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

[mcbobbo]

Modularity is present. See Feats. Multiclassing is also not a requirement for a universal system. Maybe it's a forum culture thing, but I am not familiar enough with your arguments for this shorthand to make any sense at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It's funny the things that can get in the way of implementing variants. In 3e, it was mostly the attitude of the community. RAW as king and DMs deviated from it at their own risk. Players would argue with you, outright 'rebel,' it was not the greatest time to be a DM. Nothing to do with the system, really (d20, itself, was little more than a 'core system,' like BRP, d6, Interlock, and others in the 80s, or FATE, today - quite suitable for adapting to a variety of uses), it was just the zeitgeist. 4e, OTOH, just left you with little reason to modify it (you might /think/ 'well, I want to run this outre campaign, I'll have to change lots of stuff,' then you get to work and find out, no, you really don't, a little re-skinning, maybe dropping a source or race that doesn't fit the setting, and you're done - can be strangely unsatisfying, if you /like/ tinkering with rules).

AD&D and 5e, though, they /beg/ for it. Not that they make it easy to get a good result, but they dare you to try.

 

[Uchawi]

No, not even close. Even d20, which is a fair core system much aided by being open-source, isn't a great universal 'game engine.'

Hero, GURPS, FATE (or FUDGE), even the venerable Basic Roleplaying from Chaosium are all much better candidates. They're at least trying.

5e's very focused on feeling like classic D&D, and, while plenty of us did make the effort to adapt old-school D&D's early system to other genres and the like, it was never well-suited for it.

I agree with Tony. If 5E had any intent to be a universal game engine, even if we limit the scope to just being able to play D&D from 1E all the way to 4E, then the way it was designed would be radically different. To extend that scope out to just fantasy in general, and it would fail before it left the gate.

 

[mcbobbo]

Even if 5e fails to be the best universal system, it is well poised to be the best known/most played system in the hobby. That alone is cause to overlook the warts.

Sort of like how English is a terrible language, yet is the most desirable one to know.

 

[delericho]

You could do sci-fi with it, though I agree with others that class systems somehow don't feel "technical" enough for it - Star Wars could work

I know it's not possible for licensing reasons, but I'd very much like to see an update to SWSE using this engine.

but Star Trek maybe not so much.

Actually, I think a class-based Trek game could work pretty well. The classes are already colour-coded for our convenience.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

You can sum it up with "I don't like anything about 5e" and make it a one-item list.

 

[halfling rogue]

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.

I said I think 5e is/will be the most hackable D&D system to date and you said it's quite the opposite, and then proceeded to tell me why it isn't robust or universal.

I don't know if you and I are on the same page. You used

Many rules are left "intentionally vague for the DM to decide"

as an argument against the hackability of this edition.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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.

1, 2, and 3 are good universal concepts. The d20 mechanic itself actually limits the system's usability outside of D&D, at least for my tastes. I tend to prefer dice step or pool systems. Replacing the d20 with 2d10 or 3d6 would suit my tastes better.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, I don't know that the d20 or a class system are necessarily concepts that 5e can't get rid of.

Meaning, I would not be shocked if a 3d6 variant and a classless variant are things that people do with the games. Bounded accuracy and advantage work fine with the former. Proficiency translates rather well to an extra die type added to the pool (d4-d12). Classless is a little less transparent, but if the math is as robust as it was in 4e, you could do it (4e was arguably classless in a lot of ways).

And if they do HP like they did in 4e, you don't need HP, either.

So I see a bit possibility space. If people want to get inventive. They could always not want that, and I don't know that the possibility space is infinite, but it's bigger than d20's.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Can D&D be used to make an Adventures of Dr. McNinja campaign?
Could I use D&D as the rule set for beauty pageants? Could it figure out which Miss State should be Miss America?
Can D&D do Steampunk?
What if wanted to run a campaigned based off of Breaking Bad?