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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think one of (maybe originally THE) purpose of ability scores was to act as 'tags' that would signal what sort of RP was appropriate for your character. Later they acquired a 'mechanical bite', which I think was an improvement. That doesn't mean they LOST their original purpose. I think if you are running an INT 5 PC in a D&D game, then you are not really doing good RP if you depict them as super intelligent, particularly if they then fail all their INT based checks! Of course ability scores are coarse indicators and I'm sure you can split hairs carefully and make a character that is both intellectual and has significant deficits, for example. That's cool, but I think the mechanical moving parts are still probably your friend in that case (and games like 4e are pretty rich in terms of options that might let you still shine in some intelligence-type-way and still be low INT). Some other systems may even be flexible enough to accurately describe the character, but many of those don't have or don't rely much on D&D-like ability scores.

 

[pemerton]

I read In the Mountains of Madness fairly recently I don't recall anyone going insane from finding the Elder Thing or deciphering the "real" history of the earth recorded in their city.

Danforth (I think it is - one of the grad students) goes insane.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I will hold firmly in the motte then. I think it is bad form to suggest playing a different game if someone is asking to do something in a particular game (regardless if they have started a campaign or not). I've no need to hide back in the bailey. I understand others don't agree with that, but I am comfortable in my opinion. It holds to my views of decency and respect. Note, I have been known to cross those lines once and while myself, it happens.

Also, regarding the OP: it specifically gave an example of the bailey (playing in an Eberron D&D game and running a heist), so they were not up front about taking the narrow definition to begin with. That should have been obvious to anyone who read the post I think.

For reference here is the last paragraph of the OP:

Okay, for starters, I know it's new to you, but you've swapped the difference between the motte and the bailey. The bailey is the lightly fortified, good land that you want to live in, and the motte is the hillside fort that you defend when the bailey is attacked.

Secondly, the OP's opening paragraph is as follows:

So, there is a lot of traffic on the internet dedicated to the idea that DnD is a very limited game, and if you want to run a heist or have romantic fantasy narratives, or even just play a game where bonds with other people is very important, then you should play some indie game that is built for that thing, rather than D&D.

This is the bailey. That the OP also included a shout out to the future motte position doesn't change that it opens with the bailey argument that it shouldn't be okay to recommend other games.

Finally, if you are really establishing that it shouldn't be acceptable to recommend other games, okay. I guess you will continue to be disappointed in life. Because, and here's the thing, someone else may be thrilled to have a game they weren't aware of recommended to them and then go on to have a great time with that game, or just learn something about what they like with a broader set of experience. The demand that no one should be recommending other games to you because you're happy with 5e is not something I find remotely persuasive or worthy of modifying my future behavior to accommodate. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm actually happy you've found your niche and enjoy it -- happy gamers improve the hobby. But, I'm not willing to accept that your preference is sufficient.

In the meantime, I will agree that it's less useful to recommend playing a different game when you've established that you're already running a 5e game and are looking for pointers to how to do something in an upcoming adventure. That advice is not very helpful. Recommending looking at how another game does things can be, but suggestions you just play the other game are not. The motte argument holds water. The bailer can go do whatever baileys do on the weekends.

 

[pemerton]

My biggest complaint in this regard was when a GM docked my character's sanity because I came to a conclusion reasonably supported by what we'd seen in-game. I mean, it literally (that I know of) didn't cost me sanity to see that connection; why is my character being beaten up for it?

Trail of Cthulhu has a rule that says SAN checks aren't required if the player draws an inference without deploying Cthulhu Mythos skill.

But I'm not sure such a rule is necessary. You in the real world weren't coming to a horrible realisation about your world - you were drawing an inference about the content of some fiction. Your character, on the other hand, has just realised a mind-blasting truth!

 

[prabe]

Trail of Cthulhu has a rule that says SAN checks aren't required if the player draws an inference without deploying Cthulhu Mythos skill.

But I'm not sure such a rule is necessary. You in the real world weren't coming to a horrible realisation about your world - you were drawing an inference about the content of some fiction. Your character, on the other hand, has just realised a mind-blasting truth!

The "mind-blowing truth" in this instance was, I assure, a bone-simple deduction, especially for characters that weren't complete rookies. We captured, killed, and dissected a strangely-behaving bird and saw weird stuff inside that seemed to be connected to the central nervous system. "Oh ... like a remote control?" "Exactly! Lose (some amount I've forgotten of) SAN."

Yes, the GM decides and all-a-that. My point is that if the GM makes enough decisions that cut across players' expectations, the GM is going to lose credibility; if the GM loses enough credibility the game falls apart.

 

[dave2008]

It isn't that clear at all actually: What is the title of this thread? "D&D Compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs" If the OP had no interest in hearing about how those games might work better/differently AT SOME LEVEL then why the title? And if the title should have been "I Hate it When People Suggest Games Other Than 5e" then I'm not sure what the point of this thread was at all. Is it supposed to be just a 5e bro-fest where we all slap each other on the back because we are so smart for never using any other RPG? I don't think so...

On some level, then why the explanation in the last paragraph. If you want to focus on one part of the OP and not take in the whole picture that is one you. Not to mention the OP has been clarified in further post repeatedly.

Thus we MUST conclude that it is IN SCOPE to make comments of the nature of "Game X would do genre Y better than 5e" for at least some reasonable definitions of 'better'. It seems like the response to those comments is pretty consistently "but we don't want to hear about any other RPGs, stick to discussing 5e" ????? I'm just not getting it. What am I allowed to say in this thread according to you all?

