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

[loverdrive]

That said, I would think that you would have a very unenjoyable time trying to run a Blades in the Dark game -- the level on constraint on the GM is much tighter than any D&D game, and that's before you realize that there is no Rule Zero: the GM is not free to alter or ignore the rules of the game however they want. This is a rather stark difference in play.

Well, there is an implied rule zero... It goes like "go and make your own damn game, all the rules are under CC-BY! But up InDesign and get to work, what are you waiting for?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, there is an implied rule zero... It goes like "go and make your own damn game, all the rules are under CC-BY! But up InDesign and get to work, what are you waiting for?"

Yes this is very true.

 

[KainGuru]

Okay, strange statement from someone quoting IP law to try to make a completely unrelated point.

No, they haven't hacked it into very different games. It is still a game about moving armies around and taking territories. It isn't a game about solving a murder, like clue, or turning friends and family into murderous rage-machines like Monopoly. They've added to the base of the game, but they haven't made it something actually different in kind. If I want to play Monopoly, I will not reach for any version of Risk.

Wait, the thread is about a comparison between D&D and "indie" games but you've decided that point is moot (I question the continued participation in that discussion, but okay) and decided to go with the orthodoxy of D&D only -- an odd statement for an old punk with authority problems.

This issue is that you think your play agenda is paramount to others -- that if people just liked the game like you like it then everything will be okay. It's a bad take to think that D&D should 1) suit you specifically and 2) that other play agendas do not exist. 5e is the most feedback based game on the market -- it has had much more community feedback than any other game out there, but before and during development and continuing into the sustainment of the game and production of additional products. That you think that WotC is missing the boat for the majority of players is a strange, rather ego-centric take on things. WotC doesn't seem to be hurting for not following your desires.

I mean, 5e is the absolute most successful RPG ever, by any measure that's remotely objective. If WotC is shooting itself in the foot by having the most popular RPG ever, then what hope does anyone else have?

No I'm just saying that what works for me. People constantly complain about not liking DnD, ironic given its popularity. But I wonder if this is simply a dislike of base mechanics or.dislike of the flavour of mechanics. 5e does have very adjustable mechanics but people are often unwillingly to turn the dials even when you can see they really want to. It's a conundrum for WoTC, I don't think it intentional at all rather its an accident of the feedback process they used ie: having given feedback we get 5e, there is an unfortunate artifact of that which is to assume that the feedback informed dialled in game is the best version possible akin to decision making and peer pressure/conformity. The best solutions aren't for everyone, every sample has outliers and those outliers are the issue: they shouldn't feel like outliers because they want a different flavour of game. There is a sort of orthodoxy that, again, unintentionally dominates the games culture. There is no easy fix to this - because WoTC do give the option BUT, as another poster points out, the default game has all the dials set on high and 8 see that as inhibiting.

If you want a certain flavour of game from the outset - save yourself time and go for a game designed to accommodate that. If your game evolves into a change of style should you abandon the game you've invested in and played or adapt it? As I said I'm not arguing indie games do.some things better (which is why I believe that point is moot) I'm arguing that you can still do what you want with what you have. Recall when you were younger with less disposable income, those game books still aren't cheap and changing system isn't always an option for some people simply as an economic.limitation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No I'm just saying that what works for me. People constantly complain about not liking DnD, ironic given its popularity. But I wonder if this is simply a dislike of base mechanics or.dislike of the flavour of mechanics. 5e does have very adjustable mechanics but people are often unwillingly to turn the dials even when you can see they really want to. It's a conundrum for WoTC, I don't think it intentional at all rather its an accident of the feedback process they used ie: having given feedback we get 5e, there is an unfortunate artifact of that which is to assume that the feedback informed dialled in game is the best version possible akin to decision making and peer pressure/conformity. The best solutions aren't for everyone, every sample has outliers and those outliers are the issue: they shouldn't feel like outliers because they want a different flavour of game. There is a sort of orthodoxy that, again, unintentionally dominates the games culture. There is no easy fix to this - because WoTC do give the option BUT, as another poster points out, the default game has all the dials set on high and 8 see that as inhibiting.

