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

[KainGuru]

How do the above two statements sit coherently together?

If "system doesn't matter", then why does anyone need to home brew/hack anything? To what end does the hacking/home brewing serve if unhacked game x is effectively the same as hacked game y (previously unhacked game x)? And what work is that "previously" doing in that parenthetical? Shouldn't they taxonomically both still be unhacked game x?

The fact that mechanics ARE separate from the narrative conventions of a game are demonstrable by the court ruling that allowed the likes of OSRIC to use core ADnD mechanics without infringing on copywrite. The actual mechanics are a distinct entity from the narrative conventions of the game as presented

 

[Hussar]

I would also clarify that people using rules as 'rules' far too often, rather than as guidelines. Say you start a DnD game and, as the campaign progresses, the Players goals change or scenario develops that requires a change of tack - do you change systems to the requirements of this altered style of play or do, as suggested, fudge with the guidelines a bit to accommodate the change?. Any system has a core resolution mechanic, its a case of using that to inform adjudication. There is nothing to prevent one lifting mechanics from another system, that has 'rules' for thus variant play style, and using them with a given the likes of DnD eg: failing forward. The effort required issue is more emblamatic of the way DnD is marketed ... People have been convinced that 'offical' system tweaking is somehow 'better' than homebrewing - whi h is just good business practice for WoTC if they want to sell.products. However the needs of any given group are unique to that group - I shamelessly admit I lifted mechanics from the likes of Pendragon and others back in the day. There used to be a cottage industry of hacking the basic system to suit individual needs once a upon a time nb: claw law and arms law which gave birth to RoleMaster (which I personally didn't use or like much).

Nothing is black and white, it all depends

Well sure. We don't call them fantasy heartbreakers for nothing.

But, again, it's always going to depend on the table. For one table, ignoring pretty clear cut advice (if the PC's are seen the guards raise the alarm doesn't really leave a lot for interpretation) is not really done while others mentally add, "If you want" to everything they read.

And, yes, it all depends. But, again, if that's true, then the OP doesn't really work since, "it depends" is wide open and "choose another system" is certainly a valid answer.

 

[dave2008]

I think one of the most cogent arguments here is that of symmetry. Someone mentioned it up thread (@Ovinomancer maybe, or maybe it was @Hussar). That is, if you assert that the rules, particularly the check system, represents a mechanical implementation of the 'reality' of the game world, then of course a check which fails must result in distinct, discrete, immediate failure consequences. This is because this system NECESSARILY must model all characters in the game, PCs, NPCs, monsters, everything. If the result of a monster failing a check when it attempts some action is an immediate discrete failure with consequences, then the same must be true for a failed check made by a PC, otherwise you've undermined the whole concept of mechanics bind to game world reality. While you can certainly make those consequences more or less wide ranging, in every specific case the GM would have to be able to fairly state that the consequences to a PC are exactly equivalent to those which would be suffered by an NPC/monster.

Honestly, I think simply thinking about checks and other mechanics in this way naturally leads to rulings like "the guard spotted you, he sounds the alarm!" This is another way in which the attempt to create PC/NPC rule symmetry, and 'rules as physics' is not really a strong approach.

I am not sure what this discussion has to do with my comment; however, I will point out that the game is inherently asymmetrical. The DM controls many moving parts and a player just controls their character (typically). I have no desire to discuss the implications of this, but I see some relevant to your comment.

 

[dave2008]

The 5E books are horrible for reference during play. Horrible.

Lost Mines of Phandelver is better than those that followed because it is shorter and is like 40 pages and a softcover.

Those big books are tough. Especially when like a rules realted question comes up....hold on everybody while I reference two separate 300 page hardbacks. Ugh.

Who makes good adventures? I ask because I have always hated published adventures and find them extremely difficult to use., whether that was from TSR, WotC, or Paizo. I have yet to see a published adventure that I liked. I would honestly like to know what a "good" adventure looks like.

Full disclosure, I haven't tried to run a published adventure since 4e, but I still look at them (and have purchased most of the WotC 5e ones) and they continue to baffle me.

 

[dave2008]

Additionally there are modules out there that serve a pedagogical purpose. That module that comes with the new Basic set - Icespear Peaks?- would be an excellent source to look at for what the designers feel players need to run a game.

I have heard that argument a lot, but I don't know how true it is. For example, I have read many an argument over the first PF2e adventure and whether or not it represents "how the designers intended the game to be played." From my observation, this type of argument is just a tool to discuss whether you like the game or not, not anything inherent about the game itself.

