D&D 5E (2014) 5e as an universal gaming engine ?

[77IM]

And I wonder if it would be easier with the new system and its flexibility to recreate the "feel" of other games.

Well this is the tricky part. D&D has some elements (classes, levels, hit points, AC, spell slots) that go strongly against the "feel" of other systems.

I think it's telling that the most successful d20 derivative, Mutants and Masterminds, has by this point mutated (heh) so far from the original 3E that the link between them is totally unrecognizable.

 

[fjw70]

Yeah, I am working on a Star Wars Saga Edition conversion, lends itself extremely well.

SWSE was nice, wish they leaned that way more with 4th Ed than ToB/Bo9S.

Man I would have loved a Saga 2e based on the 4e engine.

5e would work well too, but SW is basically D&D-like fantasy in space.

 

[mcbobbo]

And about the only thing those products share in common is you use a d20. Now, that is an exaggeration, but only a little one. If you have to redo the core mechanics (most notably damage/HPs) each time you move to a different genre, that pretty much nixes it as a universal system.

And since you referenced Deadlands, it should be noted that Pinnacle (who developed both Deadlands and the Weird War 2 line) abandoned d20 basis and developed Savage Worlds. The Deadlands line (under Savage Worlds) is still their biggest seller. https://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWcore/MakingofSW.pdf


D&D is awesome at D&D. No other system quite scratches that itch. But it does does not do other things well without a ton of mods.

They also share classes, levels, skills, feats, attributes...

Does SW Supers not use a variant damage system? As well as other incompatible systems? I clearly recall regretting that purchase...

Savage Worlds didn't exist as a universal system (October 2007) prior to WotC abandoning the OGL in favor of the GSL (4e was announced in August). Paizo did the same thing when faced with the same issue: make your own rules so nobody can take them away from you. Maybe the decision to switch wasn't related to the perceived stability of the rules they were using, but it seems unfair to blame the system in a vacuum.

Finally you can exclude Pinnacle and still have at least a dozen examples. Spy Craft, Star Wars (which I can't believe I forgot), Monte WoD, and on and on.

Now, a better rebuttal comes to my mind - will there be such a license for 5e? I'm guessing not.

 

[amerigoV]

They also share classes, levels, skills, feats, attributes...


Savage Worlds didn't exist as a universal system (October 2007) prior to WotC abandoning the OGL in favor of the GSL (4e was announced in August).

Ennies Award: Best Roleplaying Game of 2003 - Savage Worlds

2007 must have been the release of the Explorers Edition, which only had a bit of rule clean up.

On Supers, that is an add-on that is different for the build of the characters but it did not change the core mechanics (such as damage). It ups the power on how you build the character, but once the PC is built you run them the same way you run any other PC (same skills, same types of checks, combat is the same (well, dialled up to 11, but mechanically the same). Its the only one of the Companions you really need if you want to go that route. But I have seen people use it in other settings as well (for example, I have used it for an all Jedi game of Star Wars, and I have seen someone use it as a near future Rippers (Rippertech refined to be more stable and powerful)).


Yes, all those d20 games have classes, feats, skills. But nearly all of them are different from each other just to get the system to work (vs. having some customization to add the right flavor). You have to customize them so much from the Core and each other that they are almost their own games. I have played a good number of Savage Worlds settings - they are unique in their feel but I still feel I am playing Savage Worlds. I have played Spycraft, Star Wars, and a couple of others and while they were good games they mechanically only felt the same at the most basic of level. I can look at different Savage Worlds PCs from across genres and understand them at a glance, but not the d20 variants without digging through a good number of books.

 

[mcbobbo]

Ennies Award: Best Roleplaying Game of 2003 - Savage Worlds

2007 must have been the release of the Explorers Edition, which only had a bit of rule clean up.

On Supers, that is an add-on that is different for the build of the characters but it did not change the core mechanics (such as damage). It ups the power on how you build the character, but once the PC is built you run them the same way you run any other PC (same skills, same types of checks, combat is the same (well, dialled up to 11, but mechanically the same). Its the only one of the Companions you really need if you want to go that route. But I have seen people use it in other settings as well (for example, I have used it for an all Jedi game of Star Wars, and I have seen someone use it as a near future Rippers (Rippertech refined to be more stable and powerful)).


Yes, all those d20 games have classes, feats, skills. But nearly all of them are different from each other just to get the system to work (vs. having some customization to add the right flavor). You have to customize them so much from the Core and each other that they are almost their own games. I have played a good number of Savage Worlds settings - they are unique in their feel but I still feel I am playing Savage Worlds. I have played Spycraft, Star Wars, and a couple of others and while they were good games they mechanically only felt the same at the most basic of level. I can look at different Savage Worlds PCs from across genres and understand them at a glance, but not the d20 variants without digging through a good number of books.

We get it. You're a "true savage".

Rhetorical: Why were there so many d20 publications by that company up until 2006?

Also, I would suggest that if it wasn't possible to adapt the system to match the genre, there would be criticism for that.

For example, not every genre works well where unavoidable PC death always has a TN of 4. D&D is a good start. "SW can't do D&D", as any 'true savage' would tell you.

So there are always adjustments to be made.

 

[77IM]

They also share classes, levels, skills, feats, attributes...

Of the examples you are talking about (Cthulu, Mutants and Masterminds, Traveller, Deadlands), three are already dead, and the fourth (M&M) never used classes, used levels very differently, totally revamped the damage system, and in its present edition doesn't have feats or the six attributes and even changed much of the terminology and major aspects of the d20 resolution system, etc.

Does SW Supers not use a variant damage system? As well as other incompatible systems? I clearly recall regretting that purchase...

It has a separate powers system, but that's all.

