What third-party books do the most interesting stuff with the 5e engine?

[Blue]

- I love the absent divine figures, presented as Icons in the book because of IP rights, but I think its a good idea to keep gods as vague powers where many cults can worship the same god with totally different agenda.

I don't consume Critical Role, but I can say I like having various sects of a deity instead of a single monoculture of belief.

In my current campaign I've got "socially acceptable" sects of otherwise dark gods, and underground cults of otherwise light gods.

I've have players run a heist against a book-vault of a good god of knowledge who cult was hiding heretical books that were supposed to be burned. Because destroying knowledge - even evil, corrupting knowledge - was against this cult's beliefs.

Lovely shades of grey.

 

[Morrus]

I'm absolutely with you.

To paraphrase someone wiser than I: A good setting allows you to play all of the archetypes of the genre. A great system encourages it.

There are mechanics that give specific feels to play. You can play anything and any type of game, but the more natural the fit the easier and frankly better it will go.

Exactly. System really matters. D&D directs a certain type of roleplay that's very different to the roleplaying you'd find of a group playing Call of Cthulhu.

There's this boilerplate sentiment that gets trotted out which claims D&D can accommodate any kind of roleplaying. It's so silly; of course it can't. It does its own thing really, really well, and has been honed over the years to do that thing better and better. But you could never use D&D to run Aliens, or (as I've recently discovered) even Middle Earth. D&D is its own genre with its own feel and style of play. And it's friggin' *awesome* at that. Doesn't translate to movies though. Too much of a format shift.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I don't consume Critical Role, but I can say I like having various sects of a deity instead of a single monoculture of belief.

In my current campaign I've got "socially acceptable" sects of otherwise dark gods, and underground cults of otherwise light gods.

I've have players run a heist against a book-vault of a good god of knowledge who cult was hiding heretical books that were supposed to be burned. Because destroying knowledge - even evil, corrupting knowledge - was against this cult's beliefs.

Lovely shades of grey.

To be fair, from what I was told about the show in-game, they named the gods but since its the classic pantheon of the Nentir Vale (which was also a mix of other setting deities) they couldnt print them in their campaign setting because they had not the rights to those name. So they instead reference them with titles. I suggested to my DM to keep that aspect instead of using the name of the gods because it feels more distant, more vague. Having Pelor being referenced as the Dawnfather instead of Pelor seems to let a lot more leeway in twisting is will to fit human agendas.

It came from a legal necessity, but the result is truly better than what they first intended.

 

[dave2008]

I can only speak to what my players have told me. I have a blast running it, like I do any game.

If pressed, I'd say AiME isn't "low magic", it's "no magic" -- because the setting defines the fact that there are only five wizards in the world. I suspect that TOR models the world better than 5E with the magic stripped out does.

Hmm. I guess how does TOR make no magic feel less restricting to D&D players that AiME cannot for the same players. Is it something with the system or the players? I guess I have a hard time understanding how D&D players (used to lots of magic) and who find AiME borning, but wouldn't find TOR boring.

 

[Morrus]

Hmm. I guess how does TOR make no magic feel less restricting to D&D players that AiME cannot for the same players. Is it something with the system or the players? I guess I have a hard time understanding how D&D players (used to lots of magic) and who find AiME borning, but wouldn't find TOR boring.

System and feel is a whole thing. Different systems lend themselves to different styles of roleplaying. The people who say “D&D can accommodate any style, nobody forces you to have fights” (a) think there are only two types of roleplaying encounter and (b) have not played many systems. Call of Cthulhu - with its system - encourages an utterly different style of play to D&D.

D&D is its own awesome genre - it’s amazing in that it has actually defined a genre of its own which is not Tolkien. It has its own feel, it’s own tripes, it’s own power scale, it’s own language. It does that thing really, really well. There’s no better game for playing the Forgotten Realm than D&D. But Middle Earth? It’s not a great fit. The feel is wrong. You want to cast magic missile but you can’t.

 

[SkidAce]

Exactly. System really matters. D&D directs a certain type of roleplay that's very different to the roleplaying you'd find of a group playing Call of Cthulhu.

There's this boilerplate sentiment that gets trotted out which claims D&D can accommodate any kind of roleplaying. It's so silly; of course it can't. It does its own thing really, really well, and has been honed over the years to do that thing better and better. But you could never use D&D to run Aliens, or (as I've recently discovered) even Middle Earth. D&D is its own genre with its own feel and style of play. And it's friggin' *awesome* at that. Doesn't translate to movies though. Too much of a format shift.

