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

[Aldarc]

Then you’re reading into it things that aren’t present.

I love many non-D&D games. This thread is about discussing why people suggest using them when someone asks for advice on playing a D&D game with elements of other genres, for the most part. I’ve also said that I don’t like it when bespoke genre games gamify things like a PCs emotional response or connection. That isn’t a rude middle finger, it’s just a statement of preference.

There is far less "why" to your OP than "HOW DARE THEY SUGGEST?!" And the tone throughout the thread definitely leans towards the latter than the former. Maybe formulate your posts better in the future so you communicate your intent better. I still disagree with your sentiment, which definitely comes across as dismissive.

 

[Imaro]

So... in this sense "playtested" is a matter of scale. D&D was playtested by thousands and thousands of people prior to publication. How many people "playtested" your modification before someone was depending on it to help them have a good time?

Now, the risks of not playtesting are different for you than for WotC - if WotC doesn't playtest, they have a huge development cost that does down the drain. If the material you use at table isn't play-tested... someone ends up having a bad time at the table.

They usually don't though because I'm open to discussing modifications I made to the game with my players and making changes on the fly at the table if necessary.

As GM, I don't give a whit about the development costs. I do, however, care about the table experience. Someone having a bad time is what we call "failure" for GMs.

On this we agree... of course a published rule that's been playtested by thousands upon thousands prior to publication is no guarantee my particular table is going to enjoy what the end result turns out to be either.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's also the issue that some games are advertised as (as the d20 CoC illustrated at length).

I think d20 CoC gets more flak than it deserves, and it’s actually a great case study in the value of system familiarity. Some of my fondest gaming memories were with d20 CoC. Yes, the mechanics were a terrible fit, but the book was excellently written, and for someone like me who wanted to try CoC but was too intimidated by the system at a time when I was still learning d20, it was a fantastic “baby gamer’s first horror RPG.” The horror really came from the buy-in; we played by candle light, with creepy ambient music, the narrations were evocative, and to a bunch of kids who had only played D&D before, our characters felt incredibly fragile and vulnerable.

 

[dave2008]

I hold Cthulhu d20 in high esteem as it's an excellent adaptation with some of the best advice I've seen for new Keepers and Investigators. But adapting the d20 rules for a Call of Cthulhu atmosphere required an awful lot of heavy lifting that I wouldn't want to have to do myself.

I didn't play d20, but we found it pretty easy to adopt the essence of CoC (or our perception of it) to our 5e game.

 

[Charlaquin]

FYI, correct me if I am wrong, buy CoC had hit points back in the 80s (at least that is how I remember it). I know the monsters did.

Still does in its 6th and current edition. I think the thing that really makes CoC what it is, as I mentioned before, is that rather than starting weak and gaining power as they overcome challenges, CoC characters start at their strongest and are gradually worn down. Sure, you might gain an extra few percent chance at succeeding with a given skill, but the difference it makes is pretty negligible, and meanwhile you’re losing Sanity points that are extremely hard to recover.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then why is it so easy to hack?

I don’t think it’s inherently easier to hack than any other system, really. People are just very willing to hack it, because they’re very comfortable with the base rules, and because D&D has had a DIY culture since its inception.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think d20 CoC gets more flak than it deserves, and it’s actually a great case study in the value of system familiarity. Some of my fondest gaming memories were with d20 CoC. Yes, the mechanics were a terrible fit, but the book was excellently written, and for someone like me who wanted to try CoC but was too intimidated by the system at a time when I was still learning d20, it was a fantastic “baby gamer’s first horror RPG.” The horror really came from the buy-in; we played by candle light, with creepy ambient music, the narrations were evocative, and to a bunch of kids who had only played D&D before, our characters felt incredibly fragile and vulnerable.

My response would be that it was largely unnecessary (given BRP is easier to learn as a system than like, a few pages of 3E rules), and today, would be completely unnecessary, because any number of horror RPGs (including Cthulhu-themed ones) are so easy to learn, that even if you're "still learning" 5E you can learn them.

It was back in a very different era, when people were just mindlessly making godawful "d20 version of X" (even WoD met this fate) RPGs. CoC stood out as a lot less bad than most, but it was still bad, real bad. And they could have vastly improved it and still not made it any harder to learn, just removing more d20 elements.

As for "horror from buy-in", sure, but you can do that with D&D's own rules so long as the PCs are reasonably low level. You don't even need to modify the rules, though I admit I have never managed to get enough candles going to actually play by candle light (just not enough light being generated!), and the one time we really gave it our best shot (Vampire back in the day), yes, we did manage to catch a character sheet on fire!

 

[dave2008]

What you can do is lightly incorporate a couple of elements, usually aesthetic ones rather than fundamental ones, and call them that thing.

Sorry to come back to this by I was think about this thread while picking up lunch and I realized something that was bothering me. This sentiment is basically the issue I have with the argument to use another system. This is basically a claim that we (people who like to mod D&D) don't really know what we are talking about because we are not playing the real thing. It comes off, whether intended or not, as elitist and condescending. It is implied that we can't "really" play CoC horror in D&D and we would have much more authentic experience if we played a game designed for that genre. That may be your opinion or experience, but for me personally, we (my group_ really did play CoC style horror in D&D. I've read Lovecraft and I played CoC. IMO, I was able to create an experience more authentic to the books in 5e D&D than I was with CoC* with the minor changes I listed in another post.

*To be fair, I was teenage DM with maybe 5 years of rpg experience at the time versus 30+ years now.

 

[dave2008]

Still does in its 6th and current edition. I think the thing that really makes CoC what it is, as I mentioned before, is that rather than starting weak and gaining power as they overcome challenges, CoC characters start at their strongest and are gradually worn down. Sure, you might gain an extra few percent chance at succeeding with a given skill, but the difference it makes is pretty negligible, and meanwhile you’re losing Sanity points that are extremely hard to recover.

Yes, we never liked the sanity mechanic. Probably a reason we stopped playing CoC. I did not import that to 5e (though you could) when we did a CoC style game in 5e.

 

[dave2008]

I don’t think it’s inherently easier to hack than any other system, really. People are just very willing to hack it, because they’re very comfortable with the base rules, and because D&D has had a DIY culture since its inception.

I agree completely. I wasn't trying to imply other systems are not hackable, I was just stating 5e is hackable despite the person I was responding to saying it isn't.