How happy are you with your regular ruleset?

[Wolfpack48]

I'm running two campaigns of D&D 5e, and they're working really well. There are some proud nails in the system that we've either ignored (explicitly or otherwise) or had to houserule around, and while I don't mind hacking the rules if the game goes in some direction not included in the designers' philosophy, the problems with 5e are right in the path of what feels like intended play.

If you are okay, can you elaborate a bit on that last bolded piece?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Pathfinder 2nd Edition has been my main game for the last year. I'm Satisfied with it.

The reason it isn't higher is mostly for what I've lost, coming from D&D. Certain OGL creatures, spells, classes, etc that I had to leave behind. The remaster added on to that with further tweaks to spells, etc. All minor things in the grand scheme, but just enough to knock it down a peg.

I've been meaning to homebrew some of that stuff - like Slaad or Beholders - but with legions of baddies to fight, who really has time for that?

So you would call this incompatibility with the things in D&D you liked?

 

[Wolfpack48]

My only regular game is currently Pathfinder 2, but I'm really happy with it. Yes, losing iconic monsters hurts somewhat, but Pathfinder has been around for 15 years and created a menacing menagerie of its own.

So, like another post, incompatibility with things in 5e you liked?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Somewhat Satisfied.

EN's Level Up A5e is great- for the Monstrous Menagerie and Trials & Treasures. And their dungeon delves book.

I like most of the Adventurers Guide as well! Except the origins and some of the classes/features result in much more powerful characters than you'd get from 5e- some of them brokenly so.

The good news is that a lot of these things are easy to house-ruled fixes for! The bad news is that one of the reasons I picked up A5e in the first place was to get away from the IMO bad design decisions made further into 5e's lifecycle... Having to house-rule A5e's classes and maneuvers etc. sort of defeats the purpose.

I could probably pick and choose from 5e and A5e's classes to make the "perfect" 5e experience for my table... But until then, I guess I have to stick to fixing issues as we find them. It's better than 5e.

So something like: extra work needed to rebalance the game?

 

[Wolfpack48]

I chose "Somewhat Unsatisfied". I chose this because I think its the average of the games my group and I have played since 2015.

5E D&D - When it first came out and I read it I thought in theory it was a good, streamlined improvement on the d20 System, but as the years went on (starting around 2019) I became less satisfied. By 2021 I became "Very Unsatisfied" and stopped playing it and buying any products for it completely. Me and my players all read what we needed to play and DM when we needed to, but I felt the game was weighted too heavily in the players favor with class abilities, short and long rests, and the death saving throw mechanics, among other things. For 5Es simplicity it certainly can be pretty convoluted at times trying to piece together all the rules needed to resolve a particular situation; too much page flipping and referencing for my tastes. Creating adventures for a few sessions just seemed like more work than it should be to be fun, rewarding and challenging. I am disappointed that the 2024 releases will only be a 5E update and not a new edition, but I hope that maybe it will clean up enough to bring me back but I'm not optimistic. As things stand now I have absolutely no interest in playing D&D in any edition, which is too bad as I've always considered myself primarily a D&D player when it came to TTRPGs.

Modern AGE - "Somewhat Satisfied" with this one. We started playing this a year ago. It was fun but had some short comings and was a little too different from what we were used to for us to get a good grasp on it. I'm sure if we played it more and continue to play it more the games would run smoother. So, some blame lies on the games design and some on us to invest more time learning and playing it.

Shadowdark - "Somewhat Unsatisfied". This is another one that I liked after reading in theory and it did streamline the basic 5E system and added some interesting innovations. It still felt like 5E to me, but I only played it so my opinion might be different had I DM'd it. One thing I noticed was that the DM and the players wanted to cling to the 5E mindset and rules and forgot some of the things that separated Shadowdark from 5E. I wanted a rules light system, but this was a little too light for me, although I will say the writing was very clear and concise.

Our group is on hiatus for a bit, kind of in limbo at the moment but I have a few new games I want to try, but I have to get in gear and do some reading and prep to do so, but with summer coming Fall seems like a good estimate when this will happen.

Thanks for all these great details! Does this summary look right?

