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

[doctorbadwolf]

Here is a quick thought based on a very recent, personal anecdote.

One of my Blades games features a Crew of Grifters. Because of this, there is some Rounders type conflict that is happening.

Because of this, I've had to iterate two different versions of Genre Hold 'Em from Blades in the Dark's action and conflict resolution architecture. The first iteration was ok. The second iteration was better than the first.

However, unequivocally, I can say the following:

* Blades in the Dark's action/conflict resolution machinery is not built around being able to reliably produce the sort of Skilled Play (even in the abstract) of a game of Texas Hold 'Em.

* Even making Genre Hold 'Em work is extremely difficult (but doable).

* Dogs in the Vineyard's conflict resolution architecture is fundamentally better in all ways for both (a) reproducing the Skilled Play priority (even though not close to approaching 1 : 1) of Texas Hold 'Em and (b) producing the feel of Genre Hold 'Em.

* However, there is fundamentally NO WAY to reproduce this in Blades in the Dark because Dogs and Blades are extremely disparate systems at multiple, pivotal levels of system/PC build/fallout.

* FURTHER, because a conflict resolution system that produces the "tactically/strategically See and Raise until one side is out of gas/unwilling to risk anymore" aesthetic that is required for Texas Hold 'Em, THAT conflict resolution system (Dogs) will be fundamentally better for both (a) social conflict and (b) social conflict that escalates to physical conflict than an alternative (Blades).


Dogs does cards better than Blades. It just will. End of story.

Dogs does social conflict better than Blades. It just will. End of story.

Dogs does social conflict escalated to physical conflict better than Blades. It just will. End of story.


Everything else (even the knife/sword/gunfights)...Blades will be better than Dogs. It just will. End of story. But Dogs isn't trying to be the best combat emulator. Its trying to do a specific thing...and that specific thing it does tremendously.

That is a great post. If I was trying to play Blades but wanted to do a thing that I knew Dogs did that Blades doesn’t natively do, as well, I’d be on much better footing to solve that situation after reading that.

That is pretty much the opposite of thread replies that inspired the OP.

Converting characters, npcs, and monsters, as well has learning the rules for multiple different systems doesn't seem worth the investment.

Yeah it’s really a matter of what is more work, or perhaps more accurately what is more tedious work for you, between modding a system and learning a new system.


A thing that I think may have helped had I included it in the OP.

IMO, it is inherently rude, crappy behavior, to come into a thread with a clear premise and goal, and tell the OP that they’re wrong for having the stated goal. (Barring moral issues, etc)

I often make threads about a new class, subclass, houserule, feat, etc, that I’m building. There is always at least one reply telling me, as if I’ve never cracked open the PHB before, that some subclass or MC build or whatever “does this already”. Often I’ve already stated in the OP why that exact option is unsatisfying for me and/or the players I’m building the option for.

I don’t understand how anyone could possibly view this as normal, healthy, socially acceptable, behavior.

 

[dave2008]

You and I have very different definitions of "very simple". You just required, what, four different supplements? Five? Most of them weren't even published when I ran my low magic campaign. But, in any case, if it takes me a thousand pages of supplements to achieve what I want, that's is the opposite of simple.

One change was all that was required (no ASI, just feats). That is very simple. The supplements just give you more options. They are indeed optional. On top of that, adding feats and subclasses from supplements is hardly difficult or odd behavior. If that is really difficult for you, then yes we have different ideas of simple.

 

[Hussar]

Converting characters, npcs, and monsters, as well has learning the rules for multiple different systems doesn't seem worth the investment.

But, what is the difference between learning the rules of an RPG and learning the rules from four different supplements? I mean, you've got probably just as many mechanics to learn. And, you'll notice that virtually all suggestions for using a different system almost always is for games with relatively simple (at least compared to D&D) mechanics. As in, no one suggests that Rolemaster is a better option. Heck, even things like GURPS or Paladium are almost never suggested. No, it's games like DitV, or BItD - much lighter games that can be learned in the time it takes to read them.

