So you're done with D&D but still want to play D&Dish fantasy...

[scruffygrognard]

I just wrapped up a 5E campaign and, in spite of the rules, had a fun time with it and think my players did too.

In the future, I'd use my own Frankenstein rules (a mish-mosh of AD&D, Castles & Crusades, and 5E) as my go-to system.

 

[Theory of Games]

GURPS Dungeon Fantasy: for groups that want deep characterization, fast gameplay (3d6, roll under skill), and a system that easily emulates any genre of fantasy

Barbarians of Lemuria: for groups that want fast gameplay (2d6 + ability, roll 9+), narrative-driven action and a versatile DIY magic system

Runequest: for groups that want tactical, deadly combat (d100, roll under rating), dynamic skill progression and character-driven adventure

 

[TheSword]

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e : If you want a gritty and granular simulationist game with excellent production values. Which moves away from dungeon crawling to more intrigue and mystery led adventures where combat matters and has consequences. All set in a quirky world that’s like a cross between The Witcher and Discworld in a recognizable pastiche of medieval/renaissance earth. [plus the greatest written campaign of any RPG system - The Enemy Within]

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Honestly, I don't think it really does anyone any benefit to relate any of these games to D&D, rather than just treat them as their own things.

Eh, if someone at your table really wishes there were more in-depth mechanics for a 5E campaign everyone else is enjoying, sliding the Level Up players book to them will keep everyone happy while not dramatically changing the game for everyone else.

Likewise, if players are absolute beasts in combat, wrecking every fight before it begins, swapping out the Monster Manual for ToV's Monster Vault will make fights generally harder while still being D&D.

Level Up and Tales of the Valiant especially are 5E games, just slight variants of them. But they're different enough to appeal to different groups or even different people at the same table, while still being 99% compatible.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Edit: Dragonbane is for those who are truly done with D&Disms.

I would agree with that. On the surface it's easy to say, "Oh, it's like D&D...." but to play it you have to let go of a lot of conventions that appear consistently among more D&D-like games, including Shadowdark.

For me, the most important difference...the thing that will feel most alien to D&D players...is the relatively flat power curve.

Despite that, though, Dragonbane is still much closer to D&D than are, say, Torchbearer, Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark.

 

[Koloth]

My "conversation" to Pathfinder 2E came shortly after the OGL scandal.

I really like the 3 action system, all of the conditions and combat options, as well as the variety of character building.

However, I still prefer D&D lore to Pathfinder lore.

Lore is very portable between game systems. Not that hard to run a PF game in Waterdeep. Or Cidri, the primary world of The Fantasy Trip.

I have an impromptu experiment going featuring PF1 and PF2. Two different GMs are running games and I have a similar character concept running in each. Characters are designed to solve encounters with a minimum of combat. Either via talking or stealth. Very familiar with PF1. Still getting used to the 3 action thing of PF2.

As for OP, as mentioned, lore is portable. Find a game system you want to try and drop in the lore you want to play in. For an odd mix, assume your Traveller Scout ship crashed on a world similar to Earth Middle Ages, Middle Earth, or Golarion. While Traveller doesn't natively include magic, it does have psionic rules. Another game system to consider is Fantasy Trip.

 

[scruffygrognard]

My biggest gripe with 5E (which I like, please don't get me wrong) is that the power-curve for PCs is ramped up, adding extra complexity to the game.
At the same time, those gains are offset by the fact that the power-curves for NPCs and monsters are also steeper... making the game feel something like an arms-race to me. Everything is more powerful so, in reality, all of the added bits and bobs just serve to slow down combat and encourage min-maxing.
I'd much rather keep PCs abilities (and those of their foes) stripped back so that the game runs faster and so that level advancement feels less like building the perfect beast.
BTW, I fully realize that I sound like an old grognard and don't mean to put down those who enjoy all of the bells and whistles that come with 5E... it's just not for me.

