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

[KainGuru]

I’m curious how folks have run the G-series adventures for 5e as they appear in the Yawning Portal book. Because I remember playing it back in the day, and there were no rules for stealth in the same sense as there are now. I mean, a thief may have has a 35% chance to move silently or whatever, but the rest of the party would have basically alerted every encounter.

I remember playing it and the DM kept pointing out how the the chief and his entourage in the grand hall were being extremely loud and raucous, so we got away with a bit. But eventually it boiled down to a fight. Of course, why wouldn’t it? That’s why you're there.

But I remember realizing that the whole scenario was eentirely in the DM’s hands. If he wanted to give us a shot, he could. If he wanted to curb stomp us, he could.

That was a frustrating realization for me.

Note the original was a tournament module so, yeah, it had to end in a big combat - there was money riding on those things back then, not much but still: real-money-for-playing-a-game

 

[Lanefan]

I wouldn't presume that potential ambushes while the party sleeps to be "minor stuff".

How often does this happen and how often does it result in the party suffering significant losses?

In order: sometimes, and rarely.

In my own games, where I don't generally bother tossing insignificant threats at the party that a lone PC could deal with, this sort of thing would lead to a TPK very quickly - or at least dead PC's. Particularly in older editions where a sleeping PC could be killed with a single action.

Difference in DMing philosophy, perhaps; in that if an insignificant encounter is what makes sense in the situation (and-or comes up in by random roll) that's what they'll get.

Like I said, a player pulling this in any of the groups I've played or run would be looking for a new group. "Oh, it's what my character would do" results in "don't make characters like that please, because we'll strip them naked, and stake them out for bear food."

I never presume that the players make incompetent characters.

I'm almost the opposite: I assume neither competence nor incompetence until-unless one or the other is proven.

 

[Lanefan]

Who makes good adventures? I ask because I have always hated published adventures and find them extremely difficult to use., whether that was from TSR, WotC, or Paizo.

Curious: what is it about them in general that makes them so difficult for you to use?

 

[Hussar]

Why are you trying to derail the thread over it?

There are people in every community who habitually misrepresent other people’s statements.

And there are those who habitually use this as a defense for not being clear in their statements.

Look, if it was just me you were accusing of this, then fine, that might be on me. But, there's been multiple people, to the point where you had to edit your initial post because people were not getting your point. At some point, we all have to take responsibility for breakdowns in communication. If multiple people are "misrepresenting" or "misunderstanding" your points, then perhaps, just perhaps, your points aren't anywhere near as clear as you think they are.

Again, I just think that it's funny that it is NEVER anyone who agrees with a point that is "misunderstanding". It's always someone who disagrees. It's a pretty bog standard rhetorical tactic - you get to avoid defending your point by turning it back on the other person with claims they just don't understand. Again, if it was just one poster, then fair enough, it might be the other way. But, when it's at least three, and quite probably more, in the same thread? At what point do you step back and begin to do a bit of self examination?

You'll note, you're the only person in this thread whose accusing anyone (let alone multiple people) of misunderstand or misrepresenting your point. Funny how everyone else has no problems understanding each other. I mean, I've disagreed with a shopping list of people in this thread. Yet, they haven't accused me of misrepresenting anything. @Ovinomancer has disagreed with lots of people, and yet, again, only you seem to be misunderstood. @Aldarc, @pemerton, and others have all disagreed with many people. And, on the other side of the fence, @Imaro, @dave2008, and a shopping list of others have all disagreed with me and others.

Yet, no one seems to be misunderstanding anything. At least no one else is making accusations, not just of misunderstanding, but, being deliberate about it and "misrepresenting" other people's arguments. Never minding the obvious ad hominem in the attack, and ignoring the fact that such accusations are skirting pretty close to violating the site's Code of Conduct, no one else has had these issues. No one else is whacking people on their ignore lists, to my knowledge. No one else is having any difficulties making their points understood.

