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

[hawkeyefan]

TLDR - I believe with DW at least, the principles, particularly "being a fan of the characters", conflict with springing the absolute maximum adversity I can imagine (which is a pretty high level of adversity) and which is allowable w/in the fiction on them.

This is exactly what I mean, though.
Make the move that follows means you can't just swing for the fences, you can't be the "adversity firehose" described, you have to think about what follows. You don't pull the punch but you also don't go for the hardest hit you can think of, you go for the one that complies with "follows" and "fan".

It sounds like in BitD the principles and "Desperate" thing make this a bit different.

I don't know if anyone is saying it must be "absolute maximum adversity at all times!" so much as saying that you don't need to pull punches. To stick with the boxing metaphor, some of your punches may be jabs, and others may be haymakers....but whatever kind of punch it may be, let it fly. If you establish that a PC is at risk of a haymaker, and then the roll calls for a hard move, you hit them with the haymaker.

I don't think that's at all contradictory with being a fan of the characters.

BitD does differ a bit in that I think the players have more ability to resist horrible consequences. I don't shy away from really debilitating or even fatal harm when the dice call for it because the player has an option to Resist Harm to reduce its effect at the cost of some stress (meaning that Level 4 Harm which is Fatal simply becomes Level 3 Harm, which incapacitates), or they may have gear (armor) or special abilities that allow them to mitigate it, or they may have both (which would make Level 4 Harm become Level 2, which means they're still on their feet, but may find some actions more difficult).

I've only played DW on a few occasions, so I'm not nearly as familair with the playbooks and abilities as I am with BitD, but I don't think that DW has quite the same level of control in this area on the players' part; though I could of course be wrong. It's been a while.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just point me to what I should be looking at. I looked through it earlier and didn't see what you were talking about.

Also...
Okay let's put the term rationality to the side and use San as it is presented in the DMG (as this is what we are really discussing)... it is the minds ability to stay level headed and not be broken by the unearthly things that they see or comprehend. DO you think being stronger in this ability would or would not allow one to interact with the mythos better or worse?

EDIT: Remember sanity and madness are 2 separate but inter-related things.

I think, at this point in the discussion, if having to show you exactly where it says madness is part and parcel of mythos and that it is anti-rational, we're just not going to connect. I mean, the article we're talking about speaks of tge crazy guy being the only one with a clue, of mad cultists able to commune with eldritch beings. Arguing that it makes more sense to be sane if you want to be able to know about the mythos just seems to miss the point.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, you absolutely swing for the fences. The game handles it just fine. You're confusing the constraint to follow with having to pull punches. You do not ever need to pull a punch. This is my point. You've mistaken what I've been saying for some exhortation to do the worst thing possible at all times ignoring the other principles. This is not it at all. It's that when you swing, you never have to check that swing for other considerations. You should make a move that follows, yes, but that move doesn't need to pull it's punch, ever. You said you were finding that you were choosing moves to make a better story or set up the next bit. This you shouldn't do. That's what I'm saying -- you don't need to pull the punch to make the game work; it will handle your hardest just fine.

Which was why I said your argument you could imagine something worse was facile -- my argument wasn't about that so you imagining something you think is worse is an okay, sure, whatever. Didn't go to my point.

If that's what you mean, that makes sense, but then we're just talking past each other!

When I hear swing for the fences in the context of "adversity hose", I absolutely do envision "do the worst thing possible at all times". I literally cannot see any other way of understanding that. But you've clarified your actual intent here, which is what I'd guessed previously.

It's that when you swing, you never have to check that swing for other considerations. You should make a move that follows, yes, but that move doesn't need to pull it's punch, ever.

I don't think that's a great way to convey what you're apparently trying to convey. I think you're actively confusing the issue by using that language. And two principles at the minimum apply - "follows" and "fan" both apply.

To me, those both imply what I would personally term "pulling punches" on occasions, in that my heart or mind might leap to an idea, but it might not follow ideally, or really fit with being a fan of the characters. They also mean leaning into them sometimes, because yeah, sometimes you do need to really whack 'em, esp. when as mentioned a softer move has been ignored. What they don't mean is "adversity firehose" to me. I don't feel unconstrained. I can't just go with the first thing I think of. Because I constantly have to consider the principles and the fiction, I actually feel pretty constrained. Not in a bad way, of course, constraint can good.

Whereas 4E I was able to cut loose in a completely different way, and literally try to just use the best tactics I could to try to kill the PCs. To me that was more unconstrained, even if the initial scenario setup required constraint.

you said you were finding that you were choosing moves to make a better story or set up the next bit. This you shouldn't do.

That's you misunderstanding me in the same way I was apparently misunderstanding you. I was referring to following the principles, albeit I could have been clearer (I'd also entirely forgotten what they were called tbh).

 

[Imaro]

I think, at this point in the discussion, if having to show you exactly where it says madness is part and parcel of mythos and that it is anti-rational, we're just not going to connect. I mean, the article we're talking about speaks of tge crazy guy being the only one with a clue, of mad cultists able to commune with eldritch beings. Arguing that it makes more sense to be sane if you want to be able to know about the mythos just seems to miss the point.

