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

[loverdrive]

I was using first person for convenience, the "I" in my post was a stand-in for anyone who enjoys a particular game. This concept extends beyond games, it is basic psychology. If we have something we like, we fear losing it, even with the possibility of greater rewards. Are you familiar with the marshmallow test?

But where is a risk of losing it?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I find it odd that you find this odd.

Many games out there share the same basic DNA as D&D, and it's not hard to pick a subsystem from one game and port it over to another, with some tweaking. How much tweaking? Depends on how far apart the games are in overall design, the preferences of the GM, and the tolerance of the play group for experimental mechanics not always running smoothly.

And even with games that are fairly different in rules structure, say D&D and the World of Darkness Storyteller games, it's not that hard really to graft subsystems from one game to another.

Is D&D always the perfect or best tool for any role-playing need? No, of course not. Is D&D the most hackable game out there, for those who like to tinker? Probably not. But is D&D easily hacked to shift the play style, tone, or theme of the game session? Hell yes, folks have been doing so since '74. Practically the entire OSR genre is essentially hacked D&D, plus plenty of other games too.

So why play a hacked D&D rather than another game? The only important reason is . . . because that's what I want to do! D&D is a system that most gamers have a high degree of comfort and familiarity with. One of the biggest complaints I hear from folks who like to play other games is that getting their friend groups to play anything other than D&D can be incredibly hard. These same groups are often up for the next game to be D&D again, but hacked in some way.

I find it odd that several posters here are seemingly just offended that some of us have successfully hacked D&D for various reasons, and enjoyed the experience!

Play what you want to play, any of the many wonderful not-D&D games out there, straight-up D&D, or hacked D&D. It's all good as long as you and your friends are having fun.

When someone asks the community for advice on something specific, like hacking traditional D&D to give it a different feel or whatever . . . don't respond by saying, "No, don't do that. Just play Game X." I wouldn't consider it rude as the OP does, but certainly tone deaf, off-base, and not very helpful.

This,.

It's odd because it seems to favor the system that needs to be changed and altered over the one that does not.

No such thing. No game does everything. Even GURPS has assumptions and baked in play style elements.

You go on to say "it may be worth it..." to play another game with a more suitable focus. But there's doubt there, isn't there? Which seems odd.

Why? There is more effort in learning a new system than in learning a couple new rules. Thus, it is reasonable to prefer a couple new rules over a new system. Since we like the gameplay we get from dnd 5e (which is very much not traditional and never involves dungeons or murderous treasure hunting), we check first to see if we can do a thing in 5e. If someone wants to run a game where we are a gang of thieves that have no business getting in real fights, we probably would play Blades. If being more vulnerable isn't part of the concept, we'd discuss the options for doing it in 5e, first.

If 5e was less easy to modify, we probably wouldn't be playing it as our primary game.

So to reiterate a question I posed to someone else....

What is the advantage of a "bespoke" system in your opinion? You say you're not claiming that D&D is always better.....okay, so when is it not?

When I want a very specific story, and it's not something the system I'm already using is built for or can be easily tweaked for. Also, when I want to play proper sci-fi, though there are really good sci-fi 5e supplements out there now as well.
If they game I'm currently playing was more codified and restrictive, I'd switch games more often, and probably switch wholesale to a pbta based game built from the ground up to support my group's preferred playstyle and goals.

Because no one is actually saying you should turn your D&D game into Aliens as if that's a reasonable suggestion. If anyone does suggest that, they should be beaten about the face chest neck breast and head. That's a non-issue.

So what we're doing, is saying why another system might be better at delivering an experience of a specific type when compared to D&D.

I think if you were to say "which game, 5e or 4e, was easier to simply take a subsystem from some entirely different game and graft it on with minimal/no change" then I might agree that doing that with 5e is 'more natural'. You COULD do it with 4e, but it would be weird as heck, given that 4e really violently eschewed subsystems (I remember reading the chaos sorcerer mechanics and seeing an actual subsystem and being shocked). You are just less likely to NEED to do that with 4e, and the motive would presumably be "I just really like this subsystem, it is the snizzle for this!" in which case weird might not matter to you. But it would definitely seem like 5e is more 'welcoming' of that, and it might clash less with its simplified DC processes and such.

