One D&D

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I think some people should take a deep breath and think hard about how much this board would suck if we all started calling all the games we don't like or don't get 'nonsense'. Personally, I think it would suck quite a bit and I think it's a pretty dismissive and shitty thing to do. I don't think it creates the right kind of friendly Pub atmosphere at all.
 
Moracai said:
It does, but it does not tell me I have to channel my creativity into something I haven't planned before.
Click to expand...
To be fair, when the initial plan fails, having to get creative without a plan sounds a lot like what an actual fight feels like.

To quote Mike Tyson, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

But that feel (and it’s particular mechanical expression) and whether you like it or not is going to be a personal preference.
 
Voros said:
Raggi said he didn't understand DW at all. Expecting every game to be D&D (group play, murderhobing, etc) is endemic to the hobby.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I find people new to the hobby understand "not all games are like that ones you've played" way better than some of the old lags.
 
Fenris-77 said:
View attachment 81050
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know the feeling:thumbsup:.

I mean, there might have been a round or two more, like the guy pointing out that reading the PDF of a new system would have taken less than half of those three weeks, and that the "modding D&D" part has been tried already and failed, but the end result is likely to be the same...:grin:

Telok said:
View attachment 81064
And would we be able to tell the difference?
Click to expand...
Well, different approaches?

I mean, the orc is likely to rely on Pinkertons more, while the brain eater is more likely to increase the sponsorship deals with YouTube influencers...:goosecry:

A Fiery Flying Roll said:
Interestingly, I find people new to the hobby understand "not all games are like that ones you've played" way better than some of the old lags.
Click to expand...
Indeed, which is why I tend to prefer new players to old hands::honkhonk:!
 
AsenRG said:
Yeah, I know the feeling:thumbsup:.

I mean, there might have been a round or two more, like the guy pointing out that reading the PDF of a new system would have taken less than half of those three weeks, and that the "modding D&D" part has been tried already and failed, but the end result is likely to be the same...:grin:
Click to expand...
I suspect that for some GM’s the “modding” part scratches one of those primal itches; the endless desire to tinker.

I’m one of those kids who took apart the family’s only VCR back in the day just to see how everything worked (then successfully put it back together again).

Tinkering with an RPG’s mechanics is basically the same impulse only without the disparaging glances from your mother because a very expensive (for the time) piece of electronics was spread out on the kitchen table with dinner in an hour.

Sure, you could just buy a system perfectly designed by someone else that would probably capture the flavor of a different genre better than whatever you’re tinkering with, but that’s not nearly as satisfying for someone with that tinkerer’s itch.

ETA: I ultimately solved my tinkerer’s itch by just building entire bespoke systems for any game I run and having enough experience with mechanics of different systems now to not rely upon d20 System mechanics unless those mechanics actually make sense for the setting.
 
Chris24601 said:
I suspect that for some GM’s the “modding” part scratches one of those primal itches; the endless desire to tinker.

I’m one of those kids who took apart the family’s only VCR back in the day just to see how everything worked (then successfully put it back together again).

Tinkering with an RPG’s mechanics is basically the same impulse only without the disparaging glances from your mother because a very expensive (for the time) piece of electronics was spread out on the kitchen table with dinner in an hour.

Sure, you could just buy a system perfectly designed by someone else that would probably capture the flavor of a different genre better than whatever you’re tinkering with, but that’s not nearly as satisfying for someone with that tinkerer’s itch.
Click to expand...
I wrote a long-winded post, but it can be summarised by saying that I agree that, if someone is perfectly happy using 5e (or any single game, for that matter) as the chassis for every game they ever play, no matter how nonsensical it might seem to me, they should feel free to do so. If they're having fun, they're doing it right.
 
However, the trick is learning how to tweak and still have the result remain 5eish or OD&Dish, GURPSish and so on. Basically learning enough about the system to get the results you are looking for without feeling you have to come up with a completely new system. Unless of course that was your intent all along in which case knock yourself out.

Most people who want to tweak want to start out modestly and take advantage of the things they like about the system they are modifying.
 
If someone is tinkering with 5E and enjoying it, that's completely fine. It's the people that constantly tinker with 5E and end up frustrated that the comic is making fun of.

I love tinkering with systems, so I get the urge. What I find baffling is people who want to tinker with systems, but are won't look at other rule systems when they do so. For me, the urge to tinker and the urge to see how other rule systems work are intertwined.

