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

[doctorbadwolf]

This can be helped if you have some kind of system to allow a certain number of auto-successes on necessary rolls. The plan should obviously work to create a situation where a minimal number of things are left to chance and thus rolls.

Success with consequences and failing forward (failure with opportunity, or mitigated failure) are rules in the DMG. Likewise, skill challenges and group checks also make skill tasks less binary.

Let me ask those who consider their heist/infiltration scenarios in DND to be successful. What percentage of these scenarios succeed.

I’ll define success as any attempt that does not result in the deaths of 50+% of the inhabitants of the heist location.

I haven’t ever had a heist, or other infiltration job that wasn’t intended to murder enough of the inhabitants to make the rest go to ground, end with more than a few deaths, at most.

For one, I’m not letting a guard sound the alarm when they have surprise, which has saved the PCs a few times.

For another, I do two things that help avoid that outcome, because it isn’t a fun outcome.
1) Group checks and use of the “don’t roll when it’s not in question” rule.
2) I run it more like a skill challenge than a step by step, dungeon crawl style, progression through the facility. A failed roll brings up a complication, and the players then have to figure out how that complication is dealt with, and roll for that.

Oh, I guess 3) The job has multiple goals and multiples paths to success in the main goal(s), so things going wrong in one area can be used to make opportunities elsewhere.

Also it helps that my players are willing to run and hide and play cat and mouse rather than stand and fight.

 

[tetrasodium]

My BitD experience is limited to a couple games so I'll stick to fate (which has a lot of similarities despite the differences)

Why?

I mean, there's three basic parts to a heist: the planning, the execution, and the getaway/consequences; and of those three the planning takes the longest both in-fiction and at the table.

Negating the planning phase by jumping straight to the execution phase seems to me to be defeating at least 1/3 of the point of running a heist scenario.

By which, you mean ... ?

It's not so much that panning is completely bypassed so much as the planning is somewhat quantum & negotiated between players & GM as it goes. That quantum goes both ways though as players introducing something allows the GM to introduce things as well. The really big difference is a compel type option available where the GM can target some aspect of the player's character or something the characters did/created to reshape the world in ways that would make d&d's just explode. Think of compels like the old "wait a minute aren't you a barbarian?... I don't think your smart enough to do that" type thing dialed so far past 11 that the dial is set on fire. That sounds bad, but there are always benefits for the player & they tend to be interesting in ways that when combined make players happy to accept rather than buying off the compel against them to ignore it through resource expenditure. Once a fact is established at the table that part is no longer in flux. Establishinga fact from something doesn't mean that other unknown or unconsidered things can't be made real when they become relevant & I'll give a partial example slanted a bit towards d&d or shadowrun type infiltrations.

Players break into an office building after hours to steal a macguffin, we don't care how or why for this but assume there is reason to the players & campaign. During the breakin players find out that the bbeg is there tonight gm tosses fate chip in the pot gm:"well obviously he would have the same idea as you guys given that tonight is the big company anniversary party & everyone is across town at the event"... This is reasonable & everyone agrees but players really have very little way of stopping a GM declaration but can try to negotiate some changes if it seems to clash with established aspects & things in play. After encountering the BBEG a fire starts & players are frantically trying to put it out so they can get the macguffin instead of having it burn to cinders. Things are not going well with the fire right off the bat for whatever reason so Bob tosses a fate chip in the pot to declare there was one of those mop buckets filled with water in the hall back there. Fire is handled & the bbeg uses n action to tag bob's mop bucket off camera so comes back with the janitor bob effectively wove into plausibly existing when the players think they are good with the macguffin. GM slides a fate point at Alice & says "doesn't that janitor look a lot like that one homeless guy your mother teresa character has been helping as part of [whatever character aspect]". Alice can spend one of her remaining fate points to accept the compel & put herself/the team behind the 8ball in the hostage situation to gain herself a fate point that can make a huge difference. Alternately alice can spend one of her remaining fate points to refuse it & give up possibly using it later to make a bigger difference when it matters most.

Let me ask those who consider their heist/infiltration scenarios in DND to be successful. What percentage of these scenarios succeed.

I’ll define success as any attempt that does not result in the deaths of 50+% of the inhabitants of the heist location.

