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

[Hussar]

Yes. But do they still have mutant 4-armed bosses?

Yup.

 

[Arilyn]

I'd recommend Cthulhu Dark.

I downloaded this gem about a month ago. I really like it even though I'm not a fan of the Cthulhu mythos. I might use it for a different horror genre, or just give Cthulhu a whirl!

 

[Aldarc]

You ever heard of the Devils Advocate? That's the role I'm playing:

The problem with playing the role of a Devil's Advocate is that the Devil's Advocate doesn't actually believe what they are arguing, so declaring that you are playing the role of a Devil's Advocate basically scuttles your own position and leaves it in a pretty hollow state, which I don't think that either of us necessarily wants. Moreover, IMHO, you are not really so much being a Devil's Advocate, because you are basically arguing for the position of the OP's opinion and that of the 800 lb. corporately-backed gorilla in the hobby that is D&D - maybe this makes you God's advocate? - so you are being far less of a Devil's Advocate than you imagine yourself in the wider discursive context.

As long as people remain convinced that 'their opinion is how it is' i'll argue the opposite. Some of what I have said is my opinion much of it is simply 'there is another way to look at this' . . . Shades of grey not black and white

This is far less noble than it probably sounds in your head. It's somewhat sophomoric. I think that many of us, regardless of where we stand on the OP's position, are aware by this point that there are other ways of looking at this, but simply having an opinion doesn't validate it as an opinion.

And there are those who habitually use this as a defense for not being clear in their statements.

Look, if it was just me you were accusing of this, then fine, that might be on me. But, there's been multiple people, to the point where you had to edit your initial post because people were not getting your point. At some point, we all have to take responsibility for breakdowns in communication. If multiple people are "misrepresenting" or "misunderstanding" your points, then perhaps, just perhaps, your points aren't anywhere near as clear as you think they are.

Again, I just think that it's funny that it is NEVER anyone who agrees with a point that is "misunderstanding". It's always someone who disagrees. It's a pretty bog standard rhetorical tactic - you get to avoid defending your point by turning it back on the other person with claims they just don't understand. Again, if it was just one poster, then fair enough, it might be the other way. But, when it's at least three, and quite probably more, in the same thread? At what point do you step back and begin to do a bit of self examination?

You'll note, you're the only person in this thread whose accusing anyone (let alone multiple people) of misunderstand or misrepresenting your point. Funny how everyone else has no problems understanding each other. I mean, I've disagreed with a shopping list of people in this thread. Yet, they haven't accused me of misrepresenting anything. @Ovinomancer has disagreed with lots of people, and yet, again, only you seem to be misunderstood. @Aldarc, @pemerton, and others have all disagreed with many people. And, on the other side of the fence, @Imaro, @dave2008, and a shopping list of others have all disagreed with me and others.

Yet, no one seems to be misunderstanding anything. At least no one else is making accusations, not just of misunderstanding, but, being deliberate about it and "misrepresenting" other people's arguments. Never minding the obvious ad hominem in the attack, and ignoring the fact that such accusations are skirting pretty close to violating the site's Code of Conduct, no one else has had these issues. No one else is whacking people on their ignore lists, to my knowledge. No one else is having any difficulties making their points understood.

Again, I have to ask, at what point does self-reflection become a really good idea?

My disagreement with the OP did result in me being put on their ignore list (at my own recommendation), but it seemed hypocritical to expect me to play nice in the same breath that they were making ad hominem attacks against me.

 

[pemerton]

I downloaded this gem about a month ago. I really like it even though I'm not a fan of the Cthulhu mythos. I might use it for a different horror genre, or just give Cthulhu a whirl!

When we've played it (a couple of one-shots) we haven't been especially Cthulhu-ish. But the sanity rules are an important part of the system.

The author says that he intends it for use with published scenarios, but we've used it for full improv and it's been great! Just get the players to establish an initial situation/puzzle that they're investigating or involved in (an investigative version of a kicker) and go from there.

 

[Arilyn]

When we've played it (a couple of one-shots) we haven't been especially Cthulhu-ish. But the sanity rules are an important part of the system.

The author says that he intends it for use with published scenarios, but we've used it for full improv and it's been great! Just get the players to establish an initial situation/puzzle that they're investigating or involved in (an investigative version of a kicker) and go from there.

I really like how the author wrote a complete system in a few pages. It looks like it'll be fun. The sanity rules are really good and I love the character creation.

There is going to be a second edition that's a full sized book with the setting and mythos fleshed out but I think I'll stick with the little original.

Anyway, I looked it up because you kept mentioning it, as well as Prince Valiant. Thanks!

 

[pemerton]

There is going to be a second edition that's a full sized book with the setting and mythos fleshed out

Yeah, I saw that. To me that seems a bit self-defeating for this system.

For Mythos elements, I like the treatment in Trail of Cthulhu.

 

[KainGuru]

My disagreement with the OP did result in me being put on their ignore list (at my own recommendation), but it seemed hypocritical to expect me to play nice in the same breath that they were making ad hominem attacks against me.

Yeah that's not good, being put on a ignore list for having a different opinion - especially when the OP has phrased the question such as to harvest differing opinions. If the OP simply wanted validation for their opinion then the original question was badly posited.

 

[KainGuru]

This is far less noble than it probably sounds in your head. It's somewhat sophomoric. I think that many of us, regardless of where we stand on the OP's position, are aware by this point that there are other ways of looking at this, but simply having an opinion doesn't validate it as an opinion.

Then you have the old conundrum of 'what makes an opinion valid'? No one will agree, some people with have well thought out (to them) justifications that others simply will not accept and there are others who simply have opinions because that's what they choose to believe without much more consideration than that eg there are protestants that are protestants because they agree with Martin Luthers original criticism of the Catholic Church, and then there are protestants who are protestants because that's how they were bought up and they've always simply been protestants

 

[Aldarc]

Then you have the old conundrum of 'what makes an opinion valid'? No one will agree, some people with have well thought out (to them) justifications that others simply will not accept and there are others who simply have opinions because that's what they choose to believe without much more consideration than that eg there are protestants that are protestants because they agree with Martin Luthers original criticism of the Catholic Church, and then there are protestants who are protestants because that's how they were bought up and they've always simply been protestants

Bringing in this sort of religious analogy straddles the line of the Code of Conduct on this forum, so I would advise a different tact for continuing discussion.

 

[KainGuru]

Bringing in this sort of religious analogy straddles the line of the Code of Conduct on this forum, so I would advise a different tact for continuing discussion.

Sorry, ir was just a handy historical analogy. No judgement on the beliefs intended.