Having seen 5E purists steadfastly refusing to look at other rule sets while making multiple failed attempts at their own, I think of this Garth Marenghi quote: "I'm one of the few authors who has written more books than I've read."
 
Part of the issue is that D&D is one of the least mod-friendly systems out there. It's designed for a very specific play style, and the massive power gain over the course of the campaign works for very few genres, even just sticking to sub-genres of fantasy.

That specificity of design can make it easier for new GMs to run ass the limitations of the system function as guard rails. Those guard rails become trip hazards when a new GM decides he wants to do something different with it.
 
Last edited:
Baulderstone said:
Part of the issue is that D&D is one of the least mod-friendly systems out there. It's designed for a very specific play style, and and the massive power gain over the course of the campaign works for very few genres, even just sticking to sub-genres of fantasy.

That specificity of design can make it easier for new GMs to run ass the limitations of the system function as guard rails. Those guard rails become trip hazards when a new GM decides he wants to do something different with it.
Click to expand...

I think the thing to keep in mind is a lot of people modding the system are not neccessarily looking for a different core experience .They want that same D&D core play but are often fitting things from other genres to that chassis.

My take is people should do what they want. I like different systems, but I also recognize that D&D works as a concept, as a system (obviously differences between editions), and just in terms of the parts it contains and what the players spend their time doing. I have never had difficulty getting a D&D campaign, or D&D based system campaign off the ground and maintaining it over time. It works well for the long haul. What I miss though, post 2000s in gaming, is that period where people making different systems was more common, and people trying different systems was more common (I realize there are tons of niche RPGs now, even pretty sizable ones). But I do think D&D has lasted for a reason and it gets modded for a reaosn

The cartoon is still funny though
 
BedrockBrendan said:
I think the thing to keep in mind is a lot of people modding the system are not neccessarily looking for a different core experience .They want that same D&D core play but are often fitting things from other genres to that chassis.
Click to expand...
I get that, but I'm referring to a specific guy I know in who is always making his own systems based on 5E and discarding them, going back to the drawing board. One of his goals is to make D&D combat more realistic. He's essentially trying to build Mythras with D&D, and it goes about as well as can be expected.

I don't mind if someone is having fun using 5E hack for unlikely genres. Fun is the basic point after all. I just feel bad for the people that keep doing it over and over and ending up unsatisfied.
 
My experience with D&D is that making it feel like something is about the numbers. It starts with this at various levels.


It is not about whether it takes 8.5 rounds at the 10th level for one edition or 9.8 rounds for another. It is about getting a sense of how power progress across various levels.

As an example OD&D is more grounded than AD&D 1e + Unearthed Arcana which is more grounded than D&D 3.5 with all the supplements.

By grounded, I am talking about what a "name level" 9th to 10th level character could expect when facing a band of ordinary soldiers of 1st to 3rd.

With D&D 3.5 the number of ordinary soldier is extraordinary high. With OD&D that is not case.

As for D&D 5e, when you start off with the core books the power curve is roughly equivalent to that of OD&D. Where 5th edition differs is how that power curve is achieved. D&D has increased hit point total, but it also has increased damage and more ways of inflicting damage for different monsters and character types. Also with bound accuracy, combatant are regularly hitting each other despite a disparity in Challenge Levels and/or Levels.

But because 5e has more ways of inflicting Damage, it also means there are more situations where mechanically the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the player (or referee). But it not like what happened with 3.5 or AD&D 1e + UA where the odds are always in favor of the higher Level/CL. The circumstances has to be right for that to take effect.

Plus, over the life of D&D 5e, supplemental rules have grown to the point where several combinations of abilities, when used with optional rules like feats and multi-classing, cause game-breaking odds to occur more frequently under more situations.

Once I understood this I didn't find it hard to work or modify various editions of D&D. Not all of them are suitable for the type of campaigns I like to run. Which is why I settled on using OD&D plus selected elements of the Greyhawk supplement as the foundation of my work.

I can also work with 5e to run the campaign I like to run as long with the condition that I stick with the core books, no multi-classing, and no feats except for one allowed for humans as I allow players to take the variant human option.

I also don't really focus on anything beyond level 12 as well. I find 5e 20 level advancement setup to be added work without much payoff.