IMO, your conclusion is faulty on at least two fronts:

1. Your conclusion is based on only some portion of the OP, not the whole thing.
2. The OP is prompting a discussion on whether or not we think it is OK to suggest a another system when a poster specifically asks for advice on a given system. It is not asking for a discussion of: "Game X would do genre Y better than 5e."

Listen AbdulAlhazred, I value your thoughts and opinion, but this discussion is frankly a waste of time and of little consequence. I am starting to feel better emotionally and my creativity is starting to come back. I do not wish to continue these petty arguments as the are a drain on my happiness and that is simply not worth it. Unfortunately, I have bizarre inability to let something go when I think someone is misunderstanding or misrepresenting an issue. However, I will try to let it go and hopefully this is may last post with you in this thread (but not on another future topic / thread).

 

[dave2008]

Danforth (I think it is - one of the grad students) goes insane.

Thanks! If that is the case I don't remember it well enough! When did that happen? I don't remember anyone going insane from simple reading the history. I thought some people where distrubed by the mutilation caused by the elder thing or possible the shogoth, but I couldn't remember clearly if it they truly went "insane." I.e. I think the insanity was less a cosmic knowledge horror and more body horror / threat induce psychotic break. But again I don't really remember clearly.

 

[prabe]

Thanks! If that is the case I don't remember it well enough! When did that happen? I don't remember anyone going insane from simple reading the history. I thought some people where distrubed by the mutilation caused by the elder thing or possible the shogoth, but I couldn't remember clearly if it they truly went "insane." I.e. I think the insanity was less a cosmic knowledge horror and more body horror / threat induce psychotic break. But again I don't really remember clearly.

The instance of insanity I remember from At the Mountains of Madness is someone other than the narrator snapping after encountering the shoggoth. There might be another--it's been some time since I've read the novella.

 

[Campbell]

Here's a little story about me.

I started with freeform online play, deeply emotive character oriented stuff. I pretty much spent the first half of my gaming career on both sides of the screen chafing against the restrictions of traditional play broadly, and AD&D Second Edition in particular. The whole group oriented heroic fantasy bit where we were all supposed to work together to solve the adventure of the week stuff was deeply frustrating to me. I missed the character oriented stuff. Sure there were some emotive moments, but it was like always with some emotional distance or behind the scenes plotting going on. None of it ever felt real. There was always some sort of spotlight balancing or getting back to the adventure to be done.

I don't particularly like heroic fantasy. Fantasy sure. I loved Conan, The Black Company, The Amber Chronicles, The Dying Earth, anything by Tanith Lee. D&D has never felt like that kind of fantasy to me. It always has felt a lot more specific than a general fantasy game. You have characters that intricately connected to one another who go on random adventures together, each with a very narrow set of skills. You have a very particular fantasy setting. You have this whole culture of adventurers who have very minimal ties to the setting. I find the whole thing a little bizarre personally.

I have learned to embrace it for what it is over time, but while playing it I definitely have never felt even a smidge of the sort of fantasy I grew up loving.

In contrast I personally do not find crime fiction any more limited as a genre than the sort of group focused heroic fantasy action adventure with a very specific setting you see in most D&D games.

It feels like any game that features nonstandard genres or dares to represent psychosocial elements in the rules (rather than elaborate physical details) immediately gets labeled as hyper focused. A game like Burning Wheel is certainly no more specific than D&D genre wise, but because it is a game of emotive rather than procedural storytelling it becomes focused while D&D gets to be flexible, despite there being no rhyme or reason for the label.

 

[dave2008]

Okay, for starters, I know it's new to you, but you've swapped the difference between the motte and the bailey. The bailey is the lightly fortified, good land that you want to live in, and the motte is the hillside fort that you defend when the bailey is attacked.

My mistake - the terms where new to me!

Secondly, the OP's opening paragraph is as follows:



This is the bailey. That the OP also included a shout out to the future motte position doesn't change that it opens with the bailey argument that it shouldn't be okay to recommend other games.

I personally think you have to take the opening post as a whole. It is one argument IMO. So I personally finding unhelp at best to break it down as you have. From subsequent clarifying post it seems the OP agrees.

Finally, if you are really establishing that it shouldn't be acceptable to recommend other games, okay. I guess you will continue to be disappointed in life.

It is unacceptable for me. I cannot control what other people do. If you find it acceptable that is one you. When someone ask me advice on a subject I try to give them advice on the subject or nothing at all. I don't consider suggesting to play another game as advice on the subject: "how do I modify the game I want to play." It is OK if we have different opinions on this.

Because, and here's the thing, someone else may be thrilled to have a game they weren't aware of recommended to them and then go on to have a great time with that game, or just learn something about what they like with a broader set of experience.

Sure. And other's may be pissed of if you suggest another game. There are risks and rewards to both approaches. Not issue if you have a different approach.

The demand that no one should be recommending other games to you because you're happy with 5e is not something I find remotely persuasive or worthy of modifying my future behavior to accommodate.

I just gave my thoughts. I don't think I am likely to change your opinion as you are not likely to change mine. I can see it as rude and you can see it as heroic and we can both be right.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm actually happy you've found your niche and enjoy it -- happy gamers improve the hobby. But, I'm not willing to accept that your preference is sufficient.

I hate to ask since I don't want to continue this conversation, but..."sufficient" for what?

In the meantime, I will agree that it's less useful to recommend playing a different game when you've established that you're already running a 5e game and are looking for pointers to how to do something in an upcoming adventure. That advice is not very helpful. Recommending looking at how another game does things can be, but suggestions you just play the other game are not. The motte argument holds water. The bailer can go do whatever baileys do on the weekends.

I think we agree here, but it is not like we need to. There is room for both opinions. My stance at this point is that I am happy with mine and I am guessing you are happy with yours. They both work, so let's use them.