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

[Ovinomancer]

My mistake - the terms where new to me!

I personally think you have to take the opening post as a whole. It is one argument IMO. So I personally finding unhelp at best to break it down as you have. From subsequent clarifying post it seems the OP agrees.

Was he then mistaken or misrepresenting what he meant in the opening paragraph? I mean, I tend to take people at what they say. He says this, and then offers a different thought later. I see no reason to assume that the first paragraph doesn't mean exactly what it says. To do otherwise -- to only select one thought from many -- is to cherry pick.

It is unacceptable for me. I cannot control what other people do. If you find it acceptable that is one you. When someone ask me advice on a subject I try to give them advice on the subject or nothing at all. I don't consider suggesting to play another game as advice on the subject: "how do I modify the game I want to play." It is OK if we have different opinions on this.

Like I said, it's fine that you've decided 5e is the only game worth discussing. Others have different opinions. Or have you switched from the bailey argument to the motte argument, here?

Sure. And other's may be pissed of if you suggest another game. There are risks and rewards to both approaches. Not issue if you have a different approach.

If someone is going to be pissed that someone offered honest advice they thought would be helpful, okay, I guess. Not really something I'm going to carefully avoid, because that person is probably got other irrational things they'll get mad about, and I can't guess them all. Saying it's a risk that someone might get pissed off over such a really irrational thing is, well, okay, one I'm going to run all the time. The consequences are I find out that person is someone I'm not keen to talk to, which isn't much of a downside longterm.

Or, again, have we swapped to the motte argument?

I just gave my thoughts. I don't think I am likely to change your opinion as you are not likely to change mine. I can see it as rude and you can see it as heroic and we can both be right.

One of use is operating on being angry as honestly offered advice. There is that.

I hate to ask since I don't want to continue this conversation, but..."sufficient" for what?

It's no sufficiently convincing to avoid offering honest advice. I mean, you're essentially saying that people need to not offer advice because someone might get mad that it didn't match their unstated preference that no game other than 5e ever be mentioned.

I think we agree here, but it is not like we need to. There is room for both opinions. My stance at this point is that I am happy with mine and I am guessing you are happy with yours. They both work, so let's use them.

Sure, I guess.

 

[pemerton]

I don't particularly like heroic fantasy. Fantasy sure. I loved Conan, The Black Company, The Amber Chronicles, The Dying Earth, anything by Tanith Lee. D&D has never felt like that kind of fantasy to me. It always has felt a lot more specific than a general fantasy game. You have characters that intricately connected to one another who go on random adventures together, each with a very narrow set of skills. You have a very particular fantasy setting. You have this whole culture of adventurers who have very minimal ties to the setting. I find the whole thing a little bizarre personally.

<snip>

It feels like any game that features nonstandard genres or dares to represent psychosocial elements in the rules (rather than elaborate physical details) immediately gets labeled as hyper focused. A game like Burning Wheel is certainly no more specific than D&D genre wise, but because it is a game of emotive rather than procedural storytelling it becomes focused while D&D gets to be flexible, despite there being no rhyme or reason for the label.

When you position D&D in contrast to bespoke games as if it was not one that's elevating it. The narrow or focused indie game myth is harmful because it implies that they are more specialized versions of the sort of play you see in the adventure gaming space. When you play into it with that bespoke language you are reinforcing the idea that a typical D&D contains everything a typical Burning Wheel game contains. It provides the impression the D&D (well 5e) is especially flexible.

One factor that complicates some of the comparisons that get made - at least as things seem to me - is that the "dimensions" of comparison are often not made express.

For instance, are we talking about topics - ie the subject-matter of our roleplaying? And is that actual topics covered in a rulebook, or conceivable topics that the mechanics and approach might be used for? For instance, The Dying Earth - as published - is about playing in the world whose name is on the box; but it is clearly and easily adaptable to "generic" fantasy RPGing (it has rules for social conflict, physical conflict, a skill system, a magic system, etc). It's just that - when compared to most D&D - social encounters will loom larger than combat ones, and there will be much more self-conscious repartee than is typical in the D&D play I'm familiar with.

And at what point does topic drift into feel? D&D covers the broad topics of REH's Conan - it has liches and giant snakes and shining kingdoms and wild nomads and mighty-thewed barbarians - but as presented and as typically played it doesn't really support the feel of Conan. A beginning D&D character is unlikely to have the sort of adventure Conan had when he infiltrated the Tower of the Elephant. An experienced D&D character is unlikely to become king of the greatest kingdom in the land by throttling the throne's previous occupant. And there is no framework in D&D, beyond GM's whim, to allow an imprisoned D&D character to benefit from a stealthy visit by a guard seeking revenge (The Scarlet Citadel) or a secret admirer (The Hour of the Dragon, I think).