I run enough campaigns with my Majestic Fantasy rules and with 5e compared to GURPS, Fantasy Age, and other system to find that my observations hold up with different groups and different types of campaigns.

Also, most issues with any system's mechanics are compounded if the referee or group ignores the role-playing consequences of various options. Most RPG systems don't hold up as standalone exercises in wargaming despites attempts to do so over the years.
 
Sure, I'd agree that once you get everything in focus that 5E can be hacked without too much difficulty. That said, a lot of people don't have everything in focus. Beyond that, the system just isn't ideal for everything. No system is of course, but some people will pound away at those round pegs anyway.
 
BedrockBrendan said:
I think the thing to keep in mind is a lot of people modding the system are not neccessarily looking for a different core experience .They want that same D&D core play but are often fitting things from other genres to that chassis.
Click to expand...

For some genres and settings, D&D 5e could probably work reasonably well. I could see Gamma World modded to 5e with minimal fuss, for example.

But there's a lot of settings and concepts that I think D&D just isn't a good fit for - whether it would require stretching the rules past the breaking point, or that the zero-to-hero model of character progression doesn't mesh with how the characters should be, or even just that the default gameplay loop for D&D doesn't quite fit the style of adventure that a particular setting needs.
 
Baulderstone said:
One of his goals is to make D&D combat more realistic. He's essentially trying to build Mythras with D&D, and it goes about as well as can be expected.
Click to expand...
Without knowing the details of his attempts I can only speculate. I have done more work with my Majestic Fantasy rules than 5e. However, for 5e, I would focus on two things.

Make it clear that level is a mark of experience. That 3rd level represent professional level of skill (journeyman), 6th levels marks mastery (Master), 9th level marks excellence (grandmaster), and 12th level marks noble/olympic levels of expertise.

Go through the list of maneuvers for battlemaster subclass, jettison the idea of superiority dice, and make them part of the basic menu of actions one can take during a turn.

For example the original

Commander's Strike. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.
Click to expand...

And what I would start off with

Commander's Strike. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage roll.
Click to expand...

With my Majestic Fantasy rules I started with the B/X Combat sequence and added elements like.

  • Individual initiative.
  • You can hold your action and take it anytime until your next turn.
  • Fighters get to add their to-hit bonus to their 1d6 initiative roll along with their dex bonus.
  • Fighters can attack a number of HD/Level per round (min 1) equal to their level.
  • You can attempt a stunt. In lieu of damage, you can name a debilitating effect, but the catch is the target gets a saving through. This can include knocking out an unaware opponent in a single attack regardless of level. The catch is they have to fail their save.
  • Open ended critical attack
  • A simple critical miss.
A bunch of small changes that together allow different tactics to be created and tailored to the situation but still preserve the idea that rolling 1d20+bonus >= AC is the primary way of taking down your opponent in combat. But it no longer the only way.
 
If we're specifically talking about 5E combat I don't think there's too much you can do without tearing the whole subsystem out and reinstalling something different. The action economy is the base of the current combat system and the rest of the combat rules makes un-useful and silly use of it. There is probably a cool combat system to be made out of the action economy as broadly presented in 5E, but I don't think it would look that much like what's in 5E now.
 
Just keep in mind prior to 2016 nobody would have thought that 5e would make for a great Middle Earth RPG. But I will also admit the amount of work it took to make it is not of interest to most hobbyists looking to tweak things. Even my own ideas for 5e are ready for prime time yet as I haven't put in enough time to prove all of them out and to iron out the rough spots like I did with my Majestic Fantasy rules. I am pretty much an outlier the modding scale for RPG hobbyists.
 
Fenris-77 said:
If we're specifically talking about 5E combat I don't think there's too much you can do without tearing the whole subsystem out and reinstalling something different. The action economy is the base of the current combat system and the rest of the combat rules makes un-useful and silly use of it. There is probably a cool combat system to be made out of the action economy as broadly presented in 5E, but I don't think it would look that much like what's in 5E now.
Click to expand...
While I have way more work to do for my 5e stuff to get to the point where I think I got things ironed out. I have done enough to determine there is no particular obstacle to get to where it is more grounded.
 
