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

[prabe]

I've always favored the 4e-like handling of these things, generally speaking.

I don't object strenuously if someone plays a lower-INT character as less thoughtful, or having a poor memory, or whatever; nor do I object strenuously if someone refuses to dump INT because they want to play smart. I don't insist on either, though.

 

[Jaeger]

...

The OP's viewpoint from the beginning was the narrow perspective.

No one could give him an example that he would not go on to expand his argument to show that 5e could also do it.

Quotes of this are shown by me and others - Not that I expect anyone to dig back through this mess! But they are there if you go and look.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you are familiar with my 5e epic monster updates you know I don't ascribed to that belief. I like to stat cosmic level threats because it is fun, even if there is no way for the PCs to beat them. Though I generally agree with the concept.

However, how often do 15 HP PCs want to challenge an aberration with 75 hit points, let alone a 1,200 HP cosmic horror that does 84 damage with one claw attack?

I am familiar with your epic monster thread....I think I posted in there a good amount early on. I actually really like a lot of that stuff.

I want to clarify. I have no problem with D&D PCs going around and beating up elder beings and entire pantheons. I have elements of that in my 5E game myself.

There is nothing at all wrong with that kind of play. I just don't think it matches what most would consider the feel of cosmic horror.

If so, I guess we (my gaming group) are all anemics as we can play D&D 5e just fine without a lot of combat, little to no house rules and have a great time. That is really all I want - to have a good time with my friends. I personally don't find that I need a lot of rules for social interaction, investigation, infiltration, etc. to achiever that goal. Though, as always, everyone is different and has different needs.

I wasn't criticizing your play or anyone who enjoys that kind of play. Simply that removing the bulk of combat from 5E removes the bulk of the rules, and what remains isn't all that much.

If you are able to take that bit that remains and turn it into fun for you and your friends, then more power to you. That's awesome.

I don't think that a lot of rules are necessarily needed....look at Cthulhu Dark as has been mentioned by @pemerton and others.....it's a 4 page system, free to download, with minimal rules that get the job done.

As you say, everyone has different needs and wants, though.....and I have no doubt that your game is fun for you and your players, and likely would be for many others.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, in general they are just not organized in a way I find useful nor do they have all of the information I want. I guess what I would like is a short adventure with a ton of information about everything will a clearly defined flow chart with the consequences for both failure and success at each decision point. So an adventure that takes you from lvl 1-2 with about 120+/- pages of content, maps of all relevant locations, and handouts. If not, why not do it myself.

Ah - you'd like the module author to handle more of the "what-ifs". Yes, if done fully that would make most adventure modules 10x longer than they are now - which while good in one way would be bad in another in that the core useful info would get buried under mountains of corner-case what-if examples.

That said, I can think of many modules where the author's take on a few very obvious what-ifs would have been greatly appreciated!

As for success-failure flow charts, that's something I can see as useful in theory but not so useful in practice, as no two groups are going to deal with any given success or failure the same way.

I use modules in part because they do a lot of the busy-work for me: the mapping, the monster/opponent generation, etc. All I have to worry about is bespoke tweaking to suit my own campaign (e.g. conversion if needed, or reskinning monsters to suit my setting) and filling in any needed backstory. Even with that a module still cuts my prep work by at least 75%.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ah - you'd like the module author to handle more of the "what-ifs". Yes, if done fully that would make most adventure modules 10x longer than they are now - which while good in one way would be bad in another in that the core useful info would get buried under mountains of corner-case what-if examples.

That said, I can think of many modules where the author's take on a few very obvious what-ifs would have been greatly appreciated!

As for success-failure flow charts, that's something I can see as useful in theory but not so useful in practice, as no two groups are going to deal with any given success or failure the same way.

I use modules in part because they do a lot of the busy-work for me: the mapping, the monster/opponent generation, etc. All I have to worry about is bespoke tweaking to suit my own campaign (e.g. conversion if needed, or reskinning monsters to suit my setting) and filling in any needed backstory. Even with that a module still cuts my prep work by at least 75%.

deciding what if's usually requires a way of seeing the thousand foot view of the powers that be & their motives/struggles easily or having the skills to wing it without memorizing the module. When the module s a short little stapled thing you can reasonably do that. When the module is a 150-200+ page hardcover... not so much.

The dfrpg "city" sheets do a nice job of filling that niche in a couple pages as an example.

 

[Campbell]

I think there is all sorts of value in having a conversation about when you should adapt an existing game to your purpose as opposed to when searching out another game would be more fruitful. Particular when it comes to learning different ways of playing where sometimes quality of play may suffer before it gets better (while learning new skills).

Choosing to play another game (regardless of the game you are playing and the game you might consider playing) is not an investment free decision. Different games require different skillsets, techniques, etc. Skills might not transfer.

I would be more than happy to have that much more nuanced conversation. I just do not think it's all that useful to have it in a context where we are elevating one game that obviously has its share of genre emulation built in and reinforcing negative stereotypes about other games as being more limited.

 

[dave2008]

No one could give him an example that he would not go on to expand his argument to show that 5e could also do it.

Quotes of this are shown by me and others - Not that I expect anyone to dig back through this mess! But they are there if you go and look.

I am not sure what your response has to do with the part of the post you quoted, so I apologize I have no helpful response at this time.

 

[dave2008]

I am familiar with your epic monster thread....I think I posted in there a good amount early on. I actually really like a lot of that stuff.

I want to clarify. I have no problem with D&D PCs going around and beating up elder beings and entire pantheons. I have elements of that in my 5E game myself.

There is nothing at all wrong with that kind of play. I just don't think it matches what most would consider the feel of cosmic horror.

Oh I agree, two separate things in my opinion and experience. I can also do both in 5e to my satisfaction.

I wasn't criticizing your play or anyone who enjoys that kind of play. Simply that removing the bulk of combat from 5E removes the bulk of the rules, and what remains isn't all that much.

If you are able to take that bit that remains and turn it into fun for you and your friends, then more power to you. That's awesome.

I don't think that a lot of rules are necessarily needed....look at Cthulhu Dark as has been mentioned by @pemerton and others.....it's a 4 page system, free to download, with minimal rules that get the job done.

As you say, everyone has different needs and wants, though.....and I have no doubt that your game is fun for you and your players, and likely would be for many others.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but to me enough remains that it is still 5e IMO.

PS - I didn't think the description of anemic as negative or criticism. Just a descriptor. I don't mind being described as anemic.

 

[dave2008]

I use modules in part because they do a lot of the busy-work for me: the mapping, the monster/opponent generation, etc. All I have to worry about is bespoke tweaking to suit my own campaign (e.g. conversion if needed, or reskinning monsters to suit my setting) and filling in any needed backstory. Even with that a module still cuts my prep work by at least 75%.

Yes, I basically mine adventures for those pieces and plop them into my world.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is essentially what I’ve been saying.

If BITD doesn’t bring a gameplay experience I and my group prefer, but 5e with some elements stolen from caper-oriented games does (and it does), then for my group 5e is the better fantasy heist game.

Sure, but if we cannot come up with ANY objective evaluation criteria, and at least some of the people in any discussion on this topic won't ever explore past "this particular game is simply the thing I prefer, that's the end of the discussion" then what are we discussing? It feels like the thread began and ended on post #1... At least part of the time.