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

[MGibster]

Another thing to consider is that when someone posts, that's a human being doing that. I realize that this is the interwebs, and it can have a dehumanizing effect.

I think that's a fantastic point and something we should try to practice at all time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The original post is asking how do you feel about using DnD for a variety of genres? It was not, can you help me use DnD to get X feel. So having people say, I don't feel DnD is a great fit for a lot of genres is not ignoring the poster's question. The poster, after all, states that he's very capable of kitbashing 5e. I thought this is an opinion thread?

I don't think anyone thinks this thread is asking for advice on how to use DnD to get X feel.

The discussion you seem to be picking up on to conclude that is about other threads, in which someone asks for advice about "running a horror arc in a dnd campaign" and gets told "play a horror game, not dnd. DnD can't do horror."

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's new to me, and I've followed this thread. If the focus is now on currently running a D&D game and wanting to do a horror arc in that game, I don't think you're getting the responses you're complaining about, because that's the additional information missing from the general requests.

 

[RealAlHazred]

I've finally caught up to the end of this thread, and I'm shocked that no one has pointed to the obvious elephant in the room, the system that truly can do any genre or type of game, in a fashion light-years superior to any other system that has or will be designed.

I am speaking, of course, of Cyborg Commando, as if I needed to say. I mean, it's obvious. Teenage high-school romance, check. Outer-space political maneuvering, no problem. Sparky and the gang hold a lemonade fundraiser to repair the community center, I'm pretty sure that's the starter scenario.

 

[Aldarc]

Of course it did! They want to play a low magic D&D! AIME is a great suggestion for taking classes and mechanics from, and basically is low magic 5e D&D, but the others are drifting from the brief to push your own preferences on someone who probably knows what they want better than you do.

Why ever tell someone that? What good do you think you’re doing? You’re telling someone that their preferences are wrong, and that they don’t know their own needs and desires. It’s inherently disrespectful. Telling someone about games that do the thing, and might be useful to read up on, if they haven’t already, is great advice!
If someone wants advice to run a heist adventure in their D&D game, they aren’t asking for recommendations on heist RPGs.

I think it's now your turn to read far too much negativity into advice freely given because I think you got it all wrong here.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am speaking, of course, of Cyborg Commando, as if I needed to say. I mean, it's obvious. Teenage high-school romance, check. Outer-space political maneuvering, no problem. Sparky and the gang hold a lemonade fundraiser to repair the community center, I'm pretty sure that's the starter scenario.

Any true appreciation of the genius of Gygax probably should end around 1983, 1984 tops.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it's now your turn to read far too much negativity into advice freely given because I think you got it all wrong here.

This borders on gaslighting, since I'm directly discussing my direct personal experiences, but I'll give benefit of the doubt and instead ask, how so?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. The times I have offended people when I didn’t mean to or come across as aggressive and insulting are my responsibility, regardless of intent. If I had never recognized the behavior and started to try and fix it, it would be the right thing to do to kick me out of the forums.
How you come across is on you.

No, I disagree with the absolute, here. Anyone can take offense -- I could take offense to this statement, claiming that you're now calling me an insensitive jerk who can't communicate. How a reader reads you is as important as what you say in communication. If the statement isn't outright jerky or dismissive, if the reader assumes it there's very little a different form of phrasing will accomplish -- they're disagreeing with the argument, not the phrasing. And, this is the point -- it seems the very suggestion, however phrased, is viewed negatively. That's not on the speaker.

It also isn’t relevant to the OP, since I’m talking specifically about people giving advice that isn’t engaging with the actual request for advice. If I ask for advice on how to run a scenario like Alien in D&D, I am not asking how to play in the actual world of the alien franchise and emulate the first film. Responding with advice for a question that I didn’t ask is a bit rude all by itself. Often, it is then done with a condescending tone, dismissive assumptions about the asker, and other disrespectful behavior.

This goes directly to the unspoken assumptions I stated. If you ask how to run Aliens in D&D as you put it here, it's perfectly normal to provide an answer that suggests trying something other than D&D. This is because the asker may not be aware of other options (this happens often), or may not be aware of specific issues in accommodating tropes and themes using D&D. No, what's missing here is the statement that the asker will no consider any other game other than D&D -- this is a hidden assumption. And, it's the assumption that's causing the issue, as the asker is feeling offended that people ignored the ask that they did not state, or has assumed that everyone else has the same base assumption that D&D is the one game acceptable. People are trying to help when they suggest other games -- if it bothers you that they do so, then this is your issue, not theirs.

The assumption of condescension or dismissiveness to an unspoken requirement of the ask is the fault of the speaker -- according to you.

Are you willing to understand that the way you give advice can be condescending and dismissive, especially if your advice involves blatantly ignoring part of the request for advice?

