D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[doctorbadwolf]

Surely a huge part of the reason that there is far more strategy in combat is because there are detailed rules for it. If you only had very basic rules for it, the possibility for strategy (or tactics, rather) would be greatly reduced.

Eh, combat has both strategic and tactical complexity in reality, in such a way that even people who aren’t familiar with it know that it’s there.

People constantly underestimate the complexity of just about everything else.

And IME, people try to complicate games like Monster of The Week, because it feels too simple to model what they see their character doing in a way that feels different from modeling hat they did last time. Including people with little to no experience with TTRPGs.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Calzones are circle-based, and thus a type of pie.

My reasoning is circular; I think, therefore I pie.

 

[Campbell]

I have been a player in 3 Blades games (2 long term, 1 short term) and ran the game twice (both short term).

The tone of the game, how the ghost field works, what can be accomplished with rituals, what the various factions are like all can dramatically differ from game to game. It's a game without set stat blocks, low resolution setting where much of how things work in the setting can vary dramatically based on the answers players give to the questions you ask or stray Devil's Bargains. Our current Blades game really has a strong focus on the more mystical side, in large part due to a few Devil's Bargains that have brought a Forgotten Goddess into Duskvol. The last game I ran was very gritty, street level and focused on moving drugs (it almost felt like the Wire).

The level of variability there feels pretty similar to my personal experiences with 3e, 4e, 5e and PF2.

 

[Malmuria]

I have been a player in 3 Blades games (2 long term, 1 short term) and ran the game twice (both short term).

The tone of the game, how the ghost field works, what can be accomplished with rituals, what the various factions are like all can dramatically differ from game to game. It's a game without set stat blocks, low resolution setting where much of how things work in the setting can vary dramatically based on the answers players give to the questions you ask or stray Devil's Bargains. Our current Blades game really has a strong focus on the more mystical side, in large part due to a few Devil's Bargains that have brought a Forgotten Goddess into Duskvol. The last game I ran was very gritty, street level and focused on moving drugs (it almost felt like the Wire).

The level of variability there feels pretty similar to my personal experiences with 3e, 4e, 5e and PF2.

I have less experience than you but I think the dials of Blades are more restrained than dnd, at least 5e, if you look at the "touchstones" and everything that would be a touchstone for 5e. But if you take the whole FitD family of games, there is a lot of variety in tone/setting/theme

 

[niklinna]

I have been a player in 3 Blades games (2 long term, 1 short term) and ran the game twice (both short term).

The tone of the game, how the ghost field works, what can be accomplished with rituals, what the various factions are like all can dramatically differ from game to game. It's a game without set stat blocks, low resolution setting where much of how things work in the setting can vary dramatically based on the answers players give to the questions you ask or stray Devil's Bargains. Our current Blades game really has a strong focus on the more mystical side, in large part due to a few Devil's Bargains that have brought a Forgotten Goddess into Duskvol. The last game I ran was very gritty, street level and focused on moving drugs (it almost felt like the Wire).

The level of variability there feels pretty similar to my personal experiences with 3e, 4e, 5e and PF2.

Not to mention several in the crew have come right to the edge of death and some already have multiple traumas after a pretty short number of scores.

Edit: typo.

 

[Campbell]

I have less experience than you but I think the dials of Blades are more restrained than dnd, at least 5e, if you look at the "touchstones" and everything that would be a touchstone for 5e. But if you take the whole FitD family of games, there is a lot of variety in tone/setting/theme

I think this gets a little skewed because a lot of the touchstones I would (and have) relied on are not speculative fiction. Stuff like Power, Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Snatch, Peaky Blinders, The Saint, mob movies and documentaries. There's a wealth of crime fiction available as a highly relevant source. Caper fiction is like a real big deal.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think this is essentially the point of the video in the OP, namely that 1) there are certain 'dnd-isms' that exist across editions (str, dex, con...) that make gameplay familiar enough despite their differences (critical hit rules, grappling rules, etc) and 2) the gameplay of any edition will be subject to the prior experiences of participants at the table. Sometimes (2) will be expressed in house rules, sometimes just in metagame-ish presumptions and habits.

Yeah, I like the idea of the video... I just think Professor DM (man I really wish he just had a name like Bob or something cause that is just ridiculous) undermined his own point by dismissing certain versions.

I would have no clue how to run combat encounters without rules. I only need a basic core set of rules for everything else. If compared to skill challenges, combat has far more strategy. I think skill challenges was an interesting concept, it just wasn't ready for release in the state we got it IMHO.

The general description fit, though, was my point. Combat is everyone rolling dice and seeing what happens and trying to contribute in the ways they're suited to.

I mean, if everyone's just saying "I roll Persuasion and Bob you roll Intimidate" then yeah, that Skill Challenge is gonna suck.

But if everyone goes "I attack with my sword and Bob you cast magic missile" it's not exactly a ton better.

Umm ... that's what @gorice has been saying for several pages now. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding!

I think a more procedural approach is different and for most things outside of combat I want a light touch.

I don't think he said the word better at all. I think he has been explaining how those processes produce different results. The only point where I think he approached any kind of value judgment would be when he said that those processes add more player choice to the game. But that's more an observation than a statement of value.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So CSI: Miami vs. CSI: NY?

More like Seinfeld vs Big Bang Theory. One has a tight premise and buyin around the table toward the story beats and who the characters are, etc, while the other isn’t “about” anything more than “the adventures of these people, whatever those end up being”.

