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

[dave2008]

This thread reads like a massive, rude middle finger given to all non-D&D games and their designers. I don't need that sort of negative energy in my life or from the sort people who endorse these sorts of viewpoints.

Funny, I see it as the opposite. I see it as a middle finger to all those you like to modify their D&D games into different genres.

EDIT: We all see what we want to see.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That is a sound idea, but it is not a fact. Different people want and enjoy different things and experience and perceive things differently. Not to mention an "in-genre game" can simply be bad. Just because something is be-spoke or in-genre doesn't mean it is good.

Was 'some games are bad' really something that needed to be argued?

Or for that matter 'humans perceive things differently?

God, I hate the internet sometimes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This thread reads like a massive, rude middle finger given to all non-D&D games and their designers. I don't need that sort of negative energy in my life or from the sort people who endorse these sorts of viewpoints.

I give the OP benefit of the doubt, but it does have a whiff of 'my thing is superior'.

 

[dave2008]

Was 'some games are bad' really something that needed to be argued?

Or for that matter 'humans perceive things differently?

God, I hate the internet sometimes.

I don't know. I didn't think people would need to use absolutes, but you did.

PS - I agree with that last part

 

[Laurefindel]

Slow, boring, overcomplicated, clumsy, tactically limited, failed to accommodate more than two vessels, movement speeds that didn't work, didn't work on a grid, didn't make adequate use of character abilities, became a complete mess when spellcasters are casting spells at each other at the same time as ship combat is happening, had no system for resolving boarding apart from "try and play ground combat simultaneously" (which needs about three separate tables).

Once you have played a game that does it well, you can't ever go back.

It always comes back to what you want to play,

If what our group wants is a D&D game with a strong naval combat theme, then it might still be better to import the naval combat rules from another game and adapt them to D&D.

If all we want is a RPG with lots of naval combat, then we'll find the best game that does that.

But if my Eberron game focuses on airships swashbuckling, I can adapt some Star Trek ship combat rules to D&D, or play 7th Sea and adapt the setting to Eberron, or import spellcasting rules into the Star Trek ruleset. In one way or another I'll have to adapt something.

But I'm surely not gonna throw my hands in the air saying "sorry folks, this can't be done!" because neither D&D, 7th sea, or Star Trek have can make an exciting Eberron airship swashbuckling game without adaptation.

The mistake, I believe, is to plan a version of D&D that can do it all. But sometimes a few adaptations just enhance the experience, if only for a portion of the game. The next few games gonna feature a heist? Import flashbacks from BitD for those games until the heist is done.

 

[dave2008]

Then you are basically playing two separate games. One for in space, the other on the ground. The Star Trek space combat rules would take nothing for from the D&D ground combat rules, and the ground combat rules would take nothing from the Star Trek rules (which use action points and include the Kirk roll). Given that a hit from a phaser either stuns or disintegrates it's target, you wouldn't get any millage out of hit points either.

Paul, do you recommend a particular version of FASA Trek and where do I find the ship rules. I am trying to get a copy, but there are lot of options and I am not sure where to start or where the ship rules are. Any advice is welcome!

PS Despite the internet venom (the weakest kind) on this thread, I am happy to have possibly found two potential sources for spaceship battles:

1. FASA Trek
2. Stars Without Numbers (thanks @Fanaelialae!)

I will be checking out both of these - thanks!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Overcomplicated (yet also tactically limited)?? Failed to accommodate more than 2 vessels?? movement speeds that didn't work on a grid?? Uhm... have you read or used the rules from Saltmarsh??

Yes, obviously, several times. Otherwise I wouldn't know how bad they were, would I?

Examples:

Overcomplicated: Hit points for every ship component (typically working/damage/destroyed is sufficient).
Tactically limited: No manoeuvres, no shields, no power distribution.
Multiple vessels: In one memorable battle I and my trusty crew, Flying the USS Farragut, defeated a fleet of eight Orion pirate vessels. You tried a nine vessel battle using the saltmarsh rules?
Grid: You need several grids for the GoS rules, one scaled to miniatures and one scaled to the ships, because wizards stand on the deck and fling fireballs at each other.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think @doctorbadwolf 's point is that you don't have to fold, spindle, or maul D&D 5e to a concept into it, and I agree with him. To the extent of my experience at least.

It's a terrible point as a general point, and you're more than smart enough to know that @dave2008. D&D can adapt some things extremely easily, but it's virtually impossible to adapt other things. So generalizing that you don't have to fold/spindle/mutilate is pointless and untrue.

Your examples show that what you're actually doing though, is folding/spindling and mutilating stuff to jam it into D&D. You're basically just playing D&D with different "skins" and calling it other things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Slow, boring, overcomplicated, clumsy, tactically limited, failed to accommodate more than two vessels, movement speeds that didn't work, didn't work on a grid, didn't make adequate use of character abilities, became a complete mess when spellcasters are casting spells at each other at the same time as ship combat is happening, had no system for resolving boarding apart from "try and play ground combat simultaneously" (which needs about three separate tables).

Once you have played a game that does it well, you can't ever go back.

Either you or I used the ship combat rules incorrectly, because this is so far from my experience it reads like a critique of an entirely different system.