I agree that systems influence (as I did above) roleplaying. However, its not silly to say D&D can accommodate any type of roleplaying. Some systems may be "better" and "encourage" styles like we stated earlier, but D&D is capable of doing it. As we have done it over the years.

 

[happyhermit]

... But you could never use D&D to run Aliens, or (as I've recently discovered) even Middle Earth. ...

Except of course, you can, or rather many people have and often with great results. Doesn't work in all circumstances of course, just like any combination of game/setting/group/etc. but over the years I have actually had a better success rate when running wacky stuff in D&D than with all the other systems I've tried, even when everybody was initially excited with the system.

 

[Morrus]

Except of course, you can, or rather many people have and often with great results. Doesn't work in all circumstances of course, just like any combination of game/setting/group/etc. but over the years I have actually had a better success rate when running wacky stuff in D&D than with all the other systems I've tried, even when everybody was initially excited with the system.

If you’ve succeeded in making D&D more suited to most genres than other games specifically designed for those genres, you’re a better GM than I.

Classes and levels and zero to hero just don’t work for Call of Cthulhu. And I’ve never seen a better investigative system than GUMSHOE. And for pure suspense, Dread has all beat. That’s all just my mileage though.

 

[happyhermit]

If you’ve succeeded in making D&D more suited to most genres than other games specifically designed for those genres, you’re a better GM than I.

Classes and levels and zero to hero just don’t work for Call of Cthulhu. And I’ve never seen a better investigative system than GUMSHOE. And for pure suspense, Dread has all beat. That’s all just my mileage though.

Not more suited, but more successful overall IME ie; people having fun, wanting to continue the campaign and/or play more often, less complaints and difficulties with the rules, etc. Obviously for many this isn't the case, and possibly if I really want to have success with other systems I would need to seek out particular players. There has often been one or two still having a lot of fun with most systems I tried, when the group had overall become dissatisfied so I could try to find those players for those systems. If anything that's what my experience suggests, that "D&D" seems more suited to most players, or at least more players than other systems. Of course this could just be the players I have played with but they do seem a good mix, including quite a few that never played a ttrpg before.

This doesn't make me particularly happy, we have more or less bounced off of every edition since "Basic" (5e being an exception), either drifting away from the hobby or trying other systems, so the "D&D" name wasn't a selling point for me and I've had a ton of things that bugged me about it. On the other hand, I love (or at least I did) digging into a new system and supporting some healthy competition, so I really wanted these things to work. It would be really tough for me to get a group together to play CoC, the response has been pretty negative, but I would have no trouble getting a group together for a heavily houseruled and restricted short mythos campaign in 5e. I wouldn't run GUMSHOE from what I've seen and I doubt anyone else around would (I would probably try playing in it if I had the time though). Dread on the other hand I could easily play and probably will again at some point, it's easy to have fun with for sure even if some found it a bit gimmicky. Nobody really looked at it as the same kind of game though, for example there was no interest in making it a long term campaign which isn't a problem except... we have had waaayyy more suspenseful moments in D&D (and other games) because we were so much more attached to the characters and the world than we could manage to be in just a session or two.

 

[dave2008]

System and feel is a whole thing. Different systems lend themselves to different styles of roleplaying. The people who say “D&D can accommodate any style, nobody forces you to have fights” (a) think there are only two types of roleplaying encounter and (b) have not played many systems. Call of Cthulhu - with its system - encourages an utterly different style of play to D&D.

D&D is its own awesome genre - it’s amazing in that it has actually defined a genre of its own which is not Tolkien. It has its own feel, it’s own tripes, it’s own power scale, it’s own language. It does that thing really, really well. There’s no better game for playing the Forgotten Realm than D&D. But Middle Earth? It’s not a great fit. The feel is wrong. You want to cast magic missile but you can’t.

I understand about the system lending itself to a different style of play, what I am asking about is the players. My point is: I don't see how a system geared to a certain style of play will accommodate people who don't like that style of play. If my D&D players don't like low magic fantasy, how will TOR make them enjoy it more than AiME? Maybe it would/could, it just wasn't my experience.

To be clear, I have played CoC (still have the books). I like the game, but coming off D&D my group as a whole did not. It was not the style they wanted play, despite CoC being really good at that style