Need an alternative to D&D.

[TheCosmicKid]

So, my group recently expressed interest in doing a fantasy campaign so given D&D is the big name in the genre I bought it - naively it appears. The PCs are still low-level but I'm already finding the system a little hinky with things like Perception and AC feeling very loose with balance and result. But more especially I'm learning things like the system really doesn't support well anything other than, well, "dungeons". I'm participating in several threads on topics like encounter balance and balancing ranged and melee combat on the 5e forums but constructive discussion is just being bombed by people insisting that people are "playing it wrong". For example, it seems to break if you have one encounter a day. In my games, you could go weeks without an encounter and when you do have one it's a big dramatic finalé. I don't see the point of combats that don't advance the story. I've been told by other posters on the forums that "D&D isn't for you." There's a thread on ranged combat and tweaking that and it's just getting buried by aggressive posters who insist that encounters should start at X range, etc. Ignoring the fact that my GM'ing style is very player driven and I don't want to deny them the strategic ideas they have that control how encounters emerge. Honestly, certain posters here, the issues I'm seeing with the system and that people are telling me that those issues are baked into it by design, have put me off 5e.

Don't listen to those people. Like, at all. I've been running a 5E campaign for two years, and I've literally never run an alleged "adventuring day". One encounter per day works fine. You have to understand what will challenge your PCs in those circumstances, of course, but that's true of any system. Dungeons? In my campaign there have been three. And that's a deliberate attempt by me to run more dungeons than I usually do. And range? Of course you should let your PCs come up with strategic ideas to control how encounters emerge.

The system is bare-bones not because these assumptions are baked into it, because (insofar as it's possible) they didn't want any assumptions baked into it. 5E is supposed to be the "do whatever you want with it" edition. Now, if you still feel like it's failed at that because of actual rules you don't like -- you mentioned Perception and AC? -- then by all means, give some of the other systems in this thread a look. Some of them are very good too. But for the love of all that is Good, don't be put off by self-proclaimed experts on the internet. They ruin everything.

 

[fjw70]

Don't listen to those people. Like, at all. I've been running a 5E campaign for two years, and I've literally never run an alleged "adventuring day". One encounter per day works fine. You have to understand what will challenge your PCs in those circumstances, of course, but that's true of any system. Dungeons? In my campaign there have been three. And that's a deliberate attempt by me to run more dungeons than I usually do. And range? Of course you should let your PCs come up with strategic ideas to control how encounters emerge.

The system is bare-bones not because these assumptions are baked into it, because (insofar as it's possible) they didn't want any assumptions baked into it. 5E is supposed to be the "do whatever you want with it" edition. Now, if you still feel like it's failed at that because of actual rules you don't like -- you mentioned Perception and AC? -- then by all means, give some of the other systems in this thread a look. Some of them are very good too. But for the love of all that is Good, don't be put off by self-proclaimed experts on the internet. They ruin everything.

Agreed. 5e is very flexibile. It isn't just for dungeons.

I would be curious what exactly about AC and perception the OP has an issue with.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Not edition warring here, but I'm just not thinking of 4e as a good fit when I read the OP. Am I missing something?

 

[pemerton]

Not edition warring here, but I'm just not thinking of 4e as a good fit when I read the OP. Am I missing something?

things like Perception and AC feeling very loose with balance and result

<snip>

I'm participating in several threads on topics like encounter balance and balancing ranged and melee combat

<snip>

it seems to break if you have one encounter a day. In my games, you could go weeks without an encounter and when you do have one it's a big dramatic finalé. I don't see the point of combats that don't advance the story.

<snip>

my GM'ing style is very player driven and I don't want to deny them the strategic ideas they have that control how encounters emerge.

<snip>

My requirements are moderately crunchy combat but capable of handling other things well, a magic system that allows similar things to D&D (i.e. needs to be fireballs not subtle curses) and ideally a similar range of power - i.e. you can scale up from goblins to ancient dragons.

All of the things you listed [=exploration, investigation, research, engaging in politics, trade or just social encounters?] except downtime. There can be downtime but that's easily handled in any system.

