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

[tetrasodium]

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.

lot of useful videos in here that can help you with interesting absolute fail security stuff to stack the odds in favor of the players if you can get them to seek out those kinds of secure looking bits of useless security. The videos are real world stuffbut the post talks about how to adapt som of it to d&d worlds like eberron sigil etc. FR & greyhawk level civilizations are still going to be using a completely different security style to make it harder to adapt but still probably some useful stuff if you jump them forward a bit.

If enough of the players don't know to look for that kinda stuff it will look like you keep invoking plot armor to enable success & run into the sort of believability problems that caused CSI:Cyber to get the axe

 

[Lanefan]

Hasn't really been my experience, usually what you're talking about means the GM is just putting too many checks out.

Personally I like 4e style skill challenges or pf2e style victory points for them.

This I think would depend on the situation at the table. If the players plan everything down to a fine granular level of detail then the resolutions during execution should mirror that, and this is probably what the players would expect. If the plan is less granular then a less-granular resolution mechanic suits well.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Yes but you are not factoring in resources such as spells, magic items, class abilities, etc that will increase and even in certain instances guarantee success. You're assuming the use a of a specific skill in a specific way and that's not necessarily a given.

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.

No but there are abilities like expertise, there are classes like the Bard who can give inspiration to other PC's, there are simple spells like Bless and guidance that increase the chances of whoever they are cast upon, there are feats

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.

But this isn't necessary to run a good heist scenario. this is what I was worried about and why I clarified my position... it's not that I am asking how does BitD play... I am asking specifically what makes it a better choice for a heist scenario than D&D... You're contrasting gameplay but that in and of itself is just showing differences. Also doesn't the GM in BitD have final say on what the position and effect are?

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.

Okay a few things you may not be aware of... in 5e, Invisibility is a 2nd level spell (and outside of invisibility there are spells like guidance that will also help). Why does every member of the party need to sprint across the bridge as opposed to say the invisible, expertise in stealth rogue while the others either provide distractions (throw something in the water to distract the half squid/half humans) act as lookouts for any other cult members that might be coming and so on?

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).

Funnily enough, what you're describing here sounds more like the show Leverage than everyone being an expert in stealth and all sneaking into some place the same way. In Leverage one character is an expert in stealth while another is an expert in hacking another is a bruiser and so on. They aren't all able to slip in some where like a ghost and get out undetected.

---

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.

Why would they defeat it with stealth alone as opposed to using all of the resources at their disposal? Again very few if any heist movies have the entire ensemble as masters of stealth. And what I see, in the case of 5e, is a narrowly defined set of actions and a DM whose DM'ing has been purposefully set up to push a particular outcome so it supports your scenario.

 

[Imaro]

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.

9th level?? Invisibility is a 2nd level spell... there are also other spells like guidance we can use to enhance our chances. You're addressing the specific instead of the point... magic is a resource PC's have access to and can use to push this scenario into their favor.

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.

What specific classes or specific magic items did I state were necessary... again you're not addressing the bigger point. The classes as a whole have abilities, equipment they can buy and magic that can skew the scenario in their favor. I'm not going to list out every singular ability, piece of equipment or spell that could possibly be used in a D&D heist scenario.

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?

No it doesn't . I didn't mention anything about going ethereal but an average D&D party of fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric have an imense suite of abilities that can be leveraged for success in a heist scenario. Is that clear?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

There's another aspect I forgot to mention: it's quite uncommon in my games that a party's composition is really set up for heist or stealth work in the first place. There's almost always a clanky warrior or three in the party that they have to figure out what to do with, which crimps things considerably. But on the odd occasion when they've gone stealth-first - more often for espionage work than for heists, admittedly - it hasn't gone too badly.

Oddly, now that I think about it, most of the "heist" situations I've run are ones where the item they were trying to steal was a person. In other words, they were more kidnapping (or rescue) missions rather than theft.

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.

You're equating failure rate with system used. The only ways I can see that holding water are a) if for some reason the players plan better in one system than another, and-or b) different degrees of granularity of resolution. Yes a more granular system gives you more opportunities to fail, but in turn the granular-level failure would (usually) be a mere setback to the overall plan; it'd take a series of these, or failure on something critical, to blow up the whole caper.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes but you are not factoring in resources such as spells, magic items, class abilities, etc that will increase and even in certain instances guarantee success. You're assuming the use a of a specific skill in a specific way and that's not necessarily a given.



No but there are abilities like expertise, there are classes like the Bard who can give inspiration to other PC's, there are simple spells like Bless and guidance that increase the chances of whoever they are cast upon, there are feats



But this isn't necessary to run a good heist scenario. this is what I was worried about and why I clarified my position... it's not that I am asking how does BitD play... I am asking specifically what makes it a better choice for a heist scenario than D&D... You're contrasting gameplay but that in and of itself is just showing differences. Also doesn't the GM in BitD have final say on what the position and effect are?



Okay a few things you may not be aware of... in 5e, Invisibility is a 2nd level spell (and outside of invisibility there are spells like guidance that will also help). Why does every member of the party need to sprint across the bridge as opposed to say the invisible, expertise in stealth rogue while the others either provide distractions (throw something in the water to distract the half squid/half humans) act as lookouts for any other cult members that might be coming and so on?



Funnily enough, what you're describing here sounds more like the show Leverage than everyone being an expert in stealth and all sneaking into some place the same way. In Leverage one character is an expert in stealth while another is an expert in hacking another is a bruiser and so on. They aren't all able to slip in some where like a ghost and get out undetected.