I've only run a couple in 5e but probably 100% or close were some level of success without turning into mass murder kick in the door style. d&d itself had very little to do with that success & I described one earlier.

Can I ask a question... Is it possible that this result can also be the outcome of a heist in BitD (death of over 50% of the inhabitants of the heist location)?? Or is this just not a possibility at all?

I'll let someone else answer that for bitd because I don't have a solid enough grasp to be certain enough on the particulars, but in fate death is both trivially easy & you can walk away walking wounded victor literally with a death spiral that makes the character all but unplayable due to multiple ICU level needs. The stress track resets very often (think 4e's encounter stuff) but that track is smallish & anything that doesn't go in the stress track goes in as a consequence ranging from like a 2-8 point concequence . If your 2 point minor consequences are used &you take a single point of stress it burns a 4 point major(?) consequence then 6 & 8 point ones. While you can reset a 2 point consequence every couple sessions the 8 point one is going to be there till you do something like finish the campaign or similar.

That death spiral is avoided through two options. You aren't forced to use a consequence & can just say your taken out. This can be anything from knocked into the next room knocked out or whatever all the way to the opponent just flatly saying "and you die"... And. You. Die. To offset that lethality players can do what's called conceeding. Conceding is a negotiation where the victor gets a clear win with something they wanted but the losing side gets to have a bit of say in how they lose. Everyone on he conceding side also gets a fate point

All of that combines into absolutely brutal fast paced combats where each side is quick to just admit that this is not a fight worth continuing given the stakes. In fate you can succeed & ask to make a new character while you can fail but still partially succeed depending on what the goals were. Maybe because of that compel against Alice the group gets away with the macguffin but is screwed in trying to use it because the cops are after them

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To be clear, I didn’t avoid a murder-fest by being an amazing DM, I was just willing to change the gameplay model to suite the adventure, and I learned a lot from running 4e, and playing more free-form games.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok, and I'm really trying to grasp the difference but I'm not seeing it... don't PC's in D&D have numerous class abilities, magic, animal companions, team synergy, etc to in turn do the same thing. As a simple example...couldn't teleportation or invisibility spells/scrolls/rings have just as easily circumvented the stealth issue in D&D?

I don't know how you don't see it.

But I'll start with the easiest parts:

1) D&D Groups are typically 4+ Characters. A Stealth Group Check becomes much more brutal in that scenario where 2 characters has to pass the DC (a DC that the GM has to extrapolate vs it being an always known spread of success/failure model), particularly when one or more of the PCs likely have heavy armor and are going to be rolling with Disadvantage. Even if this was 4 Blades PCs, as long as one of them gets a 4/5, that is at least a Success w/ Complications. If one of those 4 Blades PCs (if there were 4) get a 6 (a virtual lock), its a Success. The question just becomes how much Stress does the Leader take. So you've got multiple angles here:

(a) The players are beholden to the GM's conception of the situation for the Stealth DC. They could easily put a number out there that ensures a massively higher % of failure rate compared to Blades. Blades PCs don't deal with that. The spread of results is always known.

(b) The possibility for success on a Group Check increases as more PCs are involved (better chance of rolling a success and more resources to martial) and the inverse is true in D&D 5e, particularly on a Stealth check.

2) There is no Stress analogue in 5e for martial PCs to marshal to increase their effectiveness (and simultaneously that they have to manage/ration) in play. Inspiration isn't the same thing operationally (its attainment/maintenance) or in spirit or in execution (if you're lucky to have one at this moment thats it...fire and forget and hopefully you can get another one later...vs a pool to call upon and manage) and it doesn't appear to be stock 5e anyway as it seems like the bulk of tables don't use it.

3) There is no analogue for Position/Effect negotiation in 5e. GM sets a DC, that's final, and you don't even know if it will be table-facing before the roll! And the GM tells you what to roll and if your Skill Proficiency applies. None of this is like Blades at all. Its the opposite in every way.

This one is HUGE. In 5e, what is happening is the GM is saying "you're going to have to make 3 * successful Group Stealth Checks to get across given the length of the bridge." That was going to be the case initially (the Limited Effect), but the players did a bunch of Blades-specific stuff to increase their Effect to Great so its one Group Check to get across.

I mean, maybe in 5e the players say:

"Can we sprint across stealthy as a group and cover that distance in one Group Check?"

