D&D General Refresher Course D&D Edition Numbers. AKA Modern D&D Is a Self Inflicted Problem.

[VHawkwinter]

What are you looking for from the game, then?

I have actually given a lot of thought to that question over the years, largely through the trial and error of trying other systems and seeing in what games I really had fun vs not:

Because what you describe is precisely how I felt about 3e, and is more or less how I feel about 5e (it's a bit different but still similar). 4e was the exact opposite. It was finally a game actually doing the things I'd always wanted. Of course, I spent the first like year or two of 4e's run being a hater because that's what I was taught to be by a former friend that had never even read it. Once I actually saw it in action, though, I was hooked. D&D was finally actually a cooperative, team game. It was a game that took game design seriously, as opposed to acting like game design is a silly irrelevance or something you can literally put almost zero effort into because you can just double the GM's workload instead. And it offered thematic things I'd been hungering for for decades, like a "proud warrior race" that wasn't ugly, stupid, nor evil.

This makes sense, but what you were looking for (which 4e delivered) wasn't what I was looking for but did not yet realise, which I now do (explained below).

So...what do YOU want from D&D? What do you yearn for, in your heart of hearts? Really drill down and go deep. This is a difficult question; please don't answer lightly or casually. I emphasize this because I never figured half this stuff out without being exposed to other approaches.

Indeed. "I never figured half this stuff out without being exposed to other approaches." as well. A lot of the ones I encountered that I really liked were in a tight window around 2008-2010 with a few GMs in our university TTRPG club who were experimenting with different (mostly older) systems they had picked up, and then most of the newer ones that I tried after that all ended up showing me all the things I really don't like, that either detract from the experience or ruin it for me.

I thought, for at least 7 years, that I knew exactly what I wanted and that 3e was giving me like 95% of it. That, as you say, all I needed was just the right combo of house rules or the right ACFs or a killer setting concept and I'd have the game I always longed to play but couldn't quite find.

My experience here was rather different. I was frustrated with various parts of 3e as it went on (and most of the books seemed to get worse over time from the release of 3.5), but aside from those mostly older systems I tried outside of that 2008-2010 window, nearly every game I tried was worse than 3e (and that was before I discovered what I now consider 'the good stuff' for 3e (specific 3pp expansion books from a handful of publishers)).

4e showed me that 3e, fundamentally, at almost the very core of the system, not only didn't but couldn't do what I wanted. 3e is incapable of being the team-based game where story and rules form a united, consistent front.

That makes sense.

Even the very very best of retooled rules (specifically, DSP's Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might come to mind) simply patch the gaping maw of the horrible, horrible design faults in 3e, making a system that is as far as I can tell quite well-balanced, but totally devoid of the teamwork incentive that I desire.

My want isn't a and never has been a highly tactical skirmish teamwork combat game. What I want out of an RPG is:

1. A sort of 'fantasy world simulator' sandbox game where the mechanics are fleshed out and objective enough that I can think through the mechanics for pursuing my character's longterm life goals, and plans to do specific missions, and then interact with that sandbox world in-character with friends. They should cover many things that could come up indepth besides combat, and there should be a concrete way to eyeball target numbers such that the players can guess how hard their plan will be at each stage before it comes up in play, without consulting the GM.
2. The mechanics interacted with on the player side should all make ludonarrative sense from within a 'think as your character' perspective, to not take me out of the zone interacting with luck points or scene editing, or nonsensical ability cooldowns, or what have you. That's GM stuff, I generally want to minimize how much I need to interact with the game out of character as a player, outside of like - downtime action discussion and time allocation during a time skip.
3. Combat: I want combat to have a wide variety of strategies to win which different players might excel at, and I don't want it to be a HP-attrition slog. Ideally the enemies should have a morale subsystem going on so you can route them or make them surrender without fighting to the death, but I probably only want 1/4 of a session to be combat.
4. Characters - highly customizable, 'play anything that fits the setting' is desirable. Multiclassing is a big step up over rigid classes, but really I would prefer point buy. Playable monsters of all kinds (from awakened squirrel to wraith to a huge giant) is valuable to me as well, though 3e's LA system is lacking - community alternatives are better, and I am pretty practiced at building them after all these years - newer D&D editions don't take well to something like 'playable huge creatures' or 'minimum starting level 8'.
5. And since we're talking D&D rather than RPGs in general - "having the fantasy world sandbox game accurately represent the world of those old FR fantasy novels, comics, and videogames I've really been into since I was a little kid" - is a big factor as well (and the reason I'm not just grabbing GURPS or Rolemaster 4e or MRQ2/Legend or RQ6/Mythras or Shadowrun 4e or The Dark Eye[using google translate so you can use the German Kompendium 2 content from the website since last I checked it never got an English release]).