But for space combat, I did modify the system a bit. The main change was simply to allow players to use their abilities via ship systems, like casting an attack spell through the ship guns (just reflavored mangonels), or letting the Eldritch knight who was at the Helm cast shield on the ship.

The other very easy addition I made was to make interceptor-sized craft magical light armor with a fly speed and built in rechargeable temp-hp and a built in magic weapon (reflavored ranger weapons w/o the heavy property). Slightly larger fighter craft (think x-wings and the like) were heavy armor with ranged weapons with the heavy property and DR in addition to the temp-hp effect. They could describe their craft however they wanted, and it took up space on the ship appropriately, but it was just armor and weapons.

Sadly we haven’t had an artificer yet.

We have considered some more changes to make the game...not deadlier, this is a Space Opera Fantasy game, not a hard sci-fi game, but to make it so you’re more likely to be taken out of a fight by a lucky shot. The current idea is to add a die of force damage to all advanced weapons, and say that “death” mechanically is only death in the fiction if it makes a good moment/story. Otherwise it’s just being taken out of the fight, and needing an extended rest to recover.

Extended rests come from playing The One Ring and enjoying its dynamic for resting. It restores all HP and HD and abilities recharge, and if done in a place with “civilized” tech/magic, can erase lingering injuries, though that can leave you with advanced prosthetics. Long rests restore half your max HP and half your total HD, and include a short rest (ie you can spend HD to get to full health.

"You'd be better off playing a game that is made for that" rings annoyingly hollow to me.

"You'd be better playing game X because it does the Y element you want to implement by doing Z but can still be played in a D&D mindset" is already much better IMO, but rarely proposed that way.

As it was said, system matters. A good system represent the specificity of the genre/source material without swamping the players in convulsed rules and special cases. And yet, for a D&D game that deviates a bit from the standard game style, the D&D ruleset sometimes remains the best system, and can be built upon. Other game systems are still super useful if only as inspiration; I have a dozen games at home and although I only use the same two or three, they all been invaluable for mining ideas.

Exactly. If you’re doing fantasy adventure, D&D is great. Fantasy adventure is very, very, broad, including everything from Lord of The Rings to Star Wars to David the Gnome and more.

I usually define/describe D&D as doing heroic fantasy adventure.

Heroic: the characters are action-movie heroes. They do amazing things, are expected to win, and are tougher than normal folk. The whole concept of hit points leans into this and supports it - which is why this is the hardest thing to get away from. It's why D&D doesn't work well for modern- or pulp horror. PCs are too cool for that. (It works for Hemmer-style horror, though.)

Fantasy: Out of the box, D&D does D&D fantasy, which is it's own subgenre based on an Intellectual Property. But it's neither hard nor complicated to add or remove content (monsters, items, classes, etc) to change the type of fantasy, and with enough work you can push it to a lot of different places, including most of Sci Fi. So long as it stays heroic, and you're willing to do the work, you'll be fine.

Adventure: the macro game loop of D&D is the adventure: go somewhere dangerous (the dungeon/hexcrawl/etc), have a series of encounters, get rewards if you succeed. You use those rewards to get better at overcoming challenges, which means you can go on more difficult adventures, which have bigger rewards. Cycle again. If you get away form this, the rules stop helping you. They don't actually interfere with not-adventure play, but they aren't on your side anymore.

For example: Star Wars is a great setting for D&D, and D&D serves that setting well.

Now, this is where I agree with @doctorbadwolf : The types of encounters possible with a little bit of work are just as broad as the fantasy genre. You can do fights, heists, negotiations, chases, pod races, sinking ship escapes, interrogations, traps, puzzles, and more. You don't need a bespoke system for any kind of encounter. D&D can handle them, if you're willing to make and/or find some good houserules (which isn't that hard). A more bespoke system might be a great place to mine ideas, but you shouldn't switch systems for an encounter. You switch systems for a different overall play experience.

Great post. Thank you. I think one of the things people get stuck on is the idea of balancing an adventuring day, but IME you don’t actually need to, for the most part. The Warlock is the only short rest character that I’ve ever seen be frustrated by shorter adventuring days, which is why I proposed add a spell slot at level 5 a while back. I’m now considering a sort of “arcane recovery” instead (regain 1 spell slot as part of a 1 minute ritual, 1/day), combined with making all the “cast this spell 1/day” invocations instead “you learn this spell, and can cast it without a spell slot once per day”.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, obviously, several times. Otherwise I wouldn't know how bad they were, would I?

Examples:

Overcomplicated: Hit points for every ship component (typically working/damage/destroyed is sufficient).
Tactically limited: No manoeuvres, no shields, no power distribution.
Multiple vessels: In one memorable battle I and my trusty crew, Flying the USS Farragut, defeated a fleet of eight Orion pirate vessels. You tried a nine vessel battle using the saltmarsh rules?
Grid: You need several grids for the GoS rules, one scaled to miniatures and one scaled to the ships, because wizards stand on the deck and fling fireballs at each other.

I hate to point out the obvious (but you did ignore my request for FASA Trek help ) so....you do realize you comparing sea-going naval rules to space ship rules? I would be interested in how the FASA Trek rules could handle wizards through fire balls at each other on wooden sea-going ships just 100 feet or less apart. That is one reason I asked for some help.