Heh. I mean, this very statement you've made here? Very telling in it's lack of general exposure to other systems or other ways of doing things. It's a very narrow view from a very narrow set of experience. I disagree with most of it. 5e doesn't have terribly adjustable mechanics -- it's locked into the D&D genre of things very tightly and therefore "adjustable" is doing a lot of work for the level of system rewrite necessary to achieve a non-D&D genre game. The dials on 5e are certainly no where near an 8, for whatever that means. 5e is very loose in most of it's gameplay outside of combat and spells. WotC is doing a great job, and ignoring outliers is exactly what you need to do. The assumption you've made here is that its possible to accomodate the outliers in the same game system that supports what the middle wants. I mean, that should be immediately apparent in what I've told you about what I want from a game being rather different from what you're expounding and in an incompatible way -- you want looser controls for more GM authority over outcomes, and I want less. You can't do both, here.

If you want a certain flavour of game from the outset - save yourself time and go for a game designed to accommodate that. If your game evolves into a change of style should you abandon the game you've invested in and played or adapt it? As I said I'm not arguing indie games do.some things better (which is why I believe that point is moot) I'm arguing that you can still do what you want with what you have. Recall when you were younger with less disposable income, those game books still aren't cheap and changing system isn't always an option for some people simply as an economic.limitation.

And this is one of the big swap in arguments in the thread. When the general statement is challenged, switch to the idea that you're not trying to do a really different thing, you just want to add a short burst of flavor to an existing game. It's tiresome, because this is the motte to the bailey argument that 5e can do anything. It's the retreat under pressure to a less contestable concept. Sure, if you just want a short burst of flavor in an existing game you should probably look to see how you can do that. But, this is always going to face the problem that any such solution will be either surface level paint and/or will not work without excessive GM Force applied to the system and game. This is true of many systems, but not all. The large problem in 5e is that you can do a bunch of flavoring, so long as the main flavor is D&D. And, quite often, D&D doesn't mesh well with other flavors, so the GM has to force the issue. That's not an ideal situation.

 

[KainGuru]

This rejection is born of ignorance. You lack the necessary experience with other systems to understand that there are fundamental differences that cannot be bridged by a simple set of houserules or even a massive overhaul of a different system. You can't do what Dungeon World does with 5e. You can't do what Blades does with 5e. This is because they do things in a very, very different way -- there are fundamental assumption changes about the very core nature of the gameplay. You're approaching this with a "the GM can just ad lib any result they want if the rules get in the way," and that's a fine approach. But what if I don't want the GM to ad lib, what if I want the rules to be followed very closely, what if I want the resolution mechanics to decide? 5e doesn't offer me the same set of results, and neither does the GM ad libbing the outcomes. This is a key, important difference, and one you're absolutely missing with your assertions.

That said, I would think that you would have a very unenjoyable time trying to run a Blades in the Dark game -- the level on constraint on the GM is much tighter than any D&D game, and that's before you realize that there is no Rule Zero: the GM is not free to alter or ignore the rules of the game however they want. This is a rather stark difference in play.

So the guy at my local FLGS who is using many of John Wicks 7th Sea narrative mechanics in his 5e games is 'doing it wrong'.

I think you are missing my point - nothing is sacrosanct because they are just games you can choose to play RAW or choose not too. You might break a game doing this or you might not, in fact you might break the game only if another group - with its own unique set of -interpersonal dynamics - tries to do the same thing.

You don't know what I would.enjoy because you don't know me - you have formed an opinion based on assumptions based on how you have chosen to read what I have written. Which informs you with very little about me, as person, as a GM or as a player.

I reject the assumption that any game, by design, can account for every groups needs. If only because it assumes how people play any given game ... and, now living half a world away from where I grew up, i've discovered that's a pretty big assumption (even with something as simple as a game of pub pool). Language differences, even with the same language, can create interesting (unintended) variations and the best intentions can go awry.

 

[KainGuru]

Heh. I mean, this very statement you've made here? Very telling in it's lack of general exposure to other systems or other ways of doing things. It's a very narrow view from a very narrow set of experience. I disagree with most of it. 5e doesn't have terribly adjustable mechanics -- it's locked into the D&D genre of things very tightly and therefore "adjustable" is doing a lot of work for the level of system rewrite necessary to achieve a non-D&D genre game. The dials on 5e are certainly no where near an 8, for whatever that means. 5e is very loose in most of it's gameplay outside of combat and spells. WotC is doing a great job, and ignoring outliers is exactly what you need to do. The assumption you've made here is that its possible to accomodate the outliers in the same game system that supports what the middle wants. I mean, that should be immediately apparent in what I've told you about what I want from a game being rather different from what you're expounding and in an incompatible way -- you want looser controls for more GM authority over outcomes, and I want less. You can't do both, here.