5e would make a boring Modern game to me but I know that the square peg has had banged into the round hole a couple of times already. Don’t get me started on something like Star Wars.
 
robertsconley said:
While I have way more work to do for my 5e stuff to get to the point where I think I got things ironed out. I have done enough to determine there is no particular obstacle to get to where it is more grounded.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll be interested to see what you get done with it then. :thumbsup: I'd start by tossing everything except the idea of multiple potential actions and the current action economy and work up from there. I'm sure there's more than one way to skin this particular cat.
 
I think there comes a point where you have to ask am I doing more work to change an existing system to do what I want than it would be to just craft my own system.

I mean, I know that "5e compatible" tag on the cover is important for attention and possible sales, but is it worth all that extra effort?
 
hawkeyefan said:
I think there comes a point where you have to ask am I doing more work to change an existing system to do what I want than it would be to just craft my own system.

I mean, I know that "5e compatible" tag on the cover is important for attention and possible sales, but is it worth all that extra effort?
Click to expand...
If your goal is to do something commercial? I imagine it probably is.

If you are doing it for your own edification... man I could not imagine it being worth it in a lot of cases.
 
Chris24601 said:
I suspect that for some GM’s the “modding” part scratches one of those primal itches; the endless desire to tinker.
Click to expand...
Man, I'm basically notorious for tinkering with systems. To the point where I wrote a supers ruledet based on WFRP...

Nobody tested it, so I can't vouch for how well it worked, but nobody was able to break it just by reading, either.

But I don't think it's that person the comic has in mind purely because, as Baulderstone says, this kind of people are usually really interested in hos other systems work.
Baulderstone said:
If someone is tinkering with 5E and enjoying it, that's completely fine. It's the people that constantly tinker with 5E and end up frustrated that the comic is making fun of.
Click to expand...
Yes. And then they keep trying. I've seen that kind enough it stopped being funny.
Baulderstone said:
I love tinkering with systems, so I get the urge. What I find baffling is people who want to tinker with systems, but are won't look at other rule systems when they do so. For me, the urge to tinker and the urge to see how other rule systems work are intertwined.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so much this.
Baulderstone said:
Having seen 5E purists steadfastly refusing to look at other rule sets while making multiple failed attempts at their own, I think of this Garth Marenghi quote: "I'm one of the few authors who has written more books than I've read."
Click to expand...
...yeah, also this.

And usually the problem is they aren't changing stuff that doesn't fit the setting "because that's how D&D works". And then they're unhappy that stuff doesn't work as it did in their source of inspiration.
Or, if they change it, they complain stiff that was introduced because of the fluff is breaking the system...:crygoose:


Baulderstone said:
Part of the issue is that D&D is one of the least mod-friendly systems out there. It's designed for a very specific play style, and the massive power gain over the course of the campaign works for very few genres, even just sticking to sub-genres of fantasy.
Click to expand...
Ah, but if we just rename enough classes and give them names of occupations that exist in the setting, they are totally going to fit, right? Right? I mean, Priests of Sigmar are just clerics, right:devil:?

(I might have read a D&D conversion of Warhammer, over a decade ago...:gooseshades:)

robertsconley said:
My experience with D&D is that making it feel like something is about the numbers.
Click to expand...
And my experience with D&D is that making it feel like anything is about ruthlessly replacing core mechanics with better ones. Consequently, I've stopped trying, am much happier for it, and recommend the same solution to others as well:gooselove:!
 
Tulpa Girl said:
For some genres and settings, D&D 5e could probably work reasonably well. I could see Gamma World modded to 5e with minimal fuss, for example.

But there's a lot of settings and concepts that I think D&D just isn't a good fit for - whether it would require stretching the rules past the breaking point, or that the zero-to-hero model of character progression doesn't mesh with how the characters should be, or even just that the default gameplay loop for D&D doesn't quite fit the style of adventure that a particular setting needs.
Click to expand...

I am not advocating using D&D for every thing a person would want to do (I don't even use D&D or anything like D&D in my own games). But my point was more that people often misunderstand what people are trying to do in places like the OSR. It isn't as much about purely emulating a genre, as it is about the challenge of fitting a genre to the D&D system, play style, core game play activities etc. An example of this outside OSR would be 90s Ravenloft. If you want to do Dracula, and you really want it to feel like the novel, there are much better systems and approaches to take. But if you want the reliability of the D&D system and style of play, Ravenloft worked great (it brought gothic horror into D&D). I am very much for genre emulative games and systems. I just think in these discussions people are often talking passed one another about what it is they are actually trying to achieve
 
Writing an RPG is extra work. And if you want a detailed RPG then you are talking a lot of extra work.

