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

[Ovinomancer]

It is typically right behind D&D and Pathfinder in popularity on Roll20, FG, & Amazon. IIRC

That's any edition of CoC, which spans a good bit of different games.

 

[KainGuru]

I tend to look at mechanics and fluff as separate -- the very terms are separable by definition. If they apply, you can separate. So, that's not an area where I'm going wrong. Also, the weasel wording of to any degree at all is doing a heck of a lot of work here. I can run a story about teenage romantic drama while being a monster in 5e with no changes and get that to work to some degree. It'll be a terrible experience for those looking for that, though, but it would work to some degree. The goal of to any degree is not acceptable -- minimum acceptability is to at least a reasonable degree, and that's were people differ. I'm not sure I can hack 5e to get to what Monsterhearts delivers to a reasonable degree. 5e isn't at all built to impose the weirdness of uncertain teenage libido on PCs.

I'm actually a fan of 5e. I'm criticizing it from a position of being quite happy with what it does do. I'm not sure I really want people that don't care for it white knighting it because they have a need to defend something. That's an odd thing to do.

Well, I have a lot of experience with 7th Sea 1e, and I've hacked it into a couple of different genres -- Firefly-esque space opera and swords and sorcery fantasy. I also have a lot of experience with 5e, but, admittedly, I haven't done any hacking into different genres -- largely because I play 5e for the default genre. And, with all of that, I'm not sure how I'd go about coherently integrating the two games. I can see lots of rough hacks that kinda/sorta do a thing, but they'd have some serious incoherencies with either system due to the fact that the games run differently. And, if you're saying your friend leans into the narrative approach to 7th Sea (which isn't fully necessary, but I'd recommend it), it gets a bit harder.

I've tried pulling narrativist approaches into 5e. I do have a pretty robust skill challenge that is fiction forward, so I guess that might count as a 5e hack. But, I've pulled back from that a bit, as even that doesn't play well with the core game. It's a tad incoherent to go from a narrativist risk/reward approach and slam right into the hard coded combat engine of 5e. It jars.

Lol I said I wasn't a huge fan, not that I'm not a fan. I like a lot, an awful lot, about 5e but TBH it's the genre I'm burnt out on - fantasy. Sometimes you need a change and Dredd/2000AD is occupying my attention at the moment (I've read the comic, every issue, since 1977).

I'm also of that camp that thinks the Critical Role AP's are doing a disservice to the game by setting expectations for new players too high and realising that I can see they're scripted to a large extent but a newbie wouldn't. The likes of my step son were daunted by the expectations it gives new players rather than inspired. The law of unintended consequence in action.

I'd have to ask J how he hacked 7th Sea with 5e but his FLGS has been click and collect only for over 12months now. TBH I think it's a project he's been forced to abandon with the shop being shut to actual play events. I do know his intent was to try and seduce players into 7th Sea by giving them a taster thru 5e. He was a kickstarter backer like me and, like me, has found it very hard to sell to players given the jugganaut that is DnD 5e. I tried with my group but they simply were too uncomfortable with the mechanics, they loved the premise of the world (which I had bastardised by inserting the premise of 2000AD 'DeFoe' into it - reeks/zombies and the 1666 comet of ill fortune) they just struggled with the actual game play. For them the jarring bit was being experienced DnD combat monkeys faced with the narrativist 7th Sea 2e combat: they just didn't grok it. I'm sure, had we played on for a bit longer, it'd have started working for them but they simply didn't want to and then Fantasy Flight released their reprint of the original WEG Star Wars RPG and then I became a bit burnt out GMing so I played some 5e (the We're All Bards Party World Tour) while I started prepping for Saltmarsh 5e (3d printed a 28mm scale SeaGhost it took months to finish it - but, as I said, I'm a bit burnt out with the fantasy genre at the moment so that'll have to wait for another day) and then ............ covid (front line, PPE'd at work then enhanced social distancing at home so haven't seen anyone of the old group in person since March 2020 - except when one of them died unexpectedly, it's pretty f***ed up when the social highlight of your year is a funeral)

NB: the coherency problems of my previous post had more to do with using a phone during work breaks to post - breaks that were often broken because something needed to be seen to asap. I apologise if sometimes I seemed to jump from one idea to another - but that's the honest reason why. Better to be upfront than try to BS ones way out of a 'thing'

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is CoC even a thing these days? We've got Trail of Cthulhu, why the hell anyone would touch that old mess of a game?

I have no idea, and I say that with great nostalgia for the halcyon days of playing it, which my handle attests to. Trail of Cthulhu, and I think there are a couple of other games in the genre nowadays too that sound pretty solid. Anyway, we ran some CoC scenarios with PACE and it worked great (we did include SAN, just for the fun of it, SAN is a classic).

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's any edition of CoC, which spans a good bit of different games.

They're still all BRP derivatives, even the most recent one which is the most divergent.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

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.

Do you ever engage in a discussion without belittling someone?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see a real reason they have to be exclusive.



This still assumes that the failed stealth roll means that the guard detects the target fully though. Its easy enough to say "The guard is now alerted, but isn't sure what he saw/heard, so he'll investigate further." Or at least halfway the point by limiting full reveal to fumbles of the roll. That doesn't say anything about what the guard will do once the full reveal (where, frankly, blowing the whistle or banging the gong is what I'd expect, both in and out of character).



As I said, if you have some matters of degree in the resolution in the first place (and don't have processes such as rolling all the stealth and all the perceptions separately, so the math is manifestly your enemy), you don't have to do backflips at the expression end.

Agree totally, and now you are playing a game like 4e or DW or some other such system! What I said really only applies to 5e, and generally to other systems that use a 'classic' D&D-esque process. Even a few of them may rise to at least giving the GM a few tools to manage that with. I mean 4e is still pretty close to D&D, even in terms of most of its game process and table roles, yet it delivers a solution.

 

[Hussar]

I didn’t say they were.

I think you misunderstood my post.

Given the number of people you've accused of this (surprising no one that it's ONLY people who disagree with you), perhaps you aren't being as clear with your points as you think you are.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Given the number of people you've accused of this (surprising no one that it's ONLY people who disagree with you), perhaps you aren't being as clear with your points as you think you are.

Nah. Plenty of people have disagreed with me without misrepresenting my statements.

 

[KainGuru]

Sure, but what would be even VASTLY better? A system like 4e's Skill Challenge system where the GM CLEARLY is being told "this is not the end of the scenario, come up with some fiction which depicts things getting more dangerous, but not ending the mission." Now, some GMs in an SC might call for another check, or they might accept that 'throw a rock' gets you past the problem, but now the guards are more alert, etc. You could even use your GM resource of a hard check or something like that to indicate how tough it was to get out of this specific jam. Or the player might expend one of THEIR resources. This is all very well facilitated because everyone understands exactly what the process is and how each check, and each result, fits into that process. 5e specifically lacks ALL of this. We talked about this up thread a ways, so you might have missed it.

TBH we only played 4e once, and that was after it was canned by WoTC - 4e came out during a period that I call 'The great I really cannot afford any new games at the moment because of austerity and I don't want to become insolvent like so many friends did so knuckle down and pay off all those credit cards and loans you've been servicing for several years while you can still afford to'

 

[Ovinomancer]

Do you ever engage in a discussion without belittling someone?

Huh, irony.