Again, I have to ask, at what point does self-reflection become a really good idea?

 

[Hussar]

Curious: what is it about them in general that makes them so difficult for you to use?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but, I wonder if it isn't part and parcel of what we've been talking about in this thread.

The further you deviate from baseline expectations of the game, the less useful, or at least more difficult, subsequent supplements become to use. Now, as far as this thread is concerned, we've seen multiple posters, including @dave2008 talk about how he has no problems, say, doing these kinds of infiltration scenarios. Now, the modules expect something completely different from, say, gradiated responses from the DM. They present everything as pass/fail. Which makes them less useful to a DM who isn't using a pass/fail skill system.

At least, this is a possibility IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And there are those who habitually use this as a defense for not being clear in their statements.

Look, if it was just me you were accusing of this, then fine, that might be on me. But, there's been multiple people, to the point where you had to edit your initial post because people were not getting your point. At some point, we all have to take responsibility for breakdowns in communication. If multiple people are "misrepresenting" or "misunderstanding" your points, then perhaps, just perhaps, your points aren't anywhere near as clear as you think they are.

Again, I just think that it's funny that it is NEVER anyone who agrees with a point that is "misunderstanding". It's always someone who disagrees. It's a pretty bog standard rhetorical tactic - you get to avoid defending your point by turning it back on the other person with claims they just don't understand. Again, if it was just one poster, then fair enough, it might be the other way. But, when it's at least three, and quite probably more, in the same thread? At what point do you step back and begin to do a bit of self examination?

You'll note, you're the only person in this thread whose accusing anyone (let alone multiple people) of misunderstand or misrepresenting your point. Funny how everyone else has no problems understanding each other. I mean, I've disagreed with a shopping list of people in this thread. Yet, they haven't accused me of misrepresenting anything. @Ovinomancer has disagreed with lots of people, and yet, again, only you seem to be misunderstood. @Aldarc, @pemerton, and others have all disagreed with many people. And, on the other side of the fence, @Imaro, @dave2008, and a shopping list of others have all disagreed with me and others.

Yet, no one seems to be misunderstanding anything. At least no one else is making accusations, not just of misunderstanding, but, being deliberate about it and "misrepresenting" other people's arguments. Never minding the obvious ad hominem in the attack, and ignoring the fact that such accusations are skirting pretty close to violating the site's Code of Conduct, no one else has had these issues. No one else is whacking people on their ignore lists, to my knowledge. No one else is having any difficulties making their points understood.

Again, I have to ask, at what point does self-reflection become a really good idea?

Not gonna lie, I’m not reading all that. I’m not interested in a tirade from you.

And if you think I never correct misunderstandings from people who agree with me, you’re very much just seeing what you want to see.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't use published adventures simply because I have different goals from an adventure. I run a much less episodic type of game, and one that is fairly low myth. Most adventures don't easily slot in, and I find I end up changing a lot of stuff anyway. Also, most adventures are just not 'wondrous' enough. D&D modules are most often pretty mundane stuff (there are some exceptions). I mean, they are filled with monsters, but its generally fairly stock.
Also I like action adventure type play, at least in my D&D type games. So that sort of thing simply doesn't much exist in modules. They are largely static locations with, at most, some fixed terrain features. I'm much more likely to devise a series of scenes that read like Disney World's next ride. If something isn't flying, collapsing, burning, etc. then something is seriously wrong, to the point where the players in my 4e campaign actually started to get paranoid because this one location was so QUIET (even though it had plenty of monsters in it).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't use published adventures simply because I have different goals from an adventure. I run a much less episodic type of game, and one that is fairly low myth. Most adventures don't easily slot in, and I find I end up changing a lot of stuff anyway. Also, most adventures are just not 'wondrous' enough. D&D modules are most often pretty mundane stuff (there are some exceptions). I mean, they are filled with monsters, but its generally fairly stock.
Also I like action adventure type play, at least in my D&D type games. So that sort of thing simply doesn't much exist in modules. They are largely static locations with, at most, some fixed terrain features. I'm much more likely to devise a series of scenes that read like Disney World's next ride. If something isn't flying, collapsing, burning, etc. then something is seriously wrong, to the point where the players in my 4e campaign actually started to get paranoid because this one location was so QUIET (even though it had plenty of monsters in it).

