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

[Hussar]

I guess we could ask him.

@Hussar , what are you saying?

Which of the two are you saying:

1) There is a right way to run 5e and its correct for 5e GM's to adjudicate "stealth obstacle failure = you're seen = the stealth ops part of the caper is up = deal with the new 'you're seen and alarm/violence is about to happen' framing = pretty much combat/A-Team or Wizard ensorcelling them if they can win initiative."

2) There is a stock/orthodox way to run 5e and thus an overwhelming majority of 5e GMs adjudicate "stealth obstacle failure = you're seen = the stealth ops part of the caper is up = deal with the new 'you're seen and alarm/violence is about to happen' framing = pretty much combat/A-Team or Wizard ensorcelling them if they can win initiative."

Which of those two are you saying?

Neither. I'm not trying to generalize beyond my own table. I'll leave others to do that.

What I am saying is that AT THE TABLES I PLAYED AT, which included three different DM's, all three of which I do consider very good DM's who know their stuff, every single "stealth ops" style scenario played exactly the same. Which would be your (1) result above - as soon as there is a failed skill check, the stealth ops part of the caper is up. This didn't matter if we ran modules (Storm Kings Thunder, Princes of the Apocalypse) or homebrew (Darksun using 4e rules, Dragonlance using 5e), and that's not delving back into the 3e or earlier days where it was pretty much the same thing.

I personally think it's very telling to see people talk about how their group makes a big difference. If that's true, then it's not the system at all, but the group. Since I cannot clone your players, telling me that your players are great and help make this work doesn't really do me any good.

 

[Manbearcat]

Neither. I'm not trying to generalize beyond my own table. I'll leave others to do that.

What I am saying is that AT THE TABLES I PLAYED AT, which included three different DM's, all three of which I do consider very good DM's who know their stuff, every single "stealth ops" style scenario played exactly the same. Which would be your (1) result above - as soon as there is a failed skill check, the stealth ops part of the caper is up. This didn't matter if we ran modules (Storm Kings Thunder, Princes of the Apocalypse) or homebrew (Darksun using 4e rules, Dragonlance using 5e), and that's not delving back into the 3e or earlier days where it was pretty much the same thing.

I personally think it's very telling to see people talk about how their group makes a big difference. If that's true, then it's not the system at all, but the group. Since I cannot clone your players, telling me that your players are great and help make this work doesn't really do me any good.

Do you think they run it like that because that is the stock/orthodox way of running 5e (no modules and no outside resources) and/or/both because it’s the way (removing 4e Skill Challenges and its plethora of Damage/Effect on a Miss) D&D always was?

That was my guess (and it’s what I’ve seen “in the wild”).

 

[prabe]

Do you think they run it like that because that is the stock/orthodox way of running 5e (no modules and no outside resources) and/or/both because it’s the way (removing 4e Skill Challenges and its plethora of Damage/Effect on a Miss) D&D always was?

That was my guess (and it’s what I’ve seen “in the wild”).

I was wondering if all those DMs knew each other or had played together. It seems like the sort of thing that--aside from whether it's the way the game is--could become part of how, at those tables, the game is played. I mean, at some point, experience is going to shape expectations, which will in turn shape play.

EDIT: I also wonder how many of the players are in common at those three or four tables, just pondering further the matter of "table culture" and expectations.

 

[dave2008]

Neither. I'm not trying to generalize beyond my own table. I'll leave others to do that.

I believe you; however, the first several pages of your post (and many others - probably mine too) didn't come off that way. When you state: "D&D doesn't do XYZ well (or at all)," which you have, it feels like a universal statement because you didn't (initially) qualify it. I've come to learn that the qualification "IME" or "at my table" should just be assumed.

 

[dave2008]

I personally think it's very telling to see people talk about how their group makes a big difference. If that's true, then it's not the system at all, but the group. Since I cannot clone your players, telling me that your players are great and help make this work doesn't really do me any good.

Except it lets you know it can be run differently. However, it is advice of similar use to you as advice to "play another game," is to the OP and others.

 

[Campbell]

Speaking personally my only experiences in traditional RPGs where a failed Stealth roll does not mean you are automatically observed are ones that have explicit layered Stealth states like Pathfinder 2, Infinity and Conan 2d20. Doesn't mean people do not treat it differently, but I have not seen it in meatspace. I mean generally it's either a contested roll or the DC is set based on Perception/Awareness of the people you are sneaking past. In the worst case scenario each NPC gets to make a roll with no action cost.

Other than 4e skill challenges that is.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's because, thanks to the magic of bounded accuracy, the giant isn't really a threat to an even vaguely prepared village unless it uses guerrilla tactics. Is that what you want?