But Dimension20 maybe isn’t the best example. The thing is, popular actual play games tend to be very by the book, compared to any home game I know. So while I’m happy to use inspiration as a spendable “create a flashback scene to change the context of the current scene in order to change what happens next” resource in a heist adventure, Mercer isn’t likely to do anything like that.

Meanwhile, Griffin McElroy made up rules for death derby racing, and bends the rules all the time to accommodate the story.

But in a home game, you can get wildly more different than those games, because 5e is built to withstand add-on rules from 3pp or homebrew, and stuff like that. You don’t need to change anything else to add flashback mechanics, stress, hero points (Star Wars saga Force Points, basically), expand Inspiration to function like Action Points from 4e, add a “device stress” mechanic to add tension and strategy to vehicle-focused scenes, or any number of other things.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think this gets a little skewed because a lot of the touchstones I would (and have) relied on are not speculative fiction. Stuff like Power, Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Snatch, Peaky Blinders, The Saint, mob movies and documentaries. There's a wealth of crime fiction available as a highly relevant source. Caper fiction is like a real big deal.

Yeah, I’m with Campbell on this @Malmuria .

I’ve GMed 15 games of Blades and in those 15, it’s run a gamut of thematic diversity that has easily matched if not exceeded the breadth of my D&D games. For instance, while these are all Blades game I’ve ran/am running, I’ve never had a D&D game that ran like:

* Helter Skelter meets Bloodborne Cult drama.

* True Detective/Untouchables.

* Peaky Blinders.

* Supernatural Indiana Jones Archaeologists (this is verrrrry different than treasure hunters dungeon delving to plunder > sell > level > regear/stock > rinse/repeat > build stronghold).

* Rounders.

* Breaking Bad.

* Lawless (except Leviathan Blood Moonshine).

* Sleepers Assassin misfits all with supernatural heritage/occult influence meets Demon Ninja Murder Goddess Summoning Insanity.


The range of games that are actually mechanized via the game engine of Blades + Duskvol/Deathlands exclusively (and not Force/freeform/color) is significant.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think so but I think (because some of these I wasn't old enough to play when they came out) the only edition of D&D that ever focused solely on site-based exploration was possible OD&D? BECMI took you beyond site-based exploration with Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal. AD&D 1e had the Wilderness Survival Guide, AD&D 2e had too many settings/adventures outside the realm of site-based exploration for me to list. 3e had rules beyond site-based exploration as did 4e and 5e. So when you say "now" do you mean starting in the 70's/80's?

No, I meant now, with the current edition. This has been a slow process where things have expanded a little at a time, leading us to where we are now. the biggest incremental leap was likely the advent of 2E in many ways, but it wasn't something that was immediate, but I think happened over the edition. But that's me looking at it retrospectively. I didn't quite realize it at the time.

While certainly a possibility... I don't think that's a requirement. You can have a general structure which the DM then uses as a basis to extrapolate for other situations. As an example the skill usage structure can be applied across numerous situations.

Fair enough. I think I disagree here. I think it varies a lot, and I would say you are correct that you can do a lot with a basic structure that can be broadly applied... but I don't know if D&D's is quite as adaptable as many claim. Structures can really bring out tone and theme, as well as more specific elements like naval combat or mass combat rules.

I can only answer for myself...Yes and yes (with the caveat that the "game" encompasses more than the DMG). I have been running 5e for years now and there hasn't been a situation that arose where I was at a complete loss on how to handle it. The game has, IMO a robust structure around combat and magic, as well as a suitably flexible structure concerning skill usage along with enough suggestions in the DMG and supplemental material that I would argue it's sufficient for the vast majority of things that arise... Though admittedly said answers, suggestions, etc. may not suit everyone's particular tastes.

I think I disagree here, too. I think what's happening is that a lot is offloaded onto the DM. It does depend on what they do with it, though.

Nope... since individual GM's will decide how to implement their structures differently.

Right, and this is what I mean. How many DMs do you know that create something like the exploration rules from earlier editions versus just winging it?

Don't get me wrong, I wing it all the time. There's nothing wrong with that. But a what it means is that in order to make informed choices, the players need to be reading me instead of understanding whatever rules may apply.

And I'm not sure how you feel about it, but often when it's mentioned that some games are about playing the GM rather than playing the game, many take offense.

This seems to be implying that rules differences are the determining factor? So would you agree to the statement that all PbtA games feel the same? What about FitD games? If not... what's the difference?

The rules are a big part of it, yes. There are other things, but the rules are a big one.

I think that all PbtA games that I've played do have similarities, yes. Do I think that the changes made to each PbtA game can make some significant differences in how they play? Yes, for sure. Same for FitD.

What I will say is that with those two systems, if asked what makes one game different from another... what makes Monsterhearts different from Stonetop or what makes Band of Blades different than Blades in the Dark... I can actually pinpoint the mechanics that make the difference. It's not just "oh well John GMs it this way and Mike GMs it that way".

I don't know if the same is true of 5E. Sure, Adventures in Middle Earth has some differences from standard 5E D&D, and we can pinpoint why. But what about folks' home games? What actual rules systems do people add to make the game so different in their actual games?

We often get a lot of mentions of the suggestions in the DMG... oh add hero points or gritty healing and so on. Maybe those are significant. But no one's offering specific rules structures like "Here are the things I did to make 5E do this..." with actual examples rather than hypotheticals. I'd love to hear some.

Because without those structures in place that actually help shape the game and deliver a different experience than the standard... then it's back to gaming the GM.