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

[Ovinomancer]

It literally does!

It doesn’t matter that you think it’s okay that it doesn’t, or whatever, you’re wrong about it not doing so.

How do you bribe a guard? You use the skill system, first describing how you approach the task, and depending on that description you either succeed, fail, or make an ability check to determine success or failure, including options for non-binary results. You can also use group checks, multiple checks taken together to determine overall results (this is all a skill challenge actually is. It’s multiple rolls to create a success ladder) and which can be with different stats and skills, or you can even use the framework of downtime activities. The game provides multiple options under a pretty clear (though sometimes poorly organized and explained) framework to resolve any task, rather than trying to make a specific rule for every possible task.

I do not use the skill system. I ask the GM. You have right there, but then pretend it's not there. How do I bribe a guard? I ask the GM how it works. The GM has many ways they can choose to do this, from saying yes, to saying no, to saying that's not even possible right now and denying the action altogether, to engaging the ability systems. Engaging the ability system is just another series of prompts for the GM to make decision ad hoc -- which ability, which proficiency, what's the DC? And, after all of this, it still comes back to the GM to narrate the outcome, which isn't strongly constrained by the rolls -- a GM can decide that the guard might take a large bribe, but then later change their mind and report it.

There's nothing in the 5e system that actually provides support for bribing a guard -- it's, at best, a skill system you can maybe use (or not, up to you), but that still leaves the majority of the task resolution up to the GM.

And, I'm saying this is both an intentional design thing AND a good thing. It leverages the GM, who can be quite versatile and good, but who can also be terrible. It's a very table dependent way of encouraging play.

The point you either keep missing or keep ignoring is the second part of the statement. The statement is, “D&D provides a framework for adjudicating tasks, and then gets out of the way to let consequences speak for themselves, or allow the DM to employ optional or homebrewed rules if desired.”

Gosh, how can anyone say I'm ignoring this, when my point is even stronger -- D&D never bothers to get in the way because it doesn't even provide support that needs to move out of the way!

That is not a lack, or an oversight, or a failure to model anything, it is an active decision to leave room rather than making everything under the sun require the group to reference the rules. Having the tools to figure out how to adjudicate and balance whatever you want to add to the game makes it easier to add things to the game. Not by accident or incidentally, but by design. It is a feature.

No, it isn't a lack, it's an intentional design choice -- to make the GM the one that decides how things work. There's no support from the system, because the entire system is to make the GM decide. This is the actual strength you're reaching for when you claim you can do whatever in 5e. The odd thing is that you also insist that the system supports doing anything with it's rules, when it's the very lack of those that allows what you claim to want! Such a strange argument!

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm pretty sure you're not even addressing my point. Why would a heist in 5e be done and failed (wilting Pac-Man noises) just because a task, even a binary pass/fail one like checking stealth vs perception, fails (or, hell, in 1e/2e or 3e, Traveller, Mutants and Masterminds, Top Secret, etc etc)? And the simple answer is, it's not. It's a complication - a guard alerted by a sound and whole bunch of different outcomes can be sparked by it depending on the decisions made by the DM and players at that time and the resources they have with them and choose to use.

And yeah, that may play out a bit differently from BitD since most older gen-based RPGs are front-load heavy when it comes to planning and gathering resources. But over in a single check? No.

If you don't see the "addressing your point" in there, I don't know how we communicate.

All I did was address and unpack/elaborate upon your point.

Then check out my exchange with @tetrasodium which elaborates on the operationalizing the stuff that was in my response to you.

Fail Forward or Success w/ Complications absolutely can work if integrated with other aspects of system and GMing principles/constraints. However, Fail Forward (much like the conversations we had 9 years ago) can be problematic if (a) there is no actual encoded Loss Con and/or (b) no action complications with teeth (meaning the mechanical fallout of failure is relatively impotent). What (a) + (b) can add up to is (c) no real Skilled Play because (d) its basically GM story-time and they'll get you to your Win Con after a good yarn has been spun.