To which the GM extrapolates based on their conception of the situation (rather than using the binding procedures of play) says:

"Uh...sprint across...stealthily? Uh...ok, I'll be kind and let you do 1 Group Check Strength rather than just reducing it to 2 Group Checks...I'll let you use Athletics if you've got it...but this is going to be at Disadvantage to sprint across stealthily. This path is narrow + its wet + you're somehow trying to sprint across it and not make a noise. So DC 20 w/ Disadvantage."

To which the Wizard player might say:

"Can I use Silent Image to distract the abominations to give them the time to sprint across quietly?"

To which the GM might say:

"Sure. Int check vs your save DC. If they both fail, I'll give those without Heavy Armor Advantage, offsetting their Disadvantage. You guys with Heavy Armor though? No way. You're plodding. You need extra time and you're making a lot of racket most likely."

I mean...the odds of success for Stealth obviating this first obstacle and setting up Team PC for the next obstacle is just absolutely remote.

Unless, you've got a 7th level Wizard that (a) has Invisibility and (b) wants to uplevel their Invisibility to 4th level so all 4 PCs (assuming there are no more than 4 PCs) AND the GM doesn't invoke the "but what about the move silently part" clause and therefore forces you to make 3 * DC 10 Dex Group Checks w/ the Heavy Armor characters having Disadvantage.

I mean. More than likely, its just going to be a spotlight tailoring deal in 5e where the Rogue goes across by themself and ganks a guy while the other characters act as artillery and fire ranged weapons after the initial gank.

Or maybe the Wizard does something with Mage Hand if the idol is light enough.

Its just that what will invariably happen in 5e D&D (both what will be reasonably permissible and what the go-to power play will be) won't look like Blades in the Dark and it certainly won't be operationalized like in Blades in the Dark (the cognitive workload in decision-point navigation by individual PCs and by Team PC as a whole will just be fundamentally different...least of which because the GM's conception of the fiction and extrapolation of difficulty is primarily governing the difficulty and permissiveness of player action declaration input).

---

That to me looks like a very likely scenario for GMing the situation in 5e D&D. The odds that the PCs are successfully capable of defeating that obstacle with Stealth alone are WAY lower than in Blades. And the decision-point navigation + the resources that martial characters can call upon + the Group Check math + the table-facing vs GM-facing nature of play + the GM conception of situation yielding DC/Adv/Disadv/what you can use and how it works vs orthodox Blades procedures creates...

...all of that fundamentally changes the menu of decision-points, the navigation of individual decision-points, what is consistently able to be accomplished (and therefore the reinforcing mechanism of winnowing options that are even attempted to improve the gamestate for Team PC), what is reasonably able to be accomplished at all.

 

[Hussar]

Successful overall? Some of the time. Successful exactly as planned? Rarely, usually due either to sheer bad luck or - in some cases - a hindsight-obvious oversight in scouting/info gathering. It's quite true that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, even when the enemy is nothing more than stone walls and locked doors.

How often do the failures end in "getting caught and giant combat"? Some of the time. Just as often, a failure means they've for some reason simply aborted before getting in past any points of no return, after which they'll either abandon the idea or reload and try again later.

Thank you for answering. No, I didn't mean "exactly as planned". That's fair enough. But, from your description, the majority of time heist/stealth scenarios have failed (either massive combat or aborting) with a minority of times actually succeeding.

See, to me, this is why I find D&D so frustrating for this sort of scenario. We spend all this time planning only to fail a majority of times. After a very short time, I've come to the conclusion that simply kicking in the door is pretty much the correct solution since at least then we have the advantage once combat starts.

 

[Hussar]

All of them, in my (admittedly limited) experience. Maybe a couple dozen?

Wow. That's really, really impressive. Completely opposite of my experience. 20+ heist/infiltration scenarios that succeeded 100% of the time. I can't even begin to imagine how that works.

I've only run a couple in 5e but probably 100% or close were some level of success without turning into mass murder kick in the door style. d&d itself had very little to do with that success & I described one earlier.