Burning Wheel covers much the same range of topics as D&D, but in my view is more likely to produce that REH feel. And less likely to produce the cynicism that Gygax seems to have absorbed (while also transforming it) from Vance.

And to mention a completely different game: Cthulhu Dark could pretty easily be adapted to fantasy play, I think. Maybe the Sanity Die becomes the Experience die - and is checked every time the character is confronted by a threat to the Shire (or its equivalent in the setting) or another demand that s/he do something heroic. When it reaches 6, the character has had enough and retires or (more dramatically, for that Silmarillion-esque feel) hurls him-/herself into a fiery cavern. Resting between adventures would allow the die to be stepped back - the character recovers from weariness but also loses his/her edge. Nothing else about the system would need to change, that I can see.

That would be a different play experience from D&D, but not a more narrow or focused one.

 

[dave2008]

Was he then mistaken or misrepresenting what he meant in the opening paragraph? I mean, I tend to take people at what they say. He says this, and then offers a different thought later. I see no reason to assume that the first paragraph doesn't mean exactly what it says. To do otherwise -- to only select one thought from many -- is to cherry pick.

Aren't you doing the same? I mean what do think the OP us saying in the last paragraph? To me, it clarifies the initial statements. IME, the more I write the closer I tend to get to what it is I am trying to say, so maybe I am biased to the last paragraph. However, at the very least it is wise to try to reconcile what you feel are different thoughts.

Like I said, it's fine that you've decided 5e is the only game worth discussing. Others have different opinions. Or have you switched from the bailey argument to the motte argument, here?

You are putting words in my mouth.in this very thread I have discussed BitD, FSAA Trek, and CoC. Furthermore, I have repeatedly indicated that the OP issue applies to any game. It just seems like you making things up now.

Now, 5e is the only game I am currently interested in playing, but I spend a bit of time over on the PF forums and was recently trying to join a PF2e game.

If someone is going to be pissed that someone offered honest advice they thought would be helpful, okay, I guess. Not really something I'm going to carefully avoid, because that person is probably got other irrational things they'll get mad about, and I can't guess them all. Saying it's a risk that someone might get pissed off over such a really irrational thing is, well, okay, one I'm going to run all the time. The consequences are I find out that person is someone I'm not keen to talk to, which isn't much of a downside longterm.

Sure if that works for you.

One of use is operating on being angry as honestly offered advice. There is that.

I've offended people before with honestly offered advice. It happened last week with my partner. It happens, from experience I prefer to avoid it, but sometimes you can't. I mean you seem to be offended by my honestly offered advice and I honestly wish I hadn't.

It's no sufficiently convincing to avoid offering honest advice. I mean, you're essentially saying that people need to not offer advice because someone might get mad that it didn't match their unstated preference that no game other than 5e ever be mentioned.

No, I am saying I prefer not too. I'm no longer trying to convince you of anything. Well maybe...nah, nevermind

Sure, I guess.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is the bailey. That the OP also included a shout out to the future motte position doesn't change that it opens with the bailey argument that it shouldn't be okay to recommend other games.

I shouldn’t have clicked the button to see ignored content. But I did, and I saw this BS, and I feel the need to correct it. The text you quoted does not mean what you say it means.

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.

It is not reasonable to claim this means “it shouldn’t be okay to recommend other games”.

You are twisting my words into something wildly different from what they say. I cannot even imagine ever reading those words and thinking they mean anything resembling what you claim.

Hell, the quoted text doesn’t even make a claim or argument. It is literally the set up for the rest of the post. It’s the “here’s the situation I’m going to address”, and is then followed by arguments regarding that situation.

You are claiming that “there is a lot of discussion about D&D being a narrow game, and how it’s a waste of time to do anything different with it, and how you should just use a completely different game if you want to introduce a genre element to D&D that isn’t in the core books” actually means “it shouldn’t be okay to recommend a game other than D&D, ever”. That is a patently absurd claim. The first statement cannot rationally be said to mean the second.

It feels like any game that features nonstandard genres or dares to represent psychosocial elements in the rules (rather than elaborate physical details) immediately gets labeled as hyper focused. A game like Burning Wheel is certainly no more specific than D&D genre wise, but because it is a game of emotive rather than procedural storytelling it becomes focused while D&D gets to be flexible, despite there being no rhyme or reason for the label.