<snip>

a story I run can have a lot of politicking, role-playing, social maneouvering and investigation. Very often the players will try to manipulate people into being where they want or doing what they want, they will seek out allies to help them defeat particular threats. When a combat happens, it's often semi-planned out by the players. If they know that the baron is their enemy, they're not going to march up to his castle and barge in the front door - my players would think that the height of stupidity. They're going to try and lure him to a ball or find out when he's riding out in his carriage, etc. So you see whilst I can do a lot to tweak how an encounter will play out, the game leans substantially towards low numbers of encounters

<snip>

I expect them to revert to seeing combat as a means to an end rather than an end itself. I.e. if it can be side-stepped or circumstances tweaked to shift the odds wildly in their favour, they're going to do it.

<snip>

I want something that roughly equates to D&D default in terms of magic prevalence and power. My setting is North European Medieval for the most part, with magic being known, practiced but not routine.

4e handles a lot of this: changing the number of combat encounters per rest won't cause intraparty imabalance; it has D&D-style magic; it has good mechanics for intrigue, social stuff, and "exploration" (if that is handled via skill challenges rather than traditional hex-crawl or dungeon-crawl style). It has crunchy combat and works best for player-driven gaming.

4e is probably not a good fit, though, for players who are only going to engage in combat if the odds shift wildly in their favour. 4e does not have to be "combat as solution of first resort", but I'm not sure it is well-suited to "combat as solution of last resort" either. At least in its mechanical presentation, it seems to treat violence as the ultimate means of resolving disputes - whether disputes between orcs and homesteaders, disputes between vassals and lords, or disputes between gods and primordials.

Everything that [MENTION=65151]knasser[/MENTION] says makes me think that Burning Wheel would be worth checking out.

 

[chaochou]

Yes, a story I run can have a lot of politicking, role-playing, social maneouvering and investigation. Very often the players will try to manipulate people into being where they want or doing what they want, they will seek out allies to help them defeat particular threats.

When a combat happens, it's often semi-planned out by the players. If they know that the baron is their enemy, they're not going to march up to his castle and barge in the front door - my players would think that the height of stupidity. They're going to try and lure him to a ball or find out when he's riding out in his carriage, etc.

My setting is North European Medieval for the most part, with magic being known, practiced but not routine.

Now I've had a chance to read more, you want to give Burning Wheel a serious look. It's made of awesome for the campaign you just described.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

4e handles a lot of this: changing the number of combat encounters per rest won't cause intraparty imabalance; it has D&D-style magic; it has good mechanics for intrigue, social stuff, and "exploration" (if that is handled via skill challenges rather than traditional hex-crawl or dungeon-crawl style). It has crunchy combat and works best for player-driven gaming.

Ah, I can see it now. I probably zone in more on the elements of a system that seem like they don't fit what someone is looking for (with 4e, the ones that I was thinking of were the D&D style magic, in that 4e's magic feels a bit limited to me compared to other editions, and avoiding combat or stacking it rather than playing it fair). For the other systems I was familiar with I spotted even more things that didn't fit, but since 4e was fairly close, I just wandered how it seemed a more effective alternative to 5e for some.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(with 4e, the ones that I was thinking of were the D&D style magic, in that 4e's magic feels a bit limited to me compared to other editions

Depends on what you mean by 'limited' there were fewer restrictions than ever on using magic, including having at-will spells & rituals exempt from the D&D tradition of daily memorization.

4e magic-using classes were balanced with non-magic-using ones to an unprecedented degree, though, and impactful effects like flight & invisibility were pushed out to higher levels - so I can understand the perception.

My requirements are ... a magic system that allows similar things to D&D (i.e. needs to be fireballs not subtle curses[/i])

4e magic certainly qualifies on that count.

moderately crunchy combat but capable of handling other things well,

OK, maybe more than just 'moderately' crunchy combats.
Skill Challenges provided a framework to handle non-combat.

and ideally a similar range of power - i.e. you can scale up from goblins to ancient dragons.

Wider range of power that's actually workable, even.

, and avoiding combat or stacking it rather than playing it fair).

Avoiding combat is fine - there's recourse to Skill Challenges for structured/balanced non-combat encounters - but stacking it is, indeed, a point where 4e might not work well without a little thought. There were examples, though, of using a Skill Challenge to set up a combat, with success making the combat easier and failure making it harder.

