D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Referring to the game as “unplayable” certainly implies value judgement and speaking repeatedly to what the game is supposedly “missing” or “lacking” is always going to come across that way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

You did those with the actual Blades In The Dark rulebook, or with various forged in the dark games, some of your own devising?

 

[Imaro]

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.

Honestly I think a big part of it is the interaction that combat has, which in turn makes combat a much more dynamic affair... For example... 4e SC's had detailed rules but for many it just didn't hit the mark... I believe that's because it's mechanically static but takes up an inordinate amount of time and attention. The DM pre-sets DC's, pre-sets the main skills, establishes the success and failure conditions, etc. all before the PC 's interact with it and then from there the DM is basically an observer with little if anything to do at a mechanics level... and the strategy boils down to try and roll with the biggest bonus. In contrast D&D combat is a back and forth where the players and DM are constantly making choices in anticipation and reaction to the actions of each other and the changing dynamic of the battle.

 

[Manbearcat]

You did those with the actual Blades In The Dark rulebook, or with various forged in the dark games, some of your own devising?

All Blades. The True Detective/Untouchables game used some stuff from Harper et al's Flame Without Shadow expansion (which has you playing Inspectors - in this game it was Inspector PCs w/ a band of Blue Coats - cohorts - investigating cults and disappearances of young children blessed with Ghost Field sensitivity). But honestly, you don't even really need that expansion stuff. You can just pick the appropriate gang archetype/stuff and reskin Heat/Wanted Level et al. Same goes for a Vigilantes game where your Vices are Obligation (to something worthy like the besieged underclass of Coalridge or Charhollow or the slums of Dunslough or the swelling orphaned due to muders on the street/working conditions).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Referring to the game as “unplayable” certainly implies value judgement and speaking repeatedly to what the game is supposedly “missing” or “lacking” is always going to come across that way.

Right, but as I said in regard to the labels “complete” and “incomplete”… stop worrying about the label and consider the point behind it.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I think play outside of dungeon/site-based crawls has been a part of D&D since it expanded beyond the red box plain and simple. BECMI/RC has an optional skill system (most of which has little to do with dungeon delving), a domain management system, wilderness traversal rules, rules for becoming an immortal, naval rules and so on... this was all in one edition not over various ones.

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.

This statement strikes me as weird... either you take people at face value and accept they are able to do what they say or you're claiming they are lying and what they are claiming they are doing in their games isn't possible. You then go on to claim structures can really bring tone and theme and specific elements which I don't think anyone is denying... the question is whether you need that type of focus in a game where you are regularly doing a multitude of things. As an example...

I'm sure there are sailing simulators that one could play that are much more structured, realistic and stronger in theme and tone than the sailing portion of the Assasin's Creed Odyssey game... but I personally wouldn't play any of them and I would have hated AC Odyssey if it had tried to go into that much mechanical depth, detail and structure for it. However as a side mini-game it was simple enough, enjoyable enough and had just the right amount of mechanics to keep me engaged with it for the time I used it but not loose my interest in the game overall.

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.

What exactly do you believe is being offloaded to the DM (creation of structure, creation of mechanics, something else) ? I can't really engage with this until I understand what you mean...

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?

Why does this matter as long as their tables are enjoying what they bring?

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.

Wait so you wing it and don't explain to your players what the basis you're using to wing it is? I'm confused about this and am trying to picture a situation where I don't inform my players about the mechanical ramification for choices in a situation... could you give some example? Unless you're winging it has no logic in it's basis I'm wondering how you can't provide them information that helps them make informed choices...

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.

I don't put much stock in the distinction... IMO nearly all ttrpg's have some component of "playing the GM"... doesn't mean the players have to make choices without being informed about choices, chances, consequences, difficulty, etc..

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?

You're comparing different published games to homebrews of the same game... I guess my counter would be what new mechanics are those playing BitD in their home adding to make their games different... My money would be that D&D groups are adding and moding alot more than BitD groups. I mean can you have it both ways? on the one hand it's argued the lack of structure in 5e means you don't know what the experience will be when you sit down to play it but there's also a question of whether actual changes and modification is taking place to the point where games are being differentiated... well which one is it.

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.

What I see is suggestions offered (both homebrew and 3rd party) followed by endless harping about them not being official...

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.

Eh again I'll wait for your clarification before I address this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

See, previously most of these discussions have seemed to involve most people on the “D&D isnt anything special” side claiming that D&D (or 5e specifically) isn’t as broad in what it can do as some other system because it “doesn’t support” anything but combat or whatever.