A thing that I got from Phoenix: Dawn Command that doesn’t take any effort to port to any system is to clearly state at least 3 “moving objects” in a scene, that can be manipulated and give an example of how they can be used. A pit, a campfire, barrels, explosives, a staircase, a weak support beam, etc.

To which I’ve added, be very clear about levels within a scene. Ground level, and then low rooftops, and the town wall behind it, each ten feet above the other, for instance.

My combat, chases, searches, etc, are all a lot more dynamic now.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And there are those who habitually use this as a defense for not being clear in their statements.

Look, if it was just me you were accusing of this, then fine, that might be on me. But, there's been multiple people, to the point where you had to edit your initial post because people were not getting your point. At some point, we all have to take responsibility for breakdowns in communication. If multiple people are "misrepresenting" or "misunderstanding" your points, then perhaps, just perhaps, your points aren't anywhere near as clear as you think they are.

Again, I just think that it's funny that it is NEVER anyone who agrees with a point that is "misunderstanding". It's always someone who disagrees. It's a pretty bog standard rhetorical tactic - you get to avoid defending your point by turning it back on the other person with claims they just don't understand. Again, if it was just one poster, then fair enough, it might be the other way. But, when it's at least three, and quite probably more, in the same thread? At what point do you step back and begin to do a bit of self examination?

You'll note, you're the only person in this thread whose accusing anyone (let alone multiple people) of misunderstand or misrepresenting your point. Funny how everyone else has no problems understanding each other. I mean, I've disagreed with a shopping list of people in this thread. Yet, they haven't accused me of misrepresenting anything. @Ovinomancer has disagreed with lots of people, and yet, again, only you seem to be misunderstood. @Aldarc, @pemerton, and others have all disagreed with many people. And, on the other side of the fence, @Imaro, @dave2008, and a shopping list of others have all disagreed with me and others.

Yet, no one seems to be misunderstanding anything. At least no one else is making accusations, not just of misunderstanding, but, being deliberate about it and "misrepresenting" other people's arguments. Never minding the obvious ad hominem in the attack, and ignoring the fact that such accusations are skirting pretty close to violating the site's Code of Conduct, no one else has had these issues. No one else is whacking people on their ignore lists, to my knowledge. No one else is having any difficulties making their points understood.

Again, I have to ask, at what point does self-reflection become a really good idea?

I must disagree with your assessment here, if only to make it onto your list of disagreeable folks!

 

[KainGuru]

I'm almost the opposite: I assume neither competence nor incompetence until-unless one or the other is proven.

My players are always friends first, and they vary wildly in their individual styles - I try my hardest to accommodate their differences by giving what each player wants from the game. It's a social game first and different campaigns have different things driving the story forward, sometimes it's gritty and sometimes "we're all Bards and we've come to play for this village, so lock up your daughters/sons and goats ... especially the goats ... whatever you do don't let the elf near the goats" (I was that elf )

In fact, on consideration, that's the majority of my pre-game prep: working out how to bring order to the chaos of giving equal 'screen time' to the players divergent expectations of play (the combat monkey, the social roleplayer, the tactician - at least one of those players will make a competent character and at least one of those players will make a character based on an idea rather than giving any consideration to competence) as well as putting in the aspects of play I enjoy as a DM (a bit gritty, a lot dark and mainly lots and lots of shades of grey - I like moral dilemmas and conundrums. a world where everything isn't straight up good vs evil or easy solutions to complex problems "actions always have consequences, though they may not appear til much, much later").