D&D 5E DnDBeyond: on adapting genre to D&D

[Ringtail]

I agree that D&D is not the best game for every genre or setting. Sure, you technically could adjust the rules for D&D to fit any style of setting or genre.

However I do not always think that is as easy as it seems, or as some people say. (Your mileage may vary, this is my opinion.) There are lots of other great games out there, and I think playing lots of different systems might introduce you to a game you like better, or at the very least improve your ability as a GM by absorbing different practices from different games.

Unfortunately this isn't an option for everyone. Either they can't afford to drop money on a whole new set of books, or their players aren't willing to experiment. In that case, you do the best with what you have.

 

[S'mon]

I dont know, I feel like it would be somewhat easy to fit GoT in 5e:
Races are now Houses
Stark
Lannister
Tully
Greyjoy etc

Classes are:
Fighter, rogue, slayer (barbarian), warden (AiME spell less bard), wanderer (AiME spell less ranger) and Scholar (spell less healer).

Create some pertinent backgrounds.

Use gritty rules, permanent injuries etc

Kill characters a lot.

This sounds like the GM should be running AiME and set it in Westeros.

 

[Coroc]

And I still say subtract, restrict and add only what is needed. Especially when converting older settings not yet covered by the official stuff.

Repeat with me: It does not hurt if I cannot play x* in an y* campaign.

*x races like dragonborn, drow, half whatever, maybe human in a dedicated campaign, classes like warlock paladin with a strong fluff around them, but anything else if you got a reason for it

*y campaigns like DS, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, yes I do not think CoS = Ravenloft 5E. But here also any genre, horror Cthullu, modern, space etc.

It is freakin totally unimportant to have everything allowed RAW in FR available in everything else (and vice versa). It does not matter for a good RP experience. It does not hamper any player. It does not unbalance things. It does alter odds, the rules are the same for every player.

I so hate todays wrong mentality that everybody can be everything (Superstar, Rocksinger, Model, President, Rocketscientist etc.) like in those stupid tv - shows is reflecting into every aspect of culture or daily lives.
If you want it that way in your campaigns do it, but call it what it is. If you take 5e as a baseline for the math and mechanics it is ok, but fluff is a different thing. Classes and races and lore are not mechanics.

DS with drow or paladins running around is not DS, it is FR desert edition.

 

[Remathilis]

.I so hate todays wrong mentality that everybody can be everything (Superstar, Rocksinger, Model, President, Rocketscientist etc.) like in those stupid tv - shows is reflecting into every aspect of culture or daily lives..

Yes, Heaven forbid I get to be anything in a game about pretending to be something I'm not.

 

[Coroc]

Yes, Heaven forbid I get to be anything in a game about pretending to be something I'm not.

No, please, do not get me wrong sometimes the old man shouting at the cloud gets the better of me.
We had similar discussions in other threads, and I respect your view it is just not mine.

The thing is was trying to point out is that I am not recommending to not leave out tings when using D&D 5E for other genres, but rather to leave out things if necessary, except for the mechanics. Like generic D20.

If you got some character concept you want to realize, then I am sure a DM will find a campaign where it fits in. That's the way normal people resolve this. If e.g. Someone wants to play a drow in my DS campaign I will try to convince him to play a normal elf instead, some of them in DS are equally cruel and mean like drow.

And I will offer that the next acampaign I do an all drow (good or evil campaign) in FR if it has to be , I can do that believe me.

I mean at what point does it get ridiculous for you? Drizzt in a Star Wars campaign? There must be a threshold even for you, when trying to create a "believable" scenario.

Greyhawk had spaceships, I never would put them into my campaign, except when I would branch of to spelljammer. My group would not want it. They would protest if I let a spelljammer appear in the sky in my greyhawk campaign. Even though it is part of the original material. Even though it is not Star Wars.
Even though it is official D&D.

I hope this makes you understand my point of view, and it is in no way meant offensive, only an intellectual philosophical debate.

 

[bedir than]

While other games might be better for certain genres it is often easier to get a group together to play heavily modified 5e than it is to convince them to buy new books and study new rules to learn a new game.