Why would they defeat it with stealth alone as opposed to using all of the resources at their disposal? Again very few if any heist movies have the entire ensemble as masters of stealth. And what I see, in the case of 5e, is a narrowly defined set of actions and a DM whose DM'ing has been purposefully set up to push a particular outcome so it supports your scenario.

Funnily enough fate worlds volume2: worlds in shadow includes about 30 pages dedicated to "crime world

Spoiler: Crime World credits

John Rogers (writer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He's also got his name in Blades in the dark in the kickstarter section & has worked with the guys from evilhat (publisher)on at least one other occasion. It's probably no coincidence that fate accelerated strips down fate core to the point where it's almost built for plot outlines & story boarding

 

[MichaelSomething]

Has anyone tried looking at the Dragon HEIST adventure for info regarding running heists in D&D???

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Perhaps nit picky is the wrong term. Too worried about the rules as a way to restrict the player characters rather than guidelines with which to guide improvisation?

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

That part is odd to me, because IME it would stay 3 checks, but likely a longer conversation about approach, because...that is a weird way to approach that situation. Sprinting across isn’t going to make it more likely you succeed. 5e PCs would instead be angling for advantage on as many checks as possible, rather than fewer checks. Things like the ranger or Druid casting PWOT or the rogue going first at a higher DC to give other advantage by showing the stealthiest path, the Wizard analyzing optimal weight distribution to avoid creaking or other excessive movement of the ladder, etc.

* 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.

Again a more normal ruling IMO would be to just give advantage on some of the checks, or let certain characters just succeed due to their approach. IME

* Enforcing Heavy Armor penalties for Stealth (Disadvantage)?

IME DMs are split on how much they enforce that one.

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

This is where still imposing disadvantage on heavy armor PCs is very restrictive here, because Advantage and Disadvantage cancel out. 5e isn’t so permissive that it’s a good idea to limit PCs beyond what the rules do.

* 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 floor would be about 15, IMO. They’ve got a lot of advantages, they should all either have Advantage or at least straight rolls, and they’re not really doing soemthing crazy.

* 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?

Not really salient to my point, which was admittedly tangential to the point of your post. However, I think it would be a rough split.

For anyone who consumes a lot of actual plays, it would be split along lines of those who DM like Mark Hulmes (High Rollers. Very by the book, oppositional to the PCs in terms of rulings and construction of adventures, with a mindset of supposed impartiality, but often showing disappointment when his monster doesn’t gank someone)

vs

DMs who DM like Brennan Lee Mulligan (Dimension20. Has referred to DMing as an act of service, views the DM as “another person at the table”, and has as his overwhelming priority the fun and joy of his players. Very into honoring the creativity of the players while presenting them with fantastical people and places, improvisation, and ruling with a bias toward the rule of cool, and not letting RAW get in the way.

I think this forum skews more one way than the general gaming community does.

 

[tetrasodium]

Perhaps nit picky is the wrong term. Too worried about the rules as a way to restrict the player characters rather than guidelines with which to guide improvisation?

That part is odd to me, because IME it would stay 3 checks, but likely a longer conversation about approach, because...that is a weird way to approach that situation. Sprinting across isn’t going to make it more likely you succeed. 5e PCs would instead be angling for advantage on as many checks as possible, rather than fewer checks. Things like the ranger or Druid casting PWOT or the rogue going first at a higher DC to give other advantage by showing the stealthiest path, the Wizard analyzing optimal weight distribution to avoid creaking or other excessive movement of the ladder, etc.

Again a more normal ruling IMO would be to just give advantage on some of the checks, or let certain characters just succeed due to their approach. IME

IME DMs are split on how much they enforce that one.

This is where still imposing disadvantage on heavy armor PCs is very restrictive here, because Advantage and Disadvantage cancel out. 5e isn’t so permissive that it’s a good idea to limit PCs beyond what the rules do.

The floor would be about 15, IMO. They’ve got a lot of advantages, they should all either have Advantage or at least straight rolls, and they’re not really doing soemthing crazy.

Not really salient to my point, which was admittedly tangential to the point of your post. However, I think it would be a rough split.

For anyone who consumes a lot of actual plays, it would be split along lines of those who DM like Mark Hulmes (High Rollers. Very by the book, oppositional to the PCs in terms of rulings and construction of adventures, with a mindset of supposed impartiality, but often showing disappointment when his monster doesn’t gank someone)

vs

DMs who DM like Brennan Lee Mulligan (Dimension20. Has referred to DMing as an act of service, views the DM as “another person at the table”, and has as his overwhelming priority the fun and joy of his players. Very into honoring the creativity of the players while presenting them with fantastical people and places, improvisation, and ruling with a bias toward the rule of cool, and not letting RAW get in the way.

I think this forum skews more one way than the general gaming community does.

rolls in bitd (and fate) work very different from d&d. iirc the bridge had three things that could be a problem. It's long, has no cover, and either it was wet or there were guards with eyes. Each of those things could give a full success partial success or bad outcome hat would affect things differently depending on which problem got which results. There might be some deeper system mechanics I'm overlooking but this should make for a good start at least for why 3 group checks

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

What? Why would it only last a few rounds? The caster isn’t getting hit or otherwise taking damage, so it’s quite likely to last the full duration.
And full casters can have invisibility at level 3.

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?

This kind of completely off the wall, ludicrous, hyperbole makes your arguments much less compelling.