Absolutely. I also just prefer less prescribed resolution of non-combat tasks. As I said somewhere upthread, combat is the only part of gaming that I really enjoy when it is heavily codified and full of lots of distinct moving parts. Even then, I've found my players improvise a lot more readily when playing martial characters in 5e than they did playing anything in 4e. Which is a bummer because 4e improvised actions could have been really awesome if they were more player-facing and well known.

I still want to mash 4e and 5e together sometime, that might be my ideal game.

Yeah 5e with 4e skill descriptions and inspiration from 4e skill challenges, is a really nice sweet spot, for me. I do wish I had the time to build a framework for 4e style monster building as well, in 5e. Maybe when I'm done with my class build projects.

Absolutely. Practical and much more fun. Having multiple of the same playbooks isn’t as cool/fun in play. All of my Crews I’ve run games for are 2 to 3 PC with multiple Cohorts (gang members and experts).

It basically has many of the archetypes you’d expect from D&D:

Fighter
Ranger
Wizard/Articer/Tinkerer hybrid
Rogue (physical)
Rogue (face)
Rogue (mastermind)
Warlock

At 1st level you get stuff that makes your base shtick work. Then you get more stuff to round out your PC (think of t like 5e Subclass but it’s a bigger chunk of your build budget).

Then your Crew gives you a bunch of cool stuff to lean on/into.

I'll have to ttry it with a less...eccentric GM, sometime. I'm really intrigued by the Blades/Dungeon World hack being built in another thread, as well.
I mean, I'm not as married to dnd as some folks assume. I am building a very different game myself, after all.

I have found some design similarities between my game and some pbta games I've played or watched played, as well, which intrigues me but also worries me that I'll end up with a game that would have been doing something new ten years ago, but is old hat by the time it's finished.

 

[dave2008]

But where is a risk of losing it?

If I have a limited amount of time to game / fun and I a play a a game that is not fun, I've lost that precious time. Time I could have spent having fun. That is the risk. Again, I am not talking about myself, just basic human psychology.

 

[dave2008]

I do wish I had the time to build a framework for 4e style monster building as well, in 5e. Maybe when I'm done with my class build projects.

Someone has already done it. I will see if I can find it and post it here.

Found it:
Giffyglyph's Monster Maker: Build new monsters the 4e way - Reddit
GiffyGlyph's Monster Maker - PDF
GiffyGlyph's Monster Maker - Webtool

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I still want to mash 4e and 5e together sometime, that might be my ideal game.

You know, what I ACTUALLY PLAY is my own game, which started as a 'hack' of 4e, but nowadays really bears only a 'process resemblance' and some basic mechanical similarity (there are checks, there are ability scores, there is a d20). So, one might ask why might I not simply base that on 5e?

What does 5e actually offer? If I were to mash 4e with 5e, ALL I WOULD DO is replace 5e stuff with 4e stuff! I'd have defenses instead of saves. I'd have A/E/D/U powers instead of 5e mish mash class features plus neo-Vancian casting. I'd play on a grid with 4e style action economy. I'd use SCs. I'd use 4e's bonuses and skill set, etc. Where I didn't do that, I would not particularly want to adopt what 5e replaced it with. I mean, 4e and 5e are both recognizably 'd20' systems and share a lot of basic mechanical characteristics, but there's nothing special about the way 5e did anything, from my perspective.

I mean, I thought about this back when 5e launched and I was already hacking away on 4e and building and playing new stuff. I would have gladly adopted any improvements. I just literally did not find one. Where 5e doesn't actually undermine things 4e did that I like, it simply doesn't seem BETTER. TBH there is one thing that 5e is a lot better at than 4e, and that is emulating 2e! I mean, that's pretty much what 5e is, a cleaned up and modernized 2e.