A lot of systems where folks talk up their flexibility, like Fate, Powered by the Dark, and PbTA, do deliver on their promise, but only as long as you stick to a certain level of detail; in some cases, certain types of detail.

When you go beyond that, it now requires extra work.

Even minimalist system are not easy to get right either. RPGs like Shadowdark had a lot of work put into them because, while minimalist, each part of it has to do its part and do it well with not a lot of wiggle room. Because there is nothing else to fall back on if it doesn't work.

In short, there is no ideal setup. There is no objective best or worst. It boils down how much time and effort you want to put into the project. What "best" are the things that save your time and dovetail nicely with how you think about a genre or setting. And that is highly ideocratic and each person as their own unique mix of what works "best'. The earlier example of the novice who couldn't understand why you wouldn't use "roll high" over "roll under" is a perfect example of this in action.
 
Baulderstone said:
Part of the issue is that D&D is one of the least mod-friendly systems out there. It's designed for a very specific play style, and the massive power gain over the course of the campaign works for very few genres, even just sticking to sub-genres of fantasy.

That specificity of design can make it easier for new GMs to run ass the limitations of the system function as guard rails. Those guard rails become trip hazards when a new GM decides he wants to do something different with it.
Click to expand...

I find the rate of levelling the easiest thing to change in D&D. It doesn't even interact with other systems unless an adventure assumes gaining several levels over the the course of it.

Not quite D&D but in CoC D20, it recommends treating the starting level as dialing in to the desired subgenre between super grim and pulp. This and rate of advancement are easy changes to adjust the feel.

The magic system is much harder to change much without making some classes unplayable.
 
Stan said:
I find the rate of levelling the easiest thing to change in D&D. It doesn't even interact with other systems unless an adventure assumes gaining several levels over the the course of it.

Not quite D&D but in CoC D20, it recommends treating the starting level as dialing in to the desired subgenre between super grim and pulp. This and rate of advancement are easy changes to adjust the feel.

The magic system is much harder to change much without making some classes unplayable.
Click to expand...

I remember quite liking d20 Cthulhu
 
I don't care for 5e, but old school D&D is easily modable to other genres because it's rules are lightweight and are a variety of different subsystems. For example if you think hitpoints start too low or rise too quickly you can simply change that column in the classes. If you don't like the classes just write your own. Games with universal mechanics are far harder to change.
 
sharps54 said:
View attachment 81190
Click to expand...

For me it is the best of both worlds as I like the relative simplicity of B/X but the 5e tweaks help address many of the issues I have with the core D&D ruleset: useless thief skills; descending AC; saving throws; HP bloat; Vancian magic, etc.

In my opinion Into the Unknown is the best D&D ruleset for actual play at the table.
 
Voros said:
For me it is the best of both worlds as I like the relative simplicity of B/X but the 5e tweaks help address many of the issues I have with the core D&D ruleset: useless thief skills; descending AC; saving throws; HP bloat; Vancian magic, etc.

In my opinion Into the Unknown is the best D&D ruleset for actual play at the table.
Click to expand...
There are other games out there if you don't like D&D but to each their own. I'm glad you found a ruleset that works for you, how does the rest of your group like it?
 
Sable Wyvern said:
I wrote a long-winded post, but it can be summarised by saying that I agree that, if someone is perfectly happy using 5e (or any single game, for that matter) as the chassis for every game they ever play, no matter how nonsensical it might seem to me, they should feel free to do so. If they're having fun, they're doing it right.
Click to expand...
I agree, to a point. Another part of the cartoon is the frustrations of the friends/crew who despair at the attempt to twist a system into something else when other games already exist to do that.

The d20 glut that came from the OGL being released proved that while some players can certainly settle comfortably into a single system, others would rather switch things up between campaigns.
 
sharps54 said:
There are other games out there if you don't like D&D but to each their own. I'm glad you found a ruleset that works for you, how does the rest of your group like it?
Click to expand...

I definitely would rather run/play something other than D&D these days but if I was going to run D&D I'd use Into the Unknown or Beyond the Wall.

Next game I run though I hope it can be horror or spy oriented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top