My leaning towards "3.25" for D&D is mostly because of how fleshed out its noncombat mechanics are, and how much more fleshed out they are with third party supplements*, and its skill system. I also like how the 3.0 MM has all kinds of noncombat abilities on the monsters. 3e's combat is a bit too slow, and is probably the weakest part of the system for me, but that's not the reason I like it.
*Mongoose Strongholds & Dynasties, Mongoose Games Designer's Companion, maybe Mongoose Seas of Blood, AEG Wilds, FFG Wildscape, FFG City Works, Penumbra/Atlas Crime and Punishment, and maybe Penumbra/Atlas Dynasties and Demagogues come to mind as the best (but not flawless) 3pp Books - all focused on expanding play beyond combat.
Aside from Planar or FR Setting books (which include rules for mage duels and a few other bits, and factions, and guilds), my D&D Books of choice are the 3.0 DMG; DMG2 for ~30 pages of stuff in "the campaign", the subsystems for contacts and hirelings and maybe businesses; CityScape for its Faction membership stuff; and Unearthed Arcana. I didn't care for most of the stuff in the player expansion books. Some of it's alright, but it's not enough to pick a system over for me. Power of Faerun is alright (and mostly not about Faerun, oddly), but it treads a lot of the same ground as Dynasties and Demagogues, with a bit of Strongholds & Dynasties and Crime & Punishment mixed in, and I think they handle it a bit better.

GURPS is probably the best non-D&D game I've tried for what I like in most regards, if I'm going for a different sort of genre or setting, but it's a lot of work to tune for a campaign you want to run if what you want isn't one of their preset splat books, and it's not suited for Forgotten Realms or games with a lot of magic and magic items. I only first tried GURPS in 2018. Shadowrun 20th Anniversary I like, but I can't imagine myself using it for anything but Shadowrun.

I understand HARNMaster and Ars Magica and L5R may also be up my alley, but I haven't had a chance to play or run them yet.

Anyways. That's where I'm at, and why I think D&D has been gradually going downhill since 3.5 came out, and that it jumped the shark around 2005. It went more and more towards minis combat and character optimisation shenanigans, until it stripped most stuff out for 5e and became a more or less rules-lite game with relatively cookie cutter characters, bland combat, and little other gameplay to speak of - with a parodically stripmined rendition of the D&D setting that used to get my attention and most of the prebuilt content I would want to run said setting left unpublished making me source it from fan writeups.

P.S. Pathfinder.
I bounced off of PF2 when I tried it; and most of what I think PF1 has going for it are the bestiaries and ARG Race Builder, some subsystems in Ultimate Magic, the Chase system, and maybe a few odds and ends in Ultimate Campaign (though I would like it more if it was at the level of granularity as Strongholds and Dynasties). Inner Sea World Guide and Inner Sea Gods are pretty nice setting books too. Its more customizable classes are helpful for character customization a bit, but going all the way and grabbing Eclipse: The Codex Persona (2007) for its point buy characters, even with its rough edges, is more useful than many books of classes and archetypes. APG Summoner & Witch and the Magus are all kindof neat, I'll admit, but I think PF1's classes trended downhill from there. Slayer is alright.

 

[Chaltab]

What are you looking for from the game, then?

Because what you describe is precisely how I felt about 3e, and is more or less how I feel about 5e (it's a bit different but still similar). 4e was the exact opposite. It was finally a game actually doing the things I'd always wanted. Of course, I spent the first like year or two of 4e's run being a hater because that's what I was taught to be by a former friend that had never even read it. Once I actually saw it in action, though, I was hooked. D&D was finally actually a cooperative, team game.

On that note, while Zardnar finds fault with it, I think it's a good thing 5E blasting spells fall off in terms of damage compared to monster HP specifically because it encourages teamwork. Especially when dealing with a high level monster, the Wizard be more effective giving the Barbarian a third attack each round with Haste.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have you tried PF2? Thats not me being flippant, im honestly curious if you've given it a whirl? It does team cooperation and tactics well.

I have not, no. Not for lack of interest, per se, but more for lack of opportunity. Haven't been looking for it and haven't met anyone currently running it.

 

[Zardnaar]

On that note, while Zardnar finds fault with it, I think it's a good thing 5E blasting spells fall off in terms of damage compared to monster HP specifically because it encourages teamwork. Especially when dealing with a high level monster, the Wizard be more effective giving the Barbarian a third attack each round with Haste.