Savage Worlds didn't exist as a universal system (October 2007) prior to WotC abandoning the OGL in favor of the GSL (4e was announced in August).

No, it was released in 2003. They were already ditching d20 long before 4e was announced, and not because of licensing reasons: https://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWcore/MakingofSW.pdf

Finally you can exclude Pinnacle and still have at least a dozen examples. Spy Craft, Star Wars (which I can't believe I forgot), Monte WoD, and on and on.

Maybe I'm just bitter about d20 Fading Suns, but I feel like most of these failed, or at least turned out to have a niche audience without broad appeal. The sheer number of games that were attempted but didn't turn out all that great (or not good enough to last) should be a warning sign. Let's not forget that Wizards of the Coast even abandoned the d20 system -- first with SWSE (and SW Revised was one of the better d20 conversions) and then with 4E. The games that made it work best (Mutants and Masterminds and Spycraft and, I guess, Pathfinder) were not shy about changing the rules to exactly meet their needs.

Basically I think it's backwards to start with a system and then adapt it to a genre or play style. The best games start with a very specific play experience and build towards that. This is a definite weakness of any "universal" system, but systems designed to be universal from the beginning usually weather it better. Even Savage Worlds has certain genres and play styles where it does not work well (for example, supers; procedural mysteries; deep social intrigue; hard sci-fi). So trying to adapt 5E to all kinds of other genres will probably lead to tears.

 

[mcbobbo]

Of the examples you are talking about (Cthulu, Mutants and Masterminds, Traveller, Deadlands), three are already dead, and the fourth (M&M) never used classes, used levels very differently, totally revamped the damage system, and in its present edition doesn't have feats or the six attributes and even changed much of the terminology and major aspects of the d20 resolution system, etc.


It has a separate powers system, but that's all.


No, it was released in 2003. They were already ditching d20 long before 4e was announced, and not because of licensing reasons: https://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWcore/MakingofSW.pdf

Maybe I'm just bitter about d20 Fading Suns, but I feel like most of these failed, or at least turned out to have a niche audience without broad appeal. The sheer number of games that were attempted but didn't turn out all that great (or not good enough to last) should be a warning sign. Let's not forget that Wizards of the Coast even abandoned the d20 system -- first with SWSE (and SW Revised was one of the better d20 conversions) and then with 4E. The games that made it work best (Mutants and Masterminds and Spycraft and, I guess, Pathfinder) were not shy about changing the rules to exactly meet their needs.

Basically I think it's backwards to start with a system and then adapt it to a genre or play style. The best games start with a very specific play experience and build towards that. This is a definite weakness of any "universal" system, but systems designed to be universal from the beginning usually weather it better. Even Savage Worlds has certain genres and play styles where it does not work well (for example, supers; procedural mysteries; deep social intrigue; hard sci-fi). So trying to adapt 5E to all kinds of other genres will probably lead to tears.

I'd say the expectation that any adaptation should survive core abandonment by the system's creator is unfair. OGL was Y2K, if you recall. Lots of systems have come and gone in the intervening 14 years, 4e being one of the more significant among them.

Not that it isn't awesome when it happens.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

In my opinion, the fact that I can easily replace parts of the system in order to emulate different genres should be seen as a strength, not as a weakness, in the universal gaming engine discussion.

I have GURPS 3E, the first and last "core rules" book I'll ever buy. I don't have Savage Worlds, Fate Core or Hero, and never intend to buy one of them. Not attracted at all by "core books". If WotC ever wants to try the potential of 5E as a universal engine, I hope they follow the 3E model of publishing different games within the same framework. I'm not interested in "5th Age of d20: The Core Rules".

Cheers!

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I am working on a Star Wars Saga Edition conversion, lends itself extremely well.

I was looking at that. One of the big borks to Saga was the math scaling badly. Bounded Accuracy seems like such a natural fix to that.

I'm waiting til the DMG to see the spell point mechanic, but spell points + encounter refresh could be a good Jedi/Force system. I wager a sword-pact warlock will be a great basis for Jedi. Fighter and Rogue could be Soldier and Scoundrel almost as is, the noble could be built out of the bard and a the scout out of the ranger. (With new abiltiites and subclasses to replace casting).

--

On a separate note: I don't think 5e will be a great universal system. I don't see it working too well for non-magical settings in particular (or Superheroes much either) but if I can build Masque of the Red Death 5e with it, I'll be happy as a clam.

 

[amerigoV]

We get it. You're a "true savage".

It has nothing to do with being a Savage, its just addressing the original question. Can you used D&D for other stuff? Sure. But its limited in its effectiveness without a lot of work (I can use us a hammer for many things, but it does a few things great and many things poorly).

Rhetorical: Why were there so many d20 publications by that company up until 2006?

Pinnacle answered in it the link from my original post. They did it and at the end of the day regretted it.

Everyone saw the OGL it as a opportunity to make some cash by piggy-backing on a big name. The OGL allowed people to make stuff without having to create a system. It allowed others to customize the system and have a recognizable symbol. I even saw official d20 graph paper at a game shop during the height of the bubble.

Also, I would suggest that if it wasn't possible to adapt the system to match the genre, there would be criticism for that.

There likely is no true universal system, but some cover more ground than others and/or covers more ground more effectively. I'm not saying SW is better than D&D in all cases. They both have their strengths, with SW better on the universal side.

For example, not every genre works well where unavoidable PC death always has a TN of 4. D&D is a good start. "SW can't do D&D", as any 'true savage' would tell you.

I 100% agree - D&D is the best tool for a true D&D game (one has to be careful, of course, to define that). Savage Worlds does many flavors of fantasy just fine, but I certainly would not use it to run Against the Giants for example - that adventure certainly highlights the two systems approaches.