• 5e was a bit too easy on the PCs, not enough challenge/danger
• 5e rules were spread out/poorly organized/hard to find
• 5e required too much work to create an adventure
• Modern AGE and Shadowdark were hard to make the shift to from the previous mindset
• Shadowdark felt too rules lite.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Satisfied. 5e D&D is my main system and it does what it should do, plus it meshes well with play style i like. It would be higher, but i needed to do some solid house ruling for my DMing style.

So extra work required to get to the desired play?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe talk a little bit about why folks couldn't get into those lighter games?

They do. We have a great time playing the lighter games. I have a few players who get frustrated by the level of rules crunch that 5E has. (They didn't play prior editions and know that things were much crunchier in 3E, for instance.)

But for ongoing campaigns, with characters they expect will be with them for months or years to come (something one can't say with confidence about Shadowdark or Pirate Borg characters), many of my players want more choice in their character development.

It's not an either/or, any more than people choose just ice cream or just pizza to eat for the rest of their lives. We mix it up.

So for our ongoing Radiant Citadel campaign, where characters could one day make it to the low teens before, I dunno, going to kick Vecna in the face or something, they want 5E.

But for a quick romp, often with adult beverages, Pirate Borg and Shadowdark fit the bill. And when it comes time to do Halloween and other horror adventures (which turns out to by one of my strengths, which is weird, since I'm not a big horror fan), running it in Shadowdark is a lot more effective than in 5E, IMO, since the characters are fragile and don't have hundreds of spells to use to defuse the situation. (We'll likely run Witchburner with Shadowdark this year, so I don't need Circle of Truth and similar spells messing us up.)

 

[Wolfpack48]

It's not perfect, but it's good enough and things i want from system, it delivers out of box. Only thing it lacks is options for grimer and deadlier game, but that i can do with some easy tweaks. And to be honest, d&d, no matter what edition, isn't my favourite system.

Can you elaborate a bit on what doesn't work well for you in D&D?

 

[John Dallman]

If you are okay, can you talk a little more about what you mean by "mechanized roleplaying" and how it rubs you the wrong way?

Essentially, the states of stress and their effects lack subtlety and nuance. There are almost-audible clicks as the system changes state to "desperate" and the like.

Also, the Roll20 character and group sheets are too complex and quite confusing. The GM believed it wasn't necessary to understand them in detail, but repeatedly proves himself wrong. So we spend far more time struggling with the system than we do thinking and acting in-character.

We also aren't terribly invested in the setting. While it looks cool, it has no answers for questions like "where does the food come from?" which tends to make it feel very artificial.

BitD is not actually a simple system: it just puts its complexity in different places from traditional systems. The rulebook is quite readable, but much of its terminology is confusing when you come to playing and if you can't remember the right word to search the PDF with, searching doesn't get you anywhere.

Also, what in the system doesn't reward combat advancement?

Ah, I wasn't clear. If we execute a job smoothly enough that we never get into combat, by effective use of misdirection and distractions, the combat-specialist characters don't get to do anything, and thus don't get any advancement points. The system rewards incompetence much more than competence: it seems to be based on ideas of storytelling where only near-failure is interesting, and attempts to ensure such near-failures.

 

[Jadeite]

So, like another post, incompatibility with things in 5e you liked?

Not 5e in particular, legacy D&D stuff in general. At this point, I probably prefer 3rd and 4th edition to 5e. I can't think of anything specific to 5e that I'm missing in PF2. I liked 5e's third party support, but I liked the one of 3rd edition more. And the lack of 3rd party stuff is somewhat mitigated by far better 1st party material.
What I was referring to are monsters like Mimics or Aboleths. I already have PF2 stats for them from pre-Remaster PF2, but they will no longer be used. But PF2 has a huge variety of its own creations, so it's not that huge of a deal. And I like the look of the new Remastered dragons to Paizo's metallic and chromatic dragons which always looked bland compared to the D&D 3 designs.
So, as a whole I'm very satisfied and making it more like 5e would diminish my enjoyment. People who enjoy 5e but want a less antagonist publisher should check out Tales of the Valiant from Kobold Press or A5E from EN Publishing.