5.5 rewards teamwork better imho than 5.0.

5.0 you could do it well.

Players almost never build around party synergy though. If it happens its because of happenstance.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have not, no. Not for lack of interest, per se, but more for lack of opportunity. Haven't been looking for it and haven't met anyone currently running it.

I considered it last year because a player owned it. Not my thing.

One player doesn't help to much owning the book vs 4 or 6 phb to go around 5.5/5E.

I would more or less have to permanently borrow them for the campaign as well.

Networking and logistics.

Rules light you can get by with 1 book entire group.

 

[VHawkwinter]

One player doesn't help to much owning the book vs 4 or 6 phb to go around 5.5/5E.

I thought I heard the PF2 books all came with the PDF, in which case I believe you can set Google drive to read only and everyone in the group can read it on a tablet without being able to download it - but even if it doesn't come with the PDF, the Paizo rules are published under an open license and you can see all the mechanics for free on Archives of Nethys. PF2 wasn't my thing, but I used AON (and d20pfsrd) frequently when I was playing PF1. Paizo really doesn't want "we have one rulebook for the group" to deter potential customers, they want to make that easy and encourage players to buy the books (and adventures) that look cool once they're already playing the system.

Just an FYI. If it comes up again, a shortage of rulebooks isn't an issue if people are willing to look up the rules on a tablet (or phone, or laptop). Or print out the relevant webpages.

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought I heard the PF2 books all came with the PDF, in which case I believe you can set Google drive to read only and everyone in the group can read it on a tablet without being able to download it - but even if it doesn't come with the PDF, the Paizo rules are published under an open license and you can see all the mechanics for free on Archives of Nethys. PF2 wasn't my thing, but I used AON (and d20pfsrd) frequently when I was playing PF1. Paizo really doesn't want "we have one rulebook for the group" to deter potential customers, they want to make that easy and encourage players to buy the books (and adventures) that look cool once they're already playing the system.

Just an FYI. If it comes up again, a shortage of rulebooks isn't an issue if people are willing to look up the rules on a tablet (or phone, or laptop). Or print out the relevant webpages.

We are old school use books.

One guy had a laptop kept going flat. Often faster to use books as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My want isn't a and never has been a highly tactical skirmish teamwork combat game. What I want out of an RPG is:

1. A sort of 'fantasy world simulator' sandbox game where the mechanics are fleshed out and objective enough that I can think through the mechanics for pursuing my character's longterm life goals, and plans to do specific missions, and then interact with that sandbox world in-character with friends. They should cover many things that could come up indepth besides combat, and there should be a concrete way to eyeball target numbers such that the players can guess how hard their plan will be at each stage before it comes up in play, without consulting the GM.
2. The mechanics interacted with on the player side should all make ludonarrative sense from within a 'think as your character' perspective, to not take me out of the zone interacting with luck points or scene editing, or nonsensical ability cooldowns, or what have you. That's GM stuff, I generally want to minimize how much I need to interact with the game out of character as a player, outside of like - downtime action discussion and time allocation during a time skip.
3. Combat: I want combat to have a wide variety of strategies to win which different players might excel at, and I don't want it to be a HP-attrition slog. Ideally the enemies should have a morale subsystem going on so you can route them or make them surrender without fighting to the death, but I probably only want 1/4 of a session to be combat.
4. Characters - highly customizable, 'play anything that fits the setting' is desirable. Multiclassing is a big step up over rigid classes, but really I would prefer point buy. Playable monsters of all kinds (from awakened squirrel to wraith to a huge giant) is valuable to me as well, though 3e's LA system is lacking - community alternatives are better, and I am pretty practiced at building them after all these years - newer D&D editions don't take well to something like 'playable huge creatures' or 'minimum starting level 8'.
5. And since we're talking D&D rather than RPGs in general - "having the fantasy world sandbox game accurately represent the world of those old FR fantasy novels, comics, and videogames I've really been into since I was a little kid" - is a big factor as well (and the reason I'm not just grabbing GURPS or Rolemaster 4e or MRQ2/Legend or RQ6/Mythras or Shadowrun 4e or The Dark Eye[using google translate so you can use the German Kompendium 2 content from the website since last I checked it never got an English release]).

It's worth noting, I don't personally see 4e as a "combat game". I see it as a game where the combat has been very well-made--and the non-combat has a reasonably useful structure (Skill Challenges) and otherwise gets the hell out of the way so the group can do it as they like. I'd like more structure to sink my teeth into, but I'm fine with what structure is present.

