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

[doctorbadwolf]

Right. You ONLY want to play D&D.

I’ve explicitly said otherwise about a dozen times, and talked about playing and enjoying other specific games.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are still spells which check a creature's alignment. Or block creatures of specific alignments from entering into locations.

No, there aren’t.

 

[dave2008]

I’ve explicitly said otherwise about a dozen times, and talked about playing and enjoying other specific games.

It is very odd how it seams people don't read your posts and makes claims that you said something you didn't.

 

[dave2008]

There are still spells which check a creature's alignment. Or block creatures of specific alignments from entering into locations.

You would think that from the name of some spells, but I think the exponged that language. For example:

Notice the spell mechanics don't say anything about alignment, just monster type.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I literally posted about a group wanting to play a game like the film “Aliens” meaning the second film in the series. DBW then posted a response how he could craft a suitable scenario for the first movie.

Okay. I’m not sure what the point is? You have worded this like it’s a big deal or something. Context isn’t telling me why.

It is very odd how it seams people don't read your posts and makes claims that you said something you didn't.

It’s a product of them having similar arguments with other people and expecting certain rhetorical tricks that I’m not employing, most likely.

That, and long thread is long, and most of us are writing damn novels every post, so they may have missed it.

And a lot of people have trouble, when soemthing can be taken the way they suspect, seeing and recognizing the possibility that they’re misreading the statement. But yeah, when possible implication is in conflict with explicit statements, refusing to entertain the notion that the explicit statement is the true one is...odd.

 

[Steampunkette]

But there aren’t actually any rules that enforce what you’re talking about, outside of like...a couple magic items? Maybe a monster ability or two? It’s vestigial, at best.

I’m not willing to accept what seems to be your definition of weak. To be weak it would have to attempt to do soemthing and then fail at it. You could make that claim about travel rules specifically, but not the social pillar. The goal of the design of that part of the game isn’t what you want. That isn’t weak, it’s just not your preference.

1) The fact that they're moving away from it doesn't mean it is now somehow divested of it's ability of providing that morality play.

2) It's barely -there- is the point. Not whether it does what I -want- it to or not.

You're the one who made a thread comparing D&D to "Bespoke Genre TTRPGs". Many of them have a more robust Exploration or Social Pillar than D&D does. If you're going to argue that they don't have them because you don't -like- their particular systems or prefer D&D's then we're not going to get anywhere. That's like arguing Rocky Road doesn't -exist- because you prefer chocolate ice cream, my dude.

You would think that from the name of some spells, but I think the exponged that language. For example:
View attachment 136658

Notice the spell mechanics don't say anything about alignment, just monster type.

Notice it specifically calls itself "Detect Evil and Good" this implies that those monster types are, inherently, evil or good.

Your mileage may vary on how useful that information is or isn't.

I also like how it can tell you if something has been consecrated (Good) or desecrated (Evil). Even though that's -really- not what Desecrated means!

Though, again, for all the stuff WotC is trying to pull out of it, it remains really good at the Morality Play. I'm so confused as to why you all are arguing that it's no longer good at this thing because these functions are being stripped away... It's a -good- thing to be good at something. And D&D is good at the high fantasy morality play.

Like... I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of, here. I get that they're making moral judgements less core to the identity of the product going forward. It's still REALLY GOOD at presenting it.

 

[MGibster]

But if the question is "I have a DnD game which is going to have X in it, any suggestions on how to do it?" then responding that they should play a completely different system is a little rude. You've ignored the question and told them to go and play something totally different from what they want to play.

I completely agree here. If I'm running D&D and I want to have an adventure revolving around a mystery then it doesn't help for someone to suggest switching to Gumshoe. I don't know if I've seen anyone make such a suggestion though but if they did it'd be silly.

I’m still flummoxed by people saying D&D cant do horror.

Of course it can do horror. I don't think it does horror particularly well but Ravenloft is one of my favorite settings and I have fun with it. But according to the blurb on the back of the 5th edition PHD, D&D is a game where you battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures and all the while you "gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions." That doesn't sound like a horror game to me.

In theory there are all sorts of horrifying creatures in D&D. Illithids for example. But most players don't come to D&D with the same mindset they do when approaching Alien or Call of Cthulhu. A Mind Flayer really isn't any scarier than a vampire, a roper, or a flesh golem. D&D is a heroic game where characters engage in heroic actions.

Wait... what? Dim light is only disadvantage on perception checks based on sight. And, since this is D&D, your warlock can see in all light, half the PC's have darkvision, making all dim light bright and only that poor human PC has any disadvantage. Never minding that your PC's just teleport/use some sort of magic to skip out of the place.

I pretty much stopped bothering with lighting effects in D&D given that most of my party members always have dark vision. It just isn't worth the additional headache of keeping track.

 

[Krachek]

encouraging players creativity while trying to keep everything in balance is a dead end.
Choose one of both and play it.

 

[Steampunkette]

FYI, the only supplement that really details Deities (Theros) in 5e does not give the gods an alignment. It does provide "suggested" alignments for their followers (or champions, I forget). Also, we know new PCs races (an possible some / most monsters) will not have a fixed alignment in future supplements. So 5e continues to move away from alignment.

Oh, hey. Look. The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. I wonder if the Faerunian Deities have any kind of alignments...


Well gosh, would you look at that...

Page 21 of Wildemount.


Page 34 of Theros.


They all have this same sort of table.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

1) The fact that they're moving away from it doesn't mean it is now somehow divested of it's ability of providing that morality play.

I didn’t say it did, I said it’s completely optional.

2) It's barely -there- is the point. Not whether it does what I -want- it to or not.

You're the one who made a thread comparing D&D to "Bespoke Genre TTRPGs". Many of them have a more robust Exploration or Social Pillar than D&D does. If you're going to argue that they don't have them because you don't -like- their particular systems or prefer D&D's then we're not going to get anywhere. That's like arguing Rocky Road doesn't -exist- because you prefer chocolate ice cream, my dude.

So, from my perspective, you’ve exactly reversed what is happening, here.

It’s supposed to “barely be there”. That’s the point. It isn’t weak if it’s doing what it was built to do, which is provide only the rules needed to resolve actions/tasks, and otherwise get out of the way. Because the preference of enough playtest players was exactly that, we wanted very concrete combat rules because balance matters more in combat, and very loose rules with as much room as possible for interpretation for social scenes.