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

[Ruin Explorer]

It is better, which calls into your comprehension of the initial analogy. The initial analogy takes no ownership of the fact that I have been using the correct tool for the job and then decided to do a slightly different job.

However, I will give another one that is closer to the original that I also think is better.

I am hammering away putting nails in a wall. Then I need to put a screw into the wall. So I borrow a screw driver, install the screw and then continue on putting nails in the wall.

That is probably closet to the OP.

Oh dear is really all I can say to these shenanigans.

 

[dave2008]

I disagree, dave. You may call it absurd, but I'm not the only person who has picked up on how this idea seems very much present in the thread.

We all have biases and bring them to our interpretation (me included of course). So we see things differently. Several people have also agreed with the OP and me.

However, the OP has repeatedly clarified their intent. Why to you insist that that clarification is not genuine?

 

[dave2008]

Oh dear is really all I can say to these shenanigans.

I know my brilliance is dazzling

It really is a better analogy. The OP gave the specific example of playing an Eberron game (the hammer and nail) and then wanted to add a heist (the screw), so they added some new rules (the screw driver) to run the heist and then continued with their Eberron game (hammer and nails again).

If you disagree, feel free to explain how the original analogy fits the OP's example better. I don't think you can because the initial analogy simple doesn't account for the change and return which is at the heart of the issue.

 

[dave2008]

Pointing to AiME to argue that "5e D&D can do low magic" equivocates between the 5e Engine and D&D 5e.

Personally I point to my own 5e game to say that 5e D&D can do low magic (and fairly easily) or horror for that matter. I've never played AiME, but I bet for my group our 1 page of house rules does "low magic" better for us than the 200+ pages of AiME.

 

[Aldarc]

We all have biases and bring them to our interpretation (me included of course). So we see things differently. Several people have also agreed with the OP and me.

However, the OP has repeatedly clarified their intent. Why to you insist that that clarification is not genuine?

Why do you insist on asking me loaded questions?

Personally I point to my own 5e game to say that 5e D&D can do low magic (and fairly easily) or horror for that matter. I've never played AiME, but I bet for my group our 1 page of house rules does "low magic" better for us than the 200+ pages of AiME.

Let me repeat what I said, because your response strikes me as a non-sequitur to the point being made here:

Pointing to AiME to argue that "5e D&D can do low magic" equivocates between the 5e Engine and D&D 5e.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I know my brilliance is dazzling

It really is a better analogy. The OP gave the specific example of playing an Eberron game (the hammer and nail) and then wanted to add a heist (the screw), so they added some new rules (the screw driver) to run the heist and then continued with their Eberron game (hammer and nails again).

If you disagree, feel free to explain how the original analogy fits the OP's example better. I don't think you can because the initial analogy simple doesn't account for the change and return which is at the heart of the issue.

Maybe I will if you address the point I raised upthread, which is that you're making Mount Everest out of what is at most a pea under a napkin, because this whole idea that people regularly suggest others change systems mid-campaign is not really "a thing".

 

[dave2008]

Or, someone has tried doing X in D&D, it failed miserably, and so when you ask how you do X in D&D, they tell you to try a different game so as to learn from their mistakes.

That is a fair reason to make such a suggestion, but when the person your advising is actively playing D&D it is still not very helpful.

Now, apparently, according to you, you are a god of gaming who can make D&D dance on the head of a pin with no problems and, according to some, with only a single page of rules changes. Bully for you guys.

That is a bit of an exaggeration, but you are correct...I am a god

Me? I'm just a mere mortal and when I've tried to do these things in D&D, they have failed miserably. Company scale combat - such as what you see on ships - does not work in 5e, FOR ME. It's slow, ponderous, confusing, far too complicated where it needs to be simple and nowhere near granular enough when it needs to be.

I've personally have not tried this so I have no suggestions. But in the spirit of the OP, the idea would be to look at how other games do it and see if it can be grafted on to D&D. Maybe it can, but maybe it cannot.