I'm still confused why it's fine to say, "Here's four 200+ page supplements to buy that will resolve your issue" and "Here's a single game, typically about 50 pages (I realize Blades is much longer than that) long that you can digest pretty quickly." I mean, heck, the work is already done for you most of the time.

And, did someone actually ask how to do heists in BitD? Seriously? Isn't that the starting point of the game? That's kind of like saying that heists aren't part of Shadowrun.

 

[Hussar]

One change was all that was required (no ASI, just feats). That is very simple. The supplements just give you more options. They are indeed optional. On top of that, adding feats and subclasses from supplements is hardly difficult or odd behavior. If that is really difficult for you, then yes we have different ideas of simple.

Well, that and stripping out 99% of the classes, the entire magic system, still no changes to monsters, no changes to the baseline assumptions of the game - are potions of healing available? How do we handle anything that requires a Restoration spell? Etc. But, yeah, "one change".

 

[Lanefan]

I have no axe to grind. I’m here to compare D&D to other games, per the stated purpose of the thread. I think that other games can very often do things better than 5E D&D. I think that D&D is a bit flexible, but I think you’re overstating how flexible, and the ease with which it can be changed to deliver different experiences effectively.

I think older editions, up to and maybe/maybe not including 2e, with their discrete-subsystem rulesets and modularity, are more flexible than may be the newer editions. It comes down to a) ease of kitbash-ability and b) the rules not getting in the way so much when trying something different.

Put another way, I think I can twist 1e to do more or less whatever I want it to without it fighting back all that much. 3e-4e-5e, I'm not so sure.

 

[Lanefan]

So, here’s the thing.

The fact that a type of play doesn’t make sense to you in D&D 5e, or that it didn’t work for your group, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work in D&D .

Fussy point, perhaps, but something not working in 5e doesn't mean it doesn't work in D&D. There's numerous other editions...

 

[Hussar]

Fussy point, perhaps, but something not working in 5e doesn't mean it doesn't work in D&D. There's numerous other editions...

But, apparently suggesting playing a different edition is in the same bag as suggesting a different game - it's offensive too.

 

[Hussar]

I think older editions, up to and maybe/maybe not including 2e, with their discrete-subsystem rulesets and modularity, are more flexible than may be the newer editions. It comes down to a) ease of kitbash-ability and b) the rules not getting in the way so much when trying something different.

Put another way, I think I can twist 1e to do more or less whatever I want it to without it fighting back all that much. 3e-4e-5e, I'm not so sure.

There is a flip side to this. Because of it's lack of broader mechanics, AD&D forces you to constantly make up rules. "How far can I jump?" "Can I swim?" etc. etc. For someone coming in new to AD&D, it's bewildering and, for the most part, non-transferable from table to table.

But, @Lanefan brings up a good point. When I talked about a lack of maneuver system for a more tactical 5e, @doctorbadwolf suggested modifying the "Trip" mechanics. But, that's problematic. For several reasons:

1. Trip only allows a single target to be knocked prone, I want to affect multiple targets. There are no rules and no guidance for granting area attacks to martial characters.

2. Blindness is considerably more powerful than prone. Prone simply grants advantage to melee attacks, while causing disadvantage to ranged attacks, at the cost of half of the victim's movement on their turn. ((Note, there might be other impacts for things that need to stay in motion like flying, but, that's pretty corner case)) Blindness grants advantage to all attacks and disadvantage to the victim's attacks, cannot target anything using sight. And I want to do it to multiple targets. Simply using the trip mechanics makes for an attack that is far, far more powerful than a simple trip.

3. When does the blindness end? Prone ends when the target stands up, which it can do at any point in its turn. Does blindness end at the beginning of the target's turn? Does it cost an action to "clean out the eyes"? End of the target's turn? All these answers have a major impact on how effective this is as a tactic.