 

[Umbran]

* Adapt the genre to D&D, not D&D to the setting.

Thoughts on his suggestions?

I think this one, specifically could have been messaged differently. "Adapt the genre to the setting" sounds a bit pretentious, and as if the things in the genre can't possibly be as important as D&D.

He eventually gets to the two good bits there - try not to muck with core mechanics too much, and find the things already in D&D that are similar to things in the genre, and use them as analogs.

 

[Remathilis]

While other games might be better for certain genres it is often easier to get a group together to play heavily modified 5e than it is to convince them to buy new books and study new rules to learn a new game.

I find the opposite true; giving my players a large banlist and houserule doc tends to confuse and annoy them. While in theory the jumping off point is smaller since they understand core mechanics; the differences in things like classes or such tends to lead to misunderstandings or forgotten rules. The more radical the changes, the more likely they will mess it up.

You might have better luck with dedicated players who play for many years, but casuals or those who are heavily invested, the confusion in changes doesn't always balance with the system familarity gained.

 

[Beleriphon]

No, please, do not get me wrong sometimes the old man shouting at the cloud gets the better of me.
We had similar discussions in other threads, and I respect your view it is just not mine.

The thing is was trying to point out is that I am not recommending to not leave out tings when using D&D 5E for other genres, but rather to leave out things if necessary, except for the mechanics. Like generic D20.

If you got some character concept you want to realize, then I am sure a DM will find a campaign where it fits in. That's the way normal people resolve this. If e.g. Someone wants to play a drow in my DS campaign I will try to convince him to play a normal elf instead, some of them in DS are equally cruel and mean like drow.

I think the caveat is that the player has to have already bought into playing the setting. You have to get them to agree to premise first before you can talk about appropriate options.

Dark Sun is a good example of adapting genre to D&D. Dark Sun is still recognizably D&D, it hits most of the major tropes pretty well. Dark Sun is the example given though: take away race and class options, or replace them with something else. However, it still uses the spellcasting rules, it still uses the basic conceits about weapons, it doesn't remove those rules at all. What we get is an extra layer on top, defilers cast spells as normal BUT other stuff happens too.

And I will offer that the next acampaign I do an all drow (good or evil campaign) in FR if it has to be , I can do that believe me.

I mean at what point does it get ridiculous for you? Drizzt in a Star Wars campaign? There must be a threshold even for you, when trying to create a "believable" scenario.

Drizzt is easy, he's a character from a species that notorious for being "evil" (Darkside types in Star Wars) that happens to be good natured. He wields two weapons, and has a bunch of friends he hangs out with. Seems pretty simple all things considered, most Star Wars games probably even have a species that most mimics drow abilities.

Greyhawk had spaceships, I never would put them into my campaign, except when I would branch of to spelljammer. My group would not want it. They would protest if I let a spelljammer appear in the sky in my greyhawk campaign. Even though it is part of the original material. Even though it is not Star Wars.
Even though it is official D&D.

I hope this makes you understand my point of view, and it is in no way meant offensive, only an intellectual philosophical debate.

I think the problem is you're talking past each and getting lost the weed of the details. You might not like Spaceships in Greyhawk cool, cool. But their inclusions doesn't make Greyhawk a sci-fi setting. Spelljammer is adapting the tropes and aesthetics and applying them to D&D.

A really, really good example of this is the 3E campaign/setting Dragonstar. It literally took the game and added laser guns and spaceships. It added setting elements to explain why those things existed, but never once removed paladins and clerics and rogues. It added new elements, but I don't recall any being removed. It was very much a sci-fi game, that happened to also be D&D. That's the thrust of the article's suggestion: add elements to D&D to match what you want, remove too much and you're better off with a different game that meets your expectations.

 

[Vael]

DnD is very much a genre unto itself. That, to me, is a feature though. I quite liked the article, it's kinda like the MCU, keep the core superhero elements and then flavor with Space Opera or Political Thriller. Do the same with DnD, don't try and make a Western, but run DnD with Western elements.