log in or register to remove this ad


D&D 5E Name a technique or design choice that your group enjoys, but that is generally unpopular.


open-ended fumbles and crits. It's a system I've used since 2E.

On a roll of 20, you roll again and can get a 2nd success if you meet or beat the target number again. Another nat 20 continues the process. (I use this so if you needed a 20 in the first place to hit, it's much harder to get a double-success). In the case of saves, a second save allows you to give the extra success to an ally who may have failed the save or if the effect only targets you, rebound it back to the individual who caused the save.

Similar on a 1; automatic miss and roll again. If you don't get a success on the 2nd roll, you open yourself up for opportunity attacks or other bad things to happen.

log in or register to remove this ad


The 10 second rule. Maybe the players don't outright enjoy it but it does work. I think combat takes too long and my wife, one of my players, doesn't really like it. It's her least favorite pillar. So on their turn players have to declare their action within 10 seconds or they Dodge, instead.

It make combat move very quickly. I had to compensate by making sure I had all the monster minis/tokens ready because an entire combat could be over in 3-5 minutes. I didn't want combat prep to take longer than the combat!

Players who didn't like combat like it. Players who like combat like it. Things move quickly. Everyone is engaged at the table. The faster one player goes the faster the next player can go as it's easier to remember what's occurring in combat. No one zones out.

The actual combat choices may be suboptimal but the baddies drop so quickly (in real time) that it feels like the players are total badasses.


'Greyhawk Initiative' with the change that actions can be changed by going last if the action has been invalidated and with the caveat of playing in the honour system to avoid abuse cases.

It speeds up the game for us and makes combat more cinematic.

Don't want to derail the topic by getting into alternative systems, but I use a version where players pick a die (d4, d6, d8, d10) based off their declared action for the round (e.g. a light weapon is d4, most other weapons are d8, most spells are d10, and generic is d6). Dexterity is removed from the equation. It now moves faster, even with a roll every round, than in my d20 days of initiative.
Let's not derail things any further, I'll work out something on my own. Interesting that you found it moves faster though. I've often found that the way 5E is the players have so many choices that decision paralysis sets in sometimes. I'd imagine bonus actions and reactions still work as normal but otherwise the different die size simulates 2E casting time, weapon speed etc.

The 10 second rule.
I've used this to varying degrees of success and might consider bringing it back.
It make combat move very quickly. I had to compensate by making sure I had all the monster minis/tokens ready because an entire combat could be over in 3-5 minutes. I didn't want combat prep to take longer than the combat!
Combat set up on an erasable grid can get time consuming. I bought 2 pads of these and when I use them I like it. You can use them in a standard printer as theyre 8.5 x 11. I think they make rolls too. Little pricey but what you spend in money you save in sanity as you can pre-draw/print maps before the game.

Gaming Paper - Single Sheets With 1-Inch Squares - 100 Sheets Per Pack


I like AD&D monsters more than 5E. I like the idea of magic resistance, special weapon immunities, some form of no-save undead drain, fiends with spells and teleports, and so on because they made taking out these foes more like a puzzle than a slug-fest. But suggest the idea a caster might contribute nothing with their cantrip damage spells in a combat and you'll be in for a couple pages of negativity.
Surprising many I agree; I'd say that monsters are 5e's weakest elements. The thing is 5e's design goal wasn't to be liked so much as the least disliked version. So it doesn't do quick kills, puzzles, or tactical situations as some people really dislike each. Instead the monsters are just kind of sacks of hit points and there.


Victoria Rules
PvP is allowed*, though it doesn't happen that often.

Evil PCs are allowed*.

Save-or-die is a fact of life (and-or death!).

Level drain is a threat some monsters pack with them.

Magic is often risky to use or cast, the payoff being spells haven't gone through the 4e-5e nerfing mill.

Spells take in-game time to cast and can be easily interrupted during this time. No such thing as "combat casting" unless you're very high level.

Different PC-playable species come with stat bonuses (which people like) and corresponding penalties (unpopular) compared to Humans.

I use different subsystems for different tasks. Many "checks" are roll-under-stat.

Sayng the words "I wish..." can have interesting consequences at any time; having a wish outstanding and not knowing about it till what you say comes true is an uncommon but not-unheard of phenomenon.

* - as long as whatever happens stays in character and doesn't spill over to the table.


My players are absolutely brilliant and a frustrating joy to keep up with, but I think they have a masochistic streak when it comes to each other rolling natural 1's – there's this perverse tension whenever the dice comes up with a 1, as if they're all waiting to see what crazy thing I can make go wrong for them. Once I even had players give me a critical fumble table and ask me to incorporate it into our game.


If you've dwelt long in the gaming forums strewn across the web, you've no doubt heard phrases like these: “There’s no wrong way to game,” or, “If you’re having fun, you’re doing it right.” That can get a bit reductive, but I do think it's a generally useful reminder. Every group is unique, and what works at one table won’t necessarily work at another. For my money, that’s a healthy thing to keep in mind.

When you move beyond your familiar home table, whether it’s at a gaming con, with a new group, or in a forum, it’s important to put your own preconceptions on hold. Before you offer up advice to your fellow gamers, remember that every one of them comes paired with a unique set of preferences. That means that checking your own personal version of “the right way to game” at the door is Step 1 in talking shop with your fellow dungeon delvers.

So in the spirit of cultural exchange, what do you say we compare our differences? Name a technique or design choice that your group enjoys, but that is generally unpopular. Do you love no-holds-barred PVP? Perhaps you think an adversarial GM can be a fun challenge. Maybe you enjoy alignment-mismatched parties, tracking encumbrance, or implementing crit fails. Let's hear all about your best loved (but least popular) elements!

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)
Armor has a DR component & in addition to hit points a separate pool of meat points (aka - bloodied hit points).


The World Isn't Fair. Kinda falls in line with the above (maybe your Eldritch blast won't win the day) and I run my worlds gritty with the idea that a diverse group with diverse skills willing to think outside the box have better chances of conquering things that don't seem fair.
A couple of different sources have shaped my thinking on this point. The first is "gygaxian naturalism."

The other comes from the Alexandrian's take on the CR system. I'm looking at the CR 10 roper example specifically:



The idea that monsters might not be "fair" (basically no matter what you face, you can beat it to a pulp), led me to find an old Gygax letter quote from 1975:

Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive".

Level Up!

An Advertisement