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

[hawkeyefan]

What do you like? I personally just don't like book keeping. I'd be fine with a system that the players keep track of, except I'd be afraid they would also forget! (CoC/BRP uses such a system, and PbtA games kind of work that way).

Yeah I like simpler methods that don’t require bookkeeping. I like the way PbtA and BitD have xp triggers. I like how BitD has 4 progression tracks so that the player has a lot of input on how the character progresses.

That kind of system is just more manageable and more engaging, I think, than just talling hundreds or thousands of XP and then splitting it up amongst the party and all that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The XP system in D&D stinks and I don’t like it.

Frankly, over time I concluded that almost all experience systems are pretty bad; AA correctly says they're there to incentivize things, but I've found that sort of social-engineering has too many downsides to have much love for it. If I use one at all these days it tends to be only for pace-of-advancement managing, and is based on the overall difficulty of a session rather than anything else (i.e. it acknowledge group effort in broad strokes, but they're going to get some no matter what they're doing).

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah I like simpler methods that don’t require bookkeeping. I like the way PbtA and BitD have xp triggers. I like how BitD has 4 progression tracks so that the player has a lot of input on how the character progresses.

That kind of system is just more manageable and more engaging, I think, than just talling hundreds or thousands of XP and then splitting it up amongst the party and all that.

Personaly I find working out xp for last session is (usually) quick enough that I can easily do it while the players are getting their beers and snacks together at the start of this session - if I haven't already done it during the week.

More often I'll let them pile up for a few sessions, do the calculations as a batch, then give 'em out also in a batch.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Personaly I find working out xp for last session is (usually) quick enough that I can easily do it while the players are getting their beers and snacks together at the start of this session - if I haven't already done it during the week.

More often I'll let them pile up for a few sessions, do the calculations as a batch, then give 'em out also in a batch.

I'm just lazy and don't like to keep track of stuff. lol.

 

[Fenris-77]

The XP system in D&D stinks and I don’t like it.

We use a milestone type system and have for many years, across editions. The reason we do this is because it’s easier and allows the GM to control the pacing of progression.

But there are other games that have experience systems that I actually like, and I’d prefer that to the D&D book keeping method. A concrete system helps give a sense of forward momentum and accomplishment.

The levelling system in Black Hack is going to be my standard in most fantasy games moving forward. XP can kiss my unmentionables.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Personaly I find working out xp for last session is (usually) quick enough that I can easily do it while the players are getting their beers and snacks together at the start of this session - if I haven't already done it during the week.

More often I'll let them pile up for a few sessions, do the calculations as a batch, then give 'em out also in a batch.

I mean if you enjoy it, more power to you. For me, that just sounds like one more thing the GM has to do.

I like when players are involved and when there are decisions to be made.

Edited to add (posted before I was done): The more involved the players are, the more a part of the game it seems. And I like when XP is an incentive for what you want to see in play.

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but in the case of 4e you then need to do a few extra things. You need to either not use XP, or you need to reinforce that it is given out for different reasons (maybe focus it all on quests for example). You then need to construct a way for the PCs to get their treasure parcels without fighting. Otherwise the players WILL engage in battle, they will simply alter their tactics to accommodate much stronger opposition (IE only fighting one battle per day no matter what, buying a lot of consumables, heavily optimizing their PCs, engaging in things like hit-and-run tactics that are not really normally incentivized by 4e). If they are really not going to fight, or not often, these are things that need to happen. This is more than just removing/altering XP, it touches the other incentives for combat.

4e is when I stopped using XP, we just leveled when it was appropriate. I think you are misunderstanding something. Just because I shifted the focus away from battle doesn't mean there was no battle. It just became important to do so on the PC's terms whenever possible. I run a low magic campaign so treasure parcels are not such a big deal. I just gave the players the appropriate bonuses to compensate for not having + magic items.

The other point that was made, that you are now only playing with about 10% of the games rules most of the time is also valid. Its definitely a way to play. It might however be said that your games are almost at a point where you could use a lot of other systems and hardly notice the difference.

I have seen this argument made a few times and I think it is frankly rubbish. I mean, fewer combats doesn't mean no combats. We are still using the full rules, it is just a different frequency.

 

[loverdrive]

Remember that Умер Мужик game I was talking about earlier? Turns out, it was translated to English, so you westerners can read it (and play it!) without me doing a naughty word job at explaining things.

There's a weird Russian game called Умер Мужик (literally A Man Has Died, but it's more of a meme, so I don't think it can be adequately translated). It's about toxic masculinity ruining men's lives.

One of the players plays as the Man, everyone else take on roles of various Destructive Tendencies, like Aggression (they won't hurt me if I hurt them first), Independence (I can't trust anyone but myself), Coldness (emotions make me vulnerable), etc.

The game happens is several phases, starting from childhood to teenage years to adulthood, and in each phase several important events happen (mostly bad, like being outcasted, or having family issues, or getting laid off, but not all — there's at least falling in love).

During each event, everyone states what they think the Man should do. So, maybe the Man fell in love and everything is good.... But Independence says "You know she is just using you, right? Don't give her any leverage, don't get attached. Or you will be hurt.", and Aggression latches on: "Yeah, and she's so cocky about using you too. Constantly bitching, and demanding stuff. Show her, who is the man here.", but the Man doesn't want any of it, he wants to enjoy the relationships while they last.

So they roll one d6 each, whoever rolls highest narrates what's gonna happen next and picks a Consequence (so, maybe the Man is now having troubles with sleep, or has anger management issues?).

The Man also has a Willpower resource to spend on rolling additional dice (thus, increasing his chances to get the things right), and fixing Consequences he've suffered.

The game ends if the Man survives through adulthood ("Congratulations, you're still alive. But at what cost?" — the game then asks) or suffers enough consequences and decides to end things, all the things.



Ok. Maybe this needs more explaining than what I can do from a phone with no spell checker, but I think this can be a GREAT engine for lovecraftian horror.

 

[Hussar]

The genre has a history of framing marginalized demographics as monstrous and stigmatizing mental illness. Be aware and avoid those tropes.

I was thinking about this thread and I wondered about this part. This is probably the most plausible reason why Madness is not treated at all in the book. Given WotC's dedication to addressing problematic elements in the genre, it would make perfect sense not to include a sanity score.

 

[Hussar]

So, is this a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation? If WotC doesn’t change the mechanics, will you conclude that the mechanics were clearly good and effective?

More, since they DO reference existing optional mechanics for other changes they have made in the past, not only not referencing the most applicable mechanics, but completely ignoring their existence speaks pretty loudly that these mechanics maybe aren't quite as good as they might be.

Of course, there is another plausible explanation which has been mentioned - the stigmatization of mental illness and the efforts by WOtC to avoid that. I can see that. So, no, my point is not quite the slam dunk I was hoping for.