As for the above, I frankly think you're wanting something D&D hasn't ever been, but 3rd edition vaguely gestured at--and you already know the system I would have recommended, namely GURPS. For good and for ill, D&D is deep invested into several genre conventions. Those conventions set...a pretty rigid shape for what a number of world-component things can be. I hope you're able to find games that scratch that itch, and it's unfortunate that 5e has doubled down on something so far away from what you want. I definitely know how that feels, even if our interests don't overlap as much as they could.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's worth noting, I don't personally see 4e as a "combat game". I see it as a game where the combat has been very well-made--and the non-combat has a reasonably useful structure (Skill Challenges) and otherwise gets the hell out of the way so the group can do it as they like. I'd like more structure to sink my teeth into, but I'm fine with what structure is present.

As for the above, I frankly think you're wanting something D&D hasn't ever been, but 3rd edition vaguely gestured at--and you already know the system I would have recommended, namely GURPS. For good and for ill, D&D is deep invested into several genre conventions. Those conventions set...a pretty rigid shape for what a number of world-component things can be. I hope you're able to find games that scratch that itch, and it's unfortunate that 5e has doubled down on something so far away from what you want. I definitely know how that feels, even if our interests don't overlap as much as they could.

Ey youre getting better. BTW there's 2 editions i put below 4E lol.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Okay, fair, you don't see 4e as a combat game you see it as a game with indepth combat and rules-lite noncombat. But it's certainly not focused on noncombat gameplay nor on simulationist fantasy sandbox world mechanics, nor on fidelity to the FR Novel fiction world as presented in novels over the prior two decades.

As for the above, I frankly think you're wanting something D&D hasn't ever been, but 3rd edition vaguely gestured at--and you already know the system I would have recommended, namely GURPS.

You are absolutely correct. It took me like 17 years of gaming to figure out that the reason I liked 3.0 more than most other systems and more than any other D&D was for its similarities to GURPS but with Forgotten Realms support, which is why D&D editions that dropped those elements lost their appeal to me, and also why I found the TSR editions lacking mechanically even though I really liked the setting stuff - but I got there eventually. Along the way I did stumble into a couple other RPGs that scratched that itch to various extents for their own settings in various ways though, but yeah. Would that I had tried GURPS in 2008 instead of 2017 or 2018.

For good and for ill, D&D is deep invested into several genre conventions. Those conventions set...a pretty rigid shape for what a number of world-component things can be.

I am okay with the setting implications set by their legacy. I never wanted D&D to be my "everything" system, just a great simulationist system for running Forgotten Realms games. Which, 3e got a decent chunk of the way there, and got a bit closer with those 3pp books I mentioned.

I hope you're able to find games that scratch that itch

Thanks. I appreciate that, but I've mostly and moved onto my "I'll make my own RPG with blackjack and hookers" phase of life. Been working on it for a year and a half now, it's getting pretty fleshed out. I had hoped to be done a playable first draft by now but I underestimated how big my character building subsystem was as a job, in particular. It has some partial 3.X compatibilities so I don't have to reinvent /everything/, but it's already starting to get farther from 3.0 than Pathfinder 1e is - but in a more simulationist leaning direction and with a focus on my own original setting.

and it's unfortunate that 5e has doubled down on something so far away from what you want. I definitely know how that feels, even if our interests don't overlap as much as they could.

Thanks man. Yeah. C'est la vie.

In the meanwhile there's GURPS, there's my own WIP system, there's a handful of discontinued systems I've discovered along the way - and if I ever want to run D&D proper again, there's a very curated subset of 3.0 and 3.5 books with a handful of houserules and some specific third party books by Atlas, AEG, Skirmisher, FFG, and Mongoose - some of which I will also use with my own d20 system until I rewrite the parts I would use them for for my own game.

It's been so long since Hasbro has made games I like that I'm no longer upset about that specifically. A bit annoyed by the money and time I wasted on 5e because I didn't really realise I would hate playing it; and I was pretty frustrated when they killed off the novel line besides Salvatore, because FR Novels and Audiobooks had been my main D&D purchases back to like 2006 - but even that's a long time ago now. A little annoyed at how few RPGs there are in the last decade that actually match my interests though. But on the D&D side mostly I just get aggravated about how they treat Ed Greenwood now (he was completely excluded from the movie project and they didn't even thank him in the credits even though the movie is all build on characters and locations he came up with) and have a general dislike of Hasbro's conduct as a company.

Anyways. That's why I bounced off 4e and 5e.