Yes, I can absolutely be condescending and dismissive. I am not so when I suggest a different game may have more success for some things than D&D, though. If you read it that way, it's on you, because the advice is neither dismissive or condescending. The only way that is possible is if you have a massive emotional attachment to D&D being the one true game for you and cannot abide suggestions otherwise. Because, the only thing being suggested is that you can play a different game to get a different result. This isn't offensive in any way. Otherwise people would get upset at suggesting that Risk might give a better result to someone seeking a wargame than Monopoly.

Because I’ve seen plenty of folks ask for advice specifically on running a D&D adventure with certain elements, and someone condescend to them and tell them that they “only know D&D and should try other systems” (assuming someone’s knowledge level based on a preference is inherently rude), or rattle on dismissively about how D&D only does one thing, or otherwise talk down to the person asking for advice.

I call BS. This is handwaving and saying that your claims must be taken as the only possibility because you've seen things. I have, personally, told people that they only know D&D and should try other games, but that's been in the context of discussing how other games work differently from D&D and being confronted by a poster that says they only play D&D and that D&D can easily do everything the other game does. However, in saying this, they're usually exposing a massive ignorance that's obvious to anyone that has played the other game. System matters, and can matter a great deal. Your arguments here are effectively that system doesn't matter, that you can just modify D&D to do the other things. However, all of your proposals in this thread are just a slightly different flavor of the core D&D tropes. Nothing at all wrong with this, but it exposes a flaw in your arguments. You further solidify this with your complaints about Monsterhearts, and the mechanic that can mean you find out your character is, in fact, turned on by the bad guy. That's the focus of Monsterhearts -- it isn't playing monsters, it's dealing with the confusion of puberty, high-school drama, and discovering sexuality while also being monsters. If you're complaining that the system does what's on the tin, because it's not what you expect (which is the D&Dism of absolute player control over PC feelings, except for magic, which is given a pass) then you've missed the point altogether. And, that's fine, you don't have to like other games, you can be very comfortable with D&Disms and want to stay there. That's 100% legit. Just, maybe, be clear about that and don't take offense if someone else dares start with a different position.

 

[Desdichado]

Yes. The times I have offended people when I didn’t mean to or come across as aggressive and insulting are my responsibility, regardless of intent. If I had never recognized the behavior and started to try and fix it, it would be the right thing to do to kick me out of the forums.
How you come across is on you.

No. Categorically do not accept. This is—quite literally—the definition of catering to and enabling snowflaking. Communication is a joint responsibility, and anyone demanding that the other party accept all responsibility for potential miscommunications is absurd.

In any case, to the greater question at hand, I've often noted that although D&D is frequently called "generic fantasy" it isn't really. It's broad but it is not generic and the two traits may seem to be somewhat overlapping, but should not be confused. D&D fantasy doesn't even resemble the very source material that it supposedly is a pastiche of, at least when you get right down to it. When I was a youngster back in the 80s, I was already noting that I couldn't really successfully play the types of settings that I wanted to play in the system, and back then the types of settings I wanted to play were extruded fantasy product of a post-Tolkien/Lloyd Alexander type. Not exactly anything super esoteric or weird... and yet D&D was a supremely poor emulator of it.

Luckily for me, maybe, I came into the hobby at a time when DIY based on minimal formal structure was the standard—and even when AD&D started replacing D&D, my experience is that most people had a strange mulish hybrid of BD&D, B/X and AD&D rules all sprinkled in somewhat at random depending on how well the DM remembered them. AD&D and subsequent editions, like 3rd, 4th and 5th seem to have not specifically encouraged that paradigm, but since I started out that way, it never really occurred to me not to hack the rules to get what I needed out of them the entire time. I think D&D from 3e on was eminently hackable as well, because the core mechanics was consistent and fairly simple. Plus, the OGL meant that you had all kinds of models of how other people could do it. Heck, WotC themselves really pushed d20 as the one system to rule them all by releasing d20 Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu and Wheel of Time all within a couple of years of 3e. Almost immediately, I started seeing alternative magic systems, classes, alternatives to hit points, to armor class, etc. popping around, and it became obvious that if you wanted a game to do something that it didn't already do well, then it wasn't that big a deal to come up with some houserules. I never once ran a game without multiple houserules, as well as my standard "tools, not rules" "rulings preferred to detailed rules" and fast and loose style.

Heck, I've run games where I disallowed any of the standard races besides human, made a bunch of alterate races available instead, and disallowed any class that had a spellcasting progression of any kind (although I did allow psionics to replace magic. Although nobody really picked an overtly psionic class anyway; the closest I got was a slightly house-ruled soul knife.) D&D as written, using RAW (if anyone still uses that acronym) doesn't do some kinds of games well at all, but it's not at all difficult to get D&D, or at least something that's very similar to D&D, to do just about anything you need it to at the same time.

