this construction is one that's very limited and not terribly experienced with what other RPGs actually offer. It's not just a difference in flavor, there are games that have fundamentally different approaches to play.

Again, this seems confused. Celebrity culture is where people good at thing A are listened to about things that aren't thing A. An example would be caring what shampoo Tom Hanks used because he's a famous actor. In that sense, yes, Tom Hanks is no better than anyone else as far as selecting a shampoo, so his opinion shouldn't matter. However, if I wanted some knowledge and advice on how to act, then Tom Hanks is absolutely someone I should listen to. We aren't talking about getting game designers opinions on shampoo, but on the very games they've designed. That's not celebrity culture, is asking the people with relevant experience and a track record of success at that thing to talk about that thing. Kind of how you would talk to a doctor about medical stuff, a scientist about things in their specialty, and an engineer about things in their specialty. I absolutely want to hear from game designers about how they think the games they've made work, and about how other games work, because they've shown they have enough insight into that topic that they're successful. I don't have to agree with them, but dismissing them as I would Tom Hank's opinion on shampoo (Buy it because I do!) is just silly.

You seem like an honest poster, but you have some serious gaps in experience that are showing to anyone that has actually read up on game design and who has experimented with games that actually do it different from the set of games that is defined by strong GM decides mechanics, like D&D and to a lesser extent BRP (I believe you mentioned this upthread).

I'm just an old punk who doesn't like rules and always has a problem with authority.

Interesting you should use Risk as an example- because there is an entire community of gamers who have hacked Risk to be a very different sort of game: including one that was created to emulate the War of the Ring (before the official version) another that was put up as a replacement for the old TSR GreyHawk Wars (the links to these old hacks have long since expired unfortunately - but they will be out there in the wilds of the internet somewhere).

I've limited my comments to those GM heavy games because it is primarily about DnD. Rather I'm not commenting on indie games because there are so many - but it was originally posted as DnD compared to indie games vis-a-vis DnD handling concepts which are, by default, better handled by indie games (a moot point at this point).

My biggest gripe with DnD isn't with DnD it's with the way it's strangling itself by letting its own mechanics limit it. The creativity of newer players and DMs is being, unintentionally, stifled: because WoTC has inadvertently created a culture where DMs and players wait on the musing of a WoTC demiurge to create rules to solve a problem vs finding their own solution and sharing it and this shared knowledge feedingback to the designers ... it used to be more collaborative ADnD 2e was informed by many houserules. The designer of the AdnD 2e rules compendium software was on record saying that he created the software to allow for games like the one he played at his own table, where he had a dwarf Paladin which wasn't RAW but it was the game he enjoyed.

 

[Seramus]

I didn’t say they were.
I think you misunderstood my post.

Could you help me understand it?

So, there is a lot of traffic on the internet dedicated to the idea that DnD is a very limited game, and if you want to run a heist or have romantic fantasy narratives, or even just play a game where bonds with other people is very important, then you should play some indie game that is built for that thing, rather than D&D.

 

[Manbearcat]

The fact that mechanics ARE separate from the narrative conventions of a game are demonstrable by the court ruling that allowed the likes of OSRIC to use core ADnD mechanics without infringing on copywrite. The actual mechanics are a distinct entity from the narrative conventions of the game as presented

I'm not familiar with what you're citing, but I'm assuming this is about IP law?

1) I don't see how IP law has any implications on system matters.

2) I certainly don't think judges are particularly informed on how TTRPG play experience (both inputs and outputs) are informed by systematization!

3) Finally, it seems a bit...odd (?)...that you would defer to judges (who specialize in legal precedents and theory) opinion on matters waaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside of their knowledge/experience-base! That seems like an instantiation of the sort of "deify then defer" problem with "celebrity culture" you were decrying above (someone has credibility afforded to them because of their capabilities in one area > they're irrationally anointed > the masses defer to them in matters outside of their domain).

 

[KainGuru]

Um, there are very few games that give the GM less encouragement to adjudicate things on the fly than 5e. It's directly stated in the opening few pages of the PHB, and throughout the DMG. I think what you're bemoaning is direct exhortation of the GM to just make it up as they go along. This is something 5e could not do, though, because it would very much alienate a good chunk of the playerbase.

As for your larger point, yes, this is an approach that you can take, but it's not a universal one. This is the kind of thing that game designers talk about, though. The problems that can occur with this approach are that the players become unable to adequately understand the risks/rewards of individual actions until and unless they become good predictors of how the GM thinks. Some players are less than thrilled by having to do this, and the results are very much dependent on the individual GM. You can have terrible results or good ones. It's pretty random, and so you can't really build a game on the idea that the GM can just make it up and doesn't need the rule support. 5e gets about as close as you can to this ideal, though, in the social pillar and exploration pillars. They make up for it by having a really strongly encoded combat pillar.

Other game systems do this pretty differently. Story Now games typically handle this kind of situation very well within their rulesets, because they operationalize how risk/reward works within the system, and have strong support for success/failure conditions leading to the next bit of play. They also tend to zoom out a bit, so that bypassing the guard is often a single check using a single resolution mechanic that's used for everything. The details of these games come not through a variable resolution mechanics, like 5e, but rather more in the way that they encode the risk/reward into the simple resolution mechanic. Each check is unique, because it's tightly tied to the current fiction, and not because of what the pluses and minus are.

Yes but no, what I'm reading here (and no criticism) just reminds me of when I first studied psychology - it was a behvaiouralist/reductionist model. But the discipline evolved and moved on from there. Yes, it's easy to understand and predict people when you reduce them to these action/responses- but here we are nearly 40yrs later and there are much better ways of understanding people.and predicting their behaviour/responses. The cognition as a computer model - when pushed as far as it can go - simply isn't a viable one anymore. The human experience is far more nuanced than this and influenced by far more than stimulus/response. It just kind of jars me to read human behaviour in such limiting terms but then again I jumped on board with the social psychology paradigm early on - discourse analysis, et al.