I haven’t commented on Burning Wheel, but this also just doesn’t represent any argument I’ve made in general. It seems like you’re bringing stuff from arguments you’ve had with other people into this discussion, and projecting it onto me. I don’t especially appreciate that. I am beholden to my own words, not other peoples’.

5e is versatile rather than bespoke because it has more areas of the game that are not prescriptive.

There is no mechanic wherein the next dungeon to delve is chosen. Delves are not distinct mechanical processes, but rather the game loosely has adventures which can be organized and approached in many different ways using a range of mechanics and rules.

It is thus easier to change aspects of the gameplay, without having to change other parts of the game. You can change settings in most games. Some games enable mechanical modification more than others.

And of course, the point of talking about this at all was initially simply to defend the validity of adding things to a D&D 5e game rather than changing systems when one wants to add a dynamic to ones D&D 5e game.

Nah, Blades can be tweaked and hacked, as well. I've played military-fantasy, sci-fi, and super heroes using the Forged in the Dark system, they're just different settings. There's an entire chapter in the book about making the game your own. You can tweak the game to do quite a bit. If you look into it, you'll see all manner of games using the system.

Yes, I’m actually aware of the Forged In The Dark extrapolation that is being used to make other games. So far as I know, most of them don’t change the mechanics much, and run fairly similarly. Not only that, most people agree that Blades in The Dark is a distinct game, and Forged in The Dark isn’t the same game, but rather a vehicle to create games that use the same design principles and mechanical processes as Blades, but create a different type of story.

I have trouble believing you don’t see the difference.

The setting? Maybe not so easy, though by no means impossible. There are several areas that lend themselves to dungeon delving and general adventuring. There are several different types of crews to choose from that can alter the feel of the game. There are other cities in the setting that are rife for expansion. There is a playtest on how to play the police in the setting; even just a shift in the kinds of Actions that are available to characters can really give the game a different feel.

I think the difference is that folks tend to separate system and setting for D&D quite readily. But Blades in the dark is both system and setting.

The setting of D&D is an oddly specific one, as @Campbell suggested. It's a stew. So the setting inherently has a little of this and a little of that, and can be spiced to taste. I don't know if that makes it quite as flexible as you're making it out to be.

The “setting” of D&D is only specific in terms of the default setting used to explain how to play. It is the world equivalent of using Iconics to explain character creation.

My Islands World setting isn’t any less D&D than FR is, even though there is no Hells and no Heaven equivalent, people become spirits similar to land spirits, or reincarnate, or become part of greater spirits, when they die, the PCs aren’t nearly as exceptional as they are in, say, Eberron, only a small part of the world is European, and humans are extremely rare and not everyone believes they even exist, and a bunch of other setting assumptions are fundamentally different.

Eberron can be played as a world without gods, canonically, and has no 9 Hells, and low level magic is common and treated scientifically.

My friend’s world has no knowable deities, even the angels aren’t 100% sure, and has only 4 planes (material, ethereal, hell (all fiends are from here and it’s just hell not the Hells), and wherever angels come from), with other planes only existing as places within the material world. There are no aberrations of any kind in the world.

Space Fantasy! Takes place in an Aether Space galaxy that is coming out of a dark age as wormhole space highways mysteriously reopen and slipstream engines allow small vessels to go great distances without the highways, and it’s basically space you can breath in, with D&D races and classes and spells and such, and Final Fantasy meets Star Wars meets Treasure Planet style.

Ive played Dresden style modern fantasy noir in 5e. I’ve played post apocalyptic scavengers in 5e.

They’re all D&D settings.

 

[Hussar]

Well I can't argue against your feelings. But what more is necessary? D&D isn't a dedicated cosmological horror game but I feel it's definitely a good jumping off point and is adequate in a pinch. Now I expect more in Ravenloft as a horror dedicated supplement/campaign book and sourcebook. But for D&D I think the optional rules are adequate.



Again not sure how you can measure who is or who isn't using the rules. But again is it just a question of quantity because the rules seem perfectly serviceable

By this I think that means you haven't used the rules @Imaro?

Because I have.(Edited after seeing @Aldarc's post)

And they are garbage. They really, really are. My Primeval Thule game recommends using these rules, as part of the genre and they are terrible. So, does that count as a measure? I've got about a hundred or so hours of real play with these rules and I can categorically state that they do not work in 5e worth a damn. They were needlessly fiddly, did not interact with the rest of the rules very well and did not add anything to the game other than busywork since most of the time, they just didn't come up. It was kind of one of those add on things that you tack onto your character sheet, like Iron Rations and then promptly forget about because nothing in the game actually connects to them.

