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

[Mercurius]

Wow, you sort of won the thread, @Retreater . I'd only add:

Want to play fantasy RPG with a simple d20-based system and you ate and enjoyed psilocybin at some point and like a psychedelic 70s science fantasy tone, play Talislanta.

 

[overgeeked]

For me, the two biggest problems of modern D&D and D&D-like games that emulate them is that they are so focused on combat and that combat is so mind-numbingly boring to play through in games like D&D 4E, 5E, and from what I’ve seen of 3X and the Pathfinder line. So if you define D&D as the high-fantasy setting and the wide-range of stories that can be told therein, I'd suggest lighter and more story-focused RPGs.

There's a long list of games that fit the bill. Fate Core, Fate Accelerated, Fate Condensed, Risus, 2400, FKR, Engle Matrix Games, HeroQuest 2E/QuestWorlds 1E, Over the Edge 3E, Everywhen, Tiny d6, EZD6, Index Card RPG, Freeform Universal, and X-Treme Dungeon Mastery...among hundreds or thousands more.

But I'd honestly put the just-released-to-backers Discworld RPG at the top of that list. You might not be interested because it's based on a comic-fantasy series of novels, but there's nothing inherently comedic about the mechanics presented in the game. A few suggestions about how to play push things in a comedic direction, but remove those suggestions and the mechanics could serve just about any genre with ease.

 

[Mercurius]

For me, the two biggest problems of modern D&D and D&D-like games that emulate them is that they are so focused on combat and that combat is so mind-numbingly boring to play through in games like D&D 4E, 5E, and from what I’ve seen of 3X and the Pathfinder line. So if you define D&D as the high-fantasy setting and the wide-range of stories that can be told therein, I'd suggest lighter and more story-focused RPGs.

Not to veer too far from the thread topic, but what came to mind when I read this is that 4E combat was really fun at first, both in terms of when the edition came out and the first third of a given combat. But then it grew tiresome - again, both in terms of a long-term campaign and after the first third of a specific encounter when it became an attritional slog.

I just remember the same basic formula playing out, again and again:

1. Start with encounter powers, soften the foe, then either:
2a. If foe proves to be tenacious, use daily powers, then finish off with at-will powers; or
2b. If foe is on the road to clear defeat, use at-will powers until dead.

Rinse and repeat, again and again. There might be slight variation, but the formula was the same. It was fun at first, but eventually became tedious - and especially when combat devolved to at-will powers slowing wearing down large hit point totals in combats that's outcome was a foregone conclusion. As a DM, I often ended up prematurely calling killshots "behind the screen" when the outcome became certain.

On the other hand, 5E was less tactical but moved away somewhat from grid-focused combat, so the theater of mind was re-sparked. But I know some of my players missed the more overt tactics of 4E, while others preferred the greater simplicity.

 

[overgeeked]

Not to veer too far from the thread topic, but what came to mind when I read this is that 4E combat was really fun at first, both in terms of when the edition came out and the first third of a given combat. But then it grew tiresome - again, both in terms of a long-term campaign and after the first third of a specific encounter when it became an attritional slog.

I just remember the same basic formula playing out, again and again:

1. Start with encounter powers, soften the foe, then either:
2a. If foe proves to be tenacious, use daily powers, then finish off with at-will powers; or
2b. If foe is on the road to clear defeat, use at-will powers until dead.

Rinse and repeat, again and again. There might be slight variation, but the formula was the same. It was fun at first, but eventually became tedious - and especially when combat devolved to at-will powers slowing wearing down large hit point totals in combats that's outcome was a foregone conclusion. As a DM, I often ended up prematurely calling killshots "behind the screen" when the outcome became certain.

On the other hand, 5E was less tactical but moved away somewhat from grid-focused combat, so the theater of mind was re-sparked. But I know some of my players missed the more overt tactics of 4E, while others preferred the greater simplicity.

Yeah, that was my experience as well. I say that as someone who absolutely loves 4E. The combat was boring because it was almost always the same grind. A slightly fresh coat of paint on the bag of hit points doesn't make combat interesting. The referee could spice things up with terrain, traps, skill challenges, non-combat goals, etc...but the combat mini-game itself was boring as hell after not too long.

I think Daggerheart mostly solves this, reduces the rules load, and pushing things more towards narrative. One big one is having multiple options and being able to swap them with a stress cost outside of combat. Simple. All wonderful stuff as far as I'm concerned. So I gladly second or third all the recs for Daggerheart in the thread.

But, games that are lighter and less focused on combat solve it better. For me at least.