So starting from 4e is a shorter path to the game I'm interested in playing, and since it wouldn't be that similar to 5e anyway, I don't see where I'd gain any 'points' in terms of, say, claiming to be building a 5e variant. I mean, I could, probably, licensewise, claim that, if I were to publish my stuff. I'd still stick with exactly what I have though.

 

[dave2008]

You know, what I ACTUALLY PLAY is my own game, which started as a 'hack' of 4e, but nowadays really bears only a 'process resemblance' and some basic mechanical similarity (there are checks, there are ability scores, there is a d20). So, one might ask why might I not simply base that on 5e?

What does 5e actually offer? If I were to mash 4e with 5e, ALL I WOULD DO is replace 5e stuff with 4e stuff! I'd have defenses instead of saves. I'd have A/E/D/U powers instead of 5e mish mash class features plus neo-Vancian casting. I'd play on a grid with 4e style action economy. I'd use SCs. I'd use 4e's bonuses and skill set, etc. Where I didn't do that, I would not particularly want to adopt what 5e replaced it with. I mean, 4e and 5e are both recognizably 'd20' systems and share a lot of basic mechanical characteristics, but there's nothing special about the way 5e did anything, from my perspective.

I mean, I thought about this back when 5e launched and I was already hacking away on 4e and building and playing new stuff. I would have gladly adopted any improvements. I just literally did not find one. Where 5e doesn't actually undermine things 4e did that I like, it simply doesn't seem BETTER. TBH there is one thing that 5e is a lot better at than 4e, and that is emulating 2e! I mean, that's pretty much what 5e is, a cleaned up and modernized 2e.

So starting from 4e is a shorter path to the game I'm interested in playing, and since it wouldn't be that similar to 5e anyway, I don't see where I'd gain any 'points' in terms of, say, claiming to be building a 5e variant. I mean, I could, probably, licensewise, claim that, if I were to publish my stuff. I'd still stick with exactly what I have though.

We ported most of our 4e house rules to 5e (changes to HP/BHP, Armor & DR, and Heroic Surges instead of healing surges). What I miss some is the AEDU structure, but I like that 5e (and 4e essentials) has variety. I used to miss 4e monster design, but not anymore. In 5e I prefer BA and advantage to the base 4e math.

For my ideal system I am not sure which would be the better base. 4e powers make me lean that way a bit, but I prefer the larger feats of 5e. IDK, right now we are really enjoying our 5e, not sure if I want to take the time and effort to add things back in from 4e.

Honestly, I would probably mix in some ideas from PF2e too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was using first person for convenience, the "I" in my post was a stand-in for anyone who enjoys a particular game. This concept extends beyond games, it is basic psychology. If we have something we like, we fear losing it, even with the possibility of greater rewards. Are you familiar with the marshmallow test?

The test on children that about delayed gratification? I can't see how that would either reflect positively on your position or how it actually relates to preference of options. Strange argument.

As for your point, I guess saying you really like chicken tenders and so won't try anything else is a thing to say. I don't really have a problem if someone doesn't ever want to try other games -- that's no skin off my back. What I find weird is when the person that refuses to even try other games then seems to feel their opinions about things they've never tried should be given the same weight on the topic as someone who has. The promotion of ignorance as virtue is super odd.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We ported most of our 4e house rules to 5e (changes to HP/BHP, Armor & DR, and Heroic Surges instead of healing surges). What I miss some is the AEDU structure, but I like that 5e (and 4e essentials) has variety. I used to miss 4e monster design, but not anymore. In 5e I prefer BA and advantage to the base 4e math.

For my ideal system I am not sure which would be the better base. 4e powers make me lean that way a bit, but I prefer the larger feats of 5e. IDK, right now we are really enjoying our 5e, not sure if I want to take the time and effort to add things back in from 4e.

Honestly, I would probably mix in some ideas from PF2e too.