 

[aramis erak]

Don't listen to those people. Like, at all. I've been running a 5E campaign for two years, and I've literally never run an alleged "adventuring day". One encounter per day works fine. You have to understand what will challenge your PCs in those circumstances, of course, but that's true of any system. Dungeons? In my campaign there have been three. And that's a deliberate attempt by me to run more dungeons than I usually do. And range? Of course you should let your PCs come up with strategic ideas to control how encounters emerge.

The system is bare-bones not because these assumptions are baked into it, because (insofar as it's possible) they didn't want any assumptions baked into it. 5E is supposed to be the "do whatever you want with it" edition. Now, if you still feel like it's failed at that because of actual rules you don't like -- you mentioned Perception and AC? -- then by all means, give some of the other systems in this thread a look. Some of them are very good too. But for the love of all that is Good, don't be put off by self-proclaimed experts on the internet. They ruin everything.

Every system as assumptions baked in. D&D 5e is no exception. They've tried to keep those assumptions pretty low-key, but certain ones are in fact quite a bit setting-defined and setting-defining.

The more obvious:
Sorcery - innate untrained magic - is dangerous or is due to draconic ancestry.
Warlocks are able to get magic more quickly than clerics or wizards because they don't power their own spells, and their patrons they channel have to do better than standard to get followers.
Paladins - being a holy fighter is also being a spellcaster.
Rogues - Burglars and assassins being the same class' subclasses implies very similar skillsets. Which is true in some settings, but not in others. That both fill a high damage low-hit rate combat role is at odds with their stated purposes... a natural outgrowth of 3E and 4E mechanics, and a mechanical assumption that is problematic for more mundane settings.
There are literally dozens of things that are setting encoded as rules mechanics.

 

[cmad1977]

Probabaly overthinking it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Psikerlord#]

So, my group recently expressed interest in doing a fantasy campaign so given D&D is the big name in the genre I bought it - naively it appears. The PCs are still low-level but I'm already finding the system a little hinky with things like Perception and AC feeling very loose with balance and result. But more especially I'm learning things like the system really doesn't support well anything other than, well, "dungeons". I'm participating in several threads on topics like encounter balance and balancing ranged and melee combat on the 5e forums but constructive discussion is just being bombed by people insisting that people are "playing it wrong". For example, it seems to break if you have one encounter a day. In my games, you could go weeks without an encounter and when you do have one it's a big dramatic finalé. I don't see the point of combats that don't advance the story. I've been told by other posters on the forums that "D&D isn't for you." There's a thread on ranged combat and tweaking that and it's just getting buried by aggressive posters who insist that encounters should start at X range, etc. Ignoring the fact that my GM'ing style is very player driven and I don't want to deny them the strategic ideas they have that control how encounters emerge. Honestly, certain posters here, the issues I'm seeing with the system and that people are telling me that those issues are baked into it by design, have put me off 5e.

But that leaves me stuck with a load of campaign background I've written out, a group that have developed PC backgrounds, etc. There's a lot of work and investment. So I'm looking for suggestions for an alternative fantasy system that I can drop in, in place of D&D 5e. That could be a different edition or a different system entirely. I know there are a lot of games out there. My requirements are moderately crunchy combat but capable of handling other things well, a magic system that allows similar things to D&D (i.e. needs to be fireballs not subtle curses) and ideally a similar range of power - i.e. you can scale up from goblins to ancient dragons.

I know there are a lot of D&D clones of various flavours out there. Anyone know any that fit the bill? Thanks for any responses.

You might check out Low Fantasy Gaming RPG. It's a more dangerous/gritty/low magic d20 variant. Pretty easy to increase the magic level if you wish. Formal Party Retreat and improvised chase rules mean you dont have to worry about "balanced encounters" so much, and it has unified refresh mechanics (not different classes refreshing at different rates).

Free PDF (in my sig), or print via Lulu.

Edit - it also addresses some of your other concerns - the "long rest" is 1d6 days, so you can wilderness adventure with only the occasional battle between days, and you wont get the whole party nova-ing, because they dont automatically get refreshed the next dawn.