So, no, it's not as simple as, "just use the trip mechanics". 5e has SO MANY knock on effects and the rules are tied together pretty tightly. This simple example demonstrates just how complex and interconnected 5e mechanics actually are. The ability to inflict blindness is a very powerful effect. To the point where, from memory anyway, the only way a PC can do it is through magic. I don't recall any non-magical means to inflict blindness and there's a very good reason for it. Blinding targets is a huge thing.

Claims that 5e is so loose and easy to modify are pretty simple to disprove. Is it looser than, say, 3e? Probably. But, that's not saying much. 3e is so heavily inspired by Rolemaster that it's not surprising that it's difficult to modify.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But, what is the difference between learning the rules of an RPG and learning the rules from four different supplements? I mean, you've got probably just as many mechanics to learn. And, you'll notice that virtually all suggestions for using a different system almost always is for games with relatively simple (at least compared to D&D) mechanics. As in, no one suggests that Rolemaster is a better option. Heck, even things like GURPS or Paladium are almost never suggested. No, it's games like DitV, or BItD - much lighter games that can be learned in the time it takes to read them.

I'm still confused why it's fine to say, "Here's four 200+ page supplements to buy that will resolve your issue" and "Here's a single game, typically about 50 pages (I realize Blades is much longer than that) long that you can digest pretty quickly." I mean, heck, the work is already done for you most of the time.

And, did someone actually ask how to do heists in BitD? Seriously? Isn't that the starting point of the game? That's kind of like saying that heists aren't part of Shadowrun.

Except that this is a bad take on how flashbacks function in Blades. Flashbacks look like a big deal in print, but once you get to playing and recognize how deeply intermeshed and costly they are with limited impacts you realize how they're a nice tool but don't really enable much. The D&D version would be better if the cost wasn't some nebulous flashback point, but rather a daily use of another ability and 10% of your hitpoints, unrecoverable for the rest of the mission. That might get closer to the cost of flashbacks in Blades.

Of course, if you like this mechanic as presented, go for it, nothing wrong with it, but it's still very ad hoc in it's presentation, with so much left up to the GM without clear direction. Heck, it's even says if things go pearshaped, just make something up! Part of the real problem with the D&D flashback mechanics is the difference in how player actions are done -- there's an absolute finality to them in Blades that's much more open in D&D -- in Blades, any action I try has a chance of success, and will be assigned a risk factor and reward factor according to the fiction in play at the moment, to which the player can assign a host of additional factors. The result is final and will determine success or failure without question, though. In D&D, the chance of an action is entirely up to the GM, it's possibility formed first by what the GM thinks the situation is, including things not yet shared in the fiction, and then the DC is assigned by the GM, and then the outcome is determined by the GM. At some tables, this will be in the open, but the rules of 5e do not require this (like Blades does) so success is gated heavily by what the GM thinks. This limits the usefulness of a flashback, because now there's the discussion of how it even can work once you're there.

There are more things to borrowing a mechanic from one game to another than superficially copying some of it. Blades is a very tight ruleset -- every part of it is deeply intertwined with the other parts. This means it's hard to just rip a mechanic from it, because a large part of how that mechanic actually functions is relegated by other parts of the game. I dislike this rip, it fails to really grasp the concepts in Blades, and doesn't really add much, I think, to D&D, except more wily-nily-ness.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't really feel this relevant to this thread, but that has never stopped me before!

However, I am curious what is the support for heists that Blades in the Dark offers? I looked at Blades in the Dark recently and I don't remember anything in particular.

Now, I think the PF2e VP system could be used to support a heist scenario as could a skill challenge system in 5e, though I would probable mod the VP system which I think is conceptually better.

The entire concept of Blades in the Dark is that you are criminals in a haunted city clawing your way up the power ladder. Heists are fundamental to the game. The are enabled and supported by the whole ruleset. You can't do a dungeon crawl, or a wilderness exploration with Blades -- it has no support for these things. But just about anything you've seen in Peaky Blinders or Leverage is the gristle the system chews on.