Same goes with trying to do low magic.

This baffles me though. We run a low magic D&D campaign (lvl 15 now) and it is incredible easy for us (that less than 1 page of house rules thing - some which really have nothing to do with low magic). I think 5e is, out of the box, the easiest version of D&D to play low magic. It is baked into the system even. Heck, it would be easy to run a no magic campaign in 5e.

My only guess is that we have different ideas of what "low magic" means. To me it means a setting where magic and magic items are very, very rare. Any chance you would clarify what it means to you?

Apparently, for you folks, it works perfectly and that's fantastic. Congratulations. Well done you. Here's your cookie. But, again, IN MY EXPERIENCE, these things don't work worth a damn in 5e. The 5e ruleset is a terrible ruleset for games like this. For low magic, you have to remove 3/4 of the classes, and about 3/4 of the monsters as well. Which means, that, well, I might as well play another game, because what I've got left sure isn't D&D 5e anymore.

OK, I didn't see you explained a bit. I personally don't equate classes = D&D. I mean if you get rid of all magic using classes (depending on what you mean by magic using) you still have plenty of classes to play, and you can always go to 3PP for more. If you want a low-magic campaign it seems reasonable to:

1. Don't use magic classes - because, well "low magic," or...
2. Use magic classes as is, but understand the PCs are special, or...
3. Allow only half or 1/3 caster classes (because low magic), or...
4. Allow only the magic initiate feat, or...
5. Add 3PP non magic classes, or...
6. Some combination of 1-5.

This really is very simple and allows for many variations of low magic. I'm guessing you have thought of these so why don't they work for you?

You are flat out wrong about needing to get rid of 3/4 of the monsters. Even if you did that would still leave you with something like 150+ official monsters. But the simplest thing would be to simply ignore immunity to non magic weapons (which is really very few monsters) if you want. Resistance to not an issue.

So, getting upset at people for suggesting that you use a different system, when those people have TRIED AND FAILED to do what you are trying to do with 5e and then turning around and berating them for not being able to make 5e do these things is not exactly helping your argument.

No one is berating them for not being able to do something. The issue is telling someone else they can't do it because you couldn't. Everyone is different.

It comes off as incredibly elitist and close minded. "Oh, you can do anything with 5e! You must never, EVER tell me not to use 5e to do something because 5e can do EVERYTHING and do it BETTER than ANY OTHER SYSTEM."

That is not what the OP is about. The OP is specifically about not suggesting to play another game when someone is asking advice to play D&D, which they are already doing.

Just because a modified D&D didn't work for you doesn't mean it will not work for others. We all have different expectations.

And you wonder why you are getting push back?

 

[Aldarc]

Maybe I will if you address the point I raised upthread, which is that you're making Mount Everest out of what is at most a pea under a napkin, because this whole idea that people regularly suggest others change systems mid-campaign is not really "a thing".

Usually it's pre-campaign/game when it's in its nascent planning stages. For example, one's generally not going to ask about doing low magic games mid-campaign.

 

[dave2008]

Why do you insist on asking me loaded questions?

Sorry about that, but I am truly curious as to why are arguing about the intent of the thread with the OP and when they have clarified their stance repeatedly. Do you want them to change the first post so it is clearer there?

Let me repeat what I said, because your response strikes me as a non-sequitur to the point being made here:

My point was that you don't have to point to AiME to indicate low magic. But I see your point, however I don't really separate 5e and the 5e engine so much. I mean I don't use officially adventures or lore, so to me 5e is the 5e engine. That is all I have ever used. So form my perspective AiME is 5e. It is not WotC 5e, but it is 5e (or I assume so - I haven't played, but I don own it).

 

[dave2008]

Maybe I will if you address the point I raised upthread, which is that you're making Mount Everest out of what is at most a pea under a napkin, because this whole idea that people regularly suggest others change systems mid-campaign is not really "a thing".

I did address it in this post, if you don't like the answer then ignore it.