And this is one of the big swap in arguments in the thread. When the general statement is challenged, switch to the idea that you're not trying to do a really different thing, you just want to add a short burst of flavor to an existing game. It's tiresome, because this is the motte to the bailey argument that 5e can do anything. It's the retreat under pressure to a less contestable concept. Sure, if you just want a short burst of flavor in an existing game you should probably look to see how you can do that. But, this is always going to face the problem that any such solution will be either surface level paint and/or will not work without excessive GM Force applied to the system and game. This is true of many systems, but not all. The large problem in 5e is that you can do a bunch of flavoring, so long as the main flavor is D&D. And, quite often, D&D doesn't mesh well with other flavors, so the GM has to force the issue. That's not an ideal situation.

You ever heard of the Devils Advocate? That's the role I'm playing:

A).because people are too serious about games,.
B) because there is always another point of view,
C) it all comes down to opinion. Opinions should be shared on the understanding that there is always a different opinion and there is no right or wrong, and
D) the original premise of the thread 'has no definitive answer' because there is too.much variation and infinite opinions, and no one is wrong or right because.of these variables. The only positive that can come from this sort of thread is have an opportunity to enter into discourse where one can be exposed to what one might perceive as hersey - which is a good thing, new (better) ideas often come from opposing views (dialectical change)

As long as people remain convinced that 'their opinion is how it is' i'll argue the opposite. Some of what I have said is my opinion much of it is simply 'there is another way to look at this' . . . Shades of grey not black and white

 

[Ovinomancer]

So the guy at my local FLGS who is using many of John Wicks 7th Sea narrative mechanics in his 5e games is 'doing it wrong'.

Honestly, this sounds like he's playing two different games and just switching between them at various moments. I thought about doing that once -- cobbling together a rough hack for social/exploration of some other games and then using 5e's combat mechanics during combat. It's not terribly coherent.

But, that said, what mechanics is he using from 7th Sea and which edition? 1e had little guidance, although I appreciate that system so much more now that I've had some broader experiences. I'm not terribly familiar with 2e.

I think you are missing my point - nothing is sacrosanct because they are just games you can choose to play RAW or choose not too. You might break a game doing this or you might not, in fact you might break the game only if another group - with its own unique set of -interpersonal dynamics - tries to do the same thing.

No, I understand this. This also assumes that people in general are good game designers and capable of making changes that work well. Given the level of interaction on this board about houserules, it doesn't seem well indicated. There are lots of asks to help fix problems that other houserules have caused that don't even understand that it was the first change that caused it -- they assume that there's something more to fix in 5e. This is also assumes that people have the time and inclination to do this level of work. Most people are leery of this in part because they understand that it's not easy and you can put in the work and still end up with a dissatisfying result.

Usually, the argument that rules are just suggestions and can be ignored at any time is a shallow justification for doing so ad hoc and on a whim in a given person's game. It's not a fundamental truth that needs saying, because everyone already knows this. It's a claim to make the obvious sound profound. And, it has a nasty little barb in it that if you don't do it yourself, it's a failing of you.

But, overall, you can't design something if you don't fully understand it. Or, at least, any success in this environment is accidental. Granted, the satisfaction criteria are often loose enough that you can stumble into acceptable designs much more often that you can if you were building a car, but that just perpetrates the false tale that game design is easy.

You don't know what I would.enjoy because you don't know me - you have formed an opinion based on assumptions based on how you have chosen to read what I have written. Which informs you with very little about me, as person, as a GM or as a player.

No, I've followed what you've actually said and stuck to that. You've directly claimed a desire for fewer restrictions on the GM to make things up in the moment, to make ad hoc rulings, and to be less tightly bound by the rules. This is a strong theme in all of your posts. I'm not extrapolating anywhere past this. If you didn't mean to convey this, then I'm really uncertain what you've been intending to convey with your posts.

What's telling is that you have the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding here and expound on what you do want, if it is different, but you've chosen to not do this but instead try to claim offense.