 

[KainGuru]

Well sure. We don't call them fantasy heartbreakers for nothing.

But, again, it's always going to depend on the table. For one table, ignoring pretty clear cut advice (if the PC's are seen the guards raise the alarm doesn't really leave a lot for interpretation) is not really done while others mentally add, "If you want" to everything they read.

And, yes, it all depends. But, again, if that's true, then the OP doesn't really work since, "it depends" is wide open and "choose another system" is certainly a valid answer.

I'm going to have to confess that in my early DMing days (back at University), our table was as repleat with alcohol and other 'things' as it was with snacks - so every rule was 'if you want' and many made up 'on the fly'. Often with a 20min debate between GM and players to reach a consensus for such 'ad hoc' adjudication - which was as much a part of the game as anything else and part of the social aspect of it eg: discussing how to implement real world physicality as an abstraction within a game (what do you do when the Player with a ranger PC goes off and gets a commando survival guide from the library and reads it cover to cover and points out exactly how his PC can stop everyone from freezing in a snow blizzard? Give him props for solving the problem, ignore the 'rules' in the module, and roll with it)

 

[KainGuru]

I have heard that argument a lot, but I don't know how true it is. For example, I have read many an argument over the first PF2e adventure and whether or not it represents "how the designers intended the game to be played." From my observation, this type of argument is just a tool to discuss whether you like the game or not, not anything inherent about the game itself.

I also find it is also an arguement that puts designers on some sort of pedestal- like they have exclusive access to 'good ideas' etc. Never liked this edification of RPG game designers - the best RPG's, more often than not, have been birthed by necessity rather than design and by creators going against the dominant design paradigm. Consider Arneson did Gygax's Chainmail differently and that led to ODnD

It's like the old BladeRunner 'is Deckard a replicant debate', where someone always says 'that's what Ridley Scott intended'. Where I prefer the more diplomatic answer - 'it's whatever you thought when you watched it, neither opinion is wrong' (which is also more in keeping with Phillip.K Dicks approach to most of his novels: ironically not so with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and the original Deckard in that book)

 

[KainGuru]

Who makes good adventures? I ask because I have always hated published adventures and find them extremely difficult to use., whether that was from TSR, WotC, or Paizo. I have yet to see a published adventure that I liked. I would honestly like to know what a "good" adventure looks like.

Full disclosure, I haven't tried to run a published adventure since 4e, but I still look at them (and have purchased most of the WotC 5e ones) and they continue to baffle me.

The early TSR modules were best treated as a framework to develop an adventure to suit ones campaign, rather than a complete self contained adventure in itself. Ie: they still required (a lot of) prep work from the DM

 

[Seramus]

So, for me, "you'd be better off playing a game that is made for that" usually rings hollow. What about you?

No, not even slightly. I'm actually bewildered you think the likes of GURPS, World of Darkness, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, and Warhammer are "indie" games.

I personally find the only limitation is finding players who are willing to try other systems. Many are willing, some are not, and some won't try D&D in the first place.

Like, I still haven't found a group willing to play Geist, and I know a FATE group that hates D&D.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In person this would have been easier, in that someone could haul out a piece of paper and do some rough mapping.

Voice-only, this sort of maze scenario would be a pain for DM and player alike.

While I agree that it would have been easier in person and that he should have thought of the format before coming up with the idea, I don’t think that it would have been any more engaging.

Ultimately, I think it should have either been a straight up one skill check to determine how long it takes you to navigate, with the situation worsening if you take too long (more townsfolk sacrificed if you fail), or else reworked as a skill challenge with a few decision points and some options for the players to decide what skills to deploy.

Either way would have been fine, really. He went for the second, but hadn't really worked it out in any way for it to hold together, so he then shifted and went to the first.

I think you mean shark people.

Kuo-toa (sp?) are fish people. (Also known to their detractors as "gogglers" on account of their bulbous fishy eyes.)

This community service announcement brought to you by pemerton.

Ugh really? Behold I wins teh internet:

Shark - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

“Sharks are a group of elasmobranch fish characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head.”

Yeah, I saw that post by @hawkeyefan and I was all thinking to myself "what a disgusting aquatist...everything that has gills, fins, and scales is the same, huh?"

Someone cancel that guy before he spreads his oceanic hate.

Oh look at the mayor of Innsmouth over here!

You take your pro-Dagon propaganda and beat it mister.