That's not what you claimed... you claimed madness allowed one to better understand and manipulate the mythos... instead of it being a symptom of interacting with and manipulating the mythos... that's what I need you to show me. And again please look at the definition of sanity as using rationality as a sub in was a mistake on my part.

I also find this take really weird with the mythos, outside of H.P. Lovecraft specifically, where there are plenty of examples where this view just doesn't hold up...

 

[Ovinomancer]

If that's what you mean, that makes sense, but then we're just talking past each other!

When I hear swing for the fences in the context of "adversity hose", I absolutely do envision "do the worst thing possible at all times". I literally cannot see any other way of understanding that. But you've clarified your actual intent here, which is what I'd guessed previously.

I don't think that's a great way to convey what you're apparently trying to convey. I think you're actively confusing the issue by using that language. And two principles at the minimum apply - "follows" and "fan" both apply.

To me, those both imply what I would personally term "pulling punches" on occasions, in that my heart or mind might leap to an idea, but it might not follow ideally, or really fit with being a fan of the characters. They also mean leaning into them sometimes, because yeah, sometimes you do need to really whack 'em, esp. when as mentioned a softer move has been ignored. What they don't mean is "adversity firehose" to me. I don't feel unconstrained. I can't just go with the first thing I think of. Because I constantly have to consider the principles and the fiction, I actually feel pretty constrained. Not in a bad way, of course, constraint can good.

Whereas 4E I was able to cut loose in a completely different way, and literally try to just use the best tactics I could to try to kill the PCs. To me that was more unconstrained, even if the initial scenario setup required constraint.

That's you misunderstanding me in the same way I was apparently misunderstanding you. I was referring to following the principles, albeit I could have been clearer (I'd also entirely forgotten what they were called tbh).

Being a fan means never pulling a punch. Being a fan means you're excited to see what these characters do, usually in tough spots. Do you want to watch a John McClane movie where John drinks coffee and reads the morning paper before going to the precinct and doing paperwork? No, we want to watch John get shot at, rin across broken glass, get into chases, get beat up, and be a desoerate, bloody wreck! The fun isn't in hoping John has a nice day, but in seeing how John gets through the worst days possible! This is what being a fan means. It means you're excited about this character, what they care about and want, and you want to see what they do. For this to be principled, it means you never pull a punch. You're a fan, not a friend.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've only played DW on a few occasions, so I'm not nearly as familair with the playbooks and abilities as I am with BitD, but I don't think that DW has quite the same level of control in this area on the players' part; though I could of course be wrong. It's been a while.

It doesn't, yeah, the BitD approach is different. Generally speaking DW players have very little control over what you inflict on them (there is something but I can't remember what, or if it's a class ability - maybe they can take a debility instead of damage or something, I forget).

To stick with the boxing metaphor, some of your punches may be jabs, and others may be haymakers....but whatever kind of punch it may be, let it fly. If you establish that a PC is at risk of a haymaker, and then the roll calls for a hard move, you hit them with the haymaker.

Yeah I think this is more to do with us understanding boxing and hose metaphors differently than anything else lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Being a fan means never pulling a punch. Being a fan means you're excited to see what these characters do, usually in tough spots. Do you want to watch a John McClane movie where John drinks coffee and reads the morning paper before going to the precinct and doing paperwork? No, we want to watch John get shot at, rin across broken glass, get into chases, get beat up, and be a desoerate, bloody wreck! The fun isn't in hoping John has a nice day, but in seeing how John gets through the worst days possible! This is what being a fan means. It means you're excited about this character, what they care about and want, and you want to see what they do. For this to be principled, it means you never pull a punch. You're a fan, not a friend.

You're writing an awful lot of words to basically express the concept that you don't understand that we were using metaphors differently, but okay. Or arguably I don't understand boxing terms very well - that would be fair to say. For the sake of clarity, I agree, I should have said "jab" rather than "pull punches".

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not what you claimed... you claimed madness allowed one to better understand and manipulate the mythos... that's what I need you to show me. And again please look at the definition of sanity as using rationality as a sub in was a mistake on my part.

Uhhuh. I mean, sure, only the mad understand, but that's not good enough. You're arguing that the only way the mad understand was that they were sane, and thet used this sanity to learn, and them went insane after they learned. Now, they can't learn more because they aren't sane enough to do so. Right? That's how it works according to your argument.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

the mythos outside of H.P. Lovecraft

I mean, maybe that's the issue? A lot of Mythos writers are kind of incredibly terrible and don't get Lovecraft, especially ones from the 1990s and before. The newer generation tend to understand-but-modify, but a lot of '90s and earlier non-Lovecraft Mythos stuff is just like bad fanfic frankly.

 

[Imaro]

I mean, maybe that's the issue? A lot of Mythos writers are kind of incredibly terrible and don't get Lovecraft, especially ones from the 1990s and before. The newer generation tend to understand-but-modify, but a lot of '90s and earlier non-Lovecraft Mythos stuff is just like bad fanfic frankly.

Eh, different strokes for different folks... I would state that a big chunk of modern views about the mythos are being shaped by these works and not all are bad unless bad is defined as not being totally beholden to Lovecraft... just look at the ratings for Lovecraft Country.