Well, I may be being overly critical of 5e, or seeming so, in that there are things about 5e that I LIKE. For instance, I think 4e has too many powers/feats/features in it that are just hair-splittingly small variations of each other. It also has a design of classes which pushes you to constant 'gardening' where you always have to be working out what next thing you need to add in order to either maintain your cutting-edge focus on what your character does, or add that next bit that will take it where you want it to go. 5e has a LOT less of that. Granted, you kind of do this level 3 dance where you really aren't actually able to pick all your main picks right away, which I am not fond of, but once you do 3rd level, you ARE pretty set.

I mean, my Battlemaster. So, I had to pick a few things at level one, obviously, like TWF style, and then at level 3 Battlemaster, and pick my initial combat tricks, and whatever. Still, a bit fewer choices than 4e. Since then though, not much. I mean, sure, I look at feats now and then and think, "well, I could take that" and then just pick the obvious ASI. I don't NEED any of them to make my character a dual wielding dodging punish you if you come at me, punish you if you avoid me giant pain in the bad guy's butt. I'll probably go back and take a feat or two at some point, and I do get a new Battlemaster option every so often, but heck, I pretty much use Distracting Strike ALL THE TIME anyway, lol (maybe Riposte now and then).

So, it isn't that I have not taken note of certain things about 5e and internalized those lessons in HoML, I have. It is just that my game is not ever going to be close enough to 5e that I'd use actual 5e stuff in it, verbatim (or 4e stuff actually anymore). So, it wouldn't gain me much to have 5e, theoretically, as a 'base'. I could. I'd just graft a lot of 4e stuff on. In fact I'm thinking about, in HoML2, really redesigning the whole concept of 'defenses'. I had taken them directly off 4e, and that worked, but I think there are even more interesting possibilities that go beyond where either 4e or 5e are now.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was using first person for convenience, the "I" in my post was a stand-in for anyone who enjoys a particular game. This concept extends beyond games, it is basic psychology. If we have something we like, we fear losing it, even with the possibility of greater rewards. Are you familiar with the marshmallow test?

I gotcha. And again, I think it’s fine if all anyone wants to do is play D&D. I would recommend otherwise if asked, but I also play D&D myself and if asked a specific question about how to do something in D&D, I can tailor my advice so that I’m not saying “you should just play game X”.

But if someone isn’t asking that and is instead asking something like “what’s a good sci-fi game” my recommendation isn’t going to be “take 5E and hack it until it works”....I’m going to recommend some sci-fi games.

When I want a very specific story, and it's not something the system I'm already using is built for or can be easily tweaked for. Also, when I want to play proper sci-fi, though there are really good sci-fi 5e supplements out there now as well.
If they game I'm currently playing was more codified and restrictive, I'd switch games more often, and probably switch wholesale to a pbta based game built from the ground up to support my group's preferred playstyle and goals.

So I bolded some of your quote because that qualifier you’ve added seems almost all encompassing given your comments about 5E in this thread.

When is 5E not capable of being tweaked for what you want?

 

[dave2008]

The test on children that about delayed gratification? I can't see how that would either reflect positively on your position or how it actually relates to preference of options. Strange argument.

The marshmallow test indicates even if one is promised at bigger reward, they will still often take the reward they know. I was not an explicit example of my point, but an obtuse one (not the best choice, but the only mildly relevant one I could come up with off the top of my head, I am an architect after all not a psychologist!). There are lost of more explicit studies the indicate humans, by nature are risk adverse - even to their detriment. That is my point, people may not try or want to try another system because they are risk adverse.

However, you are wondering about positive and negative positions you are seriously misunderstanding my point. There was no value judgment involved in my discussion.

As for your point, I guess saying you really like chicken tenders and so won't try anything else is a thing to say. I don't really have a problem if someone doesn't ever want to try other games -- that's no skin off my back. What I find weird is when the person that refuses to even try other games then seems to feel their opinions about things they've never tried should be given the same weight on the topic as someone who has. The promotion of ignorance as virtue is super odd.

That was not my point. My point was simply to explain there are deep rooted reasons, beyond rational thinking, that probably pay some part in a persons desire to stick to a game they know and love. This particular discussion has nothing the various opinions bantered about in the rest of the thread.