 

[Voadam]

Lore is very portable between game systems. Not that hard to run a PF game in Waterdeep. Or Cidri, the primary world of The Fantasy Trip.

I have used a bunch of non-D&D lore/inspiration in my D&D games over the years, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, WH40K, Ars Magica, Mage the Ascension, Werewolf the Apocalypse, Doctor Who, Star Trek, Paranoia, Mad Max, Shadowrun, Kult, Godzilla, Star Wars, Changeling the Lost, Indiana Jones, etc.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

D&D was a hard habit for me to break. It was my main game for decades. I’ve been through every edition. By the time I stepped away, both my time and expectations had already peaked. I was always open to trying different systems, but most of the games I encountered that promised “D&D, but better” never really gave me something I wasn’t already getting. No system is perfect. D&D had its flaws—but I’d put in the time, money, and effort to make it work for me. I knew its problems, and I knew how to navigate around them. And even after purging a lot of books from various editions, I still had a mountain of material to draw from.

So when I decided I was “done” with D&D, I went looking for alternatives. What I found was that the only real alternative for me was the D&D I already had—specifically the versions I used to enjoy, before the game became something that no longer held my interest. I didn’t need a replacement system. I’d already invested in one that functioned well enough. And honestly, if I ever get the urge to go back, I’ll literally go back—to a version I already own, and still enjoy.

I know that’s not exactly the spirit of this thread. Most people are naming specific games that check off certain boxes or scratch particular itches. But when I tried to fill the void D&D left behind, I realized that every “almost-D&D” still came with its own compromises. Learning a new system, buying new books, adapting to a different rhythm of play—it just wasn’t worth it for the type of game I was trying to replace. If I’m going to deal with trade-offs, I’d rather stick with the ones I already understand.

What changed wasn’t my desire to move on from D&D entirely—it was my understanding of what else was out there. Instead of looking for alternatives to D&D as a replacement, I eventually found alternatives to D&D as options. The systems I invested in didn’t push D&D off my shelf; they took a seat next to it. They gave me different kinds of experiences that D&D wasn’t built to offer, while letting D&D continue to do what it already did as well as any game like it.

So for me, the alternative to D&D wasn’t a different system. It was a different relationship with the game I already had.

 

[ART!]

But there are some key things that I really like about PF1e.

The Skill system:
I just love the skill system of PF1e. I find the proficiency system in 5e to be way to limiting.

When you can, could you explain this a bit: how it's different, how it plays, etc?

I use Hackmaster 5e, which has little or no connection to D&D mechanically, for any pre-WW1 setting, although it is best for fantasy.

What are the main things that make Hackmaster work for you?

Mörk Borg is much more my flavour of scaled back gaming than Shadowdark.

I've looked some Mork Borg stuff, but somehow I haven't grokked it - how would pitch it in a nut-shell?

I really like the 3 action system, all of the conditions and combat options, as well as the variety of character building.

This is my favorite thing about PF, although it's fair to say I don't know the game very well. I especially love that you can (in some cases?) cast 1-action, 2-action, or 3-action versions of spells, and I think this is true of some combat actions.

My biggest gripe with 5E (which I like, please don't get me wrong) is that the power-curve for PCs is ramped up, adding extra complexity to the game.
At the same time, those gains are offset by the fact that the power-curves for NPCs and monsters are also steeper... making the game feel something like an arms-race to me. Everything is more powerful so, in reality, all of the added bits and bobs just serve to slow down combat and encourage min-maxing.
I'd much rather keep PCs abilities (and those of their foes) stripped back so that the game runs faster and so that level advancement feels less like building the perfect beast.
BTW, I fully realize that I sound like an old grognard and don't mean to put down those who enjoy all of the bells and whistles that come with 5E... it's just not for me.

I hear you. I have had a blast playing 5E almost weekly for 7+ years now, but there are a lot of things about it that bug the heck out of me.

Your description of the power creep reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: "Highlighting everything is the same as highlighting nothing."