I reject the assumption that any game, by design, can account for every groups needs. If only because it assumes how people play any given game ... and, now living half a world away from where I grew up, i've discovered that's a pretty big assumption (even with something as simple as a game of pub pool). Language differences, even with the same language, can create interesting (unintended) variations and the best intentions can go awry.

Well, this is certainly an unexpected statement, and one I am genuinely surprised by because of what you said about WotC needing to not ignore outliers. I'm uncertain of how to reconcile these two statements, but I'll go with this. I'm not sure what your point in saying this, is, though. I certainly haven't claimed that one game can account for every group's needs -- I've been strident that many games are, in fact, quite different and that different groups are quite different in what they want. You've been pretty consistent in arguing that 5e can support just about anything though, and in arguing that there's little difference in system -- it's just flavor changes. Again, I find it hard to reconcile your arguments in just the last few posts.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Haha, Cragmaw Castle, yeah... So we come in the main gate, and pretty soon we stir up a hornet's nest, despite trying to take some care to not make a huge racket. IIRC there are some constructs right there near the start, you really aren't going to get past them and once you fight those dudes the gig is up. In the end my Mountain Dwarf Transmuter challenges the big bugbear dude that is in charge of the castle to a one-on-one fight. I beat him too! Thanks to some clever buffing and a potion. He ended up 'owning' Cragmaw Castle.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've done it as a player, in a three-person party with the other two being spellcasters. And I'm pretty sure I've seen it happen with at least one of the parties I'm DMing for. I'm not saying it's common, just that it does happen sometimes.

Yep. As a rogue in watch I alerted the fighter to the threat, had him “relieve” me, which my Insight check had told me would likely cause the ambushers to wait at least a bit longer before striking, because a guard is most alert at the beginning of their watch, and I snuck up on and dispatched the flanking bandits without the casters ever waking up.

Could you help me understand it?

Not sure where the confusion lies. I never referred to the games you’re citing at all, much less calling them indie.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You ever heard of the Devils Advocate? That's the role I'm playing:

A).because people are too serious about games,.
B) because there is always another point of view,
C) it all comes down to opinion. Opinions should be shared on the understanding that there is always a different opinion and there is no right or wrong, and
D) the original premise of the thread 'has no definitive answer' because there is too.much variation and infinite opinions, and no one is wrong or right because.of these variables. The only positive that can come from this sort of thread is have an opportunity to enter into discourse where one can be exposed to what one might perceive as hersey - which is a good thing, new (better) ideas often come from opposing views (dialectical change)

As long as people remain convinced that 'their opinion is how it is' i'll argue the opposite. Some of what I have said is my opinion much of it is simply 'there is another way to look at this' . . . Shades of grey not black and white

Ah, the good old Devil's Advocate canard. The one often deployed when one realizes they're out of their depth in the conversation and wants to save face. It's a hard sell, though, because you haven't actually been countering arguments directly, but rather couching your posts in terms of absolutes and personal preferences. The point of being a Devil's Advocate is to improve an argument by helping to show it's possible weaknesses, while you don't actually disagree with the argument. That doesn't sound at all like what you're doing here. However, it is possible you're being honest, but if that's so, you should really not try to be a Devil's Advocate on a topic where you clearly lack the necessary experience and understanding of the topic to meaningfully do so.

I mean, your last statement here is so very much blind to the fact that I've been arguing with you because that's how you've come across -- even to the point of one-true-wayism -- that I find it ridiculous. Perhaps this is just a Poe's Law violation, it's possible.

To deal with your points, though:

a) I suppose you think there's a proper level of seriousness people should have. If so, where is this objectively stated? Why can I not care how game structures incentivizes specific play practices? I mean, who decides this at all?

b) wow, deep thinking, here.

c) no, it really doesn't. This is someone without experience operating out of a knowledge deficit making the claim that their opinion is equally valid to someone else's. The only way this is true is in what we like -- that's the only thing really up to opinion. That games are structured differently, that games encourage different kinds of play, that 5e's basic structure is limiting (as are other game's basic structures, o game is perfect for everthing) are not opinions. These can be confirmed. This argument is one I hear people that have really only every had experience with D&D or D&D adjacent games (ie, same general structures) make, and it's one you will never, ever hear from someone that's been exposed to a wider array of games. It's easily refuted with the simple you don't play Risk if you want to play Monopoly.