UPDATE: I will state that my fast and loose style specifically makes it so that system matters less than it might to other gamers, though. Even so, system does matter. But the experience at the table with the people interpreting the system matters more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, I disagree with the absolute, here. Anyone can take offense -- I could take offense to this statement, claiming that you're now calling me an insensitive jerk who can't communicate. How a reader reads you is as important as what you say in communication. If the statement isn't outright jerky or dismissive, if the reader assumes it there's very little a different form of phrasing will accomplish -- they're disagreeing with the argument, not the phrasing. And, this is the point -- it seems the very suggestion, however phrased, is viewed negatively. That's not on the speaker.

I’ve never seen anyone get offended by someone saying, “hey these games do the thing you’re talking about, though not in a fantasy context, have you read or played them?” Or “You might be able to get ideas by reading XYZ game, since they’re designed to do heists/horror/space opera/whatever.”

This goes directly to the unspoken assumptions I stated. If you ask how to run Aliens in D&D as you put it here, it's perfectly normal to provide an answer that suggests trying something other than D&D.

No, it isn’t. They aren’t asking for game recommendations. Letting them know that these games are out there, in a way that does’t assume they aren’t aware of the fact, is great! Derailing their thread to talk about how “D&D doesn't do anything but D&D” is rude. Telling them that D&D cant really do what they’re asking so they should play a completely different game instead is dismissive and condescending.

This is because the asker may not be aware of other options (this happens often), or may not be aware of specific issues in accommodating tropes and themes using D&D. No, what's missing here is the statement that the asker will no consider any other game other than D&D -- this is a hidden assumption. And, it's the assumption that's causing the issue, as the asker is feeling offended that people ignored the ask that they did not state, or has assumed that everyone else has the same base assumption that D&D is the one game acceptable. People are trying to help when they suggest other games -- if it bothers you that they do so, then this is your issue, not theirs.

Bull. If someone asks how to run Dragon Heist as an actual heist, they are asking about D&D. If they ask how to run a fairy tale arc in their current ongoing campaign in the D&D forums with the damn 5e tag, it’s about D&D. What’s more, I have seen the behavior you’re defending in threads where the OP is explicitly asking about D&D

The assumption of condescension or dismissiveness to an unspoken requirement of the ask is the fault of the speaker -- according to you.

Yes, I can absolutely be condescending and dismissive. I am not so when I suggest a different game may have more success for some things than D&D, though. If you read it that way, it's on you, because the advice is neither dismissive or condescending. The only way that is possible is if you have a massive emotional attachment to D&D being the one true game for you and cannot abide suggestions otherwise.

This is a great example of dismissive condescension. It can’t possibly be that people are being disrespectful, it’s just that the asker is a crybaby that only plays D&D!
No. Many of us, myself included, play many different games, as I’ve discussed in this thread. It’s absolutely not about attachment to D&D. That’s just a BS excuse you invented in order to dismiss a legitimate criticism.

Because, the only thing being suggested is that you can play a different game to get a different result. This isn't offensive in any way. Otherwise people would get upset at suggesting that Risk might give a better result to someone seeking a wargame than Monopoly.

Not remotely an apt comparison.

I call BS. This is handwaving and saying that your claims must be taken as the only possibility because you've seen things. I have, personally, told people that they only know D&D and should try other games, but that's been in the context of discussing how other games work differently from D&D and being confronted by a poster that says they only play D&D and that D&D can easily do everything the other game does. However, in saying this, they're usually exposing a massive ignorance that's obvious to anyone that has played the other game. System matters, and can matter a great deal. Your arguments here are effectively that system doesn't matter, that you can just modify D&D to do the other things. However, all of your proposals in this thread are just a slightly different flavor of the core D&D tropes. Nothing at all wrong with this, but it exposes a flaw in your arguments. You further solidify this with your complaints about Monsterhearts, and the mechanic that can mean you find out your character is, in fact, turned on by the bad guy. That's the focus of Monsterhearts -- it isn't playing monsters, it's dealing with the confusion of puberty, high-school drama, and discovering sexuality while also being monsters. If you're complaining that the system does what's on the tin, because it's not what you expect (which is the D&Dism of absolute player control over PC feelings, except for magic, which is given a pass) then you've missed the point altogether. And, that's fine, you don't have to like other games, you can be very comfortable with D&Disms and want to stay there. That's 100% legit. Just, maybe, be clear about that and don't take offense if someone else dares start with a different position.

Way to completely fail to actually read anything I’ve posted in this thread. I didn’t complain about Monsterhearts doing something I wasn’t expecting. You have assumed ignorance and then looked for ways to confirm your assumption to yourself.
I have explored the same themes in other games (monster of the week, D&D, Alternity, GURPS, my own TTRPG, etc) without the need for the dice to make my decisions for me about my character and what they feel. Monsterhearts is a cool game, and all I said about it was that I didn’t enjoy one of its key elements, and why, in the process of explaining why I would borrow elements of a game rather than play that game.

You entire post is just a series of BS assumptions that directly ignore everything I’ve said in this thread.