But, I would be surprised if you didn’t use the procedures of BiTD in all of those campaigns of BiTD, right? Which would mean that you’re still playing criminals of some sort in a dark and grim town, with factions to worry about, dangerous magic, and every scene more likely to further entangle and complicate the PCs lives than not, with a play structure of doing “jobs” with a basic structure.

Because those elements are part of the game’s actual rules, not just genre assumptions and gameplay norms.

Going more mystical is cool (seriously BiTD’s magic is thematically and mechanically very cool), but if you want to use BiTD to play a game where you defend a small town from bandits, and have to build fortifications, train townsfolk, root out rats, formulate a plan and keep it from the bandits’, and then finally actually fight for the town, you are going to need different mechanics in a FitD framework compared to a group of knights riding the frontier to protect and inspire the faithful and seek out answers to a mysterious darkness that seems to rising in secret, complete with being empowered and expected to sit in judgement of local disputes.

I can and have run both in 5e, with maybe a page of houserules including the stuff I use for every campaign. The weakness of 5e is that it lacks good advice for DMs on a lot of stuff, and you can’t get as focused on an experience without heavy DM workload and/or use of 3rd party/homebrew mechanics specific to an adventure or campaign, as you can with “tighter” games that do proceduralize the flow of gameplay to produce a specific kind of game loop.

Point being, Blades in The Dark is pretty focused. It’s a fantasy capers game. Forged in the Dark as a game system ecosystem is very broad, with mostly a type of play procedure in common and some norms and expectations that are shared enough to recognize a fitd game if you know other fitd games.

5e without gutting the PC options and replacing them is similar to BiTD but IMO noticeably more broad without making it a new game. 5e as a game framework (so including 3pp games based on 5e, is more like FiTD as a game system framework.

Tangent:
I’m currently doing prep for a “The Most European Fantasy Fantasy” game inspired by Celtic folklore, Arthurian myth including the chivalric stuff and the earlier stuff, Blue Rose, the works of Guy Gavriel Kay, and a lifetime of loving medieval and pre-Roman and pre-Christian European history and myth.

I may go further than I normally do in changing 5e for this one, like replacing the Spellcasting classes with 3pp options that are less wizzbang, and expanding Inspiration to give players more narrative control. Where the line is where it becomes a new game is something I’m considering a lot right now, because about half my gaming group does not want to learn another new system on top of D&D and my own game. No one balked at flashback mechanics or a “heat die” mechanic to measure and manage devise stress, but if I change how initiative works, now they’re keeping a third initiative system straight in their heads.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Right, but as I said in regard to the labels “complete” and “incomplete”… stop worrying about the label and consider the point behind it.

The things people actually say is pretty important.

If a person describes a thing using terms with strongly negative common connotations, they’re making value judgement statements, regardless of intent. Saying that they made no such statements isn’t helpful, because it comes across like gaslighting. Yes, they did, they just did so as a result of using the wrong wording to match their intent.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Dimension 20 is waaaay more madcap in feel. The CR crew can get zany, but Matt generally keeps the world grounded. In D20, for example, they're just straight up in a fantasy suburb where absrud mashup berween D&D and modern life is everywhere.

It's beef nachos vs chicken nachos: Both delicious, but sometimes you're vibing for one more than the other.

I think the degree to which the DMs stick to the rules, and how much they let the players author the fiction directly are more different than D&D 4e is from D&D 5e, for instance.

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.

All Blades. The True Detective/Untouchables game used some stuff from Harper et al's Flame Without Shadow expansion (which has you playing Inspectors - in this game it was Inspector PCs w/ a band of Blue Coats - cohorts - investigating cults and disappearances of young children blessed with Ghost Field sensitivity). But honestly, you don't even really need that expansion stuff. You can just pick the appropriate gang archetype/stuff and reskin Heat/Wanted Level et al. Same goes for a Vigilantes game where your Vices are Obligation (to something worthy like the besieged underclass of Coalridge or Charhollow or the slums of Dunslough or the swelling orphaned due to muders on the street/working conditions).

 

[hawkeyefan]

The things people actually say is pretty important.

If a person describes a thing using terms with strongly negative common connotations, they’re making value judgement statements, regardless of intent. Saying that they made no such statements isn’t helpful, because it comes across like gaslighting. Yes, they did, they just did so as a result of using the wrong wording to match their intent.

No, @gorice made thoughtful posts and explained his position and has elaborated a few times. Seizing on one or two words as if they encapsulate all that he said does him a disservice, and leaves his points unaddressed in favor of repeating your preference.