Again, completely opposite of my experience. Impressive.

edit to add - sorry, forgot my manners. Thank you both for answering. I would really love to see how you can have a couple of dozen infiltration scenarios where the PC's are successful without the scenario turning into a kick in the door scenario. I know that my experience directly mirrors what @Manbearcat outlines above. As in, pretty much word for word through multiple DM's and across multiple editions of D&D.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, and I'm really trying to grasp the difference but I'm not seeing it... don't PC's in D&D have numerous class abilities, magic, animal companions, team synergy, etc to in turn do the same thing. As a simple example...couldn't teleportation or invisibility spells/scrolls/rings have just as easily circumvented the stealth issue in D&D?

So, we need to be 9th level before doing infiltration? Invisibility in 5e doesn't actually help stealth all that much. All it allows is stealth checks in the open. It helps, but, it's not like the auto-win of stealth in past editions and, generally, only lasts for a few rounds anyway. And, note, magic items are optional in 5e and being able to buy magic items is very optional.

Whereas the example you were given used nothing but the inherent abilities EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER automatically has in BitD. It doesn't require specific classes to be present, or to have specific magic items.

Does that make the difference clear?

I mean, sure, if your group can go Ethereal at will, it makes stealth/infiltration a breeze. But, that's not really a fair comparison is it?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't know how you don't see it.

But I'll start with the easiest parts:

1) D&D Groups are typically 4+ Characters. A Stealth Group Check becomes much more brutal in that scenario where 2 characters has to pass the DC (a DC that the GM has to extrapolate vs it being an always known spread of success/failure model), particularly when one or more of the PCs likely have heavy armor and are going to be rolling with Disadvantage. Even if this was 4 Blades PCs, as long as one of them gets a 4/5, that is at least a Success w/ Complications. If one of those 4 Blades PCs (if there were 4) get a 6 (a virtual lock), its a Success. The question just becomes how much Stress does the Leader take. So you've got multiple angles here:

(a) The players are beholden to the GM's conception of the situation for the Stealth DC. They could easily put a number out there that ensures a massively higher % of failure rate compared to Blades. Blades PCs don't deal with that. The spread of results is always known.

(b) The possibility for success on a Group Check increases as more PCs are involved (better chance of rolling a success and more resources to martial) and the inverse is true in D&D 5e, particularly on a Stealth check.

2) There is no Stress analogue in 5e for martial PCs to marshal to increase their effectiveness (and simultaneously that they have to manage/ration) in play. Inspiration isn't the same thing operationally (its attainment/maintenance) or in spirit or in execution (if you're lucky to have one at this moment thats it...fire and forget and hopefully you can get another one later...vs a pool to call upon and manage) and it doesn't appear to be stock 5e anyway as it seems like the bulk of tables don't use it.

3) There is no analogue for Position/Effect negotiation in 5e. GM sets a DC, that's final, and you don't even know if it will be table-facing before the roll! And the GM tells you what to roll and if your Skill Proficiency applies. None of this is like Blades at all. Its the opposite in every way.

This one is HUGE. In 5e, what is happening is the GM is saying "you're going to have to make 3 * successful Group Stealth Checks to get across given the length of the bridge." That was going to be the case initially (the Limited Effect), but the players did a bunch of Blades-specific stuff to increase their Effect to Great so its one Group Check to get across.

I mean, maybe in 5e the players say:

"Can we sprint across stealthy as a group and cover that distance in one Group Check?"

To which the GM extrapolates based on their conception of the situation (rather than using the binding procedures of play) says:

"Uh...sprint across...stealthily? Uh...ok, I'll be kind and let you do 1 Group Check Strength rather than just reducing it to 2 Group Checks...I'll let you use Athletics if you've got it...but this is going to be at Disadvantage to sprint across stealthily. This path is narrow + its wet + you're somehow trying to sprint across it and not make a noise. So DC 20 w/ Disadvantage."

To which the Wizard player might say:

"Can I use Silent Image to distract the abominations to give them the time to sprint across quietly?"

To which the GM might say:

"Sure. Int check vs your save DC. If they both fail, I'll give those without Heavy Armor Advantage, offsetting their Disadvantage. You guys with Heavy Armor though? No way. You're plodding. You need extra time and you're making a lot of racket most likely."

I mean...the odds of success for Stealth obviating this first obstacle and setting up Team PC for the next obstacle is just absolutely remote.