We talked about that years and years ago.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But it isn't just 'ask your GM how it works,' its 'it works like this, at the GM's discretion' the first part doesn't disappear just because the GM has permission to go off script. The rules (and the advice for actually adjudicating these in the DMG that isn't in the Basic Rules) are there they absolutely exist, by default, you make the ability check in that situation-- your GM calls for it because you may or may not need one depending on the situation.

It doesn't say that at all. It says your GM may ask you to make a roll, not that you will make a roll unless the GM says otherwise. It's offering a possibility that the GM may decide to ask you for a roll. I mean, there's two solid decision points the GM makes before even getting to considering if asking you for a roll is something they want to do. You couch this as if it's the rules to do A, but the GM can ignore them, when the reality is that there's no rule, just a suggestion that A might happen, if the GM wants it to.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is that what they say??

I mean, you can read them if you want, but I thought discussing this was a waste of your time.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It doesn't say that at all. It says your GM may ask you to make a roll, not that you will make a roll unless the GM says otherwise. It's offering a possibility that the GM may decide to ask you for a roll. I mean, there's two solid decision points the GM makes before even getting to considering if asking you for a roll is something they want to do. You couch this as if it's the rules to do A, but the GM can ignore them, when the reality is that there's no rule, just a suggestion that A might happen, if the GM wants it to.

Are you telling us that the rules text telling you that you would roll a check to do that thing, and the guidance on how ability checks and skill checks work just don't exist because the GM can just ignore that?

 

[billd91]

If you don't see the "addressing your point" in there, I don't know how we communicate.

All I did was address and unpack/elaborate upon your point.

Then check out my exchange with @tetrasodium which elaborates on the operationalizing the stuff that was in my response to you.

Fail Forward or Success w/ Complications absolutely can work if integrated with other aspects of system and GMing principles/constraints. However, Fail Forward (much like the conversations we had 9 years ago) can be problematic if (a) there is no actual encoded Loss Con and/or (b) no action complications with teeth (meaning the mechanical fallout of failure is relatively impotent). What (a) + (b) can add up to is (c) no real Skilled Play because (d) its basically GM story-time and they'll get you to your Win Con after a good yarn has been spun.

Well of course you don't know how we communicate, it's because you're not addressing the question at all. Why would a heist be over in 5e because of a single, failed stealth roll?

Instead, you're shifting sideways saying that "well over here, we've got jargon, jargon, and jargon for playing that out" rather than actually telling me why you'd think a heist would be over (sad PacMan sounds again) because the invisible armored guy (who apparently wasn't smart enough to downgrade into something quieter) clanked by and guard happened to hear it.

 

[loverdrive]

I guess the question is... does rule zero, which is also part of 5e's play procedures supersede those procedures. Also does BitD have a rule zero?

Maybe it does (I don't remember, honestly), but it doesn't need one. There's simply no reason to invoke rule 0.

 

[loverdrive]

Are you telling us that the rules text telling you that you would roll a check to do that thing, and the guidance on how ability checks and skill checks work just don't exist because the GM can just ignore that?

The GM can just ignore that and the player doesn't have an effective way to tell, whether the GM ignores that or not.

And even if the GM does tell the DC before the roll (which is a good idea, though the rules don't require it for some reason), there are no effective levers to negotiate for a better deal.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The GM can just ignore that and the player doesn't have an effective way to tell, whether the GM ignores that or not.

This feels like a Jerk Fallacy argument - a dm can choose to run a total power trip, disregard the fun of the players, and ignore all the text in the books, therefore DnD has no rules.

Is there any mechanism in any roleplaying game that prevents someone from running the game in bad faith? What about any other game, for that matter?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The GM can just ignore that and the player doesn't have an effective way to tell, whether the GM ignores that or not.

And even if the GM does tell the DC before the roll (which is a good idea, though the rules don't require it for some reason), there are no effective levers to negotiate for a better deal.

But why are those required for the assertion that the system exists? Its literally just a rule system that, as part of its mechanics, asks the GM to use it or decide not to. Its not some crazy thing where the GM always just makes it up, so @Ovinomancer is either unfamiliar with these rules, or arguing in bad faith.