D&D 5E 5e as an universal gaming engine ?

[halfling rogue]

While 5e may not be universal, it is pretty hackable. Even though we can't see to what extent that hackability will be until the DMG is released, I think it's safe to say it is much more flexible than 3e/4e (I don't have experience with 1e/2e). The potential of hackability is probably why this thread can even exist. So there's that.

For me I'd like to see it hacked to be played in Middle Earth. It doesn't seem like it would take a massive overhaul to accomplish a pretty good homebrewed Middle Earth setting. The desire to use D&D as a universal/hacked system isn't hard to understand. From everything I've heard/read I'm dying to play The One Ring RPG. But I just can't justify buying it because I know that I'll never play it. It might be fun to read, etc, but I know it will not get played. That is because my friends play D&D. The thought then goes that if D&D can be hacked to give us a decent foray into the Misty Mountains (or wherever your setting is), then why bother using a new ruleset for nearly the same experience we get with a more familiar ruleset?

 

[mcbobbo]

Let's look at the basics:

1) The six attributes with checks and saves

2) d20 and advantage/disadvantage

3) Backgrounds

4) Proficiency

Starting with just those four you have a basis for lots of different genres. It only builds from there.

 

[Steely Dan]

For me I'd like to see it hacked to be played in Middle Earth.

I am running a 5th Ed 2nd Age Middle-Earth campaign for my nephew, just need to tone down magic (no slinging fireballs around, etc).

 

[Salamandyr]

I think it could do fine. Look at what has been done with Microlite D20.

What I'd do is go for broader, more archetypal classes, like the "Warrior", "Expert", and "Adept" of True20, and more generic abilities. Then bolt on setting specific rules onto the core mechanics.

The primary thing I'd do to keep a more grounded game is possibly limit hit points post 10th level, but then I want to do that with vanilla D&D as well.

 

[Dahak]

I also believe it will do fine for other similar genres. I don't need fully universal, just usable outside of fantasy. Ideally, I'd like them to redux D20 Modern, but perhaps revive the Alternity brand name for it. If it could do what d20Modern/Future/Past did, it would suit my needs. YMWV.

 

[The Shadow]

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.

Definitely!

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.

Er, wow. GURPS and Fate Core are about as different as two games can possibly be, with extremely different play experiences. I'd suggest at least taking a look at Fate, you can even download the core rules for free, or look at the SRD online.

Personally, I find it scratches my gaming itch far better than GURPS ever did, in just about any genre. (No offense to SJ Games, their supplements are still among the best ever made.)

 

[Chocolategravy]

While 5e may not be universal, it is pretty hackable. Even though we can't see to what extent that hackability will be until the DMG is released, I think it's safe to say it is much more flexible than 3e/4e (I don't have experience with 1e/2e). The potential of hackability is probably why this thread can even exist. So there's that.

Quite the opposite, it's the least hackable edition yet. Everything is special rules and inconsistency. Rather than have a modular system where a rule is written once and applies across the system you get every class getting repeated bits of rules over and over. For instance the "you can't raise an ability over 20" is repeated a dozen times in the PHB.

As for it being a robust system, it really isn't.
- There are a lot of rules people expect but aren't there, like Delay and Flanking.
- There are a lot of rules that are there but don't work like they do in most other games, like Disengage being used more for charging than running away.
- A lot of things that might be considered standard abilities like Disarm are hidden in a class rather than being a general manuever.
- Lots of inconsistencies like a monk have no restriction on how large a creature can be proned. A warlock pushing on an attack roll rather than a STR check.
- Lack of standards like a large creature's weapon damage does not match an enlarged player's weapon damage.
- Lack of stacking rules cause a lot of problems. For instance 2 paladins with aura giving massive save bonuses.
- Lack of bounded accuracy. (see last point)
- Lack of modularity. (see first paragraph)
- Advantage system is too gameist for a role playing game. Ex. rather than lose your dex bonus while incapacitated you instead just grant advantage, making a dodgy naked rogue who is as hard to hit as someone in armor, still just as hard to hit even when unconscious.
- Other systems are too gamist like rogue's cunning action allowing them to move faster in combat than out, rogue's assassinate working on surprised enemies but not incapacitated enemies.
- The healing system doesn't know if it's inspirational or not leading to bizarre situations such as how a character under half HP is to be described as having bruises and cuts but second wind can restore a fighter to full, thus removing bruises and cuts non-magically.
- The action system doesn't know if it's narrative or simulationist, for instance someone pulling out a healer's kit and applying it in 6 seconds lends itself more to a 1 minute/round narrative game. Meanwhile spells are based on 6 second rounds and often have a duration of 1 minute.
- The MC rules are a mess that conflict with many other rules. They also greatly restrict the flexibility of new classes or require modifying the MC rules themselves to allow new abilities or class structures.
- Many rules are left "intentionally vague for the DM to decide" like the hiding/obscurement rules.
- Many rules don't exist that need to like line of sight.
- Many rules are just plain clunky like reach, attack during movement.

The list goes on and on. There are systems designed to be generic systems and there are robust systems that can be reflavored and this isn't either of them. Play 5E with it.

 

[Remathilis]

But aside from that Mrs Lincoln, how'd you enjoy the play?

 

[mcbobbo]

Honestly that feels like a generic prepared list of things you dislike about 5e. For example why does "has a DM" make it non universal? Same with "reprints rules" how is this fantasy specific?

 

[Chocolategravy]

Honestly that feels like a generic prepared list of things you dislike about 5e. For example why does "has a DM" make it non universal? Same with "reprints rules" how is this fantasy specific?

Yes, clearly the lack of modularity and the difficulties of adding a new class because of the restrictions of the MC rules tops the list of things people dislike about 5E and have nothing to do with problems the system would cause if you tried to use the rule for a different genre with different classes... you caught me.

If I were giving you a list of things I actually disliked it would be things like... sub-class rules, monsters not using the same rules as PCs, random death at low levels because of crits, badly balanced monsters, monsters of the same XP being dramatically different difficulties, 6-8 encounter a day change, apprentice levels, neutered skill system, uselessness of search... Very different things and an even longer list.