Unless, you've got a 7th level Wizard that (a) has Invisibility and (b) wants to uplevel their Invisibility to 4th level so all 4 PCs (assuming there are no more than 4 PCs) AND the GM doesn't invoke the "but what about the move silently part" clause and therefore forces you to make 3 * DC 10 Dex Group Checks w/ the Heavy Armor characters having Disadvantage.

I mean. More than likely, its just going to be a spotlight tailoring deal in 5e where the Rogue goes across by themself and ganks a guy while the other characters act as artillery and fire ranged weapons after the initial gank.

Or maybe the Wizard does something with Mage Hand if the idol is light enough.

Its just that what will invariably happen in 5e D&D (both what will be reasonably permissible and what the go-to power play will be) won't look like Blades in the Dark and it certainly won't be operationalized like in Blades in the Dark (the cognitive workload in decision-point navigation by individual PCs and by Team PC as a whole will just be fundamentally different...least of which because the GM's conception of the fiction and extrapolation of difficulty is primarily governing the difficulty and permissiveness of player action declaration input).

---

That to me looks like a very likely scenario for GMing the situation in 5e D&D. The odds that the PCs are successfully capable of defeating that obstacle with Stealth alone are WAY lower than in Blades. And the decision-point navigation + the resources that martial characters can call upon + the Group Check math + the table-facing vs GM-facing nature of play + the GM conception of situation yielding DC/Adv/Disadv/what you can use and how it works vs orthodox Blades procedures creates...

...all of that fundamentally changes the menu of decision-points, the navigation of individual decision-points, what is consistently able to be accomplished (and therefore the reinforcing mechanism of winnowing options that are even attempted to improve the gamestate for Team PC), what is reasonably able to be accomplished at all.

To be fair...your DM is being needlessly nit picky about the rules, and seems unprepared for the situation, and not particularly willing to honor the player’s improvisation.

 

[Manbearcat]

To be fair...your DM is being needlessly nit picky about the rules, and seems unprepared for the situation, and not particularly willing to honor the player’s improvisation.

1) Which part do you think is nit picky when comparing like-to-like?

* 3 * Group checks (just like it would be Reduced Effect and impose * 3 moves in Blades given the distance)?

* Willingly knocking that down all the way to 1 * Group Check (rather than 2 * Group Check) after the "lets run across" action declaration? That seems like as favorable a ruling as there could be.

* Enforcing Heavy Armor penalties for Stealth (Disadvantage)?

* Int vs Spell DC for mechanical advantage (Advantage) via distraction by way of Silent Image (that is orthodox Silent Image)?

* Using the Hard DC of 20? I would absolutely expect that from a HUGE cluster of 5e GMs given the factors of the situation outlined. In fact, I could see GMs bumping that to 22 or north. 20 seems like the floor given the factors.

* The only thing I can see at nit-picky (which is why I caveated it as such) is the "but what about you moving silently with Invisibility...Invisibility doesn't give you full stealth...you're just unseen" clause. But my guess is a HUGE number of 5e GMs would go with that clause.

2) Whichever you disagree with above, do you think that most 5e GMs would agree with you?

@Imaro and @prabe , you guys appear to agree so I'd be curious to have your thoughts about what above is "poor" 5e adjudication? And if you think "the people" agree with you.

 

[Manbearcat]

I mean, long story shot (too late)...

5e Team PC is going to EAT THAT ENCOUNTER FOR BREAKFAST. Its not going to be particularly threatening to them. In fact, the overall scenario is MUCH more dangerous/threatening for Blades in the Dark Crews/PCs. Things turn to a fight in that scenario for 5e Team PC they just pull out the LOL BIG GUNS and obliterate the enemy. Things turn to a fight in that scenario for the Blades Crew and they are in deep trouble. Op-threatening (at minimum) kind of trouble.

But (a) that is by design and (b) the reality is that the decision-point menu, the cognitive workload, the resources that can be martialed on a per PC basis is entirely different between Team PC in 5e and a Blades Crew. And a Blades Crew is fundamentally going to be able to perform all kinds of successful Ops in ways that that Team PC in 5e just won't be able to consistently pull off (and consistency is everything...because if Team PC faces an obstacle in 5e and that approach sucks 8/10 times...that gets removed from the menu)...or at least won't be able to pull off without pulling out the big Wizard/Bard/Cleric Spell guns (which...again...is an entirely different play aesthetic).