 

[Hussar]

To me that is the essence of cosmic horror - not the protagonists sanity or lack of it

Which, I would argue, is somewhat of a misreading of cosmic horror. Or at least, not all of it. The main essence of a cosmic horror story, from a structural point of view, is that your protagonist will always be worse off at the end than at the beginning. Which is why D&D doesn't do Cosmic Horror very well because the core essence of D&D is the level system. At no point in a Cosmic Horror story do the protagonists get a clean win. At best they escape. And, the point of playing Cosmic Horror isn't to defeat the Cosmic Horror, because you can't. The point is to see how much your character will suffer before its inevitable end.

If there was a win condition in your game, then you weren't really playing Cosmic Horror. You were playing fairly standard heroic fantasy with horror elements.

 

[Aldarc]

By this I think that means you haven't used the rules @Imaro?

In his defense, he has. Though this does not invalidate your own experiences with using the rules.

 

[Hussar]

It seems that this aspect would be super easy to hack, to the extent that I wouldn’t consider it a hack at all.

Campaign takes characters from level 1 to 6 (you could even use milestone levelling if you want to slow character progression even more). Tone down the number of combats. Monsters tend to be overleveled compared to the party, and are given even more deadly abilities above and beyond.

Session Zero you hammer the theme to the players. Since I am a firm believer of “show, don’t tell”, as a DM, you also use one of several standard techniques to show them how deadly the monsters are.

Personal favorite, during the first session, give the players level 3 pregens. Have the monster utterly wreak them in 2 rounds in an ambush without the players getting a good look at the monster. Tell the players that their level 1 characters are going after that same monster.

How is this not just standard horror?

What is the Cosmic Horror element? Again, remember, as per the conversation, we're specifically talking about Cosmic Horror. Bog standard horror? Sure, D&D doesn't do a bad job of that. Curse of Strahd demonstrates that. But we're talking about Cosmic Horror which is not the same thing. And, no, I don't think that simply adding more tentacles suddenly makes things cosmic horror.

 

[Hussar]

If you are familiar with my 5e epic monster updates you know I don't ascribed to that belief. I like to stat cosmic level threats because it is fun, even if there is no way for the PCs to beat them. Though I generally agree with the concept.

However, how often do 15 HP PCs want to challenge an aberration with 75 hit points, let alone a 1,200 HP cosmic horror that does 84 damage with one claw attack?

If so, I guess we (my gaming group) are all anemics as we can play D&D 5e just fine without a lot of combat, little to no house rules and have a great time. That is really all I want - to have a good time with my friends. I personally don't find that I need a lot of rules for social interaction, investigation, infiltration, etc. to achiever that goal. Though, as always, everyone is different and has different needs.

Look, @dave2008, I am not trying to start a fight here, but, how is this Cosmic Horror? The baddies are big and largely unkillable. Well, that's Horror in pretty much all forms. Dracula was largely the same thing too. Jason or Freddy as well. Being unkillable =/= cosmic horror.

 

[Hussar]

The only CoC modules I've looked at recently - The Vanishing Conjurer and The Statute of the Sorcerer - are predicated on PC victories.

In my play experience of Cthulhu Dark, in our first game the PCs were able to crash the freighter with a shoggoth in its hull onto rocks, causing it to sink; they escaped on a tugboat (and some of the cultist NPCs escaped in a lifeboat). All of the PCs ended up with a 4 on their sanity die. In the second game one of the PCs went mad, but the replacement PC and the other PC were able to foil a plot involving the transportation to London of were-hyenas from East Africa and were-wolves from Central Europe.

Some of HPL's stories are "no win" in the sense that the protagonist's victory is keeping the secret rather than stopping anything bad from happening. But that isn't true of all of them, and doesn't have to be the case in Coc-type RPGing.

Maybe not no-win, but, certainly more in the pyrric victory column. I think I'll stand by my assertion that virtually none of the Mythos protagonists comes out of the story stronger than they went in. Even if the horror is stopped or whatnot, no one gets out unscathed. AFAIK, that's one of the core elements of a Mythos story. Granted, if we want to go with Mythos Adjacent stories, like Howard's Conan stories, that's a different kettle of fish and far, far closer to what D&D does.

But an actual Cosmic Horror genre story where the protagonists get stronger throughout the story (ie. gain levels) and come out the other side stronger than they started, a la a Hero's Journey style fantasy story that D&D does very well? Yeah, that's not something I'd call Cosmic Horror.