I disagree that a hill giant isn’t a threat to a vaguely prepared village.

Let’s work this out. A village would be like what? 10 households grouped together? So they have a population of slightly more than 100. Of course, most of these people are non-combatants (too old, too young or infirm). Let’s say 40 combatants altogether.

It’s an agrarian society, so most of these people will be in the fields (all sexes). A hill giant is 10’ tall, so they would probably first see him shortly before he crosses the tree line of the fields.

The villagers are vaguely organized, so instead of attacking the giant right there with the implements they have, they rush back to the village. The giant rushes after them, and due to his greater movement, probably kills s couple on the way there.

One villager goes to the centre of the village and rings a bell (vaguely organized) to warn everyone that there is a giant attack. The others go to their homes to grab what weapons they can find. While this is happening, the giant is rampaging through the village, killing people and destroying property.

Now most families are at home (ostensibly getting ready). They don’t have time to don armor (and none of them have armor anyway). A couple may have shortbows, but most of them have staves, clubs and hatchets (maybe a few scythes as well).

So, do they sally forth and attempt to kill the giant? Some of them will. Some households may decide that instead of sending every able-bodied fighter, they need to ensure at least one adult survives to take care of the old and the infirm. Some may intend to head out but lose their nerve and decide to cower. Some may reasonably conclude that since they don’t know what the giant wants, hiding may be the best option: after all, it is easier to rebuild than to raise the dead.

So you end up with 10 AC 10 commoners fighting a hill giant. A couple with ranged weapons, most with melee.

Maybe at the end the villagers prevail. I’m betting that you are going to end up with a lot of dead villagers even if they do. And maybe the families of those dead villagers starve come winter because only the extremely young and the extremely old are left to run the farm.

Now a town with walls and an organized militia probably wouldn’t be too much at risk from a single hill giant, but I would argue that this is as intended.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Neither. I'm not trying to generalize beyond my own table. I'll leave others to do that.

What I am saying is that AT THE TABLES I PLAYED AT, which included three different DM's, all three of which I do consider very good DM's who know their stuff, every single "stealth ops" style scenario played exactly the same. Which would be your (1) result above - as soon as there is a failed skill check, the stealth ops part of the caper is up. This didn't matter if we ran modules (Storm Kings Thunder, Princes of the Apocalypse) or homebrew (Darksun using 4e rules, Dragonlance using 5e), and that's not delving back into the 3e or earlier days where it was pretty much the same thing.

The one thing I would point out here is that it's very easy to run D&D this way because (and doubling back) unlike Blades there is no real guidance to the DM as to what a failure actually means.

But part of the point of 4e skill challenges (which could have done with more time in development and better explanations) is precisely so this doesn't happen. So complex plans take more than one failure and that there's time to turn the whole thing around.

 

[Manbearcat]

I was wondering if all those DMs knew each other or had played together. It seems like the sort of thing that--aside from whether it's the way the game is--could become part of how, at those tables, the game is played. I mean, at some point, experience is going to shape expectations, which will in turn shape play.

That makes sense; micro-culture.

But I’m inferring macro-culture and the inertia of tradition as causal here.

Personally (in my physical circle), I know somewhere around 20 GMs (including myself) who either do run 5e or did in the last 6 years.

Of those 20, I’m the only one who ran it with the Success With Complications module and I’m the only one who ran it with the Social Interaction Conflict mechanics (like I’ve said many times over the years...basically treating 5e Social Conflict like “Wheel of Fortune”...puzzle out dramatic needs - IBTFS like WoF Letters > Solve the Puzzle w/action resolution + words).

The demographics of that group are 2 young GMs who just started with 5e but learned under their parent and the rest are 40 to 50 somethings (that overwhelmingly returned to gaming or D&D after hiatus).

Online (at least as of 2017...I haven’t paid much attention to 5e culture after 2017), the overwhelming majority of GMs didn’t even know about the Social Interaction conflict mechanics and don’t use the Success w/ Complication module or the Basic Fail Forward approach. ENWorld was nearly a monolith as of 2017. Elsewhere it was much the same (although I can’t comment on RPG.Net).

 

[prabe]

That makes sense; micro-culture.

But I’m inferring macro-culture and the inertia of tradition as causal here.

Why not both?

I mean, neither tradition nor inertia seems as though it would need to be more about macro-culture than minor, and I get the sense this is over more than one edition of D&D, possibly in games not-D&D--though "not-D&D" may not be dispositive, here, if we're talking about games with similar authority structures.